Young Earth Creationism

[miamited]

A little further back in the thread, I cited the example of distant stars:

They look like they exist, but some of them don't and never did. Right? We get light from things that are apparently stars but never were. To what end? The point is: it looks old because there is a (false) history... unless we can believe our eyes and say, "yes, those stars really did exist at one time." But then the universe is not young.

Hi willtor,

Yes, and I have addressed that topic. The short version is that, yes, we know today what speed light travels, however, we have no way of knowing at what speed light traveled on the day that it was created or even if it didn't travel from the stars to the earth but was created in place all across the universe. We don't know and we have no testable way to prove it. The only thing we can do is take what we know to be true today and extrapolate that information to the time of creation.

For me, a God who can make water stand several dozen feet tall as a wall; a God who can make the sun to reverse in its course; a God who can make the sun to stand still in the sky; a God who can cause a woman to be pregnant without ever having sperm introduced into her womb, can certainly make light appear all across the universe in a mere moment if that is what He wants to do.

On the day that God said let the stars in the heavens shine upon the earth that they may be markers for days and times and seasons for man, then the light of every star in all of the universe may have been created to be surrounding the earth in the moment of its creation with its individual light.

The best you can counter with is: Well, this is the way it is now and if we assume that the properties of light have always been the same and that God did not make any miraculous adjustment to that light when He created, then yes, the stars must be billions of years old. But friend, understand that you have to assume some things not given in evidence to believe that. You have to believe that God did not do anything miraculous like He has done with the natural properties of water, or the natural properties of the sun, or the natural properties of human procreation to even be able to try to get people to believe that your assumptions are correct.

And no, your claim that it looks old because there is a false history is what man tells you must be the truth if the natural properties are accepted to have always stood. If I believe that God has on numerous occasions shown us that He can do things outside of what we know the natural properties to be, then I can believe that that is the explanation for the light of the stars. You believe that there is light out there that comes from stars that never were. Do you have a picture of the star that never was by which you can prove that claim? Do you know that light refracts and reflects in many, many different circumstances. It is completely possible that this light that you 'think' comes from nowhere actually does come from somewhere but you just haven't figured out where it came from. There are an untold number of unanswered questions about the universe for which we may never have the answers to.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

Yes, and I have addressed that topic. The short version is that, yes, we know today what speed light travels, however, we have no way of knowing at what speed light traveled on the day that it was created or even if it didn't travel from the stars to the earth but was created in place all across the universe. We don't know and we have no testable way to prove it. The only thing we can do is take what we know to be true today and extrapolate that information to the time of creation.

For me, a God who can make water stand several dozen feet tall as a wall; a God who can make the sun to reverse in its course; a God who can make the sun to stand still in the sky; a God who can cause a woman to be pregnant without ever having sperm introduced into her womb, can certainly make light appear all across the universe in a mere moment if that is what He wants to do.

On the day that God said let the stars in the heavens shine upon the earth that they may be markers for days and times and seasons for man, then the light of every star in all of the universe may have been created to be surrounding the earth in the moment of its creation with its individual light.

The best you can counter with is: Well, this is the way it is now and if we assume that the properties of light have always been the same and that God did not make any miraculous adjustment to that light when He created, then yes, the stars must be billions of years old. But friend, understand that you have to assume some things not given in evidence to believe that. You have to believe that God did not do anything miraculous like He has done with the natural properties of water, or the natural properties of the sun, or the natural properties of human procreation to even be able to try to get people to believe that your assumptions are correct.

And no, your claim that it looks old because there is a false history is what man tells you must be the truth if the natural properties are accepted to have always stood. If I believe that God has on numerous occasions shown us that He can do things outside of what we know the natural properties to be, then I can believe that that is the explanation for the light of the stars. You believe that there is light out there that comes from stars that never were. Do you have a picture of the star that never was by which you can prove that claim? Do you know that light refracts and reflects in many, many different circumstances. It is completely possible that this light that you 'think' comes from nowhere actually does come from somewhere but you just haven't figured out where it came from. There are an untold number of unanswered questions about the universe for which we may never have the answers to.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

It's more than "we assume things always worked the same way" though, right? Because, in fact, it looks like many things didn't always work the same way. The "false history" is detailed enough and internally consistent enough that it even looks like certain things have changed over time or at specific points in history. It isn't that there are a number of isolated inferences that rest on untested hypotheses. There's a whole vast body of observations that all come together in a consistent way. This is why I say the universe looks old.

Re: observing stars that never existed: Yes, of course. Any star that has gone nova more than 6,000-10,000 light years away, in fact, did not go nova -- it never existed under the young earth model. It's a piece of history that never was. To what end?

 

[SkyWriting]

I see -- I misunderstood your position. Does your stand hold that Scripture points towards evolution, too?

The Bible is clear that people can spiritually change.
I've never heard anyone even suggest that biology
is a scripturally covered topic, though it does
cover how people can be deceived.

 

[SkyWriting]

Looks like you and Willtor each thought the other is a YEC. I'd like to hear your understanding of the creation and age of the earth.

