The age of the earth is a challenge to some sects of Christianity, just as the belief in an earth centered universe was in the times of Galileo. Christianity has (mostly) adapted. It will do the same for the age of the earth, and YEC will become marginalized and mocked the way flat-earthers are.
We're already mocked that way. And I'm not here to debate the age question, just to correct your idea of how the biblical belief works. I believed in the old earth until my mid forties when I became a Christian. Over the next few years as I learned the Biblical timing I became a creationist. That may not happen to all new Christians but that's the order of things I went through. There will always be Christians who understand the Bible as I do. We're mocked anyway.
There was no tower of Babel. It's a myth. It is fictional.
There were people writing in China, India, Mesopotamia, and Egypt before the time when the story of the biblical flood is supposed to have happened. They kept on writing right through the biblical flood and never bothered to mention it.
I think they all have Flood stories though, don't they? The real problem is just that the dating is wrong: they did all their writing after the Flood.
Not only are the dating of the writings are different, the evidence for the various flood that they relate are of different time frames. In other words, there were different floods, for which there are pieces of actual physical evidence for.
Akshully, all this means is that fallen humanity just can't get it right, whether it's ancient humanity garbling their memories of the Flood or modern humanity misdating ancient cultures. That's why we need the Bible.
If trees grew in weeks in the former nature, tree rings have no meaning then as they now would in regards to age. Except bt faith alone.
Yes, I'm aware that there are various ways to explain how the tree rings could reflect the different environment before the Flood, but I don't think we have enough information to defend that possibility yet. Befpre I erased that post I went ahead and made some conjectures of my own about the different climate and then realized there are too many ways it doesn't hold together, at least with my own knowledge at present.
What I then do with the Flood issues is mentally put on one side the arguments that don't support the Flood and put those that do in the column on the other side. I have a lot of arguments that do so I figure a few I can't defend are no big deal, that eventually they can be defended too.
Re: Bible Inerrancy is Foundational ** not for this thread
I'm sorry, I specifically dug this up to answer dwise's false claims which came off GDR's. It belongs on this thread to the extent I've included it here. If anyone else wants to discuss it further, fine, start another thread. I'm done.
Oh there's SO much No Evidence for the Flood. All those strata and fossils all over the world. They don't stop being evidence for the Flood just because they've been commandeered to another purpose by evos.
The evidence for the Flood is obvious. Sometimes things are too obvious for the scientific mind. It's just a matter of standing back and noticing the facts apart from the absurd interpretations laid on them. The sciences of the past are all guesswork, they can never be established because you can't send somebody there to see if you're right or not. But WE have a written testimony to the past which is a lot more than you guys have.
Strata are formed by water, we've got gigant layers of disparate sediments all over the world, commensurate with a gigantic water event; you don't need fancy interpretations for each layer of sediment. And fossils in the bazillions are in-your-face evidence of exactly what the Flood was supposed to do: kill all living things. And they were preserved because the Flood provided the perfect conditions for fossilization, rapid deposition and burial, and only the Flood could have done this as consistently we see occurred. There is plenty of evidence of rapid deposition and really NO evidence for time periods of millions of years, all that is imposed on the facts not derived from them.