If YECism is faith, where is its works?

[shernren]

Sidetrack from where a YEC said this:

Matthew 14:
29 So He said, "Come." And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus. 30 But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!" 31 And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"

Again, Christ does what man believes to be utterly against the prevailing knowledge of the day (and this day for that matter) and it is faith that is required, not “knowledge”.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23738997&postcount=35

My question is this: If YECism is faith, what is its works? For we know from the Bible that faith without works is dead. In the entire chapter of Hebrews 12 (which I have seen quoted against TEs) we are told that the heroes of faith "by faith" did things. So my question is,

What practical difference does YECism make?

Because I know that in my own life it made none. In the same way that TEism has made almost none. The one big difference it has made is to give me a mentally coherent and acceptable (to me at least) view of the relationship between God, science, and Christianity. Indirectly it is because of TEism that I can still be a Christian when I (God willing) become a scientist in future. But that is a relatively minor thing; if I were a YEC i'd probably just shy away from my fellows in the Geology, Paleontology and Biology departments, probably spend all day hanging out in the Chemistry lounge yakking about pi-bonds and such stuff.

Being a Christian has made a tremendous difference in my life. But within that being Christian, being YEC made no difference at all.

I am very curious to know if this is the case for others.

Are YECs any braver to do anything because of their beliefs? Not just choosing one dry idea over another dry idea, but actually living anything out.

I could think of a few things off the top of my head:

1. If YECs really believe that nuclear decay isn't as cut-and-dried as it seems, they should be full supporters for nuclear energy. After all, any estimates that nuclear waste is going to be "dangerous for the next three thousand years" are based on the same "uniformitarian" assumptions which inform radiometric dating.

2. If YECs believe that God would be cruel to use animal death to evolve things, they should be vegetarians. After all, they want to "be perfect as God is perfect" and God declared a vegetarian diet "very good" in Genesis 1. (Granted, He did permit Noah and co. to eat meat. But did He ever recommend it?)

Things like that. (And I'm not even going into Sabbatarianism ... )

If the "difference in faith" between YECs and TEs (which often makes YECs look down on TEs as "rejecting the authority of Scripture", "doubting the resurrection", "throwing away orthodox theology", Bible burners, etc.) does not produce any additional good works, then how can it be anything besides a dead difference in faith?

 

[ChetSinger]

Are YECs any braver to do anything because of their beliefs? Not just choosing one dry idea over another dry idea, but actually living anything out.

That's a fair question.

I could think of a few things off the top of my head:

1. If YECs really believe that nuclear decay isn't as cut-and-dried as it seems, they should be full supporters for nuclear energy. After all, any estimates that nuclear waste is going to be "dangerous for the next three thousand years" are based on the same "uniformitarian" assumptions which inform radiometric dating.

2. If YECs believe that God would be cruel to use animal death to evolve things, they should be vegetarians. After all, they want to "be perfect as God is perfect" and God declared a vegetarian diet "very good" in Genesis 1. (Granted, He did permit Noah and co. to eat meat. But did He ever recommend it?)

Things like that. (And I'm not even going into Sabbatarianism ... )

I don't think these examples apply, though:

AFAIK, nuclear decay issues among creationists involve speculation around different rates of decay in the distant past. I think everyone agrees on the rates we see today.

As for diet, both Jesus and Paul declared all foods clean.

If the "difference in faith" between YECs and TEs (which often makes YECs look down on TEs as "rejecting the authority of Scripture", "doubting the resurrection", "throwing away orthodox theology", Bible burners, etc.) does not produce any additional good works, then how can it be anything besides a dead difference in faith?

The biggest difference I see is when spreading the faith. People want to know whether the words in the bible can be trusted. Or not. They want to know if they can trust their lives to the bible's worldview. The world tells them that the history in the bible didn't happen. Many TE's say pretty much the same thing (see my thread on it). So if the history in the bible didn't happen like it claims, what else in the bible can be trusted? Any of it? Did Jesus really perform miracles, and rise from the dead? Or is that just storytelling, too? People are hungry to know whether the bible speaks the truth. When we had a creation speaker at our church for a three-night seminar, so many people showed up that we didn't have enough seats. Some folks stood for the entire seminar, night after night. Many of them weren't from our church at all. It was incredible. So when it comes to YEC belief, I do see works, particularly in evangelism.

 

[The thinker]

A common misconception of YEC's is that TE's don't believe in any, or many, of the miracles described in the bible.

