You heard it right! They can't have animal death before the fall of Adam, so they say every animal on earth was once a vegetarian/herbivore. Even tyrannosaurs, despite the obvious problems with this.
They themselves reject macroevolution despite the kind of biological changes required to evolve an herbivore into a carnivore (let alone in a few thousand years). They basically are forced to accept macroevolution to keep their precious "no death before the fall" mantra in tact.
9. Young-earth creationism teaches that God punished animals for Adam's sin:
So, they don't like animal death before the fall, but how is punishing animals for Adam's sin any better? It makes no sense to me. They think that God created animals immortal and made them mortal because of Adam's sin? Bizarre.
Especially considering there is no mention in the bible of this whatsoever. Romans (often misquoted by young-earthers) clearly states that "death through sin" was initiated by Adam's sin. And it came to all "men".
When God commands them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he says that "you will die when you eat of it" not that "all life will die when you eat of it". Nowhere does the bible even come *close* to implying that animal death is a result of Adam's sin.
In fact, Psalm 104 praises God for giving the carnivores their food.
8. Young-earth creationism expects me to believe lions and tigers are a single created kind:
Because they have to cram all animals on earth into Noah's ark, they call all felines a "created kind" and say Noah just took a pair of them on the ark, and all modern species (and extinct species) of feline are descended from them.
This of course, ignores God's elegant design in both the Lion and the Tiger. And the elegant design in both the Horse and the Donkey (which they also believe are part of a single "created kind").
For instance, Lions are designed with a mane, and live in packs as a social predator in the savannah. Lions avoid swimming if possible.
Whereas, tigers live as solitary hunters, their only social interactions are mating and mothers caring for cubs. They love to swim and spend much of their time in the water. They live in jungle-type environments in southeast asia.
I look at these two species and see two of God's excellent designs. One creature designed to live in a savannah, another designed to live in a jungle. With different traits and different relational capacities with human beings. And both with separate and important roles in the created ecosystems.
Young-earth creationists miss all this in favor of their interpretation of Noah's flood. Which they require to maintain "no death before the fall".
7. Young-earth creationism expects me to believe humans coexisted with all extinct animal and plant species:
Yes, *all* of them. From trilobites to dinosaurs to extinct mammals. Because all fossils must be from "after" Adam's sin in their view, they must believe all extinct animals coexisted with humans.
They also believe that extinct species were taken on Noah's ark as well. Even giant sauropod dinosaurs who are as big as a building.
Even taking out the human aspect, the idea that all these species could exist at the same time is ridiculous. The earth simply cannot support that many creatures at once.
I guess the planet shrank during Noah's flood. That certainly wouldn't be the silliest thing they've said.
6. Young-earth creationism expects me to believe God is a deceiver:
Because so much of nature clearly demonstrates an old-universe, they must often resort to saying "God made it fully mature" and that "it just looks old".
A common example of this is saying God made stars billions of light-years away 6000 years ago. And either God supernaturally sped the light up so it could reach earth in a few thousand years. Or God just created the light in transit so it didn't actually come from a star at all. Both of these options make God a deceiver.
5. Young-earth creationism expects me to believe nature is evil:
One of the best things in God's creation for me is nature. Looking at all the animals and plants. As well as the geological features of the earth is an amazing reflection of God's glory.
Yet, young-earth creationists believe the creation is corrupted by Adam's sin. And often state that it must be true because God calls his creation "very good" in Genesis 1. They say that if there was animal death and disease, the creation is not "very good".
I find this particularly disturbing considering that this must mean they have no appreciation for nature or for God's elegantly designed ecosystems. Even diseases play important roles. But they just can't get over the death before the fall issue. It's sad really.
4. Young-earth creationism expects me to believe Genesis 2 describes an ancient and radically altered geography:
That's right! They think the Tigris and Euphrates rivers described in Genesis 2 are not the same rivers that exist today. They think Asshur, Havilah, and Cush are also different places that just *happen* to have the same names.
Of course, they believe this because they explain fossils and the geological column by Noah's flood. Meaning it must have been catastrophic enough to rearrange the geography of planet earth. Thus, no features of the terrain in Genesis 2 can be the same ones as we have today.
Despite the Tigris being described as flowing through Asshur which the modern Tigris does. And despite the writer of Genesis in the Israel-region referring to the Garden of Eden as being "in the east" where the Tigris and Euphrates were relative to him.
Also, logically these must be modern place names (modern at the time of the writing of Genesis anyways) because Havilah, Cush, and Asshur had not been founded yet (there were only two people on earth). So, clearly the writer must be using modern place names as geographical markers. The writer is not talking about settlements that existed at the time of Adam, because there were none.
3. Young-earth creationism expects me to believe the Sun, moon, and stars were created after earth and its plants:
This kind of strikes me as a "where do babies come from?" issue. In that it isn't. It's a non-issue. We know where stars and planets come from.
Accretion disks around stars form planets. Imploding gas either from the creation of the universe itself or from the explosion of another star forms stars.
We know this definitively because we observe it happening. We can see stars forming in astronomy. We see accretion disks around stars forming planets. And yes, this is how God created earth too. From accretion around the sun. God doesn't have to just "poof" things into existence (though he certainly can).
And as I explained in my Genesis 1 Study, it is not necessary that day 4 be interpreted as the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. Rather the appearance of them through a dense cloud layer that permeated the early earth. As the frame of reference for Genesis 1 is the face of the earth.
2. Young-earth creationism forces the Bible to contradict itself:
As I have discussed before, young-earth creationism requires belief in a global flood which blatantly contradicts Psalm 104 referring to the creation of the world.
It also forces Genesis 2 to contradict Genesis 1. As Genesis 2 describes many events (far more than a single 24-hour days worth) taking place between the creation of Adam and Eve. Whereas Genesis 1 describes Adam and Eve as being created on the same "day" of creation. This only makes sense from a day-age perspective.
Furthermore, the issue of Genesis 1 vs. 2 becomes even more absurd for a young-earther when you consider that there were no chapter divisions in the original text. Genesis wasn't divided until relatively recent human history. So, they expect me to believe the author contradicts himself in just a few verses. How absurd.
1. Young-earth creationism requires me to reject what science (God's creation) tells me in favor of a single interpretation of the bible:
Young-earth creationists expect me to reject all the geological, astronomical, and biological evidence for an old-earth and universe. All just because their one interpretation of a few chapters of the bible contradict it. This is a disrespectful way to approach God's creation, and a disrespectful way to approach the bible.
Thanks for reading!