question for YEC believers

[lutherangerman]

Hi,

I have a question. When it comes to our origins, I am not sure. I believe and know that we've been made by God, but I just can't decide whether YEC or OEC is right. Both ideas have compelling arguments. I'm not a scientist so I can't comprehend the details of the regarding sciences. From a cursory study of related web pages I just found again that both sides have their arguments and with the current information we have a honest scientist cannot prove either theory 100% certain and correct.

In other areas of life I'm a conservative christian, so please don't bash me.

So here is my question, if YEC were true and an otherwise faithful believer believes in OEC, would that be a sin, and if so, would God hold it against him? I mean, He could just say I'm telling you in the bible how it is and you should believe in me like you do in the cross and resurrection. On the other hand there are all these scientific evidences for an old Earth which seem pretty compelling to me. However, there is still the trap of taking the bible and simply deciding for myself what to believe and what not to believe. I must say that the OEC has a certain beauty and allure for me. It might also matter that before I got into the faith I always believed in an atheistic idea of OEC ... so maybe I'm clinging to the past really.

But given what I currently know I feel unable to decide myself definitely.

What do you think?

 

[juvenissun]

Accept YEC, or OEC, (or TE ?) is not a sin.
However, Something or some ideas may follow by taking a stand out of the three. Some of those consequences may be sinful.

For example, if OEC is true, then time could make anything happen if it is long enough. Empirically (scientifically) it is true. But in term of faith, it becomes a sin. Basically, an old earth provided a foundation for evolution.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Accept YEC, or OEC, (or TE ?) is not a sin.
However, Something or some ideas may follow by taking a stand out of the three. Some of those consequences may be sinful.

For example, if OEC is true, then time could make anything happen if it is long enough. Empirically (scientifically) it is true. But in term of faith, it becomes a sin. Basically, an old earth provided a foundation for evolution.

How so? And since when is truth sinful?

 

[gluadys]

Accept YEC, or OEC, (or TE ?) is not a sin.
However, Something or some ideas may follow by taking a stand out of the three. Some of those consequences may be sinful.

For example, if OEC is true, then time could make anything happen if it is long enough. Empirically (scientifically) it is true. But in term of faith, it becomes a sin. Basically, an old earth provided a foundation for evolution.

Actually, juvie, observation provided, and still provides, a foundation for concluding that evolution occurs. Just as observation provided, and still provides, a foundation for concluding the earth is much, much older than a few thousand years. More like 4,500 thousand, thousand years.

Hi,

I have a question. When it comes to our origins, I am not sure. I believe and know that we've been made by God, but I just can't decide whether YEC or OEC is right. Both ideas have compelling arguments. I'm not a scientist so I can't comprehend the details of the regarding sciences. From a cursory study of related web pages I just found again that both sides have their arguments and with the current information we have a honest scientist cannot prove either theory 100% certain and correct.

In other areas of life I'm a conservative christian, so please don't bash me.

So here is my question, if YEC were true and an otherwise faithful believer believes in OEC, would that be a sin, and if so, would God hold it against him? I mean, He could just say I'm telling you in the bible how it is and you should believe in me like you do in the cross and resurrection. On the other hand there are all these scientific evidences for an old Earth which seem pretty compelling to me. However, there is still the trap of taking the bible and simply deciding for myself what to believe and what not to believe. I must say that the OEC has a certain beauty and allure for me. It might also matter that before I got into the faith I always believed in an atheistic idea of OEC ... so maybe I'm clinging to the past really.

But given what I currently know I feel unable to decide myself definitely.

What do you think?

I don't think it is a sin to hold to either opinion or to evolutionary creationism either, as none of the options involves disobedience to or rebellion against God. Each person is making sense of the information available to them as best they can.

To me the deciding issue is what weight is to be given to observed evidence. YEC requires that one accept only scripture, and only a very literalistic interpretation of scripture, and this interpretation of scripture is held to be so authoritative that it outweighs any and all observations of the physical universe that contradict it. This is the standpoint of Answers in Genesis as they make very clear in their Statement of Faith.

