Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and The Young Earth.

TheFriendlyAtheist · Oct 19, 2017

I'm curious as to how Christians in general feel about young earth creationism and groups like Answers in Genesis. I know their views are among the minority of Christian thought but I don't know how they're regarded by mainstream Christians. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the idea of a young earth creation and of the proponents of that view.

Living Soul · Oct 19, 2017

Young earth creationists use the same methods of determining the age of the universe that secular scientists use. However, Christian scientists put God's word first and foremost in determining that age, where secular scientists will put material desires first and foremost.

Christians who are not YECs generally use a method often called "Bible Plus" in interpreting the book of Genesis, which basically means they like to add things into the Bible that aren't really there and read Genesis in a more metaphorical manner. YECs read the book of Genesis in a literal manner and take God's word at face value.

Speedwell · Oct 19, 2017

Living Soul said:
. YECs read the book of Genesis in a literal manner and take God's word at face value.

How do they manage to do that? It seems contradictory.

Ophiolite · Oct 19, 2017

Living Soul said:
Young earth creationists use the same methods of determining the age of the universe that secular scientists use.

I understood that the primary method involved some assumptions and a great many begats. Which methods of age determination are shared by YECs and secular scientists?

Halbhh · Oct 19, 2017

TheFriendlyAtheist said:
I'm curious as to how Christians in general feel about young earth creationism and groups like Answers in Genesis. I know their views are among the minority of Christian thought but I don't know how they're regarded by mainstream Christians. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the idea of a young earth creation and of the proponents of that view.

It brings to mind the actual only foundation for our real belief --

24“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

His: Matthew 7:24-27

Every other foundation is sand, then death.

Doing what He said = Life.

The deadly danger of young Earth creationism is when it seems to be the basis of faith.

It also can sometimes block some seekers from discovering Christ Jesus by diverting them away from Him, from His gospel.

Just like double predestination, it competes with the gospel.

pitabread · Oct 19, 2017

Living Soul said:
Young earth creationists use the same methods of determining the age of the universe that secular scientists use.

No, no they do not.

You will not find a single, independent method of dating the Earth or universe that corroborates the YEC age of everything.

PloverWing · Oct 19, 2017

TheFriendlyAtheist said:
I'm curious as to how Christians in general feel about young earth creationism and groups like Answers in Genesis. I know their views are among the minority of Christian thought but I don't know how they're regarded by mainstream Christians. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the idea of a young earth creation and of the proponents of that view.

I'm sympathetic to what young earth creationists are trying to do. They have more confidence in the Bible than in the scientific method as a source of truth, and they believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is young. I can understand that.

I disagree with them. I think that setting aside the scientific method has uncomfortable epistemological consequences. There are also some theological difficulties involved. But mostly I'm willing to politely agree to disagree.

I sometimes run into people who proclaim that a person has to be a young earth creationist to be a Christian. In those cases, I speak up and voice my objection, because this belief unnecessarily drives scientists away from Christianity (or drives Christians away from science, which is also bad).

Halbhh · Oct 19, 2017

PloverWing said:
I'm sympathetic to what young earth creationists are trying to do. They have more confidence in the Bible than in the scientific method as a source of truth, and they believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is young. I can understand that.

I disagree with them. I think that setting aside the scientific method has uncomfortable epistemological consequences. There are also some theological difficulties involved. But mostly I'm willing to politely agree to disagree.

I sometimes run into people who proclaim that a person has to be a young earth creationist to be a Christian. In those cases, I speak up and voice my objection, because this belief unnecessarily drives scientists away from Christianity (or drives Christians away from science, which is also bad).

Even someone who thinks the "days" in Genesis chapter 1 are actually individual real days -- such as myself -- and who thinks there were time gaps between the days...even a literalist like me who takes Genesis chapter 1 as being a vision about real days, snapshots in time (which the receiver of the vision could not really understand)...I would not dare to claim or even think to myself that my view is the only possible valid way to beleive in God as the Creator, and would never dare to suggest people guessing differently about what isn't in the text, details not given, are wrong because they guess differently than I do.
(Nor would I risk God's wrath to dare to judge people that take the wording metaphorically but believe in Him.)

