How fundamentalist are YECs?

[Assyrian]

Actually, most YEC's like me are not expecting "science" to change. Each scientist must make up their own mind. I just believe that the geologic and fossil record, etc. are much more consistent with a young earth, global flood interpretation than they are an evolutionary one. In terms of competing theories or models, I believe YEC fits the observed data much better than evolution -- even without including any reference to any Scripture. Sure, I believe that the Scripture is true -- but I also believe that truth can hold its own against any level of examination.

Disagreement in science, and reasonable discourse is normal and key to moving forward. Truth in science is not dependant on a popularity contest, but rather by rational investigation and discussion of the evidence. Yes, as a Christian, the Scriptures are a crucial piece of evidence, but even outside that context I believe a catastropic view of this planet's history is much more consistent with the evidence than a uniformatarian view.
-lee-

I suspect the last sentence explains why you believe YEC fits the observed data much better than evolution, in fact YEC does fit the data better than the YEC straw man version of evolution or the straw man of 'uniformitarian' geology. But the evidence of radiometric dating fits an old earth not YEC one, and there is no evidence of the massive change in in decay rates that YEC needs to make the evidence fit their model, nor is there any explanation how the excess heat from their rapid decay escaped without vapourising the planet.

The evidence from astronomy is that galaxies are very far away, and the distances have been measured by different methods including triangulation. Nor is there any evidence for the change in light speed that would explain how their light got to earth in 6000 years.

I do not know of anybody who thinks the evidence points to a young earth whose main influence is not religious. Unless people have religious reasons for thinking otherwise, the evidence points clearly to a very ancient planet and an even older universe.

 

[Assyrian]

I think you a little confused. Genesis is historical not prophetic. Prophecy requires fortelling or forthtelling. Genesis 1 and 2 is neither.

You think Moses was not forthtelling God's truth about the creation? It is dealing with historical events, but unlike any history, there were no historians to write down what men witnessed. The account of the creation could only come as prophecy, God revealing it's secrets to man.

Daniel is historical too, it was just that the history hadn't happened when Daniel wrote it down. Isaiah 53 is historical too. Do you think it matters if the event told to us in prophecy was in the past or is still in the future, if it is God who tells us what happened?

But if the events of Genesis come to us through the revelation of God, we need to apply the same cautious humility to the way we interpret them as we do to other prophecies. Lets see how God actually does it rather than insisting he follow our interpretation.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I believe a catastropic view of this planet's history is much more consistent with the evidence than a uniformatarian view.

An assumption of modern science is that the laws of physics haven't changed, not that there haven't been catastrophes. Uniformitarianism echoes what Scripture declares about "the fixed order of heaven and earth" held together by God (Jeremiah 33:25; Colossians 1:17). Scientists are well aware of many catastrophes for which there is evidence. This includes the KT boundary which probably indicates a significant meteor impact, many other meteor impacts, ice ages, local floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, and much more.

 

[jereth]

I think you a little confused. Genesis is historical not prophetic. Prophecy requires fortelling or forthtelling. Genesis 1 and 2 is neither.

Did you know that the Jews always considered (and still consider to this day) the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings as "prophets"?

History, as well as future, can be prophetic.