hypothetically speaking, if evidence along the lines of a universal, cross-species genetic bottleneck just a few thousand years ago, combined with a global sedimentary layer, or if it were somehow proven incontrovertibly that humans were created and did not evolve, or other such evidence was discovered that completely blew the current models and understanding of history, geology, physics, and biology out of the water...what would be the reaction of Evolutionists?
Well, my reaction would be: that's interesting.
-
It would be interesting, though, what evidence could come up that could undermine the obvious fact that the earth and the universe are billions of years old.
I mean, just to start with, we see stars that are more than 6000 light years away. That right there is a pretty big problem. Not only that, but physicists have already told us what different sizes of stars would look like at different points in their millions of years life spans -- and when astronomers look up in the sky, they see exactly these types of stars -- they actually see stars that look all the world as if they are different ages in a billions of years old universe.
Let's look at geology. What would 6000 years of sediment look like? Not very much, I'd warrant. One would think that a 6000 year old earth would be basically granite covered with top soil. Whence the thousands of feet of sedimentary rock? And if there were a flood, one would think that at best the top soil would be washed off of the highlands, leaving pretty much bare rock, and the low lands would have maybe several hundred feet of
un lithified sediments. Remember that an old earth
sans flood was pretty much proven long before Darwin.
And then there's radiometric dating. The fact that radiometric dating was consistent with the geologic record as already established by geologists shows how traditional geology and radiometric dating provide independent checks on each other -- so we can be more confident that the geologists got it right, and, in turn, we can have some confidence in the radiometrically established age of 4.6 billion years for the solar system.
-
The problem with trying to prove a young earth is that we already have a lot,
a lot,
a lot of evidence for an old earth. Proving a young earth is going to require a lot more than a couple of anomalies here, and a few unanswered questions there. It is going to take a broad and testable young earth theory that explains the data that we do have, and much, much more evidence that systematically supports that theory over the traditional geologic theories.
Here is the evidence that would have convinced me of a young earth and young universe:
All stars being 6000 light years away or closer, and every year bringing another light year's worth of stars into view.
All the stars being pretty much the same -- same size, same color, indications of the same "age".
Geology being really a granite crust covered with top soil -- no sedimentary rocks.
Radiometric dating consistently giving ages of 6000 years or less.
All fossil species being more or less the same ones that we see today -- maybe a couple of "new" ones that have gone extinct since the beginning, but not entirely different eco-systems.
A mix and match of characteristics that would render a nested hierarchical classification scheme for the species impossible -- thereby proving evolution false and negating the need for deep time for that reason.
--
The fact is, that Young Earth Creationism already had the chance to prove itself correct, and failed from the very beginnings of geology. I really cannot think of what any evidence for a young earth could possible look like at this point.
He fought for the South for no reason that he could now recall, other than the same one all men fought for: because he'd been a damn fool. -- Garth Ennis
™ Version 4.2
