It’s not “creation vs evolution”

Fair question. I will copy paste a comment I wrote for someone else in a forum:

"But is there any actual evidence that Genesis 1 is not literal history? Yes, I think there are three major sources of evidence.

1. Hermeneutic evidence from within the text.

Without any actual evidence from outside of the text, early Christian philosophers realized that Genesis 1 is not a historical event. Just by the way it was written, they saw clues that pointed to the fact that it was not a simple narrative. I can get my "Confessions" and mention a few Augustine found, if you'd like.

2. Historical/archeological evidence

Archeological research shows that Genesis is mytho-history, very similar to the ancient near eastern myths. By studying the Jewish culture and history, it is very clear that they did not read these texts as a scientific explanation for the creation of humans and the earth.

3. Scientific (biological, geological and whatnot) evidence.

If young earth creationism is really true, why does no atheist believe in it? Are atheist scientists really that untrustworthy, just because they believe or don't in God? And why do so many Christian scientists believe in an old earth? The problem with so many "scientists" who show that the earth is young is that they do "Biblical science". There is no such thing. Science is about putting your personal (religious) beliefs completely aside and simply following the evidence where it leads. So atheist scientists, if they are doing their job correctly, are just as trustworthy as theistic scientists, if they are doing their job correctly. And you seriously want to tell me that no atheist ever, at all, who studied this topic, along with many other hundreds of theist scientists are doing their job correctly? That they don't know how to follow the evidence and don't know how to do "science" as scientists? Because there are 7 PhDs on your side, maybe 10 or 20 or even more, your pastor and your dad, and the hundreds, thousands of theist scientists and hundreds of atheist scientists don't know how to do their job? Be serious. I wouldn't even need to provide scientific evidence to demonstrate my point, it's just that obvious. And if you say I'm making an argument out of authority, I'm not - it's simple common sense. If you want to read more about science, religion, and the relationship between the two, I recommend "God's Undertaker" by John C. Lennox.

So yes, the creation account in Genesis is indeed not a historical, scientific explanation of how the world was created."

as to light traveling a long distance and having to be millions or billions of years old, why couldn't He have put the light signals in place to arrive at the time He ordained? it doesn't make Him a liar, it would make us fools for believing it is old just because it looks like it, without thought for other options.

"Why would God make something to appear old when it’s not?" So that man could see it and learn more about the cosmos and honor God all the more, and i could equally ask why did God say six days if it wasnt six days?

"Does that make God a liar?" I don't see how that would make God a liar. but once again, if you think that saying that somehow makes him a liar then saying six days when its really millions of years would definitely make God a liar.

"And you did just admit that it looks old: at this point it seems like you’re clinging to pearls here." This is just an antagonizing remark and has no logical argument anywhere at all in it.

"Would you give more credence to old earth theories?" I have already said that I do not think that it is a matter relevant to salvation, and i believe that there are far worse ideas to hold. And I will give some credence and say that it is not the most unbelievable idea that I have heard people say that the bible supports. Though as far as more credence I can not say that I am anymore convinced then when I started this debate

There are a lot of Christian scientists that believe in young earth. And the reason no atheistic ones do is because they are starting with the presumption that there is no God, and if there is no God, then the earth has to be millions of years old because that's the only way they can come up with an idea of how every thing came about without a God.

Secondly. "I wouldn't even need to provide scientific evidence to demonstrate my point, it's just that obvious." This is a flat out absurdity and an Appeal to Authority. It doesn't matter if everyone else on the planet believes an idea, that does not make it true. There is absolutely no connection between the soundness of an argument and the people -no matter who they are, what there position is, what degrees they have, how smart they are, or how many of them there are- who are making the argument.

This argument isn't strong: if God created light in transit, it at least makes Him seem very deceptive, to give us the obvious impression that the light traveled through space over millions of years to reach our eyes. If the only other option is that God did this... you see my point.

We would both agree that it is necessary for the Bible to simplify vast, often incomprehensible truths in a way accessible by both the uneducated and educated. I suppose that using the analogy of a work week seemed like an apt way to structure the text.

i don't see it at all. if we say God is deceptive, we judge Him, while we are told not to judge anyone in james. God defines what is right and wrong, and if He did this it wouldn't be deceptive. to me, it is more awe inspiring that He took the care to put those signals into effect than simply making to universe billions of years old.

It is not the case that non-Christian scientists are unwilling to budge on scientific data that supports Christian theism. Most scientists use to believe that the universe was eternal, until a Catholic priest formulated the Big Bang Theory, and voila!

I did provide scientific evidence but ok, I get what you're saying.

First, give evidence as to why that's the correct reason all atheist scientists believe in an old earth, not just claim it. Perhaps it's actually because that's what the evidence suggested and they followed it?