I could be wrong. But it doesn't even matter either way! It doesn't even matter at all whether I got my guess right or wrong. Not a bit.

Like I think the sun is the 'light' on day 1 -- by God's plan and intention -- and also that the days were entirely overcast or mostly cloudy until the "fourth" day. This happens to fit some modern computer simulation of Earth's early climate for a long time period, with major cloudiness likely much longer than 1 billion years. But, even if correct, it's ultimately not really the point of the text, see.

It's not a mere history. Not the point. (see post #20 below for what is the point)

It matters that I believe in God, and Christ, His Son, risen, my Savior. And that faith will only last if it is on the rock as Christ said in Matthew 7:24-27, and not in any other way.

ViaCrucis · Oct 20, 2017

TheFriendlyAtheist said:
I'm curious as to how Christians in general feel about young earth creationism and groups like Answers in Genesis. I know their views are among the minority of Christian thought but I don't know how they're regarded by mainstream Christians. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the idea of a young earth creation and of the proponents of that view.

Depends. In general I think it is simply erroneous and misguided; but I think there are cases where it becomes worse than that. Ray Comfort, for example, is just downright embarrassing.

-CryptoLutheran

AirPo · Oct 20, 2017

Living Soul said:
Young earth creationists use the same methods of determining the age of the universe that secular scientists use. However, Christian scientists put God's word first and foremost in determining that age, where secular scientists will put material desires first and foremost.

Christians who are not YECs generally use a method often called "Bible Plus" in interpreting the book of Genesis, which basically means they like to add things into the Bible that aren't really there and read Genesis in a more metaphorical manner. YECs read the book of Genesis in a literal manner and take God's word at face value.

"The methods are the same. Here's how their are different." No wonder YECs are not taken seriously.

Living Soul · Oct 20, 2017

Halbhh said:
It brings to mind the actual only foundation for our real belief --

24“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

His: Matthew 7:24-27

Every other foundation is sand, then death.

Doing what He said = Life.

The deadly danger of young Earth creationism is when it seems to be the basis of faith.

It also can sometimes block some seekers from discovering Christ Jesus by diverting them away from Him, from His gospel.

Just like double predestination, it competes with the gospel.

Young earth creationtionists aren’t building on the sand of secular science. Using secular science, Christians must make the hypothesis that the universe and the earth are billions of years old because of what secular scientists have surmised about other theories pertaining to the origin of life on earth. These assumptions are the sand foundations that God’s word warns us about.

The assumptions used by secular scientists to determine the age of the earth and how life began on earth have been proven incorrect. YEC have seen this time and time again, and continue to enjoy basing their knowledge about God’s creation based on the rock of His word, not the sand of the ever-changing theories of man.

AirPo · Oct 20, 2017

Living Soul said:
Young earth creationtionists aren’t building on the sand of secular science.

That's because the sand of secular science is nothing more than a creationist fabrication.

Using secular science, Christians must make the hypothesis that the universe and the earth are billions of years old because of what secular scientists have surmised about other theories pertaining to the origin of life on earth. These assumptions are the sand foundations that God’s word warns us about.

That's not secular science. It's creationist jibber jabber.

The assumptions used by secular scientists to determine the age of the earth and how life began on earth have been proven incorrect.

No they haven't

YEC have seen this time and time again, and continue to enjoy basing their knowledge about God’s creation based on the rock of His word, not the sand of the ever-changing theories of man.

And continue to be wrong.

Halbhh · Oct 20, 2017

Living Soul said:
Young earth creationtionists aren’t building on the sand of secular science. Using secular science, Christians must make the hypothesis that the universe and the earth are billions of years old because of what secular scientists have surmised about other theories pertaining to the origin of life on earth. These assumptions are the sand foundations that God’s word warns us about.

