The Origins of Young Earth Creationism

[Mr Laurier]

You don't know that, do you?Then there are no atheists in foxholes.

Tell the defenders of Stalingrad.

 

[AV1611VET]

So a lot of fantasy. Got it.

I'm waiting for your suggestions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell the defenders of Stalingrad.

I'll pass.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I'm waiting for your suggestions.

for?

 

[AV1611VET]

for?

Your suggestions.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Your suggestions.

Suggestions for my suggestions?
Ok... maybe you could list a few of my suggestions.

 

[Torah Keeper]

The Mayans thought the world was created in 3114 BC. Lots of other cultures had similar "young" dates for the creation of Earth.

If you add up the dates in the Bible working backwards from known events, the world is only about 6,000 years old.

Ussher calculated the year of creation at 4,004 BC. Many others come up with very similar dates.

The idea that the world looks old is based on presuppostions. For example, you may assume the Earth must be older than x years, because you assume some geologic feature took x years to form. Well, maybe God just made that geologic feature. It's like saying, "We know this beach is x years old, because these rocks erode at a rate of y per year...."

But you assume God cannot make a beach.

As AV1661VET pointed out, God can make whatever He wants. He is not limited by naturalistic processes. When God wants to make a beach, He makes a beach. He doesn't need to make the cliffs of Dover and then have to wait patiently for the cliffs to erode over millions of years. He can just make it.

Even creationists are guilty of these presuppositions. For example, saying there was no coal or oil before the great flood because all the coal and oil is assumed to have formed in the flood. But God can make coal and oil if He wants. What proof do you have that God did not make any coal or oil in the original creation? The only proof is "We know because coal and oil are formed by natural processes...."

But it's circular reasoning. It's like saying "We know because we know". No you don't know. You were not there when the world was created to see what God made.

Saying "God did it" isn't an excuse because we don't understand natural processes. Rather, we say "God did it" because we believe the "natural processes" are in fact under God's control, and He is above the laws of nature itself, being their Creator. He can do anything.

To be fair, Atheists believe in the "miracle" of abiogenesis. This was proven a myth by Louis Pasteur. Everyone, including Atheists, knows that abiogenesis is impossible. But their faith is strong enough for them to say with confidence, "Nature did it". And how does that compare when we say "God did it"?

If you assume God needed billions of years to create the world, then you are limiting God and contradicting the Bible, which clearly states that death is the result of sin. Theistic evolution puts death before sin, along with a whole bunch of other problems that cannot possibly align with the Bible.

In summary, we are free to choose what we believe is true, based on our own study, experiences, and rationale. And I choose to believe that God created the world about 6,000 years ago.

 

[Mr Laurier]

*snip*
To be fair, Atheists believe in the "miracle" of biogenesis.
*snip*
.

As an atheist, I do not believe in this ""miracle" of biogenesis." that you invoke.
Indeed I do not even know what it is.

PS. I looked it up
Biogenesis is simply life derived from life.
No miracle involved. And no believing required. Living mothers give birth to living children all the time.
That is what biogenesis is.
Living things giving rise to other living things.

 

[Torah Keeper]

As an atheist, I do not believe in this ""miracle" of biogenesis." that you invoke.
Indeed I do not even know what it is.

PS. I looked it up
Biogenesis is simply life derived from life.
No miracle involved. And no believing required. Living mothers give birth to living children all the time.
That is what biogenesis is.
Living things giving rise to other living things.

I meant abiogenesis. I will edit that. Thanks.

But think about what you just wrote. Life always comes from life. The source of all life must therefore be an eternally existant God. If life creates itself from nothing, that was the "miracle" I was talking about it.

 

[Frank Robert]

I meant abiogenesis. I will edit that. Thanks.

But think about what you just wrote. Life always comes from life. The source of all life must therefore be an eternally existant God. If life creates itself from nothing, that was the "miracle" I was talking about it.

Whatever atheists or anyone else thinks or believes about iatrogenesis is not affect evolution because the ToE begins with life, i.e. the LUCA our last universal common ancestor.

 

[Ophiolite]

But think about what you just wrote. Life always comes from life.

