Can you believe in YEC and still be a scientist?

[rusmeister]

These things are implied by the statement "the world is only 6000 years old." One can use Russ's approach and make silly arguments that demonstrate that one doesn't actually understand how things are dated, but ultimately denying that the world is older (much much older) than 6000 years is akin to denying the holocaust or the moon landing. Those people get mocked all the time.

Hi, Isaac.

If you don't get that I don't need to be a scientist to understand what assumptions and calculations are, or that such things are in fact done in dating, then it's no use talking. Such an approach just says, "Oh, you're not an expert; you can't understand." And this is one of our troubles. Experts with narrow, specialized educations that lack the general education that enables broad understandings in general terms of any discipline, and as a result they can't imagine anyone else having such a general education. That certainly would explain why you think I don't have it.

I don't say or insist that the Earth is only six thousand years old, but I honestly don't think man is much, much older than that. This is one thing that gets mixed and matched in our different understandings. I can imagine a world that is very old, and a humanity that isn't. So at least let's not paint me broad brush with the hard-core YEC.

Now Jack is making a good point. We should be careful not to mock each other. We ought to be caring, even in our disagreement.​

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,
One of the hardest things, even for a scientist of sorts, to handle is things that

Hi, Isaac.

If you don't get that I don't need to be a scientist to understand what assumptions and calculations are, or that such things are in fact done in dating, then it's no use talking. Such an approach just says, "Oh, you're not an expert; you can't understand." And this is one of our troubles. Experts with narrow, specialized educations that lack the general education that enables broad understandings in general terms of any discipline, and as a result they can't imagine anyone else having such a general education. That certainly would explain why you think I don't have it.

I don't say or insist that the Earth is only six thousand years old, but I honestly don't think man is much, much older than that. This is one thing that gets mixed and matched in our different understandings. I can imagine a world that is very old, and a humanity that isn't. So at least let's not paint me broad brush with the hard-core YEC.

Now Jack is making a good point. We should be careful not to mock each other. We ought to be caring, even in our disagreement.​

Hi,

One of the most amazing items, that I had to learn in the upper reaches of science, is:

That if I can't teach it I don't know it.
If I can't teach it to a fourth grader what I know, then I don't know it, or I am a really really bad teacher.

Your statement of not needing to be a Physicist or have a Ph.D. is quite valid, in my working world. In fact most of the smartest of the smartest people, do not in fact have Ph.D.'s or work in Science.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

By the way. I saw an article that says if you put a little clay/dirt with trees and stuff, then bury it, add heat, within a very short time it is coal. Has anyone here been able to find and see if that video on that was or is a hoax or not?
I am sure you might be able to see why the question is interesting. And, to give other references, apparently I cannot say, that I am not what is normally seen as a Christian mystic, and in one encounter with Jesus, I was allowed to see and touch the casing of God, in which the entire known and unknown universe exists in. Outside of that casing is only darkness, and nothing.
I didn't need to know anything more from that incident, than what I learned, and it was not about the age of the universe or anything like that.
However, from what I saw, still I have no idea, if this earth is young or old, scientifically, as is commanded of us in Genesis 1:28 to do, with subdue the earth.

LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[jckstraw72]

so, in other words, you know we've said no such thing, and you're being rude.

 

[katerinah1947]

so, in other words, you know we've said no such thing, and you're being rude.

Hi,
Who are you talking to?
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

 

[Kristos]

These things are implied by the statement "the world is only 6000 years old." One can use Russ's approach and make silly arguments that demonstrate that one doesn't actually understand how things are dated, but ultimately denying that the world is older (much much older) than 6000 years is akin to denying the holocaust or the moon landing. Those people get mocked all the time.

Pretty much - and since no alternate explanation or theory has been proposed, then the standard YEC narrative IS implied.

 

[jckstraw72]

Hi,
Who are you talking to?
LOVE,
...Mary., .... .

Isaac

 

[jckstraw72]

Pretty much - and since no alternate explanation or theory has been proposed, then the standard YEC narrative IS implied.

who said that God planting dinosaur bones to test our faith, etc is a part of the standard YEC narrative? Can you even point me to any serious source that actually claims this?

It's rather odd that you are automatically lumping in your fellow Orthodox Christians with the worst possible strain of Protestant Creationism (if it really even exists as you claim it). Orthodox Creationism finds its grounding in Patristics -- where do the Fathers talk about God planting dinosaur bones? If they don't, why falsely attribute it to us?

a better route would be to ... ask us what we belive about such things!

