The Origins of Young Earth Creationism

[AV1611VET]

It's the dividing line between young Earth worldviews and old Earth worldviews.

Funny how it looks progressive to me, isn't it?

I will say this though, I'm intrigued by academia today, who sees Flat Earthism in the Bible.

So it looks like Flat Earthism is making a comeback, but in the classroom.

Academia puts it down as a myth, but then is very thorough in making a show of it in the Bible.

As I said before, I'm sure that back then, science supported a Flat Earth cosmology as well.

Not necessarily from the Bible, but from raw observation.

My personal feelings about it, is that God gave Adam a personal tour of His six-day universe, and Adam passed it (round Earth) on by word-of-mouth.

Then later, when atheists showed up and started teaching their raw observations as open-end progressive truth, they taught that the Earth was flat.

Old Testament saints wouldn't buy it though, since they knew better.

But as time passed, and saints started embracing these "truths" of raw science, they started believing it.

The rest, as they say, is history.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Funny how it looks progressive to me, isn't it?

It suggests you're letting your expectations dictate your interpretation rather than thinking about what it actually shows. IOW jumping to conclusions. Lazy & careless.

I will say this though, I'm intrigued by academia today, who sees Flat Earthism in the Bible.

So it looks like Flat Earthism is making a comeback, but in the classroom.

Academia puts it down as a myth, but then is very thorough in making a show of it in the Bible.

As I said before, I'm sure that back then, science supported a Flat Earth cosmology as well.

Not necessarily from the Bible, but from raw observation.

My personal feelings about it, is that God gave Adam a personal tour of His six-day universe, and Adam passed it (round Earth) on by word-of-mouth.

Then later, when atheists showed up and started teaching their raw observations as open-end progressive truth, they taught that the Earth was flat.

Old Testament saints wouldn't buy it though, since they knew better.

But as time passed, and saints started embracing these "truths" of raw science, they started believing it.

The rest, as they say, is history.

The rest may be history, but that wasn't. Personal feelings are not history.

 

[AV1611VET]

It suggests you're letting your expectations dictate your interpretation rather than thinking about what it actually shows.

So I'm wrong then?

Atheistic Evolution came before Flat Earthism, did it?

(Note: In my opinion it could have, but that continuum shows otherwise.)

IOW jumping to conclusions.

So theistic evolution before geocentrism?

Lazy & careless.

So Progressive Creation before Young Earth Creationism?

The rest may be history, but that wasn't.

Then do me a favor, will you?

Put them in chronological order for me please? Thanks.

Here they are, according to that continuum, left to right:

1. Flat Earthism
2. Geocentrism
3. Young Earth Creationism
4. Gap Theory
5. Day-Age Theory
6. Progressive Creation
7. Theistic Evolution
8. Atheistic Evolution

Personal feelings are not history.

Then give me the history above my personal feelings please.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So I'm wrong then?

About what the graph shows? Yes.

Atheistic Evolution came before Flat Earthism, did it?

I don't know. Both date back to Ancient Greece and possibly predate it.

(Note: In my opinion it could have, but that continuum shows otherwise.)So theistic evolution before geocentrism?So Progressive Creation before Young Earth Creationism?Then do me a favor, will you?

Put them in chronological order for me please? Thanks.

Here they are, according to that continuum, left to right:

1. Flat Earthism
2. Geocentrism
3. Young Earth Creationism
4. Gap Theory
5. Day-Age Theory
6. Progressive Creation
7. Theistic Evolution
8. Atheistic Evolution

Then give me the history above my personal feelings please.

I'm not a historian.

 

[Frank Robert]

Belief in creation comes from scripture. Paul believed it and so will I.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting anyone should give up there belief.

 

[Frank Robert]

Atheistic Evolution came before Flat Earthism, did it?

Atheistic Evolution is a creationist misnomer. I don't know of anyone other than creationists who refer to evolution as atheistic. It was unfortunate that I glanced over it on the image, I should have blanked out Atheist.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know of anyone other than creationists who refer to evolution as atheistic.

I think atheists treat their label like the word "alien."

An alien, per se, is someone from another country; as opposed to native, who is from your own country.

Thus a Frenchman would be an "alien" to me in the same sense that I would be an "alien" to him.

But neither of us would consider ourselves an alien in our own country.

 

[Frank Robert]

I think atheists treat their label like the word "alien."

An alien, per se, is someone from another country; as opposed to native, who is from your own country.

Thus a Frenchman would be an "alien" to me in the same sense that I would be an "alien" to him.

But neither of us would consider ourselves an alien in our own country.

It sounds like your experiences have been limited. Some atheists, especially the "New Atheists" are vocal about not tolerating religion, most others are have no problem with religion and are frequently friends.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some atheists, especially the "New Atheists" are vocal about not tolerating religion,

Then they can move to another planet if they don't like it.

(Not really though. They need to stay here, so we can evangelize them.)

... most others are have no problem with religion and are frequently friends.

You seem to have a problem with someone using that term as an adjective.

 

[Frank Robert]

Then they can move to another planet if they don't like it.