I myself have no problem believing in miracles, after all I have witnessed many miracles in my daily Christian life. I only have a problem with a miracle if it is an event which should have left evidence but hasn't. As a result I come to the conclusion that there must be an alternate interpretation of the miracle described.

Just my two cents...

-WWC

 

[rmwilliamsll]

People are hungry to know whether the bible speaks the truth. When we had a creation speaker at our church for a three-night seminar, so many people showed up that we didn't have enough seats. Some folks stood for the entire seminar, night after night. Many of them weren't from our church at all. It was incredible. So when it comes to YEC belief, I do see works, particularly in evangelism.


and what is going to happen to their faith when they realize that YECism is lying to them? That world is not less than 10K years old, there is no evidence for such a belief, and no one who understands the issues believes it .

 

[ChetSinger]

and what is going to happen to their faith when they realize that YECism is lying to them? That world is not less than 10K years old, there is no evidence for such a belief, and no one who understands the issues believes it .

Well, I really can't answer your question, because I don't agree with the assertions behind it.

 

[charityagape]

People are hungry to know whether the bible speaks the truth. When we had a creation speaker at our church for a three-night seminar, so many people showed up that we didn't have enough seats. Some folks stood for the entire seminar, night after night. Many of them weren't from our church at all. It was incredible. So when it comes to YEC belief, I do see works, particularly in evangelism.


and what is going to happen to their faith when they realize that YECism is lying to them? That world is not less than 10K years old, there is no evidence for such a belief, and no one who understands the issues believes it .

YECism is lying to them why? Because it is absolutely scientifically, logically impossible for the earth to be less than 10K years old, correct?

I totally agree. All scientific evidence supports evolution. All logic and human understanding makes it laughable to believe that God created the earth in less than a week. There is no way that a literal Genesis account can coinside with what man KNOWS to be fact.

It is also scientifically and logically impossible that a man can be dead for three days and then simply get up and be alive. That goes against all logic and human understanding, a medical doctor who KNOWS about the decay of the human body and KNOWS about brain activity and well etc etc would laugh at the thought that a body could be dead three days and then be alive. It's an impossible fairytale that defies all known facts.

But its true, it may defy all known human fact, but both are still true.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

YECism is lying to them why? Because it is absolutely scientifically, logically impossible for the earth to be less than 10K years old, correct?

I totally agree. All scientific evidence supports evolution. All logic and human understanding makes it laughable to believe that God created the earth in less than a week. There is no way that a literal Genesis account can coinside with what man KNOWS to be fact.

It is also scientifically and logically impossible that a man can be dead for three days and then simply get up and be alive. That goes against all logic and human understanding, a medical doctor who KNOWS about the decay of the human body and KNOWS about brain activity and well etc etc would laugh at the thought that a body could be dead three days and then be alive. It's an impossible fairytale that defies all known facts.

But its true, it may defy all known human fact, but both are still true.

separate the issues of evolution and the age of the earth. there is no logical or necessary connection.

why confuse the age of the earth with the resurrection? again, there is no logical or necessary connection. to confuse and equate the two in your mind simply adds to the burden of trying to make sense of the issues surrounding the age of the earth. the resurrection is a miracle, science doesn't do miracles.

 

[charityagape]

Science doesn't DO anything in the bible. You can't pick and choose what's true to fit your mindset of what's possible.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Science doesn't DO anything in the bible. You can't pick and choose what's true to fit your mindset of what's possible.

i thought you were YECist, i'm sorry, i misunderstood you earlier. You're certainly right the universe constraints us to make our theories fit reality by constantly testing them against what is real. That is one of the great problems of YEcism, to set the possible via a priori reasoning, to try to idealize reality.

Although i really don't know what you mean by "Science doesn't DO anything in the bible. ", the truth of the rest certainly puts YECism in the sphere of pseudo science wantabees.

 

[shernren]

AFAIK, nuclear decay issues among creationists involve speculation around different rates of decay in the distant past. I think everyone agrees on the rates we see today.

But isn't it being a bit double-minded? After all, if scientists are so wrong about decay rates in the distant past, what makes them so right about decay rate predictions into the distant future?

As for diet, both Jesus and Paul declared all foods clean.

You're right about that. Thank God for meat!
But a little bit of logic leads to a different conclusion:

God abhors animal death. That's why the God of evolution cannot be the Christian God.
As God's followers we must love what God loves and hate what He hates. Therefore we should also hate animal death.
If we should hate animal death then we should not eat animals.
QED.

Isn't it?

