Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Greg Jennings]

I should have been clearer. How can you possibly know anything of what Jesus said at all?

Stuart

I'm going from the New Testament. I know no more reliable source on the words and deeds of Jesus. Do you?

 

[Greg Jennings]

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

And Dave and PJ and 1Mind1Spirit are ardent YECs, like you. I don't see any evolutionists here clinging to absurd realities like a flat Earth. But there are several Christians.

But we already knew you were a hypocrite

 

[6days]

So why did Jesus' blood reconcile [angelic beings] to the Father?

Jesus blood reconciles descendants of first Adam to himself. 1 Cor. 15

There is a time coming when everything in the new heavens and new earth are fully reconciled to our Savior. Col. 1:20

Jesus explained that some “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” Matt. 25:46. There is no reconciliation for demonic beings or those who die rejecting such a great salvation. (Universalism is a heretical belief)

 

[Greg Jennings]

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

Except with geochronology, fossil suites, astronomical observation, radiometric dating, concentric tree rings, ice core data........need I go on?

 

[Greg Jennings]

So you said:

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

Then I replied:

Give me a few (scientific conclusions) that specifically theistic evolutionists have come up with.

And then you give me this:

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.

So what you're telling me is that you can't back up your previous statement that theistic evolutionists have been responsible for many shoddy scientific conclusions.

Imagine that. I really don't think God wants you being dishonest in his name

 

[6days]

I'm going from the New Testament. I know no more reliable source on the words and deeds of Jesus. Do you?

Very good Greg! Yes the words of Jesus are reliable.


It is interesting that He used Scripture as the ultimate authority / truth. (He would challenge others..." have you not heard? Or, "it is written" Etc.


Also interesting is that Jesus referenced the writings of Moses more than a y other scripture. He taught that humanity existed from the beginning of the creation... and from the foundations of the world. In fact, Jesus (Last Adam) went to the cross because death entered the world when first Adam sinned. The belief in millions of years of pain, death, thorns, suffering etc before sin is an attack on the cross... and on the nature of our Creator.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Very good Greg! Yes the words of Jesus are reliable.


It is interesting that He used Scripture as the ultimate authority / truth. (He would challenge others..." have you not heard? Or, "it is written" Etc.


Also interesting is that Jesus referenced the writings of Moses more than a y other scripture. He taught that humanity existed from the beginning of the creation... and from the foundations of the world. In fact, Jesus (Last Adam) went to the cross because death entered the world when first Adam sinned. The belief in millions of years of pain, death, thorns, suffering etc before sin is an attack on the cross... and on the nature of our Creator.

I said "no better source." That doesn't mean it's a perfect transcription. I imagine it's been tweaked over time a bit. There isn't a book that old on this planet that hasn't gone through extensive editing and re-editing in the centuries after its creation

When you give me a hypothesis for how sharks ate and digested vegetables, then we can talk about your completely evidence-free insistence on a pre-sin world. Until then, it's your little fantasy land that I'm not entertaining further,

 

[Jose Fly]

Disagree. Discussion is more important than indoctrination.

Then by all means, you and your fellow Christians should "discuss" the age and shape of the earth as much, and as loudly, as you can.

Whatever we CANNOT prove, we'd better be soft on. Why? Because MORE kids don't believe evolution (70%) than are turning from Christianity.

Source please.

The problem with your atheism science

My atheism science? What in the world are you talking about?

is just as bad-non-thinking dogma as any kind of thoughtless religious dogma.

I see like 6days you enjoy accusing others of your own faults.

"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.

Then it's a good thing I haven't done that.

Next?" Outcome: some will trickle away from churches, 70% will likely continue to question evolution and origins.

Not sure where you're getting your info from, but support for creationism in the US is at an all-time low.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-divisions-tom-krattenmaker-column/467800001/

 

[Greg Jennings]

Not sure where you're getting your info from, but support for creationism in the US is at an all-time low.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-divisions-tom-krattenmaker-column/467800001/

From the article: "According to a Gallup poll conducted in May, the portion of the American public taking this position now stands at 38%, a new low in Gallup’s periodic surveys. Fifty-seven percent accept the validity of the scientific consensus that human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years."