Nice wish, but you shouldn't expect them to move over your dislike of their free speech.

(Not really though. They need to stay here, so we can evangelize them.)You seem to have a problem with someone using that term as an adjective.

If you are referring to my dislike of the term "Atheist Evolution" then you are right. I do when it is used as a self-serving misnomer. The term assumes that everyone who affirms evolution is an atheist and I believe you know better.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are referring to my dislike of the term "Atheist Evolution" then you are right. I do when it is used as a self-serving misnomer. The term assumes that everyone who affirms evolution is an atheist and I believe you know better.

Does this go for the source you quoted as well?

 

[Frank Robert]

Does this go for the source you quoted as well?

I was negligent and I apologize for using the image, I should have realized it would create confusion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

YEC waa the status quo of Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years. These 19th century Protestants didn't invent it.

This is a bit like saying that Geocentrism was the status quo of Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years.

Geocentrism was never religious dogma, though it was the popular assumption. A relatively young earth was a popular assumption, but never religious dogma.

Young Earth Creationism isn't the same thing as just believing in a young earth. It is a far more comprehensive approach to reading, understanding, and interpreting the Bible in such a way as to reach the conclusion of a young earth; specifically as a reaction against science.

Young Earth Creationism is to a belief in a young earth in pre-modern times as Flat Earthism is to a belief in geocentricity in pre-modern times.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Astrophile]

This is a bit like saying that Heliocentrism was the status quo of Judaism and Christianity for thousands of years.

Heliocentrism was never religious dogma, though it was the popular assumption. A relatively young earth was a popular assumption, but never religious dogma.

I think that you mean geocentrism, the belief that the Earth is at the centre of the universe with everything else revolving round it. Heliocentrism, the belief that the Sun is at the centre, only became a serious scientific hypothesis in the time of Kepler and Galileo.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think that you mean geocentrism, the belief that the Earth is at the centre of the universe with everything else revolving round it. Heliocentrism, the belief that the Sun is at the centre, only became a serious scientific hypothesis in the time of Kepler and Galileo.

Oopsy. My brain had a fart there. I've now fixed my post.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mr Laurier]

You opened a can of worms here, chief.

Here are the suggestions:

1. remove all God's children from off the earth
2. let a super-scientist appear, who will demonstrate abiogenesis by bringing an image to life
3. let said scientist require everyone to take a mark in his right hand or forehead
4. institute Scientism as a new religion

All very silly and nonsensical.
1-Removing nobody at all from the earth.
2-Bringing an image to life, would NOT demonstrate abiogenesis. And where would this "super-scientist" come from?
3-Why? What possible point to such a bizzare requirement?
4- Again... WHY?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Funny how it looks progressive to me, isn't it?

I will say this though, I'm intrigued by academia today, who sees Flat Earthism in the Bible.

So it looks like Flat Earthism is making a comeback, but in the classroom.

Academia puts it down as a myth, but then is very thorough in making a show of it in the Bible.

As I said before, I'm sure that back then, science supported a Flat Earth cosmology as well.

Not necessarily from the Bible, but from raw observation.

My personal feelings about it, is that God gave Adam a personal tour of His six-day universe, and Adam passed it (round Earth) on by word-of-mouth.

Then later, when atheists showed up and started teaching their raw observations as open-end progressive truth, they taught that the Earth was flat.

Old Testament saints wouldn't buy it though, since they knew better.

But as time passed, and saints started embracing these "truths" of raw science, they started believing it.

The rest, as they say, is history.

No atheist has ever taught that the earth was flat.
There are no old testament saints.

 

[AV1611VET]

All very silly and nonsensical.

Then let's hear your suggestions. (See Post 33.)

1-Removing nobody at all from the earth.
2-Bringing an image to life, would NOT demonstrate abiogenesis. And where would this "super-scientist" come from?
3-Why? What possible point to such a bizzare requirement?
4- Again... WHY?

1. It's called The Rapture.
2. That with be the Antichrist's job to convince his audience otherwise. He will come from an European coalition.
3. So they can buy or sell goods under a one-world government.
4. So he can get people to worship the Beast.

 

[AV1611VET]

No atheist has ever taught that the earth was flat.

You don't know that, do you?

There are no old testament saints.

Then there are no atheists in foxholes.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Then let's hear your suggestions. (See Post 33.)1. It's called The Rapture.
2. That with be the Antichrist's job to convince his audience otherwise. He will come from an European coalition.
3. So they can buy or sell goods under a one-world government.
4. So he can get people to worship the Beast.

So a lot of fantasy. Got it.
What suggestions? You mean promoting the display of cleavage in women's fashion?
(Saw post 33. Was not impressed)
1- So its a fantasy.
2- Your "Antichrist" is a propaganda term used to demonize an enemy.
It originated with the 2nd century campaign to demonize Nero.
And nobody can make an image come to life. So its moot. No audience is going to be convinced
3- There will never be a "one-world government". And what would anybody need a mark on their hand or forehead to engage in trade? It makes no sense.
4- An absurd impossibility. Nobody is ever going to worship any "Beast".
And so-called "scientism" will never become a religion
...