The earth is aged in the same manner as the wine in the example below.
The exact method used is not revealed.

“Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”

 

[SkyWriting]

A little further back in the thread, I cited the example of distant stars:

They look like they exist, but some of them don't and never did. Right? We get light from things that are apparently stars but never were. To what end? The point is: it looks old because there is a (false) history... unless we can believe our eyes and say, "yes, those stars really did exist at one time." But then the universe is not young.

Creation happened before days (and years) existed.
So the stars did exist.....but not in "years" as you
might try and imagine them.

The past is all fiction, some of it is good.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi willtor,

I haven't really been following a lot of this, but wanted to respond to this post. The earth and the universe weren't made to 'appear' old. They were just created to do what they were created to do. They were created formed as they needed to be formed to what they were created to do.

My current thought on this is that the "ageing" process occurred
in the mind of God. This does not mean it was any less "real."
During the Creation process, everything occurs in the mind of
God and is "real."

What we know of "reality" is only what is left after man chose not
to be one-with-God. After Adams fall-from-grace all the cosmos
was affected.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

 

[Percivale]

My current thought on this is that the "ageing" process occurred
in the mind of God. This does not mean it was any less "real."
During the Creation process, everything occurs in the mind of
God and is "real."

What we know of "reality" is only what is left after man chose not
to be one-with-God. After Adams fall-from-grace all the cosmos
was affected.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

Sounds like you have some things in common with Hinduism, seeing the world as illusory, existing in the mind of God rather than in a real physical way, only you see that changing at the fall. Let me know if I misunderstand.
I don't like that view of reality, since it seems to attribute more creativity to sin than to goodness, makes the fall a more significant part of God's creative word than the original creation. I prefer to believe that what God called 'very good' was basically the same as things in our world are when they are healthy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sounds like you have some things in common with Hinduism, seeing the world as illusory, existing in the mind of God rather than in a real physical way, only you see that changing at the fall. Let me know if I misunderstand.
I don't like that view of reality, since it seems to attribute more creativity to sin than to goodness, makes the fall a more significant part of God's creative word than the original creation. I prefer to believe that what God called 'very good' was basically the same as things in our world are when they are healthy.

Everyone understands that to be one with God is the only solution to our
current problem, Sin.
Sin is separation from God. To be back in fellowship is the only solution.
So God sent Himself to us to die in our stead.

8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us.

Death is not a punishment....it is a result of the separation we instigated.

The world was "very good" only while man walked with God. After that,

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death
through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Romans 5 Parallel Chapters

Our Cosmos is now permanently separated from God, but man's soul has
an opportunity to live on.

 

[Calminian]

....The world was "very good" only while man walked with God......

Just a slight correction. The world was also good before man was created. God made this clear in the creation account, reminding the reader it was all good every step of the way.

 

[SkyWriting]

Just a slight correction. The world was also good before man was created. God made this clear in the creation account, reminding the reader it was all good every step of the way.

A slight correction. That's not a correction.
"Very good" and "Good" are translated from differing phrases.

"Very Good" only appears after fellowship with man.
The rest of Creation is slated for demolition.

 

[Job8]

Here is a quote from an Anglican Reverend:

Unfortunately, the Anglican Church and its ministers have destroyed their own credibility by rejecting everything that they once stood for (including creationism). Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland (Church of Ireland closely related to Church of England) upheld creationism unequivocally, and his chronology is still well-respected. It was off by just a few years because Ptolemy's was off by a few years.

Ussher now concentrated on his research and writing and returned to the study of chronology and the church fathers. After a 1647 work on the origin of the Creeds, Ussher published a treatise on the calendar in 1648. This was a warm-up for his most famous work, the Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world"), which appeared in 1650, and its continuation, Annalium pars postierior, published in 1654. In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall on 22 October 4004 BC.

 

[Calminian]

....I see the situation rather as that YEC and atheism are two extremes, with the truth being in between.

There's nothing extreme about reading the text as the author intended it. You may think that's extreme, but I think it's respectful. In six days God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. If that was extreme for Moses to say, then sign me up.

 

[BobRyan]

Why is it that even the atheist evolutionists are tossing in the towel on blind faith evolutionism??

http://www.discovery.org/id/

Here is a great article about not taking a dark ages censorship approach to academic freedom and intelligent design.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/05/addressing_a_mi096271.html

 

[BobRyan]

Unfortunately, the Anglican Church and its ministers have destroyed their own credibility by rejecting everything that they once stood for (including creationism). Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland (Church of Ireland closely related to Church of England) upheld creationism unequivocally, and his chronology is still well-respected. It was off by just a few years because Ptolemy's was off by a few years.

You have to wonder how the "Bible cannot be trusted" model of evangelism works for the church growth numbers in the denominations that choose that route.

 

[BobRyan]

Myths are stories that convey truths about the world.

As our knowledge of the world changes, our myths must also change.

"our myths" can change.

But God is "the way the Truth and the Life" - and His Word can be relied upon where as "man myths" cannot.