Are you OEC or YEC?

[Jadis40]

I believe in old earth creation...and the reason i do is based in the science of astronomy, one of the oldest of all sciences.

First, the lifetime of our own sun is calculated to be billions of years...scientists have placed our sun at the midpoint of its life, and by their estimates has at least 5 billion more years to go before it runs out of its supply of hydrogen and will start fusing helium. At that point in time, it will expand into an red giant, and will engulf the innermost planets, and will make life on earth impossible. We know also that some stars have shorter lifespans because of their mass, because they burn up their supply of hydrogen at a much higher rate than our sun, and thus have shorter lifespans. They then start burning heavier and heavier elements until they don't have anything left to "burn", as they process continues as the elements being combined require more energy than the star has. Some stars literally go out with a bang, because of how massive they are. The proof of this is all over the universe with the Veil Nebula, the Crab Nebula, etc. We also know that there are regions of space where stars are being formed. When we take the lifetime of stars as a basis of how the rest of the milky way galaxy (and as extension to that our own solar system and finally our earth came into being), I don't see any conflict there with how the earth and life on our planet then came into existance. The earth has to be a habitable planet before anything else can be done.

I still give God (who exists outside of the constraints of what we call "time") all the glory for the creation of the heavens and earth, because of the Law of Conservation of Matter which states that both energy can neither be created nor destroyed and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but only converted. It then follows that the elements that makes up the entire universe had its origins at some point in the past, and thus began the space-time continuum...before that point in "time", the universe, and therefore our solar system and all the planets, asteroids, etc didn't exist.

One thing that boggles my mind is this unanswerable question: If the universe is expanding (and I believe it is) then what is it expanding into?

 

[depthdeception]

One thing that boggles my mind is this unanswerable question: If the universe is expanding (and I believe it is) then what is it expanding into?

It is not expanding into anything. There is nothing "beyond" the universe, except for "nothingness." But as nothingness is non-existent, the universe literally creates existence as it expands.

 

[vossler]

I consider myself to be in line with theistic evolution. In other words, I do not see a discrepancy with God creating the universe by using purely naturalistic means and God being creator.

As such you shouldn't be posting here in the Creationism forum. Please check the posted rules!

 

[Sabertooth]

I voted YEC, but I would tend to agree with the one brother about YBC [Young Biological Creation]. However, I see no way to account for how long "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. [Gen. 1:2c]" between verse 1 and Day 1.

My rationale is given at http://www.christianforums.com/t842473-the-full-spectrum-of-christian-belief-on-origins-where-are-you.html&page=14#post17385842 #136
and
http://www.christianforums.com/t842473-the-full-spectrum-of-christian-belief-on-origins-where-are-you.html&page=15 #143

I believe in literal "days" in Creation Week with an example given for why from a previous post:

The following passage elaborates on Day 6:
"GE 2:4 ...When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, ... -- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Plants were made on Day 3 [see Gen 1:11-13], but by Day 6, "...no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up,..."

This means plants were created in an immature state, while man was created with some degree of maturity.

Further, if these were ages, instead of days, either the plants would have broken the soil or you would have some pretty hungry herbivores...!

Also, I can't figure out how [and why] someone would consider themselves a Christian, if their model doesn't include a literal Adam, Eve and Fall. What would they be "saved" from?

Sabertooth

 

[ixo1227]

I think I am a Young Earth Creation b/c



1) I am totally against Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation. There are a lot of books on that like "Case for Creator" by Lee Strobel.

2) I don't trust radioactive dating. There has been a study by the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) group that question how accurate radioactive dating is over a long amount of time. There book "Thousands not Billions" come next month

 

[Critias]

Also, I can't figure out how [and why] someone would consider themselves a Christian, if their model doesn't include a literal Adam, Eve and Fall. What would they be "saved" from?

Sabertooth

I suppose their line of reasoning would be that Adam and Eve stand for all people and that all people are sinful. They wouldn't be able to claim an actual event took place where sin entered the world but rather after we are born then we choose to be sinful.