 

[~Anastasia~]

who said that God planting dinosaur bones to test our faith, etc is a part of the standard YEC narrative? Can you even point me to any serious source that actually claims this?

It's rather odd that you are automatically lumping in your fellow Orthodox Christians with the worst possible strain of Protestant Creationism (if it really even exists as you claim it). Orthodox Creationism finds its grounding in Patristics -- where do the Fathers talk about God planting dinosaur bones? If they don't, why falsely attribute it to us?

a better route would be to ... ask us what we belive about such things!

Oh, I've heard it put forth. I've poked into all corners of the debates, and at one end of the spectrum ...

I used to live about a 3-minute drive from Kent Hovind's Creation Science place. I've been there several times. (And he was more reasonable than some of the more extreme views, btw. - I say that only because I don't want to paint anyone inaccurately.)

But it really is quite unfair to assume that because one holds a certain view or set of views, that one must automatically endorse other views that are not interdependent with them.

This is really one reason why I tend to stay out of these conversations. I DO have a background in science, I DO have opinions on what I was taught, and I HAVE considered things from nearly every point of view that was available 20-ish years ago.

It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth when the discussion descends into slurs.

 

[Isaac32]

Jckstraw,

Forgive me if I offended you. I shouldn't have mocked you. I am very passionate about this issue, but I am also impatient as well. I probably shouldn't have jumped into the conversation at all. Everything I said has been my honest opinion, but I could have expressed myself more irenically. I hope I can do better in the future.

 

[rusmeister]

Pretty much - and since no alternate explanation or theory has been proposed, then the standard YEC narrative IS implied.

Well, I, at any rate, have insisted that I am agnostic about the age of the earth, and that I do not insist on a precise answer of six thousand years; I do believe in margin of error and even historical gap, but not in the humungous ones painted by evolutionary science. So I am definitely NOT implying a mandatory standard YEC narrative. I also think scientists can be right on some things. But if the general method is wrong, then being right is only going to be being coincidentally right.
So if I can be cleared of that one charge, at any rate...

 

[jckstraw72]

Jckstraw,

Forgive me if I offended you. I shouldn't have mocked you. I am very passionate about this issue, but I am also impatient as well. I probably shouldn't have jumped into the conversation at all. Everything I said has been my honest opinion, but I could have expressed myself more irenically. I hope I can do better in the future.

no worries. and forgive me if i offended you. i'm moreso frustrated at how hard it can be to get a good discussion of this topic going!

 

[Boris89]

[Message deleted]

 

[Kristos]

who said that God planting dinosaur bones to test our faith, etc is a part of the standard YEC narrative? Can you even point me to any serious source that actually claims this?

It's rather odd that you are automatically lumping in your fellow Orthodox Christians with the worst possible strain of Protestant Creationism (if it really even exists as you claim it). Orthodox Creationism finds its grounding in Patristics -- where do the Fathers talk about God planting dinosaur bones? If they don't, why falsely attribute it to us?

a better route would be to ... ask us what we belive about such things!

LOL! Do you need a special invitation? - is there something restraining you even now? All of the YEC narratives sound crackpot to me - so categorizing them all as "standard" is more of a euphemism

 

[Kristos]

Well, I, at any rate, have insisted that I am agnostic about the age of the earth, and that I do not insist on a precise answer of six thousand years; I do believe in margin of error and even historical gap, but not in the humungous ones painted by evolutionary science. So I am definitely NOT implying a mandatory standard YEC narrative. I also think scientists can be right on some things. But if the general method is wrong, then being right is only going to be being coincidentally right.
So if I can be cleared of that one charge, at any rate...

Then you don't read Genesis in a strict literal manner that would require adding the numbers to calculate the age of the earth? If not, then what is the difference between how you read Genesis and how a YECer reads Genesis? You must believe that Genesis is true and in a sense literal, but there is nuance that seems to always escape the discussion here - so how would describe the difference?

 

[Chicken Little]

I thought it might be interesting to turn this around a look at it from another direction.

Is it possible to be a scientist (or scientific if you wish) and believe that the earth was created according the a literal timeline based on Genesis ie in 6 days around 6000 years?

