Millennials Turn Away From Creationism

[Jonaitis]

I would not equate believing that the earth is 6000 years old as a doctrine. With the doctrine of believing that Jesus rose on the third day.

One is an interpretation of the scripture and the other is the primary doctrine of Christianity.

Not believing in Jesus Christ is a profound rejection of absolute truth.

Whether the Genesis account of creation is a literal truth is another question all together.

I see primary doctrines connected with creationism. If human evolution correct, then you would have to rewrite the fall and the consequences of it. For an example, what is sin? Is it disobedience to God, stemmed from the corrupt nature we inherited from our first parents, or is it some innate animal behavior that is not necessarily immoral? How about death? Scripture says it is the result of the fall, and that Christ redeems us from both spiritual and physical death, reversing the effects of the fall. Or has death always existed since a day is not literally a day, and Adam wasn't a literal person born on a single day? These are a few examples. It runs against redemption all around.

 

[klutedavid]

I see primary doctrines connected with creationism. If human evolution correct, then you would have to rewrite the fall and the consequences of it. For an example, what is sin? Is it disobedience to God, stemmed from the corrupt nature we inherited from our first parents, or is it some innate animal behavior that is not necessarily immoral? How about death? Scripture says it is the result of the fall, and that Christ redeems us from both spiritual and physical death, reversing the effects of the fall. Or has death always existed since a day is not literally a day, and Adam wasn't a literal person born on a single day? These are a few examples. It runs against redemption left and right.

What you said is only true, if you hold to a church doctrine declaring a 6000 year old earth.

The planet and life can be much older than a mere 6000 years but that does not detract from the reality of Adam and Eve.

Your actually placing the emphasis on the Biblical genealogy and assuming that the genealogy is accurate.

 

[Jonaitis]

What you said is only true, if you hold to a church doctrine declaring a 6000 year old earth.

The planet and life can be much older than a mere 6000 years but that does not detract from the reality of Adam and Eve.

Your actually placing the emphasis on the Biblical genealogy and assuming that the genealogy is accurate.

Yes, I do believe the genealogy in the bible is accurate because I believe the bible is the inspired word of God. It seems consistent, doesn't it? I'm not the only one who places emphasis on biblical genealogy, so did the people in the bible.

If you believe that the earth is tens of thousands, if not millions, of years old...you're either assuming that the history in Genesis has huge gaps (which you can't do since all the events therein is chronologically in order from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Joseph), or you are assuming an evolutionary process of our kind. If neither, then what?

 

[Neogaia777]

I see primary doctrines connected with creationism. If human evolution correct, then you would have to rewrite the fall and the consequences of it. For an example, what is sin? Is it disobedience to God, stemmed from the corrupt nature we inherited from our first parents, or is it some innate animal behavior that is not necessarily immoral?

It was when we first betrayed ourselves, or started betraying ourselves, and held to that from that point onward...

More than likely happened during tribal times, when we first began to abandon a "pure form" or socialism, or communism, or tribalism, etc, a "pure form of it", etc...

How about death? Scripture says it is the result of the fall, and that Christ redeems us from both spiritual and physical death, reversing the effects of the fall. Or has death always existed since a day is not literally a day, and Adam wasn't a literal person born on a single day? These are a few examples. It runs against redemption all around.

The fall, as I described above, is the day that we "spiritually died" and is what Christ came to reverse or restore, physical death, or death in this life and in this world, has always existed... But our being restored in the afterlife, is what really needed to be fixed the most, etc... That is what our "sin" really costed us, etc...

Which Adam and Eve and the Garden, etc could be an "allegory" of maybe...?

Or there could have been a literal Garden, with a literal Adam and Eve, etc, that were a "special creation" that stopped being a "special creation", etc...

At any rate, when they (Adam and Eve) wound up "here", they began to die, both physically and spiritually...

Really though, you should explore these things and these questions for yourself though, and not discount any kind of "theories" just outright though, and not deny very clear scientific truth, or basic logic and reason, etc...

Cause that's where some of us could use some "help", etc...

But I guess that's maybe just "too much to ask", right...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Jonaitis]

It was when we first betrayed ourselves, or started betraying ourselves, and held to that from that point onward...