The biggest difference I see is when spreading the faith. People want to know whether the words in the bible can be trusted. Or not. They want to know if they can trust their lives to the bible's worldview. The world tells them that the history in the bible didn't happen. Many TE's say pretty much the same thing (see my thread on it). So if the history in the bible didn't happen like it claims, what else in the bible can be trusted? Any of it? Did Jesus really perform miracles, and rise from the dead? Or is that just storytelling, too? People are hungry to know whether the bible speaks the truth. When we had a creation speaker at our church for a three-night seminar, so many people showed up that we didn't have enough seats. Some folks stood for the entire seminar, night after night. Many of them weren't from our church at all. It was incredible. So when it comes to YEC belief, I do see works, particularly in evangelism.

I'm glad for you and for the people who are brought to Christ through creationist seminars. However as rmswilliams pointed out, what happens when they find out that (to use concrete examples) the bombardier beetle isn't irreducibly complex, or the Paluxy prints aren't really human prints, or that a global flood can't explain evolutionary stratification in the geological column? It may not be a real concern to you but it may be a real concern to them. And whether or not those objections against YECism are true, you would have to agree that they are convincing to some people, and in reacting against what they feel as being misled, they might just turn away from Christianity altogether.

And my world of evangelism has been completely different: meeting people where, the moment you mention supporting creationism, you lose nearly all credibility instantly. At best it's considered a weird hobby like collecting pins (hats off to Terry Pratchett!); at worst it's considered full-scale anti-intellectualism on the level of Holocaust-denial. It is refreshing for them to know that it is possible to commit to the Bible without having to subscribe to creationism.

 

[ChetSinger]

But isn't it being a bit double-minded? After all, if scientists are so wrong about decay rates in the distant past, what makes them so right about decay rate predictions into the distant future?

Well, I didn't mean to begin discussing the issue of nuclear decay. All I was saying was that because YECs agree with everyone else regarding the current decay rates, that it doesn't trigger any differences in how we regard the issues involving nuclear energy today.

That is, it doesn't lead to a difference in 'works'.

You're right about that. Thank God for meat!
But a little bit of logic leads to a different conclusion:

God abhors animal death. That's why the God of evolution cannot be the Christian God.
As God's followers we must love what God loves and hate what He hates. Therefore we should also hate animal death.
If we should hate animal death then we should not eat animals.
QED.

Isn't it?

It sounds like you're trying to use logic to place a dietary burden on me that God himself didn't place.

Since I like bacon, pork ribs, and ham loaf, I'm glad I'm free to eat them!

One might ask why God lets us eat everything, while Adam was limited to fruits.

I have an idea on that. It's not directly supported by scripture, but does have a scriptural parallel. Jesus once said that while Moses permitted the Israelites to divorce their wives 'because of the hardness of your hearts', that from the beginning it was not so. Perhaps our current dietary freedom is like that. Perhaps God is just cutting us a break because we like meat so much. Just my own thoughts...

Back to your question, there are Christians whose literalist beliefs have led to them becoming vegetarians and adopting an 'Edenic' diet. But I'm not among them.

I'm glad for you and for the people who are brought to Christ through creationist seminars. However as rmswilliams pointed out, what happens when they find out that (to use concrete examples) the bombardier beetle isn't irreducibly complex, or the Paluxy prints aren't really human prints, or that a global flood can't explain evolutionary stratification in the geological column? It may not be a real concern to you but it may be a real concern to them. And whether or not those objections against YECism are true, you would have to agree that they are convincing to some people, and in reacting against what they feel as being misled, they might just turn away from Christianity altogether.

Who is never faced with some kind of crisis of faith? For many, it comes when they realize that the bible didn't come down from heaven on a sunbeam, but was assembled over a long period of time.

Certainly, there are creationist ideas which just don't pan out. Like dust on the moon, or the Christian myth about NASA astronomers discovering the 'lost day'. And right now, I think the pre-diluvean water canopy idea is having some troubles.

But that's how any scientific investigation of history works, whether biblical or secular. Some hypotheses just don't hold up. So you throw them out and move on.

 

[charityagape]

i thought you were YECist, i'm sorry, i misunderstood you earlier. You're certainly right the universe constraints us to make our theories fit reality by constantly testing them against what is real. That is one of the great problems of YEcism, to set the possible via a priori reasoning, to try to idealize reality.

Although i really don't know what you mean by "Science doesn't DO anything in the bible. ", the truth of the rest certainly puts YECism in the sphere of pseudo science wantabees.

Oh, no misunderstanding I am YECist, I'm just not scientifically YECist. Meaning that I don't try and twist man's science into some pretzel that will fit what God says.