The assumptions used by secular scientists to determine the age of the earth and how life began on earth have been proven incorrect. YEC have seen this time and time again, and continue to enjoy basing their knowledge about God’s creation based on the rock of His word, not the sand of the ever-changing theories of man.

We agree totally that to build up a new religion on science theories itself would be sand. I'll keep my faith in neither theory A nor in theory B, but in God. But, don't mistake the YEC is anything other than a theory, in that it presumes that no time passed between the days in the vision. That's a theory in effect. If you say 'no time passed between', but the text doesn't say that, then you have a theory. A theory isn't necessarily wrong, but it's a theory. It's not the word.

In your 2nd paragraph, you are saying 'assumptions', and it's a bit uncertain what you may mean, since I specifically understand from fundamental physics how a radioactive half life works. That's not....an uncertain thing that isn't well understood, but instead is well confirmed, like the properties of certain steel alloys are well confirmed.

We understand a lot about steel alloys and about radioactive half lives by extensive experience. Not guessing. Not "assumption". (my degree is in engineering physics, so half lives and how they work is straightforward confirmed reality to me)

For reference, I believe in God and Christ risen with full certainty, without even any doubt at all, which is unusual even among believers. This is because I've had prayer after prayer after prayer answered, including many outright miraculous and impossible seeming ones. (because I set out to learn what Christ said to do, and put His instructions on prayer, and His other instructions into practice; did you know He says at least 5 crucial instructions about precisely how to pray, several of them not at all optional? If you tried to make a batch of steel, and just didn't add carbon or other alloying elements....then without the alloy elements, you'd have something else, just some whatever iron mix, but not the steel you hoped for. If you believe, learn what Christ said in full, and don't go just half-way.)

God is as real as your hand, or the sun. Fear Him. (Luke 12:5 ...."Yes, I tell you..."

Jimmy D · Oct 20, 2017

Ray Comfort and The Young Earth

Sounds like an awful 1960's psychedelic band.

Goonie · Oct 20, 2017

Jimmy D said:
Ray Comfort and The Young Earth

Sounds like an awful 1960's psychedelic band.

Ah, yes, you must mean Ray Comfort and the Banana Men!

(warning some of this is entirely fictional)

Hieronymus · Oct 20, 2017

Living Soul said:
Young earth creationists use the same methods of determining the age of the universe that secular scientists use. However, Christian scientists put God's word first and foremost in determining that age, where secular scientists will put material desires first and foremost.

Secular science is basically naturalism (the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.) so they need huge amounts of time in their ambiguous models to give "chance" a chance.

Hieronymus · Oct 20, 2017

TheFriendlyAtheist said:
I'm curious as to how Christians in general feel about young earth creationism and groups like Answers in Genesis. I know their views are among the minority of Christian thought but I don't know how they're regarded by mainstream Christians. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the idea of a young earth creation and of the proponents of that view.

When i first found out the Truth i was very sceptical towards YECs.
As i was apparently taught somehow, i thought they were idiots.
But then i looked into it further, and now i find myself to be a bit of a YEC too...
The thing is, mainstream popular science is naturalism.
But i'm a supernaturalist, so i have little reason to subscribe to naturalistic convictions.

I have a playlist on youtube, which also contains a lot of creation science and evolution debunkings:
apologetics - YouTube
I think you can see it's much more than people just taking the Bible literally.
There's actually a lot of evidence for creation and a young earth, for the flood and more of those things that we're taught are fairytales.

Personal disclaimer:
I don't know how old the creation and / or mankind is.
But it seems to me the Bible is more trustworthy than popular pseudo science.

AirPo · Oct 20, 2017

Goonie said:
Ah, yes, you must mean Ray Comfort and the Banana Men!

(warning some of this is entirely fictional)

Can't put it on the internet if it's not true.

Halbhh · Oct 20, 2017

Hieronymus said:
When i first found out the Truth i was very sceptical towards YECs.
As i was apparently taught somehow, i thought they were idiots.
But then i looked into it further, and now i find myself to be a bit of a YEC too...
The thing is, mainstream popular science is naturalism.
But i'm a supernaturalist, so i have little reason to subscribe to naturalistic convictions.