More than likely happened during tribal times, when we first began to abandon a "pure form" or socialism, or communism, or tribalism, etc, a "pure form of it", etc...



The fall, as I described above, is the day that we "spiritually died" and is what Christ came to reverse or restore, physical death, or death in this life and in this world, has always existed... But our being restored in the afterlife, is what really needed to be fixed the most, etc... That is what our "sin" really costed us, etc...

Which Adam and Eve and the Garden, etc could be an "allegory" of maybe...?

Or there could have been a literal Garden, with a literal Adam and Eve, etc, that were a "special creation" that stopped being a "special creation", etc...

At any rate, when they (Adam and Eve) wound up "here", they began to die, both physically and spiritually...

Really though, you should explore these things and these questions for yourself though, and not discount any kind of "theories" just outright though, and not deny very clear scientific truth, or basic logic and reason, etc...

Cause that's where some of us could use some "help", etc...

But I guess that's maybe just "too much to ask", right...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

How about we just stick with what Scripture says instead of forcing these views into it? It is dishonest to the text and the author of it. I'm all for studying all things, but I am not for accepting all things.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes, I do believe the genealogy in the bible is accurate because I believe the bible is the inspired word of God. It seems consistent, doesn't it? I'm not the only one who places emphasis on biblical genealogy, so did the people in the bible.

If you believe that the earth is tens of thousands, if not millions, of years old...you're either assuming that the history in Genesis has huge gaps (which you can't do since all the events therein is chronologically in order from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Joseph), or you are assuming an evolutionary process of our kind. If neither, then what?

See my posts in this thread starting here with this one and the ones after it up to my last one there, please, K...?

Is there a denomination that accepts theistic evolution/old earth?

And then these in this thread here:

Genesis and Creation, Days are long "ages" ect...?

Genesis and Creation, Days are long "ages" ect...?

That's just for starters, K...?

Much thanks,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

How about we just stick with what Scripture says instead of forcing these views into it? It is dishonest to the text and the author of it. I'm all for studying all things, but I am not for accepting all things.

You don't believe the earth is any more than, at the most, more than 6,000 years old, do you...?

Not to mention the Heavens either, right...?

God Bless!

 

[Jonaitis]

You don't believe the earth is any more than, at the most, more than 6,000 years old, do you...?

Not to mention the Heavens either, right...?

God Bless!

Yes, I believe the earth is about 6,000 years old. I've never held any other view since the day I was saved.

 

[Neogaia777]

If He created it all in a literal six days or in a moment of time, or even 6 days or 6,000 years or whatever, then why did He do so with the appearance of it all being around a lot, lot longer than that, and appearing to be much, much older than that...?

This is what the young people have a very hard time reconciling and why they do not believe in the Bible anymore, if any of you really care about that at all that is, etc...?

And they get "no help" at all from any of you on it, etc, so they abandon it, etc, and "whose fault is that", etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes, I believe the earth is about 6,000 years old. I've never held any other view since the day I was saved.

Well good for you...? (see post just above this please)... (and please at least check out the links I gave you also please)...

God Bless!

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, I do believe the genealogy in the bible is accurate because I believe the bible is the inspired word of God.

I do not regard the genealogy as a literal representation of the genealogy of mankind.

It seems consistent, doesn't it? I'm not the only one who places emphasis on biblical genealogy, so did the people in the bible.

As an overview of the history of mankind it is accurate, but not in a literal, historical way.

For example, Jericho is one of the oldest cities in the world ever to be studied by archaeologists.

Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of more than 20 successive settlements in Jericho, the first of which dates back 11,000 years (9000 BCE), almost to the very beginning of the Holocene epoch of the Earth's history. (wikipedia)

The date of the these early settlements in Jericho far exceeds a date of less than 6000 years old. Not even a Biblical archaeologist will argue with this dating of Jericho.

If you believe that the earth is tens of thousands, if not millions, of years old...you're either assuming that the history in Genesis has huge gaps (which you can't do since all the events therein is chronologically in order from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Joseph), or you are assuming an evolutionary process of our kind. If neither, then what?

I do not believe in a literal, historical view of Biblical genealogy. Nor do I believe in the scientific explanation of life or even the age of the universe. I have no opinion on these issues.

