Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
Two facts must be appreciated. There is experimental science where one does experiments, gets hard data and forms conclusions. This science has resulted in pcs, tv, drugs, mobiles etc. Then there is historical science where one looks at a fossil for example and draws conclusions. A secular scientist sees millions of years, whereas a biblical creationist sees the result of a catastrophic flood at the time of Noah, 4,500 years ago. With historical science, unlike experimental science, one can't do experiments in the lab unless one goes back thousands/millions of age. To cut a long story short, the findings in historical science are backed up beautifully by biblical history (Genesis). The findings of secular science in this area are dubious because: 1. radioisotope dating to millions of years is grossly inaccurate. Conversely radiocarbon C14 dating measures short time scales of less than 50,000 years. The presence of C14 in oil, diamonds and biological specimens indicate these aren't millions, but thousands, of years in formation. 2. Mutational findings don't lead to more advanced life forms, but to degradation of the genetic code. 3. The presence of intact protein and red blood cells in dinosaurs is inconsistent with 65 million years old, extinct animals. 4. There are no intermediate fossil forms consistent with evolution. Most universities are now secular humanistic (ie atheistic)in their philosophy and promote evolution. Your academic career will be short lived should you express a belief in God directed creation or even in a non-biblical diluted version of intelligent design. I am not anti-university as I have 2 university degrees including a PhD. I was once a theistic evolutionist, but am now a bible based young earth creationist
A number of organizations, including the Christian Research Institute, maintain that the fossil record contradicts, rather than supports the multi-million year fossil record. For example: 1) Fossils containing flesh protein remnants of long dead creatures, including dinosaurs. If they were dead for hundreds or millions of years, they would have decayed. 2) Evidence of gradual development of species does not exist. The "Cambrian Explosion" is an example. It is the sudden appearance of forms and species without ancestral transitional records. 3) Related to my #2, some scientists have suggested "punctuated equilibrium" in order to resolve this problem. But it has its own difficulties, too numerous to explain here. 4) Contrary to popular belief, trans-species evolution has never been directly observed. A species is whatever evolutionary scientists claim it is. But it is not the same as breeding different kinds of canines. The motives of scientists to believe in evolution is complicated, but it is not as straightforward as their claims make it appear.
I have studied this in good depth, and the reality is that prominent modern evolutionary scientists don't really say that the fossil record supports a gradualistic theory of evolution. That's why they have come up with the idea of "punctuated equilibrium". The main concept of this formulation of theory of evolution is that species stay pretty much the same until something drastic happens. Stephen J. Gould, a prominent scientist said this "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." If you search for that phrase you will find all types of stuff. Blessings in your search. Should you continue, you will find that much of what is thought to be true about evolution is actually not.
There are two highly appreciable and scientifically acceptable, but rejected by most of those who call themselves scientists, explanations that are consistent both with the Bible and with the laws and theories of physics, chemistry, geology. I hold 4 college degrees, two in mining engineering minoring in Geology, and a PhD in environmental engineering. The scientific process and scientific proof are well known and well understood in my mind. View one; it works for me, and it worked for two profoundly fundamental Christians who taught me in several geology courses. Geologic age does not necessarily mean earth age! God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Beginning of the earth is pretty much a valid scientific assumption, but that does not necessarily, in scientific terms, mean beginning of the universe. God could have made the Universe billions of years ago and then used geologic material in the universe to create the earth. So, the makeup of the earth could be old stuff in a new earth. View two, also quite consistent with view one. I rely on, to quote from an online encyclopedia, Gerald Schroeder: "Gerald Lawrence Schroeder is an Orthodox Jewish physicist, author, lecturer and teacher at College of Jewish Studies Aish HaTorah's Discovery Seminar, Essentials and Fellowships programs and Executive Learning Center, who focuses on what he perceives to be an inherent relationship between science and spirituality." Find Schroeder's "Genesis and the Big Bang".Use an online encyclopedia or your favorite search engine. I could put in a URL or I will send you some if you specifically ask me."Among other things, Schroeder attempts to reconcile a six-day creation as described in Genesis with the scientific evidence that the world is billions of years old using the idea that the perceived flow of time for a given event in an expanding universe varies with the observer’s perspective of that event. He attempts to reconcile the two perspectives numerically, calculating the effect of the stretching of space-time, based on Einstein's general relativity. "Namely, that from the perspective of the point of origin of the Big Bang, according to Einstein's equations of the 'stretching factor', time dilates by a factor of roughly 1,000,000,000,000, meaning one trillion days on earth would appear to pass as one day from that point, due to the stretching of space. When applied to the estimated age of the universe at 13.8 billion years, from the perspective of the point of origin, the universe today would appear to have just begun its sixth day of existence, or if the universe is 15 billion years old from the perspective of earth, it would appear to have just completed its sixth day.controversial in scientific circles." Although many physicists believe they have disproven his theory, their work is, too, theory and neither is any more scientifically absolute than the other. This is a fairly heavy dose of quantum physics (yes, I have that in my background, too) but simple to relate (I think). When the big bang occurred, as God boomed it, stuff started flying away from the center of all beginning. We know that the Universe is expanding, we know the current velocity at which the universe is expanding, and we know that the expansion is slowing down because, after all, flying things slow down after a while. So, here is the universe expanding and the earth is a part and it was all made by God at the same time. Einstein told us in his theories, which are highly supported, that something at rest and something flying away at a great speed have different relative time scales. When you apply all of the applicable "stuff" from physics, the earth is, indeed, 15 billion years old in the time frame of the center of the Universe.
Young earth creationism handles the evidence for millions of years in the fossil record by rejecting the fallacy of circular reasoning required to establish the evidence for millions of years to begin with. They will accept the many evidences for a young earth in the fossil and geological record. Finally, they examine both in accordance with the known facts and established laws of science.
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.