I have a playlist on youtube, which also contains a lot of creation science and evolution debunkings:
apologetics - YouTube
I think you can see it's much more than people just taking the Bible literally.
There's actually a lot of evidence for creation and a young earth, for the flood and more of those things that we're taught are fairytales.

Personal disclaimer:
I don't know how old the creation and / or mankind is.
But it seems to me the Bible is more trustworthy that popular pseudo science.

The text of Genesis chapter 1 doesn't say what time may or may not have passed between each of the days in the vision. This is good to keep in mind, that we not represent differently than what is there. That we not use our own theories, either 4.5 bn years or 156 hours, theories, instead of the sublime text.

What is there is sublime.

Our added theories, such as the theory of no time between days, is merely an idea, so much less sublime than the text.

To use a analogy, a person might herself apply makeup to herself, if she wishes, but we don't want to rush up to the most beautiful living woman in the world and try to put makeup onto her.

No, we realize she is as she is, in herself, already, without us adding.

The real gifts from scripture come when we can truly listen.

As if you just woke up, in the very first dawn of the world!

Listening, like you would in the first dawn, rapturous.

Like you would listen if you could travel through time to nearly 2,000 years ago and actually hear Christ Jesus speak. You'd not want any doctrines then!! You'd want your mind to be utterly silent, doctrine free, and listen, listen with every fiber of your being.

Living Soul · Oct 20, 2017

Halbhh said:
We agree totally that to build up a new religion on science theories itself would be sand. I'll keep my faith in neither theory A nor in theory B, but in God. But, don't mistake the YEC is anything other than a theory, in that it presumes that no time passed between the days in the vision. That's a theory in effect. If you say 'no time passed between', but the text doesn't say that, then you have a theory. A theory isn't necessarily wrong, but it's a theory. It's not the word.

In your 2nd paragraph, you are saying 'assumptions', and it's a bit uncertain what you may mean, since I specifically understand from fundamental physics how a radioactive half life works. That's not....an uncertain thing that isn't well understood, but instead is well confirmed, like the properties of certain steel alloys are well confirmed.

We understand a lot about steel alloys and about radioactive half lives by extensive experience. Not guessing. Not "assumption". (my degree is in engineering physics, so half lives and how they work is straightforward confirmed reality to me)

For reference, I believe in God and Christ risen with full certainty, without even any doubt at all, which is unusual even among believers. This is because I've had prayer after prayer after prayer answered, including many outright miraculous and impossible seeming ones. (because I set out to learn what Christ said to do, and put His instructions on prayer, and His other instructions into practice; did you know He says at least 5 crucial instructions about precisely how to pray, several of them not at all optional? If you tried to make a batch of steel, and just didn't add carbon or other alloying elements....then without the alloy elements, you'd have something else, just some whatever iron mix, but not the steel you hoped for. If you believe, learn what Christ said in full, and don't go just half-way.)

God is as real as your hand, or the sun. Fear Him. (Luke 12:5 ...."Yes, I tell you..."

Without the presupposition that humans evolved from single-celled organism over hundreds of millions of years, there is no reason to suppose that the universe is billions of years old. In other words, the assumption that the universe is billions of years old is required in order for Darwinist and/or neo-Darwinist evolution to be true.

With that being said, with regard to the origin of the universe and life on earth, there is no reason to measure the half life of any given source without the presupposition that the universe and the earth are both billions of years old.

Also, nothing in the text indicates that any time passed between days, or that the word "day" means anything other than what the word means today. Adding in time gaps between days, and changing the definition of the word "day" just to appease the presuppositions of secular science are part of what I refer to as "Bible plus".

Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and The Young Earth.

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Episcopalian

Everything You say is Life to me

Confessional Lutheran

with a Touch of Grey

Active Member

with a Touch of Grey

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Not so Mystic Mog.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

with a Touch of Grey

Everything You say is Life to me

Active Member

Similar threads