I've study science, it is in fact one of my favorite subjects, and that science all does a pretty good job of indicating evidence for evolution, age of earth, etc.

Now I don't believe in a literal bible or literal Genesis because man, science, etc has given me any evidence whatsoever to believe, in fact just the opposite, I've seen plenty of physical evidence that most things in the bible are complete bunk.

I believe by faith, I find it no more difficult to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin lived a life telling of the kingdom and performing scientifically impossible feats, died and rose from the dead than I do that He created the world in six days.

I can't pick and choose which impossible things to believe based on what fits into my minds definition of what is possible and logical. And I can't use literary device as a convenient excuse.

I can't say this part (creation, flood, etc) didn't really happen (because we all know that's scientifically impossible) it's really just a fictional story meant to convey theology, but this part (Christ's birth, death, miracles DID happen (even though they're also scientifically impossible) because I wouldn't be a Christian if I didn't believe in Christ.

 

[charityagape]

I'm glad for you and for the people who are brought to Christ through creationist seminars. However as rmswilliams pointed out, what happens when they find out that (to use concrete examples) the bombardier beetle isn't irreducibly complex, or the Paluxy prints aren't really human prints, or that a global flood can't explain evolutionary stratification in the geological column? It may not be a real concern to you but it may be a real concern to them. And whether or not those objections against YECism are true, you would have to agree that they are convincing to some people, and in reacting against what they feel as being misled, they might just turn away from Christianity altogether.

It would be a crisis of faith, true. But no more of one (maybe much less of one) than say the death of a child. How could a loving God allow your child to die? You start asking questions like that and you might just turn away from Christianity altogether. You have to weather crisis' of faith and NOT turn away, you have to seek those answers between you and God.

And my world of evangelism has been completely different: meeting people where, the moment you mention supporting creationism, you lose nearly all credibility instantly. At best it's considered a weird hobby like collecting pins (hats off to Terry Pratchett!); at worst it's considered full-scale anti-intellectualism on the level of Holocaust-denial. It is refreshing for them to know that it is possible to commit to the Bible without having to subscribe to creationism.

I'm glad for you and for the people who are brought to Christ who would find it impossible to believe in a God that challenged there mental understanding of the world. It is sad though that they're subscribing to the Thomas school of belief.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It would be a crisis of faith, true. But no more of one (maybe much less of one) than say the death of a child. How could a loving God allow your child to die? You start asking questions like that and you might just turn away from Christianity altogether. You have to weather crisis' of faith and NOT turn away, you have to seek those answers between you and God.

the difference is that theodicy, both natural and human is an integral part of Christian theology. YECism is an introduced problem, it is not part of the system itself, but rather introduced from a misstaken idea of how science and theology ought to engage. As such, a crisis of faith over the age of the earth is not a God necessated one, like sorrow for our sins, but rather a human invention.

 

[shernren]

The Thomas school of belief? But we know from Scripture that the other disciples did not believe that Jesus had returned from the dead either:

While the two were telling them this, suddenly the Lord himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." They were terrified, thinking that they were seeing a ghost. But he said to them, "Why are you alarmed? Why are these doubts coming up in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet, and see that it is I myself. Feel me, and you will know, for a ghost doesn't have flesh and bones, as you can see I have." He said this and showed them his hands and his feet. They still could not believe, they were so full of joy and wonder; so he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of cooked fish, which he took and ate in their presence. Then he said to them, "These are the very things I told you about while I was still with you: everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the writings of the prophets, and the Psalms had to come true."
(Luke 24:36-44 GNB)

Even the apostles of Jesus demanded empirical proof for something as integral and fundamental to the faith as the Resurrection. Even they would not believe until they had seen His hands and His side (they needed more proof than Thomas, they had to watch Him eat too). And Thomas is not rebuked any more than being told to "stop doubting". He is only unique because he needed his own faith encounter with the evidence rather than to live off the faith encounters of others.

If even they needed empirical, hands-in-holes evidence to believe the resurrection, I don't know why I should feel any shame in demanding empirical evidence for YECism (unless of course I subscribe to apparent age theories).

Don't diss Thomas. He probably knew a lot more about how faith works than we do today.

 

[mark kennedy]

2. If YECs believe that God would be cruel to use animal death to evolve things, they should be vegetarians. After all, they want to "be perfect as God is perfect" and God declared a vegetarian diet "very good" in Genesis 1. (Granted, He did permit Noah and co. to eat meat. But did He ever recommend it?)