There are verses that go against this line of reasoning, if this is what some TEs hold to. Psalms comes to mind where David talks about being sinful at birth, that he was born in sin.

I think many forget that Original sin does continue throughout time. It isn't that we are held accountable for Adam and Eves sin necessarly, but rather because of their sin we are born in sin. They brought sin into the world.

Personally, from experience here and elsewhere, TEs theology is like swiss cheese. They seem to need a constant patch to fill the holes they have within their doctrines.

 

[Crusadar]

I suppose their line of reasoning would be that Adam and Eve stand for all people and that all people are sinful. They wouldn't be able to claim an actual event took place where sin entered the world but rather after we are born then we choose to be sinful.

It could also be said that God purposely created us with a sinful nature, and therefore we would come to be dependent on Him for salvation. But if there are those who don't come to God for salvation then how could He hold them accountable for their sins if it is in their created nature? For if I were to create a product that wasn't safe who is the one to blame, the product or the manufacturer?

Personally, from experience here and elsewhere, TEs theology is like swiss cheese. They seem to need a constant patch to fill the holes they have within their doctrines.

It is very entertaining indeed to watch the dance that is done in patching up those holes, i.e. literal here, not literal there and so on - no consistency at all. I would say that the holes can never be repaired as they are intentionally made to be filled in with any whimsical theory that happens to be the most popular that comes along.

And yeah, its obvious that I'm a YEC - always have been to one degree or another - maybe it's just the fact that I like being ridiculed and scorned because I believe everthing that Scripture says. There's a spiritual war going on for crying out loud, so pick the side you want to be on and fight!

 

[oncelost]

I think the earth is very old. . . thousands of years old. I'm YEC. The model squares very nicely with the Bible and what Jesus said. I see OEC and, esp. TE, as unnecessary compromises.

I don't think we should be too dogmatic about it though. YEC is certainly apologetic in that it can strengthen one's faith in the Word, but too many folks insenuate that believers of OEC or TE are heretics. Frankly, I prefer to think of them as misguided, but I am not infallible, especially with historical sciences. I think the historical sciences are, by their very nature, subject to far more interpretation than operational sciences. If I could be shown overwhelmingly convincing proof that the Earth is billions of years old, I may change my mind. But, I see good proof on YEC side of the ledger, and proof of old earth is more questionable. So I side with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Flood geology is very persuasive (with only some difficulties). The notion that the earth's strata developed over many multi-million year eras poses far more problems.

The world places far too much value on radiometric dating, esp. carbon, which presumes an old earth. Many secular scientists admit that radiometric dating does not help their side of the debate for that very reason.

Astronomical arguments for an old earth seem to presume that either the speed of light is a constant or that God would not have created a star for us to observe.

As for biology, the TOE is a half-baked extrapoltion of observations that takes far too much faith for me. It boggles my mind that Evolutionists are offended by the distinction between Micro and Macroevolution (observable variation with natural or intelligen selection v. the unobservable extrapolation of one kind changing to another kind).

As for ID, it makes good sense to me. I still struggle with reconciling it with science. To what extent should appeals to intelligence (and most likely the supernatural) be discussed in science? On the other hand, when we can mathmatically show the improbabilty of a chance formation of vast amounts of information, and when the TOE is subject to so much legitimate criticism, I think ID should be discussed any time the origin of the universe or life is dicussed, science class or otherwise.

 

[Floodnut]

Wow, I expected to find more OECs here. lol

Perhaps the preponderance of YECs here is due to the heading of the Forum that appears to lean toward YEC. I get so bored with the same old OE, and nearly identical TE arguments and rejections of the simple sense of Scripture in a unabashed effort to accomodate the "established findings of modern science."

There is a place you can go to discuss the YE position without dealing with the same old TE PRATTs, but it is not here at CF, but at narrow-way.com.

I am YEC, and global catastrophist.

 

[Floodnut]

Howdy comrade... Hovind, well he is a bit goofy but I agree with him on very select parts of Creation.

