I grew up a young earth creationist. I still believe it because I believe Jesus did and it’s the most plain reading of the Bible. I’ve always wanted to study evolution more, and last week came across two of Joshua Swamidass’s interviews on YouTube with Sean McDowell. The topics were fascinating, so I decided to research more clearly what the Bible has said about creation and the flood. But I’ve come up with a lot of interesting theories from a young earth perspective that I wondered if science has addressed, or would just have ignored because they assume the planet has remained similar to its current state - or that change would happen very slowly. And also whether significant change in our planet would affect any of the dating methods used. I’ve only got a very rudimentary understanding of how they work. Like I said, it’s only been a week. If you have resources for me, great. But mostly, I’m interested if you have any scientific knowledge that would PROVE any of my theories first, not disprove them.
Theory 1. The universe is significantly made up of liquid, gas, and light (Genesis 1:2: “The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” (The earth, according to this passage is some kind of liquid, chaotic form - dry land isn’t created/ doesn’t appear until day 3))
Theory 2: There was a universal, worldwide flood that began because God miraculously opened up Earth’s crust, which had a lot of water at its core. (Genesis 7:11: In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.)
More theories sort of follow Theory 2:
2a. This broke up Panagea - or one supercontinent
2b. It was partially the cause of the massive rainfall - breaking up the continent would have caused massive climate change as weather patterns changed over land.
2c. The end of the flood resulted in only a partial breakup of the supercontinent not the current continents we have today.
2d. There was a massive exchange event - more water on the earth’s surface, and carbon from plant life pushing into the earth’s core, which heated into the form it is now.
Theory 3: After such a flooding event, there would be extreme climate change, and very short ice ages in quick succession. (After doing a lot of reading, Psalm 104 is the closest thing we have to the first few chapters of Genesis. I also believe it is referenced in Job, after looking at the texts. (I only have an undergraduate degree, it’s in English) So I believe it’s very early. (I have an email in to my pastors about this I can’t find any commentators discussing this - most just assume it’s a Psalm of David, because Psalm 103 is identified as such and is the only time "Bless the Lord, oh my Soul is used in the Psalms).) See verse 8: Psalms 104 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre Translation differ: Some have “they” which refers to water going up mountains and down valleys. Others says it’s actually the mountains rising and valleys lowering. I believe it could be both: Mountains rising with glaciers, valleys lowering with rivers. It gives the Psalm in almost observational tone - as if the writers is there witnessing this. Also notice witnessing of active volcanoes. Both of these would indicate active ice age activities.
More theories follow theory 3:
3a. These ice ages continued to break up continents and also created land bridges, that caused massive migration in order to find food and for for basic survival. Some of the inital migration is described in Genesis 10. This migration is the early hominin record (neandrathals, denisovans)
3b. A second migration occurred that resulted in modern humans. This was from the tower of Babel: Genesis 11:4: "And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” Notice they came together after being concerned about excessive migration, and then were disbursed again.
Regarding 3a and b. I’m finding some records to confirm this:
"This, however, throws up a long-established paradox. Language experts are adamant that Pama-Nyungan languages are much younger, dating back 4,000 years, and coinciding with the appearance of new stone technologies in the archaeological record.
Scientists have long puzzled over how – if these communities were completely isolated from each other and the rest of the world – they ended up sharing a language family that is much younger? The traditional answer has been that there was a second migration into Australia 4,000 years ago, by people speaking this language.
But the new research finds no evidence of this. Instead, the team uncovered signs of a tiny gene flow, indicating a small population movement from north-east Australia across the continent, potentially at the time the Pama-Nyungan language and new stone tool technologies appeared." Unprecedented study of Aboriginal Australians points to one shared Out of Africa migration for modern humans | University of Cambridge.
How is human dating done? Couldn’t scientist just agree the dating is wrong, rather than make up genetic ghosts to answer for it? If the creation and flood account is literally correct, the dating must be wrong. Could the massive change in earth, the flood, and successive very fast ice changes result in incorrect dating? I still have too rudimentary of a knowledge to answer that question. When I look at that article I see a very early migration of hominins right after the flood, and then a second of homo sapiens following it. Also here: https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/.premium-how-interbreeding-with-denisovans-affected-human-health-1.8913745