The Origins of Young Earth Creationism

[Frank Robert]

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.

I am not challenging your belief in God. Unfortunately, you are not the only one who confuses the ToE with OoL.

The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life

"A large percentage of United States citizens are either skeptical of biological evolution, or outright reject the theory (Miller et al. 2006). This resistance to evolutionary theory arises, at least in part, from the mistaken notion that biological evolution claims to explain the origin of life. This misconception is held by creationists, the general public, and students (Scott 2004; Pigliucci 2002), and it even appeared repeatedly in Justice Scalia’s opinion in the Louisiana evolution/creation Supreme Court case (Gould 1987). Wrongly confusing the initial origin of life with biological evolution interferes with students’ acceptance of biological evolution in at least two ways: (a) students often hold more tightly to a supernatural account for the origin of life than they do to a supernatural account for how the diversity of life arose, and (b) because no compelling natural explanation exists for how life originated, students also reject biological evolution. Importantly, scientists are working on fascinating and important questions regarding the origin of life (abiogenesis), but the field is currently distinct from evolutionary biology and falls more into the realm of the physical sciences (chemistry or physics)"​

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not challenging your belief in God. Unfortunately, you are not the only one who confuses the ToE with OoL.

Life began in Genesis 1 when God created the plants on the third day.

FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, I submit that God created the plants, then imparted [here it comes] vital energy [/there it goes] on them, and the rest is history.

Abiogenesis, per se, is a part of cosmic evolution that falls under chemical evolution.

A sneaky way of distancing life from how it got started.

Using that trick, one doesn't have to explain how life got started, and it, unfortunately, allows court rulings in their favor.

IN MY OPINION, the Antichrist is going to take abiogenesis out of the realm of chemical evolution, and place it in the realm of biological evolution so effectively (even demonstrating it), that a child will be able to understand it.

 

[Frank Robert]

Life began in Genesis 1 when God created the plants on the third day.

How many times do you need to beat a dead horse? I am not challenging your belief.

FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, I submit that God created the plants, then imparted [here it comes] vital energy [/there it goes] on them, and the rest is history.

No one is stopping you from dismissing scientific evidence in favor of your belief.

Abiogenesis, per se, is a part of cosmic evolution that falls under chemical evolution.

Chemical evolution is not Biological Evolution and as such it has zero to do with the LUCA.

A sneaky way of distancing life from how it got started.

Which is what creationist believe.

Using that trick, one doesn't have to explain how life got started, and it, unfortunately, allows court rulings in their favor.

You keep on regurgitating creationist misinformation.

IN MY OPINION, the Antichrist is going to take abiogenesis out of the realm of chemical evolution, and place it in the realm of biological evolution so effectively (even demonstrating it), that a child will be able to understand it.

Again you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions but you should understand that they are not shared outside of creationist circles. What do you find difficult about understanding that there are three branches of Science: Physical Sciences, Life Sciences and Earth Sciences? OoL falls under Physical Sciences and the ToE under Life Sciences.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions but you should understand that they are not shared outside of creationist circles. What do you find difficult about understanding that there are three branches of Science: Physical Sciences, Life Sciences and Earth Sciences? OoL falls under Physical Sciences and the ToE under Life Sciences.

I just gave you my scenario as to how life began apart from science, and you pass it off as "being within creationist circles."

Fine.

Then let science spend the rest of its life trying to figure out how life got started according to their limitations.

Just don't expect us to believe it.

I even went as far as to give the energy that kick-started life a name, lest someone come back and say, [shakes head from side-to-side] "But what did God use to bring something inanimate to life?"

How many scientists have gone to their graves scratching themselves to death wondering how life got started, and what started it, and how, when, where, and whatever?

Who were those guys who tried to kick-start life in a laboratory? Milton and Urey?

It took some fancy PR talk to rescue their failure.

 

[Frank Robert]

I just gave you my scenario as to how life began apart from science, and you pass it off as "being within creationist circles."
It is not science it is your personal belief.
Fine.

Then let science spend the rest of its life trying to figure out how life got started according to their limitations.

Just don't expect us to believe it.

Science does not claim to have answers or guarantee that they will. BTW, no one is twisting your arm to accept affirm the science. You are however encouraged to understand the science.

I even went as far as to give the energy that kick-started life a name, lest someone come back and say, [shakes head from side-to-side] "But what did God use to bring something inanimate to life?"

You still do not understand that OoL is not problematic for the ToE.

How many scientists have gone to their graves scratching themselves to death wondering how life got started, and what started it, and how, when, where, and whatever?

I imagine a few

Who were those guys who tried to kick-start life in a laboratory? Milton and Urey?

Two scientists.

 

[Yttrium]

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.

