Image from ICR article.
Image from ICR article.
This totally confuses me to no end. Why are they trying to find a naturalistic cause for a miraculous act of a sovereign God?
The bible says God created the Earth and heavens in seven (or, six, if you don’t count the Sabbath) days, fine. I have no problem imagining that God placed each photon in the Heavens so they appeared to emenate from stars billions of light-years away. Why would anyone expect God to create the universe to look new 7,000 years ago? After all, he didn’t create Adam as a zygote, but as an adult man! If Man can look adult when he is only a day old, why can’t starlight look billions of years old?
The funny thing is ICR writes, “Rocks increasingly older” on this image, instead of “Rocks appear increasingly older.” The notion that the rocks were created in a thousand years is just plain absurd. They appear billions of years old, yet they were made in a day.
Well, this would explain what killed the dinosaurs.
Bush's Fault.
Type up a fast and loose summary of a chapter from an undergraduate geology textbook with a pretty cutaway graphic of plate tectconics. Add some quotes from scripture and some verbal arm waving with the word “flood” capitalized throughout to suggest there was exactly one big undisputed flood event (unsupported by geological evidence btw), and Voila, instant creationist article.
The real argument is not between those who believe the universe was created ~6000 years ago over a period of six days and those who believe it was created in a Big Bang 14 billion years ago - literal vs. metaphorical interpretation of Genesis.
The real argument is between those who believe the universe was created by God at some time in the past and those who believe it just somehow willed itself into existence.
Neal Adams has some amazing videos to support theories of a growing planet.
http://www.worldnpa.org/site/2013/01/is-the-earth-expanding-and-even-growing/