And secondly: Well, fine. But then please do not believe them when it comes to other scientific things! Be consistent with your views and do not trust them that human anatomy really is the way it is, unless you check for yourself.

I will copy paste another comment I wrote somewhere else:

"So apparently it's either not common sense or it is and you lack it. I won't guess. But what you're saying is that since all atheists are insane, they can't be trusted. I wouldn't trust an insane person either. The problem is that there are so many atheist scientists who discovered so much in science, which you accept as true, like in chemistry, biology or astronomy. However, when it comes to the age of the earth, you don't just follow the scientific evidence, you do "Biblical science", which is pseudoscience.

I'll say it again: Science is about setting your personal religious or any other kind of views COMPLETELY aside, and following the evidence WHEREVER it leads.

Unless you do that, it's not science. You can't tell me there's not a single atheist scientist - out of around 5 million secular scientists - who doesn't know what science is, who is unable to follow the evidence objectively. If you do tell me that, I will stop discussing this issue with you. I've met kind and reasonable atheists who were not insane.

And second of all, the atheist are in denial of what?? The Bible? Then what about the countless Christian scientists who believe the earth is old? Are they lacking the Holy Spirit because of this belief they hold?? What are the Christian scientists who believe the earth is old in denial of? Between 80% and 95% of Christian scientists believe in an old earth.

So according to you, only 2-5% of all scientists know how to do their job correctly, no matter if they're theists or secular. 95-98% of scientists are wasting their lives. Because you know two PhDs or something. Be honest - do you really believe 98% of scientists don't know how to do science correctly? And that they believe in evolution, which "has no evidence" (according to you), when their entire job is to follow evidence? Let's say they did this to deny God. But then what about the Christian scientists? What motivated them to believe in an old earth if there's no evidence for it? They have the Bible, their job is to follow evidence objectively, and there's absolutely no evidence for evolution - why would they believe it? The simple answer is that there is evidence; if you have a different answer, please let me know, if you don't, accept the fact that there is evidence for evolution."

And continued with this comment:

"I'm not arguing from majority or authority. I'm simply asking you to be consistent with your own beliefs. You believe scientists when they tell you how chemistry works, or how physics work, or how the organs in the human body function - even though youge never discovered or seen it for yourself. I suppose you've never looked into the body of a dead person to see if the organs really are the way the biology books describe them, yet you believe the scientists when they tell you it really is like that.

However, you say there is absolutely no evidence for macroevolution (which, on a sidenote, is extremely ignorant). I have shown (in my long message) that by saying this, you are denying the fact that 98% of scientists know how to do their job correctly. Yes, it's true that not all old-earthers believe in macroevolution, but the vast majority, so let's say that you deny the fact that - let's say - 90% of scientists know how to do their job. You cannot go around this, you are implying this by what you are saying.

So if 90% of scientists don't know how to do their job, why would you trust them in telling you how the human body works? Be consistent with your beliefs. The biology books put what most scientists agree on in them, both how plants do photosynthesis and how the lungs work, as well as evolution for example. But you pick and choose what you think they have evidence for. If you don't believe in evolution, then also don't believe the human organs really are the way they are in biology books, unless you look inside a dead body and see for yourself."

I never said that there "is no evidence" or that anyone who believes it is "insane" or "lacking the Holy spirit" or that they "don't know how to do there job correctly". And as far as atheists go, science is like a machine, it processes information, and if you put the wrong information in (that there is no God) then you will inevitably get the wrong information out. I do(for the most part)trust what scientists say, UNLESS, it goes against what the Bible says, and though you may disagree, I do believe that this does. I'm sure you would do the same. a majority of "scientists" say there is no God, but you don't have any problem with saying they're wrong there. So how is me saying there wrong on this point too any different?

And once again, i never said there was NO evidence, after all, if there was none at all i only an idiot would believe it, and i would not be debating with an idiot.

And as for Christians who believe it, and even Christian scientists who support it, i find it just another one of the false beliefs that all people have.

I know you didn't say those things, these comments were written for someone else and I copy pasted them. Someone else said these things and I wrote these messages, and I didn't want to write so much again, so I copy pasted them from another forum, to get the points across without rewriting them. Sorry for that.

"And as far as atheists go, science is like a machine, it processes information, and if you put the wrong information in (that there is no God) then you will inevitably get the wrong information out."

This is a category error which is exactly what I adressed in those messages. Science doesn't have anything to do with whether God exists or not, and God existing or not is not sonething analyzed by science! Science is about putting metaphysical personal beliefs aside (such as belief or not in the existence of God) and observing the natural universe. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant in pure science. So no scientist puts the information of God not existing in science, because that's not what science is. Again, science is about putting your personal beliefs aside and following the evidence wherever it leads. And whether God exists or not is not something that has anything to do with science, because it's not part of the natural universe, which is what science is concerned with. So you're making a category error and that was the main point of the comments I copy pasted.