Lon, I would like to know what source you got that 70% figure from very much. This looks like a potential teachable moment in regards to what is and is not a reliable source

 

[Derf]

200,000 years.

Stuart

And growing with each new discovery!!

 

[6days]

Except with geochronology, fossil suites, astronomical observation, radiometric dating, concentric tree rings, ice core data........need I go on?

You are referring to secular interpretations. (and evidence which ALWAYS requires interpretation)


Greg... God's Word is supported by science...science helps confirm the truth of his word and becomes another form of worship. "Geochronology, fossil suites, astronomical observation, radiometric dating, concentric tree rings, ice core data" DNA including non-coding DNA, mutation rates, comets, sea floor sediment, inverted eye design, C-14 dating, erosion rates, polystrate fossils, vast oil and coal beds, Pluto's moons, decay rate magnetic fields, methane on Titan... etc etc.


But... the most compelling evidence is God's Word. When we trust Him as our ultimate source of truth, we don't need to explain away the evidence or invent rescue devices.

 

[6days]

I said "no better source." (The Bible) That doesn't mean it's a perfect transcription.

So you pick and choose what to believe? Do you rely on your own wisdom in judging God's Word? (You should do a little study on the thousands of ancient manuscripts and how Christians can have full confidence in our modern translations.)

I imagine it's been tweaked over time a bit.

Translations get tweaked because language changes. But take any of the top 20 translations (translated from ancient Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew) and you will find the core message the same from beginning to end. Good study Bibles and comparison of different versions will help you understand how reliable our Bibles are.

When you give me a hypothesis for how sharks ate and digested vegetables

All 'nepesh' life had a vegetarian diet until after sin entered the world. Apart from that, we don't know how mutatiins and selection effected the "very good" creation.

then we can talk about your completely evidence-free insistence on a pre-sin world. Until then, it's your little fantasy land that I'm not entertaining further

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." Rom. 5:12

 

[Derf]

I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently. 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 really 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?

Hi VL,
[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] did a good job responding to your post, so I don't know that I will be able to add much, but I'd like to give an opinion or two.

First of all, the term "Young Earth Creationism" is not the same as "Young Cosmos Creationism", though many Christians would consider them synonymous. I point that out because we already have one mechanism that shows us time passes differently in different environments. There may be others we don't know about.

Now I know that the bible is pretty clear when it points out that God created the heavens and the earth in the space of 6 days, as in Ex 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. But I also know that with the heliocentric view of the solar system, a day here doesn't necessarily mean the same everywhere else. It doesn't even make sense anywhere else than on the earth. Yet the whole of creation is measured in earth days.

In addition, if the bible is accurate in saying there was no one on earth to experience the first 5 days and some of the sixth, who knows what those days were like and what happened during those days? No human-generated record is available, of that we are assured. The best we have is from something that was delivered to man for him to record, or that man made up. The rest is interpretation of evidence based on our presuppositions, be they good or bad ones.

Personally, I'm not bound to the idea that the days in Genesis were of a standard length, at least the first few. But I'm committed to the idea that the events recorded for each day in Genesis 1 were recorded accurately and provided to man, probably to Adam, but perhaps to Moses.

The best the scripture offers, in my opinion, is that the things that were described for each day occurred during the referenced single revolution of the earth, and probably from the perspective of the earth. Thus, I don't have a hard time thinking of the stars either being created on day 4 or day 4 being the time when their light reached the earth. I want to be open to the message of Genesis 1, along with explanatory texts like Exodus 20:11, whatever it happens to be.