I find his quote about the we are the magic rock apes..It is so funny when you read into it..I think he does it to antagonize hardcore evolutionists.

Any bold stand for the simple sense of Scripture as affirming YEC is an affront to those who want to be comfortable in their compromise and twisting of Scipture to accomodate the "established findings of modern SCIENCE." Our position, no matter how it is stated is antagonistic to compromise.

 

[Floodnut]

I remain a OEC. Because I believe that G-d is the Ancient of Days.

If you met a MAN who was 110 years old, you would consider him "ANCIENT." Ancient in the apparent chronology of the Bible is about 6000 years. Jesus defines the "beginning of the Creation" as the time of the Creation of Adam and Eve. So then, God is before the Creation of Adam, and God is the Ancient of days, and ancient in the biblical scheme of things is not the fiction of millions and billions of years, but it is the simply stated reality of about 6000 years. The earth is INDEED OLD. It is about 6000 years old, which is scores of generations of human lives in the past. That is ancient.

And if there was a school of supposed scientific thought that was asserting the earth to be 46 Billion years old rather than 4.7 billion year old, would the one holding to 4.7 billion years old now be a YEE (Young Earth Evolutionist). We must not arrive at the meaning of words by means of subservience to that school of thought which opposes the simple sense of Scripture.

 

[Floodnut]

I'm a YEC. I used to be an OEC, but AiG convinced me otherwise. Was that a mistake?

You can go back and forth all your life. Trust Jesus and settle that. As he said in John 7:17, Establish your comittment to the God of the Universe, then you will know where to stand on the rest. And likewise, decide and settle what you will do with the Lord from Heaven, the Second Adam, Jesus of Nazareth, and what you will do with his teachings --then let every thing else stand or fall with HIM.

 

[Floodnut]

Why would things dying (not being "killed off") throw a "wrench" into the macroevolution ideal? You are projecting a moral value onto a natural process (death).

It is not our projection. The Bible itself makes it quite clear. Death is not a mere natural process. Death came as a result of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Death is evil. Death is corruption. Death comes by sin. Death is an enemy of God. Death is not good. In the creation, every day was GOOD, and the only thing "not good" was that man was alone, and God finished his creation on that day so that the NOT GOOD went away, and God saw all that he had made, and behold it was VERY GOOD. There had been no death of animate creatures.

 

[Floodnut]

I said the order of things being created throws a wrench into the evolutionary idea. The reason being is that it conflicts with the order of the evolutionary idea. Be careful to not take a little bit of evolutionary thought and a little bit of biblical thought and mix them together so that it's just one big mess. To many people I run into do that. They try to take the best of both worlds and don't realize that they now conflict with evolutionary thinking and creationist thinking. I need to run to work but I'll check this thread tonight.

You are right 86, TE is not acceptable to people who take the Bible seriously and in its plain and simple sense. And TE is not acceptable to hard core gradualists, who insist that the logical conclusion is that if E is true then there is no need for T, so E effectively eliminates T.
You can't ride two horses at once, especially when they are going in opposite directions. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

 

[coolstylinstud]

Oec

 

[JesusDisciple]

YEC.
I have read many good reasons here of why you are YECs. It's encouraging!

 

[truthteller]

...I believe in an old earth and a young creation. I don't hold that the beginning as stated in Gen. 1:1 is the same as the first 'day' of the six day creation week. So, there needs to be a category for Old universe with raw earth and young biology with finished earth (YBC)....

Hello Keyarch,

I went and read your pdf document and the other link about this.

The re-interpretation of the six days as post-dating an old physical universe and an old physical Earth is contradicted by the fact that the sun, the stars, were created by God on the fourth day, after on the third day creating the grass, the herb, the tree yielding fruit, and so on.

However, you may find Russel Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology an interesting answer to your possible dilemna over some of the real science out there. In this cosmology, with which most Young-Earth-Creationists like myself are completely and perfectly comfortable, including its Biblical literalist compatibility.

--Alan