However, you are saying that atheist scientist are not doing their job correctly. Because as a scientist, you should not use your belief that God exists or that God doesn't exist in science, you should just follow the evidence that's found in the natural universe. This does not need any metaphysical beliefs and does not lead to any metaphysical conclusions. But if you say all atheists put their belief in their research, namely that God doesn't exist, when they do science, then you say they don't know how to do their job, because scientists should put their personal beliefs aside. As I said:

"I'll say it again: Science is about setting your personal religious or any other kind of views COMPLETELY aside, and following the evidence WHEREVER it leads.

Unless you do that, it's not science. You can't tell me there's not a single atheist scientist - out of around 5 million secular scientists - who doesn't know what science is, who is unable to follow the evidence objectively."

To respond to this: "a majority of "scientists" say there is no God, but you don't have any problem with saying they're wrong there. So how is me saying there wrong on this point too any different?"

Because the job of scientists is to study the natural universe and follow evidence wherever it leads. That's why I trust them when it comes to things of this universe.

It's very different, because when I say atheist scientists are wrong in saying there is no God, I am denying a metaphysical claim of theirs, which does not follow from their studies, namely studies of the physical world. It's not their area of expertise, more than that, they have nothing to do with this as scientists. So when they say "God does not exist", they may be less educated in metaphysical matters such as these than even me. When it comes to metaphysical matters, I believe I am more educated than the majority of scientists on these things. So I can disagree with them on this if I want to, because when it comes to claims about the existence or inexistence of God, they are just normal, average humans.

However, when you say that the big bang and evolution are false and that the scientists believe in it for no reason, you are contradicting them in their area of expertise. The Big Bang and evolution are conclusions of evidence in the physical world, not metaphysical claims. They have given their whole life and have studied how to follow evidence objectively in the natural universe, that's why they are scientists. They know how to find and follow evidence objectively when it comes to the natural universe. So if you disagree with them, you disagree with around 98% of people who have dedicated their life to following evidence objectively! Now, you are the average human, whereas they are the experts.

When it comes to claims about the existence of God, scientists are average humans most of the time. But the existence of God is not a scientific question. When it comes to the big bang and evolution, scientists are not average humans, they are experts who dedicated their life to these things. And the big bang and evolution are scientific claims.

So, do you see the difference? One is a metaphysical claim, the other is a scientific claim. It's very different because these claims belong in different categories. And you deny the claim that's in the area of expertise of scientists. I deny the one that's not their area of expertise.

The problem is that while you deny this claim that's in the area of expertise of scientists, you accept all others, such as biological ones, or chemistry, or physics, or astronomy, etc.

Since I don't trust scientists to tell me about metaphysical matters, because that's not what they study, I don't have to hold or even consider any of their views. But you (and me too) trust them when it comes to scientific matters, such as the ones already mentioned. But specifically, when it comes to the big bang and evolution, you do not trust them anymore, even though 98% of them agree that the evidence (which they also provide) objectively leads to those conclusions.

So what I'm saying is, be consistent with your beliefs! If you trust them when it comes to 99% of things, even though you don't check for yourself (such as with human anatomy or reactions of elements in chemistry), why not also trust them with the 1% regarding the age of the earth? Or if you don't trust them with the age of the earth, why trust them with the 99% when it comes to other things?

"And the reason no atheistic ones do is because they are starting with the presumption that there is no God, and if there is no God, then the earth has to be millions of years old because that's the only way they can come up with an idea of how every thing came about without a God."

And a short answer to this, that's not true. Atheists believe this because that's what the evidence suggests, not because they need an escape to creation. Evidence for an old universe would be for example the one I already mentioned, that the stars are billions of lightyears away, yet we can still see their light. Or Hubble's law, which also points to a universe that's 13.8 billion years old. Scientists can also measure the approximate age of stars, and they have found many old stars. These stars are simpler and burn slowly, and by studying how they shine and change over time, they can work out how long they've been burning.

So an old universe is not the escape of atheists, but the conclusion of observing things in the natural universe.

For one i would say that most scientists who support it do not spend much time researching it, since in there mind it is already settled, and so therefore it would not be in there area of expertise. I would also say that this matter (at least in part) is a Biblical one, not just a scientific one. Since I believe that the bible is against it i will have to have Biblical proof to change my mind.

That is only what the evidence suggests because they refuse to believe it could all have miraculously happened in six days. If you deny that, then yes, the only other possible explanation that they can find is that it is millions of years old

And I have already answered the rest of those questions: the universe was made with the appearance of age, just like man and all the animals and all the plants were

there are things that suggest a young earth, such as the arms of the milky way being very distinct, there not being much dust on the moon, the magnetic field on the earth eroding at a speed where it couldn't last more than several thousand years from when the erosion started.