When I look at the scientific discoveries of our day, I'm astounded at the sheer magnitude of the created cosmos. I think we all still have much to learn about it, and I think that all of it will continue to glorify the Creator of it all. We still haven't discovered every mechanism for light and information transference (if that's the right word) through space. We still talk of "dark matter" and "dark energy" because we don't know what those things are--they are yet to come fully into the light, if you'll pardon the pun.

I think it's a bit foolish of any of us to champion any explanation that doesn't explain everything, whether that's big bang or string theories, or whether that's one-way speed of light or light created in transit concepts. I'm not a big fan of either of those two last ones, and the first two are each having their own difficulties establishing themselves, despite the propaganda. There may be aspects of all of them that are useful (except probably the light-in-transit one--that's a pretty fail for the YEC crowd, imo).

As others have pointed out, and as I feel you have endeavored to start, a civil discussion, where both/all sides are able to explain their positions and give good reasons why they hold those positions, including holding a position of antipathy toward a particular theory, should be achievable, as long as we're all able to acknowledge the things we are unable to let go of and those things are not antithetical to each other.

As a prime for instance (probably THE prime for instance), If YEC'ers are unwilling to give up the idea of God being the cause, and their opponents are unwilling to entertain the idea of God being the cause, there's really no point in that part of the discussion. I'd like to think that while YEC'ers (in which group I consider myself, with qualifications) won't give up the idea of God being the cause, they are willing to investigate how God caused things, including the timing. And while their opponents would rather focus on the hows, they don't have to consider, at least at the beginning, whether God or any other kind of personal being is involved.

So, after all that bloviating, I'd like to express my opinion that YEC is not reasonably doubted, since we have a trustworthy record of the YEC position that came from a source that was closer to the event than anything we could write today. "Trustworthy" because it is included in a document that is trustworthy in other details, and "closer to the event", well, because it was recorded at least 3000 years earlier than any record one could write today (including all of the interpretations of evidence we will be discussing).

Is it enough to counter the interpretations? That's a good and worthy question. Thus, I would propose that what you really should be asking is not whether "it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism", but whether "it is reasonable to question young earth creationism". If it is true, then it will survive questioning. But even if it is true, you will not be able to get beyond your "faith" in its untruthfulness ("doubt").

Is that reasonable?

 

[Stripe]

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

Not really. There is a philosophical difference between the two assertions that makes proving an old Earth possible by falsifying a young Earth. I don't think this is possible in reverse.

I think that is the gist of OP. However, nobody (even OP) seems to want to discuss OP.

 

[George Affleck]

Not really. There is a philosophical difference between the two assertions that makes proving an old Earth possible by falsifying a young Earth. I don't think this is possible in reverse.

I think that is the gist of OP. However, nobody (even OP) seems to want to discuss OP.

I have heard it said; “Find me a fossilized bunny in the cambrian or any equivalent...just one, and it will disprove evolution".

 

[Derf]

I have heard it said; “Find me a fossilized bunny in the cambrian or any equivalent...just one, and it will disprove evolution".

It might disprove the current manifestation, but evolution is a slippery quarry. It's more of a concept than a theory, and a concept can be adjusted to fit the mental environment. The most evolutionary thing about evolution is the theory itself.

 

[jamie]

There is no reconciliation for demonic beings or those who die rejecting such a great salvation. (Universalism is a heretical belief)

So why were they reconciled to the Father by Jesus' blood?

"For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." (Colossians 1:19-20)

Jesus reconciled everything that sinned to the Father.

 

[Stripe]

I have heard it said; “Find me a fossilized bunny in the cambrian or any equivalent...just one, and it will disprove evolution".

Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, it's off topic.

 

[Stripe]

The most evolutionary thing about evolution is the theory itself.

:rotfl:

 

[Stuu]

I'm going from the New Testament. I know no more reliable source on the words and deeds of Jesus. Do you?

Yes. Let me type out for you the only historically reliable story of Jesus there is:

Jesus very probably existed. There is a good case for him having been baptised by John the Baptist. It is quite likely he was executed by the Romans.

Stuart