God was not only so cruel as to evolve things, animal sacrifices were the order of the day during the Hebrew Theocracy. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness as the Scriptures say. Not just any animal would do, it had to be without blemish or spot and often was the firstborn. It is also noteworthy that immediatly following the fall of Adam and Eve God provided them with coverings made from animals skins.

If the "difference in faith" between YECs and TEs (which often makes YECs look down on TEs as "rejecting the authority of Scripture", "doubting the resurrection", "throwing away orthodox theology", Bible burners, etc.) does not produce any additional good works, then how can it be anything besides a dead difference in faith?

The differences would not be the works of TEs and YECs as ministry applications. The difference is in the wonderfull works of God through redemptive history. Works that cause the children of God to praise Him and the demons to shudder.

 

[charityagape]

The Thomas school of belief? But we know from Scripture that the other disciples did not believe that Jesus had returned from the dead either:

UH, yeah, I didn't say anything about the other disciples, I'm aware of their need for proof and their unbelief. Ever here the word doubting THOMAS, just a figure of speech. Well and this verse:

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, :Because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

And while the disciples had the dubious benefit of proof that Jesus was resurected from the dead, we do not, we believe even though we have not seen (and have no empiracle evidence) and we're blessed for it.

If even they needed empirical, hands-in-holes evidence to believe the resurrection, I don't know why I should feel any shame in demanding empirical evidence for YECism (unless of course I subscribe to apparent age theories).

I never said you needed to feel shame, but there is very little in the bible, YEC included that there is empircal evidence for. So why the need to have empiracal evidence for creation but no need to have empiracle evidence for the impossible things in the bible that you do believe happened?

Don't diss Thomas. He probably knew a lot more about how faith works than we do today.

Again, not dissing Thomas, you're assuming, but he is called "doubting thomas" and there is John 20:29 that is a very important verse on believing what cannot be seen.

 

[shernren]

UH, yeah, I didn't say anything about the other disciples, I'm aware of their need for proof and their unbelief. Ever here the word doubting THOMAS, just a figure of speech. Well and this verse:

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, :Because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

And while the disciples had the dubious benefit of proof that Jesus was resurected from the dead, we do not, we believe even though we have not seen (and have no empiracle evidence) and we're blessed for it.

Ahh, my apologies. I was being a bit too literal. Personally I think it's unfair to call him "doubting Thomas", after all the rest of the apostles doubted too before they had seen the risen Christ face-to-face.

And we do have evidence for the resurrection: historical evidence. That is the basis why I, and the rest of Christendom, believe in the resurrection: history tells us that it happened.

Well, YECism can then go on to argue, Genesis 1 is "historical evidence" for the six-day creation. But I don't want to go there, that would derail the thread. My question has been given YECism, what difference does it make?

I never said you needed to feel shame, but there is very little in the bible, YEC included that there is empircal evidence for. So why the need to have empiracal evidence for creation but no need to have empiracle evidence for the impossible things in the bible that you do believe happened?

It is not so much that there is no empirical evidence for creation, but that there is quite a bit of empirical evidence against how YECs believe the creation must have happened. Again, I didn't make this thread to discuss evidence. I'm more concerned about the practicality of YECism and its faith.

Again, not dissing Thomas, you're assuming, but he is called "doubting thomas" and there is John 20:29 that is a very important verse on believing what cannot be seen.

I do agree with you on that. Sorry if I sounded overly hostile.

The differences would not be the works of TEs and YECs as ministry applications. The difference is in the wonderfull works of God through redemptive history. Works that cause the children of God to praise Him and the demons to shudder.

Firstly, empirical grounds and evidences which cast doubt on the six-day recent creation do not extend to casting doubt on any of the other miracles in God's redemptive history on mankind. I hope I have made that clear in the posts I referred you to on the "YEC theology" thread.

Having said that, secondly, are you implying that there is really no difference between the Christian ministry of a YEC and the Christian ministry of a TE outside the area of discussing origins?

 

[shernren]

Drat. I thought I'd replied but my post isn't here. Oh well, here we go again.

UH, yeah, I didn't say anything about the other disciples, I'm aware of their need for proof and their unbelief. Ever here the word doubting THOMAS, just a figure of speech. Well and this verse:

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, :Because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

And while the disciples had the dubious benefit of proof that Jesus was resurected from the dead, we do not, we believe even though we have not seen (and have no empiracle evidence) and we're blessed for it.