How could it be "settled" if they never had any scientific reason to believe it in the first place? And so you do say 95% of scientists don't know how to do their job (because that's how many believe in an old universe), but you trust them when it comes to other things. And even if they did't research it (which they did) it would still be in their area of expertise because it's a question about the natural universe - that's science. And they're scientists.

"Since I believe that the bible is against it i will have to have Biblical proof to change my mind." I understand this, this was also what held me back from believing in an old universe; theological problems.

Well I already gave you three arguments as to why Genesis 1 should not be interpreted literally. Why would you say it should be interpreted literally? You say: "if the Bible says 6 days, then it is 6 days." But when Jesus says "I stand at the door and knock", you don't really believe Jesus is on a doormat and repeatedly hitting his hand on a piece of wood! That's because the evidence suggets you should not interpret it literally. So does the evidence suggest that Genesis 1 should not be interpreted literally. Do you see my point?

I would respectfully ask if you're doing the exact same thing that you accuse these scientists of doing: approaching the issue with your mind already made. It's good that you're seeing the Bible as more authoritative than science, but I think of it like this: Genesis 1-11 often uses very vague language, so it doesn't tell us the "how" of creation, only the "why." Science tells us the "how"

I just gave you the evidence. I believe it could have happened in 6 days, but I believe it didn't because that's not what the evidence suggests, so it's exactly the other way around. So I accept both options as possible, but I choose the one with "millions of years" because that's what the evidence suggests, not because I reject the other one first!

Do you realize that some stars are so far away that the light we get from them would not reach us if the universe is young? That means God is still supernaturally giving us the light of those stars even though the light of the actual stars still do not reach us! So then how can we study those stars and look at them and analyze them? We don't even know if they truly exist if the earth is young, they could just be projections of things that don't actually exist.

So then if God is constantly supernaturally interacting with the natural world, how can we do science, if the world still doesn't function based purely on natural laws (except when miracles happen)? This is exactly what motivated early scientists to do science: the belief that the world can be understood because it works according to laws and is in order.

Many stars that you can see with the naked eye are so far away that it would take more than just a few thousand years for the light to reach us; if you deny an old earth, you say that those stars you see are just projections of potentially existing stars. Does that not make God a deceiver?

I asked ChatGPT to explain these things because I didn't know about some of them. The only thing I knew about was the magnetic field, which I also knew the explanation of. Also, just because it's written by AI doesn't make it less true; and the explanations for the refutations of these arguments are given, so if they're false, they could easily be disproven with simple research.

"1. “Spiral arms of the Milky Way are still distinct”
Claim: If the Milky Way were billions of years old, its spiral arms should have blurred or wound up due to differential rotation. Their clarity suggests a young galaxy.

Refutation: This is based on a misunderstanding of how spiral galaxies work. The spiral arms are not fixed structures made of the same stars that simply spin around like a pinwheel. Instead, they're areas of higher star density caused by what are known as density waves—waves of gravitational compression that move through the galactic disk, triggering star formation as they go. This means the arms are continually renewed, with new stars forming within them over time.

Modern galactic dynamics and computer simulations confirm that spiral arms can persist over billions of years due to these density wave effects.

2. “There’s not much dust on the Moon”
Claim: Early NASA estimates suggested there would be many feet of dust on the Moon due to micrometeorite impacts over billions of years. The Apollo missions found only a thin layer, implying a young Moon.

Refutation: This claim stems from pre-1960s guesses, not actual science. Before lunar missions, we didn’t have good data on the rate of space dust accumulation. Apollo landings showed that the actual accumulation rate is about 1 millimeter per thousand years, matching an age of billions of years. The few centimeters of dust found by astronauts is exactly what we would expect over 4.5 billion years when factoring in other processes like lunar regolith mixing and compaction.

This claim has been thoroughly debunked since the 1970s.

3. “Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast”
Claim: The Earth's magnetic field has been weakening and would have been impossibly strong a few thousand years ago if this decay were constant—implying a young Earth.

Refutation: This argument assumes a linear or exponential decay of the magnetic field with no reversals or fluctuations, which is not how the field behaves.

The Earth's magnetic field is generated by the motion of molten iron in the outer core—a geodynamo. It is well-known to fluctuate and even reverse polarity over geological time, which is recorded in rock layers (paleomagnetism). These reversals and changes show that the field doesn't simply decay steadily; it oscillates over time.

Furthermore, current magnetic field weakening is relatively minor (~10% over 150 years) and well within the range of historical variation, not evidence of young age."

The only thing i have to say on this is regarding the last statement: I have read recent scientific information on the magnetic field of the earth and they said that the cause for it was still unknown. This means that that information chatgpt has is still theory and unproven, meaning that the rest could be too. Remember, it is a biased scource in regards to this topic as it 'knows' that the earth is old science that is what the programmers inputted. (finally my keyboard started working again and i can stop using the on screen keyboard lol)