So you're saying that God created a mature adult universe. It might look billions of years old, but it's really young.

But then, as far as science is concerned, for all intents and purposes the Earth and universe in general are billions of years old. Every physical test we make will show billions of years even if it's really only thousands of years old. In that case, you can't really blame science for operating that way. You can have your 6,000 years in your religion, and science can have its billions of years in practice.

 

[Astrid]

So you're saying that God created a mature adult universe. It might look billions of years old, but it's really young.

But then, as far as science is concerned, for all intents and purposes the Earth and universe in general are billions of years old. Every physical test we make will show billions of years even if it's really only thousands of years old. In that case, you can't really blame science for operating that way. You can have your 6,000 years in your religion, and science can have its billions of years in practice.

Aah, the grim spectre of Last Thursdayism again raises its snout
from out the vasty deep.

 

[partinobodycular]

You can have your 6,000 years in your religion, and science can have its billions of years in practice.

But one still needs to explain how you can cram a whole lot of human evolution into just 6000 years. According to the bible that's just 76 generations from Adam to Jesus.

 

[Astrid]

But one still needs to explain how you can cram a whole lot of human evolution into just 6000 years. According to the bible that's just 76 generations from Adam to Jesus.

Maybe thetes a tinge of misunderestimation.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Life began in Genesis 1 when God created the plants on the third day.

FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, I submit that God created the plants, then imparted [here it comes] vital energy [/there it goes] on them, and the rest is history.

Abiogenesis, per se, is a part of cosmic evolution that falls under chemical evolution.

A sneaky way of distancing life from how it got started.

Using that trick, one doesn't have to explain how life got started, and it, unfortunately, allows court rulings in their favor.

IN MY OPINION, the Antichrist is going to take abiogenesis out of the realm of chemical evolution, and place it in the realm of biological evolution so effectively (even demonstrating it), that a child will be able to understand it.

Your opinion and $1.75, will buy a medium coffee.
Cosmic evolution is what happens to stars over their lifetime. It has ziltch to do with abiogenesis, or with chemical evolution

 

[Mr Laurier]

Who were those guys who tried to kick-start life in a laboratory? Milton and Urey?

No. They were Frankenstein. and Dracula.
And they were both fictional.

 

[Yttrium]

But one still needs to explain how you can cram a whole lot of human evolution into just 6000 years. According to the bible that's just 76 generations from Adam to Jesus.

For now, I'll take what I can get.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cosmic evolution is what happens to stars over their lifetime.

Negatory.

That's stellar evolution.

According to Harvard, here are the seven stages of cosmic evolution:

1. particulate evolution
2. galactic evolution
3. stellar evolution
4. planetary evolution
5. chemical evolution
6. biological evolution
7. cultural evolution

 

[AV1611VET]

No. They were Frankenstein. and Dracula.
And they were both fictional.

I'd say that's about right.

Except for one thing, Urey got a Nobel prize.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Negatory.

That's stellar evolution.

According to Harvard, here are the seven stages of cosmic evolution:

1. particulate evolution
2. galactic evolution
3. stellar evolution
4. planetary evolution
5. chemical evolution
6. biological evolution
7. cultural evolution

Then Harvard is wrong.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I'd say that's about right.

Except for one thing, Urey got a Nobel prize.

And Urey never attempted to kickstart life. So two things.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

This argument just reduces to a form of 'Last Thursdayism', the belief that God could have made the world anytime, including last Thursday, complete with its history.

Of course, it's a completely unfalsifiable proposition, and as such, irrelevant to our lives - except that whatever the claimed date of YEC creation, there are many independent lines of evidence that the world has a continuous history of billions of years - which means the entity that supposedly created it faked a vast amount of continuous history which we would not expect to see for a YEC creation.

'God works in mysterious ways' is far from an adequate explanation for what, under the YEC worldview, can only be a deliberately deceptive creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then Harvard is wrong.

I agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

And Urey never attempted to kickstart life. So two things.

Why did you refer to him as Dracula then, if he is a real person?

 

[AV1611VET]

- except that whatever the claimed date of YEC creation, there are many independent lines of evidence that the world has a continuous history of billions of years -

Only on paper.

My simplest example to explain is SN1987A.

According to science, its light took 170,000 years to reach us.

But God could have made the leading edge of the light of SN1987A and placed it 5990 light years away from the earth, and its source (the star Sanduleak) even farther.

So it goes like this:

1. 23 October 4004 BC, God creates Earth.
2. 23 October 4004 BC, God creates the light from SN1987A and places it 5990 light years from Earth.
3. 26 October 4004 BC, God creates Sanduleak and places it 1,020,000,000,000,000,000 miles from Earth.

Scientists err by using the formula t=d/s (time equals distance divided by speed).

Only on paper.