 

[pitabread]

Yes, I believe the earth is about 6,000 years old. I've never held any other view since the day I was saved.

I'd be curious as to what you think of this article: Path Across the Stars

It's the story of a young-Earth creationist astronomer who eventually was confronted with observations they couldn't reconcile with a young Earth/universe.

 

[Jonaitis]

I do not regard the genealogy as a literal representation of the genealogy of mankind.As an overview of the history of mankind it is accurate, but not in a literal, historical way.

For example, Jericho is one of the oldest cities in the world ever to be studied by archaeologists.

Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of more than 20 successive settlements in Jericho, the first of which dates back 11,000 years (9000 BCE), almost to the very beginning of the Holocene epoch of the Earth's history. (wikipedia)

The date of the these early settlements in Jericho far exceeds a date of less than 6000 years old. Not even a Biblical archaeologist will argue with this dating of Jericho. I do not believe in a literal, historical view of Biblical genealogy. Nor do I believe in the scientific explanation of life or even the age of the universe. I have no opinion on these issues.

I question a lot of what is dated, fallible men aren't always right about everything. I also wouldn't take what they say as the final word, archaeologists have had to update and change their timeline several times in the past. It isn't set in stone. Any kind of science does not always provide a final answer, they often change when something new shows up or when it is critiqued by others with better insight to those finds.

It is believed that we began as hunter-gatherers before we discovered how to cultivate and domesticate, but in the Scriptures we have known how to cultivate and domesticate since we were created.

 

[Jonaitis]

I'd be curious as to what you think of this article: Path Across the Stars

It's the story of a young-Earth creationist astronomer who eventually was confronted with observations they couldn't reconcile with a young Earth/universe.

I will read it if you will read anything I offer to you from Answers in Genesis from those with a creationist perspective. I would like to hear your opinion.

 

[pitabread]

I will read it if you will read anything I offer to you from Answers in Genesis from those with a creationist perspective. I would like to hear your opinion.

Sure. I should warn you though I've consumed a lot of material from Answers in Genesis over the years, so I'm quite familiar with their views. In fact, I'd wager I've read more creationist literature than most creationists.

But I certainly will read whatever you point me to and provide my view on it, if you'd like.

 

[Speedwell]

I will read it if you will read anything I offer to you from Answers in Genesis from those with a creationist perspective. I would like to hear your opinion.

We have. Most of us on this board are quite familiar with Answers in Genesis and the other sites like Creation Research International and the Institute for Creation Research. In addition, we have read the major "works" starting with The Genesis Flood, Walter Brown's hydroplate theory, John Woodmorappe's book about the Ark, and so on.

 

[expos4ever]

Any kind of science does not always provide a final answer, they often change when something new shows up or when it is critiqued by others with better insight to those finds.

This is misleading. Yes, science does not provide "final" answers, but that in no way justifies rejecting its findings, especially in this area. The broad compass of the evidence is overwhelming - the earth and the cosmos are not a few thousand years old.

Your implied reasoning here is like saying I am going to go ahead and smoke without concern since there is always the possibility that new evidence will show that smoking is not harmful. Yes, this is possible, but no reasonable person would bet on it.

 

[klutedavid]

I question a lot of what is dated, fallible men aren't always right about everything. I also wouldn't take what they say as the final word, archaeologists have had to update and change their timeline several times in the past. It isn't set in stone. Any kind of science does not always provide a final answer, they often change when something new shows up or when it is critiqued by others with better insight to those finds.

It is believed that we began as hunter-gatherers before we discovered how to cultivate and domesticate, but in the Scriptures we have known how to cultivate and domesticate since we were created.

Have a crack at explaining the following.

RSV Exodus 12:37 And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.

According to this passage 600,000 men descended from Yaacov left Egypt. If each man is married with an average of 5 children, this brings the entire population of Israel to 6,000,000. This is not including the mixed multitude that came out with them (Exodus 12:38) or the flocks and herds that they also brought out. This large number of people creates a few problems. The first is the size of this "army" (Exodus 12:41 - hosts meaning army. Also Exodus 12:37 where the men are called gevoriym, or warriors) compared to the size of Pharaohs army of 600 chariots (Exodus 14:7), which brought fear to the Israelites. How could 600 chariots be considered a threat to 600,000 warriors of Israel? Equally puzzling is the fear the Israelites felt at entering the Promised Land where each city probably contained no more than 5,000 warriors compared to their 600,000.