A figure of speech, eh? Guess I was reading it too literally! lols. well, come to think of it, I don't think it's fair to call him "doubting Thomas", after all he only doubted because he hadn't seen the evidence, and the others doubted before they had seen the evidence too.

I don't think their benefit of doubt was "dubious", and we do have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead: historical evidence. Precisely the same thing both of us have been quoting, the Gospels. and the validity of historical evidence is directly related to the validity of the physical and psychological evidence it records. In a way, while we believe not because we ourselves have seen, we believe because the disciples had seen and we have faith that God preserved their account for us. In a sense we see Christ through their accounts.

But I understand what you are saying here and I agree.

I never said you needed to feel shame, but there is very little in the bible, YEC included that there is empircal evidence for. So why the need to have empiracal evidence for creation but no need to have empiracle evidence for the impossible things in the bible that you do believe happened?

It's not so important to us that there is no empirical evidence for YECism. You're right, we don't have much current empirical evidence for the resurrection either. But what's more important to us is that there seems to be a lot of empirical evidence against YECism. To me believing in YECism given the current evidence would have been like the disciples believing in Jesus' resurrection even if the Romans had carted out Jesus' dead body and displayed it in the Jerusalem town square (or whatever equivalent they had back then). The disciples didn't have that kind of faith, God never demanded that kind of faith from them, and I don't think it would have been a very healthy kind of faith in any case.

As to whether there actually is a lot of empirical evidence against YECism, that's not the subject of this thread. My subject was/is that given YECism, what good works does it exclusively produce?

The differences would not be the works of TEs and YECs as ministry applications. The difference is in the wonderfull works of God through redemptive history. Works that cause the children of God to praise Him and the demons to shudder.

But can you show that someone who does not believe in YECism will not believe in those other wonderful works as well? As I have argued the fact that there appears to be evidence against YECism will not spill over into overly doubting the credence of other miracles, all of which happen on a much smaller physical scale.

And are you tacitly agreeing that besides the area of origins approaches in evangelism, the Christian ministry of a YEC and the Christian ministry of a TE will not have much difference based on those beliefs alone?

 

[charityagape]

Drat. I thought I'd replied but my post isn't here. Oh well, here we go again.



A figure of speech, eh? Guess I was reading it too literally! lols. well, come to think of it, I don't think it's fair to call him "doubting Thomas", after all he only doubted because he hadn't seen the evidence, and the others doubted before they had seen the evidence too.

I don't think their benefit of doubt was "dubious", and we do have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead: historical evidence. Precisely the same thing both of us have been quoting, the Gospels. and the validity of historical evidence is directly related to the validity of the physical and psychological evidence it records. In a way, while we believe not because we ourselves have seen, we believe because the disciples had seen and we have faith that God preserved their account for us. In a sense we see Christ through their accounts.

But I understand what you are saying here and I agree.

Thanks.

It's not so important to us that there is no empirical evidence for YECism. You're right, we don't have much current empirical evidence for the resurrection either. But what's more important to us is that there seems to be a lot of empirical evidence against YECism.

There's also a lot of empirical evidence against the possibility of a dead body being alive after being in a tomb for three days.

To me believing in YECism given the current evidence would have been like the disciples believing in Jesus' resurrection even if the Romans had carted out Jesus' dead body and displayed it in the Jerusalem town square (or whatever equivalent they had back then). The disciples didn't have that kind of faith, God never demanded that kind of faith from them, and I don't think it would have been a very healthy kind of faith in any case.

To me it would be like them displaying a very old and decayed body that would be extremely hard to identify and having the knowledge and word of the Romans vs what the messiah told them.

Although, I agree that it was much easier for the disciples to believe than for us today to believe, we believe in what we have not seen.

As to whether there actually is a lot of empirical evidence against YECism, that's not the subject of this thread. My subject was/is that given YECism, what good works does it exclusively produce?

Sorry, yes this has strayed far from the topic, what was the original example?

But can you show that someone who does not believe in YECism will not believe in those other wonderful works as well? As I have argued the fact that there appears to be evidence against YECism will not spill over into overly doubting the credence of other miracles, all of which happen on a much smaller physical scale.

And are you tacitly agreeing that besides the area of origins approaches in evangelism, the Christian ministry of a YEC and the Christian ministry of a TE will not have much difference based on those beliefs alone?

LOL, do you mean do I agree that you can be a "real" Christian without believing in a literal six day creation, of course I do. I just believe you're wrong. Also, I have noticed a tendency, at least in the people I've talked to (TEs) to not believe in other impossible things in the bibile like feeding of thousands, walking on water, etc.