Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[6days]

I know the importance of proper sourcing. Can you please find me a non-Young-Earth-Christian propaganda site that says the same information?

Greg... you DON'T know anything about proper sourcing. You seem to think its only proper sourcing if it agrees with your anti-Biblical views.
God's Word tells us... "For in six days...." How about using God's Word as your #1 go to source?

 

[6days]

Lumping flat-earthers in with the rest of Biblical creationists is an insult to Biblical creationists.

Keep in mind... The current president of the flat earth society is Daniel Shenton... an ardent evolutionist.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg... you DON'T know anything about proper sourcing. You seem to think its only proper sourcing if it agrees with your anti-Biblical views.
God's Word tells us... "For in six days...." How about using God's Word as your #1 go to source?

Ummm....yeah I do. Because I actually was taught about it. In school, by literature, history, and science professors. Where did you learn about proper sourcing again? Ken Ham?

If it's from a reliable source, like a university or scientific institute, THAT is reliable.


You are claiming that a source that states "anything contradictory to the Bible is false" is scientific. You're advertising idiocy. Seriously, that is STUPID. And if you can't see why that's not scientific, then no wonder you're scientifically illiterate

I don't need a lecture in science from someone who never set foot in a classroom, as you've admitted to through your refusals to answer questions. Whine all you want, but your bogus non-explanations are nonsense, and that's something that all objective observers can plainly see. That's why your YEC "theory" has been abandoned after being scientific consensus originally


Answer me this: will you go to your closest university and ask a paleontologist or geologist or biologist there your questions? You know, in person, where you don't get to hide behind your keyboard when given a tough reply?

Or course you won't. Because you're a coward. You make less sense here than Dave does in the flat Earth thread. And that's saying a lot

 

[Greg Jennings]

No... You promote heresy... and turn the Gospel into foolishness. The angelic beings were not sentenced to physical death because of sin. Christ's death on the cross and His resurrection have ZERO connection to angelic beings.

A good place to start reading, and understanding WHY Jesus went to Calvary...and WHO He did it for is Romans 5

"I am 6days. I am right. You are wrong. Why? Because I say so. End of discussion"

 

[6days]

"I am 6days. I am right. You are wrong. Why? Because I say so. End of discussion"

Greg You are welcome to argue that Jesus died for angelic beings.. He didn't. It's not because 6days says so, but God Word. I suggested Romans 5 as a starting point.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg You are welcome to argue that Jesus died for angelic beings.. He didn't. It's not because 6days says so, but God Word. I suggested Romans 5 as a starting point.

I'm not specifically referring to Jamie's claim. Rather your insistence that your interpretation of things is the only way, sans any hard evidence. You're a fool if you think that. Just like all the fools that came before you, insisting on their holy opinions

 

[6days]

I'm not specifically referring to Jamie's claim. Rather your insistence that your interpretation of things is the only way, sans any hard evidence. You're a fool if you think that. Just like all the fools that came before you, insisting on their holy opinions

You are correct Greg... Neither my opinion... nor yours are 'holy opinions'. For "hard evidence", we should always depend on God's Word as our source of absolute truth.
Theistic evolutionists have a long history of false and shoddy conclusions since they reject what God's Word teaches about our history.

 

[Lon]

I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently.

Spoiler

My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years. For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away. That means that when we look at Andromeda, we don't see it as it is today. We see what it looked like two-and-a-half million years ago. (It takes the light from that galaxy that long to reach us.)

My friend, who is a Christian (but not a YEC) agreed with me, but introduced me to a bit of apologetics that says this: just as God made Adam in a mature state, so too he made the cosmos appear mature. I guess this works, but it sounds a little bit like squaring the circle. After all, in doing this, God has given anyone with a telescope very good reason to doubt the literal accounts in Genesis. My friend even added a nice counter argument along this same vein: we can see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years years away enter their dying phase. By creationist logic, when we see this, we are in fact seeing stars die that were never born in the first place. That makes no sense!

Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible. But my reason for starting this thread wasn't just to push that point. My question is for YECs: Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that it is. Can you fault anyone for coming to that very sensible conclusion?

After all, even if the accounts in Genesis ARE literally true, God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise. Whether it turns out to be true or not, isn't it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism?

You'll likely need to ask regarding a few of these, but they are related to your topic, I just haven't spent a lot of time developing the ideas as they relate to the topic, but they do address your OP specifically:

2 Peter 3:8 We are only talking about power and acceleration. Even the big bang requires an amount of deceleration and so we really need to think about big picture science speculation. Often enough, each is stuck in its own science realm and expertise and so I question each of these as well. We should question or we aren't 'doing' science, just being indoctrinated by old science. When it comes to science, 'historical science' findings are supposed to help us or give us jumpstarts. If you think about that, it too is 'creating with age.' Howso? Because we are standing on other's backs with rings already made in the scientific trees. Because of that, we entertain creation speculations. It does no harm to the scientific inquiry process, only gives it more to think about and another perspective to start from. Science is not indoctrinated. Mostly atheists are. Good scientists are not and don't give the discrepancy consternation. If someone said "I saw a real unicorn the other day " I can ignore it OR become scientifically (using the scientific method) interested. In reality, I have seen a pink elephant and dare anyone to naysay it. I saw a green glow in the dark rabbit. Anyone can Google....or dismiss it out of mind to their own intelligent detriment. They actually exist[ed]. Their loss, no?