Another problem is the simple logistics to supply feed, water and move such a large number. According to the Quartermaster General in the army, it would take 1,500 tons of food, 4,000 tons of wood as fuel and 11,000,000 gallons of water each day to supply the basic needs of this group. Another problem is the location of the Latrine.

 

[Gene2memE]

I think that's the reason. Protestants by large still hold to young earth creationism,

Based on the data I've seen, young earth creationism is either a very slim minority or very slim majority view among US Evangelical protestants.

• BioLogos did a survey of ~750 protestant pastors in 2012 and found 54% identified their beliefs as YEC and 8% were old earth creationists. About 15% accepted some form of theistic evolution
  
• A 2007 Pew survey found that 51% of mainline Protestants accepted evolution as the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth. 24% of Evangelical protestants did the same. A 2013 survey found 68% of mainline Protestants accepted evolution as the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth.
  
• A 2014 Gallup survey found 72% of mainline protestants accepted either theistic evolution or wholly natural evolution, with YEC beliefs at about 12%. 27% of Evangelical protestants accepted either theistic evolution or wholly natural evolution, with YEC beliefs at 49% and OEC beliefs at 24%.

The most interesting piece of data I've seen is that belief in YEC has been diminishing across almost all demographic groups, with the notable exception of white Evangelical protestants. Even there, there is a young-old demarcation: with the older generations increasingly hardening around a set of YEC beliefs, and the younger generations more accepting of either old earth creationism, theistic evolution or wholly natural evolution.

 

[Neogaia777]

Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:4...

Day 1 and 2- The creation of the universe, formation of stars/planets, solar systems, etc, the initial formation of the earth as a planet, creation and separating of "dimensions" like the separating of the Heavenly realm or dimension, from the earthly physical one or ones, etc...

Day 3- Dry land appears and is made apart from the sea or the seas, etc, earth is very "volcanic" and the sky is still dark and covered with lots of clouds of dust and ash, some light shining through but not much yet, formation of the atmosphere, and the very beginnings of very simple, extremely primitive plant life, in the form of algae, proteins and primitive bacteria, etc, primordial ooze, etc, that is going to become more complex in Day 4...

Day 4- Sky begins to clear up, and the volcanic activity on the earth begins to settle down a bit, plant life, now having more light, begins to become more complex forms of plant life, the "revealing" of the sun and moon and stars, etc, on the earth due to the skies clearing up, etc...

Day 5- The age or era of sea life, sea creatures and sea animals begin to come about and become more complex by the beginning of day 6, plant life continuing to evolve and become more complex in or on both the land and in the sea, etc, no land animals yet, etc...

Day 6- The age of land animals and man, land animals come about for the first time (from the sea creatures), and become more complex, till they eventually lead to man coming about, and the fall of man happens, etc, we are still in day 6 now till the results of the fall are fixed or restored, then will begin day 7...

Day 7- The age or era of the rule and reign of Christ on earth from Heaven, or Heaven and earth being one (again) results of the fall or consequences of the fall are restored or fixed or whatever, (we go back to being vegetarians, etc), and this age will last until the end of the earth and the universe as we know it, etc...


Adam and Eve could have been a special creation, in a selected by God specific region or specific area in the earth on or in or during day 6, the Garden of Eden, etc, then were cast out to be among the rest of the "evolved species", etc, two races or species possibly, etc, Cain could have been the first one to interbreed or intermix with these maybe, possibly, or the whole story could just be an allegory, revealing many, many truths to us about our species and the "spirits", and the spiritual, and mankind, and mankind's relationship with God, etc...

The way to resolve the issue of plants sating to come about on day 3 in Genesis 1, and there have not been any kind of vegetation sprouting up from the ground yet in the Garden of Eden on day 6 when Adam was made, is that, if the Garden of Eden was a literal Garden and special set apart from the rest of the world special creation, is that plants may have not been made to grow or come about yet "in that specific region" yet, during the time it was made and/or set apart on or during day 6 yet, but then was by God when He made Adam and put him there...


God Bless!