Complex life, such as zebras, escherichia coli and fucus serratus are examples of life forms that came from closely similar life forms. However, the simpler life that preceded their ancestral forms, coming from even simpler forms, in all likelihood came from non-life. Many plausible roots from non-life to life have been proposed. Feel free to select any one of them and explain why it is not plausible. I'm ready to listen to your argument.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'll pass.

Eventually, all of us do.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But think about what you just wrote. Life always comes from life.

But it doesn't. At some point life came from non-life regardless of whether it was your god that made that happen.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Whatever atheists or anyone else thinks or believes about iatrogenesis is not affect evolution because the ToE begins with life, i.e. the LUCA our last universal common ancestor.

And I believe it begins with God creating. Not slime evolving. But your point just dodges the question of how life began. Without that foundation, your whole theory is suspect.

Complex life, such as zebras, escherichia coli and fucus serratus are examples of life forms that came from closely similar life forms. However, the simpler life that preceded their ancestral forms, coming from even simpler forms, in all likelihood came from non-life. Many plausible roots from non-life to life have been proposed. Feel free to select any one of them and explain why it is not plausible. I'm ready to listen to your argument.

You use terms like "in all likelihood", "plausible", and "proposed". Feel free to prove abiogenesis. My argument is "God made life".

But it doesn't. At some point life came from non-life regardless of whether it was your god that made that happen.

Nope. God is unique in that He has no beginning or end. He is eternal and outside and above time itself. God didn't come from anywhere. He always was, always is, and always will be. He is the source of all life. So life never came from non-life.

 

[trophy33]

But it doesn't. At some point life came from non-life regardless of whether it was your god that made that happen.

Science does not know how biological life came to be, yet.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Nope. God is unique in that He has no beginning or end. He is eternal and outside and above time itself. God didn't come from anywhere. He always was, always is, and always will be. He is the source of all life. So life never came from non-life.

God doesn't respire. God doesn't reproduce. God doesn't take in energy nor expel waste. In no sense is your god alive. Thus life came from non-life.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Science does not know how life came to be, yet.

The only alternative to life-from-non-life is an infinite regression of life. We don't know how life cam from non-life, but we know it almost certainly did.

 

[trophy33]

The only alternative to life-from-non-life is an infinite regression of life. We don't know how life cam from non-life, but we know it almost certainly did.

Hard to say, we do not know. Hopefully we will make some discoveries in the future. Not just about how biologial life came to be, but about the nature of all our reality as such.

 

[Ophiolite]

You use terms like "in all likelihood", "plausible", and "proposed". Feel free to prove abiogenesis. My argument is "God made life".

Of course I use such constrained terms. To do otherwise would be presumptuous and ignorant. I would very much like to "know" the truth of the origin of life, but I am perfectly comfortable to wiat until hypotheses are tested, modified, sometimes abandoned, till finally one emerges that provides the most telling explanation for that origin.

i judge from your posts that you have some familiarity with evolutionary theory. Therefore, you almost certainly no that science does not "prove" anything. Challenging me to do so looks uncommonly like goading. That is against forum rules. Please desist.

"God is life", is not an argument. It is a statement. It is a belief. (There is nothing wrong with statement, or beliefs, but there is something wrong in trying to pass them off as arguments.) I ask you again, take any of the hypotheses proposed for abiogenesis and lay out your reasoned argument for why you think it is not plausible.

 

[AV1611VET]

God doesn't respire. God doesn't reproduce. God doesn't take in energy nor expel waste. In no sense is your god alive. Thus life came from non-life.

Perhaps our myopic definition of "life"* needs an upgrade?

* The definition of life, according to one poster here:

At the level of chemistry & physics it's just a complex redox reaction sequence that extends the approach to thermal equilibrium by using low entropy energy sources.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I meant abiogenesis. I will edit that. Thanks.

But think about what you just wrote. Life always comes from life. The source of all life must therefore be an eternally existant God. If life creates itself from nothing, that was the "miracle" I was talking about it.

Ah. A typo got past you. That happens.

Today life derives from life. 4 billion years ago, it derived from proto life.

Why must the source of all life be an eternally existent goD?

Big If. You have yet to show that life DOES create itself from nothing.
This far the evidence is against you.
The weight of evidence suggests that life is an emergent property of organic chemistry. Life deriving from proto life. Itself deriving from ongoing chemical reactions that we still observe today. No miracle needed.