 

[Lon]

I don't blame ya. If I was a Christian, I'd be embarrassed and worried as well.

Disagree. Discussion is more important than indoctrination. Science or Bible. Next? Whatever we CANNOT prove, we'd better be soft on. Why? Because MORE kids don't believe evolution (70%) than are turning from Christianity. The problem with your atheism science is just as bad-non-thinking dogma as any kind of thoughtless religious dogma. "Because I said so" or "because Steven Hawking or Gould said so" aren't science. Or even 'thinking' for that matter. It is just 'voting' and posturing and thus not knowledge NOR truth, just politicizing. "Okay, great, you are politically unmoving and unthinkingly indoctrinated. Great. Next?" Outcome: some will trickle away from churches, 70% will likely continue to question evolution and origins. No big deal if you are happy posturing on sides that don't change. It is just TOL day 341 or so, right? See my post just above as well. I tend to question whether anybody carries the same questioning prowess I do. I think that's good science as well. Someone 'might' do better than I, but isn't it good science to wonder? :think:

 

[Greg Jennings]

You are correct Greg... Neither my opinion... nor yours are 'holy opinions'. For "hard evidence", we should always depend on God's Word as our source of absolute truth.

Except when it's been proven demonstrably false, like Genesis. Evidence trumps your feel-good story, buddy.

Theistic evolutionists have a long history of false and shoddy conclusions since they reject what God's Word teaches about our history.

Give me a few that specifically theistic evolutionists have come up with. There are plenty of faulty theories out there. That's simply progression of science. But I can't think of any directly attributable to only theistic evolutionists

 

[Stuu]

Why? Because MORE kids don't believe evolution (70%) than are turning from Christianity.

In the US, 65% of 18-29 year olds ('kids') believe in either evolution with no god involvement (30%) or evolution with god involvement (35%). 28% have a creationist view. The rate of creationist belief increases progressively in higher age brackets. So that's a much higher, and faster increase in acceptance of evolution than it is a reduction in christianity, although the drop in christianity in that same age group has been quite dramatic too.

Stuart

 

[Greg Jennings]

In the US, 65% of 18-29 year olds believe in either evolution with no god involvement (30%) or evolution with god involvement (35%). 28% have a creationist view. The rate of creationist belief increases progressively in higher age brackets. So that's a much higher, and faster increase in acceptance of evolution than it is a reduction in christianity.

Stuart

Exactly. When the baby boomer generation dies off, there won't be many YECs remaining. Not compared to now or in the past, anyway. More children are highly educated than in the past, and with that comes the ability to understand the reasons WHY Genesis isn't literally true

Completely unrelated side-note: too many kids go to college now. So so many of them would be better off apprenticing a trade rather than wasting 4 years of time and money getting a degree that won't help them in their career

 

[Stripe]

Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years?

It is reasonable to believe anything you like. The only limitation on that ideal is if you enter into a scientific discussion, you must be willing to throw out your belief if it is falsified.

 

[Stuu]

Completely unrelated side-note: too many kids go to college now. So so many of them would be better off apprenticing a trade rather than wasting 4 years of time and money getting a degree that won't help them in their career

Well not entirely unrelated. You are right that if a school-leaver trains for a trade and saves their early higher earnings, they will probably be as well off financially and in terms of job suitability and supply of skilled tradespeople. But that means it is more important to support public communicators of science, and further adult education opportunities at university level, so anyone has the chance to engage with the fruits of the science they pay for through their taxes, and through the shared human curiosity that involves.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Old earth beliefs can be debunked if you prove the universe is young.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), proving a young Earth is impossible.

 

[Stuu]

It is reasonable to believe anything you like. The only limitation on that ideal is if you enter into a scientific discussion, you are willing to throw out your belief if it is falsified.

Tell us about the last time you changed your mind because of contrary evidence, Stripe. You could start with your YEC views that are contradicted by dendrochronology and annual ice core layers.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

That refers to a group of people, known as clods, who deny the evidence pointing to a young universe.

:darwinsm:

 

[6days]

Except when it's been proven demonstrably false, like Genesis. Evidence trumps your feel-good story, buddy.

God's Word is our source of absolute truth and evidence. We believe in the resurrection, virgin birth etc because of the evidence of Divine inspiration. (We believe no matter how much contradictory 'evidence you have showing virgin birth is impossible)

Give me a few (false 'science' conclusions) that specifically theistic evolutionists have come up with. There are plenty of faulty theories out there. That's simply progression of science. But I can't think of any directly attributable to only theistic evolutionists

Theistic evolution is simply buying into a secular belief system, and then compromising on what God's Word plainly says. There are many examples such as the belief that death existed in humans before "first Adam". That false belief leads to a corrupted Gospel, and a meaningless crucifixion.


God's Word plainly tells us that "Last Adam" went to Calvary because death entered the world when "first Adam" sinned. Physical death was not part of what God called "very good" in Genesis 1. (Otherwise, Jesus would not have had to defeat death)

 

[6days]

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), proving a young Earth is impossible.

Totally agree. (Likewise proving an old earth is impossible)

 

[jamie]

No... You promote heresy... and turn the Gospel into foolishness. The angelic beings were not sentenced to physical death because of sin. Christ's death on the cross and His resurrection have ZERO connection to angelic beings.

So why did Jesus' blood reconcile them to the Father?