What would your theory be based on? What data? What observation? How would you account for geological observations that indicate the earth is very old? Fossil remains that indicate that millions of species lived a very long time ago? Magnetic data that indicates that earth magnetic field is very old? etc, etc...

Is there any way to coherently, and scientifically fold this all into YEC?

great questions!!! I think they would never let that happen .. I mean they have all these things with timed tables before they even knew how dna works.. they have the events they see and now " ice age event " timed before they even understand what happened..Gobekli Tepe had a clock (beFORE) they had a clue what it was. it is Noahs ark and they are tearing it up now , so there will never be proof. their so called science it is a skinky joke. a huge pile of donkey dung.
because their fake science is just a way to create and alternative to biblical history. It clearly isn't about truth or much less provable truth. it is truly a joke! and no they will never let that happen. NOPE!

 

[rusmeister]

Then you don't read Genesis in a strict literal manner that would require adding the numbers to calculate the age of the earth? If not, then what is the difference between how you read Genesis and how a YECer reads Genesis? You must believe that Genesis is true and in a sense literal, but there is nuance that seems to always escape the discussion here - so how would describe the difference?

To me, at any rate, the answer is astoundingly simple. I don't read Genesis to calculate the age of the Earth.
I don't take what it doesn't say. I take what it DOES say. Then I ask how this has been understood throughout history, what the fathers and Tradition have to say about it. Finally, I look at everything else in our Faith and see how it fits. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin..." Tradition is crystal clear on this. There is no "alternative interpretation". There was no death before sin, and there was after sin. Anything which suggests otherwise is poppycock and a lie, however sophisticated in appearance.

All of that supports special creation of man as an initially sinless being already having will and consciousness and knowing nothing of sin or death, and nothing supports the evolutionary view of man in a world full of death prior to the Fall. The Genesis account even goes out of its way to affirm that "the evening and the morning were the first day", etc, making it even harder to try to suggest allegorical or other literary devices for the meaning of day. The author bloody defines the word "day" right in the text, evidently, in the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "...for just such an emergency." It makes it really, really hard for me to get behind the allegorizers. Maybe there's something I don't know to account for time gaps. But there's nothing in Scripture to make claims for them.

 

[jckstraw72]

LOL! Do you need a special invitation? - is there something restraining you even now? All of the YEC narratives sound crackpot to me - so categorizing them all as "standard" is more of a euphemism

oh look. an evolutionist chose to mock rather than engage. this is me surprised :O

 

[ArmyMatt]

To me, at any rate, the answer is astoundingly simple. I don't read Genesis to calculate the age of the Earth.
I don't take what it doesn't say. I take what it DOES say. Then I ask how this has been understood throughout history, what the fathers and Tradition have to say about it. Finally, I look at everything else in our Faith and see how it fits. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin..." Tradition is crystal clear on this. There is no "alternative interpretation". There was no death before sin, and there was after sin. Anything which suggests otherwise is poppycock and a lie, however sophisticated in appearance.

All of that supports special creation of man as an initially sinless being already having will and consciousness and knowing nothing of sin or death, and nothing supports the evolutionary view of man in a world full of death prior to the Fall. The Genesis account even goes out of its way to affirm that "the evening and the morning were the first day", etc, making it even harder to try to suggest allegorical or other literary devices for the meaning of day. The author bloody defines the word "day" right in the text, evidently, in the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "...for just such an emergency." It makes it really, really hard for me to get behind the allegorizers. Maybe there's something I don't know to account for time gaps. But there's nothing in Scripture to make claims for them.

well said, rus

 

[Isaac32]

oh look. an evolutionist chose to mock rather than engage. this is me surprised :O

Correct me if I am wrong, Jesse, but it seems as though the only thing that would sway you on this topic would be the Fathers, right? If this is the case, then there seems to be no reason to engage. There is an impasse of sorts. One-thousand years from now, there might be among the fathers some who accept theistic evolution to which people like Kristos will be able to appeal, but we won't be here to see it.

 

[rusmeister]

I shouldn't have tried to delete the duplicate post.
The trouble with what you are saying here Isaac, is that there is a pretty clear consensus among the fathers about this. What you are here suggesting is that they might change, that is reverse, their consensus over time.

What can we say if you individual can choose to reject that consensus at will? That isn't Tradition, it isn't Orthodox. It is the protestant ascendancy of individualism. We need the dead people to correct our living arrogance.