Non-YEC positions take into consideration that God made a real physical world and made us part of that world with the capacity to observe and understand it. To observe the natural physical world is to observe what was made by the Logos/Word of God. So what is observed also has authority similar to that of scripture and we need to weigh both revelations (creation and scripture). For non-YECs it is not a given that a literal interpretation of scripture is always a correct interpretation. This is something that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis in which the observations of creation are given their due weight along with the text of scripture.

BOTH need to be evaluated and interpreted carefully.

You may find this video series helpful in understanding a non-YEC approach to science and scripture.

YouTube - Lesson 1/16: Seeing Through a Glass Darkly

 

[juvenissun]

How so? And since when is truth sinful?

1. Empirically true in not necessary true.
2. If a so-called truth (logically) leads to something unGodly, then it is not true.

 

[crawfish]

2. If a so-called truth (logically) leads to something unGodly, then it is not true.

If a lie leads to something Godly, then is it true?

 

[Jig]

Hi,

I have a question. When it comes to our origins, I am not sure. I believe and know that we've been made by God, but I just can't decide whether YEC or OEC is right. Both ideas have compelling arguments. I'm not a scientist so I can't comprehend the details of the regarding sciences. From a cursory study of related web pages I just found again that both sides have their arguments and with the current information we have a honest scientist cannot prove either theory 100% certain and correct.

In other areas of life I'm a conservative christian, so please don't bash me.

So here is my question, if YEC were true and an otherwise faithful believer believes in OEC, would that be a sin, and if so, would God hold it against him? I mean, He could just say I'm telling you in the bible how it is and you should believe in me like you do in the cross and resurrection. On the other hand there are all these scientific evidences for an old Earth which seem pretty compelling to me. However, there is still the trap of taking the bible and simply deciding for myself what to believe and what not to believe. I must say that the OEC has a certain beauty and allure for me. It might also matter that before I got into the faith I always believed in an atheistic idea of OEC ... so maybe I'm clinging to the past really.

But given what I currently know I feel unable to decide myself definitely.

What do you think?

I hate the labels YEC and OEC. "Young" and "old" are subjective terms. Both camps have the same evidence in front of them but both interpret the evidence differently based on their philosophical and theological bias.

The Bible says God created with maturity included. Adam was never a baby, he was made complete with hair, adult teeth, and nails. The Earth was made in the same fashion...but out of nothing!

If God created the Earth supernaturally, then this means there can be no accurate way of dating the Earth in terms of years, minutes, or nanoseconds. At least, not naturally.

Therefore, I date the Earth using a similar method Bishop Ussher used. The scientific consensus we find today that states the Earth is millions of years old is based on naturalistic principals. Principals that exclude the supernatural.

 

[EveryTongueConfess]

Going off that...

Then if we follow what God presents us, even if it untrue (because we can't measure it accurately since it is created supernaturally)
then believing in it, would not be considered a Sin in my opinion, because it is the apparent truth

We see light from stars that are billions of light years away which means
either the Earth is old, Einstein/speed of light is wrong, measuring the distance of stars is wrong, blah blah blah...

Since we perceive the Earth to be old, if we are the ones at fault in our searching/interpretation then there is no problem ...
but if God did in fact make the Earth appear 4.5 billion years old, when in reality it is only a couple thousand years old then most people I talk to call that
deception, which is somewhat a form of Sin? (at least thats what I get from most people)

 

[gluadys]

If God created the Earth supernaturally, then this means there can be no accurate way of dating the Earth in terms of years, minutes, or nanoseconds. At least, not naturally.

Therefore, I date the Earth using a similar method Bishop Ussher used. The scientific consensus we find today that states the Earth is millions of years old is based on naturalistic principals. Principals that exclude the supernatural.

This is why I said that YEC prioritizes an interpretation of scripture over physical evidence. Thank you for confirming that.

Going off that...

Then if we follow what God presents us, even if it untrue (because we can't measure it accurately since it is created supernaturally)
then believing in it, would not be considered a Sin in my opinion, because it is the apparent truth

We see light from stars that are billions of light years away which means
either the Earth is old, Einstein/speed of light is wrong, measuring the distance of stars is wrong, blah blah blah...

Since we perceive the Earth to be old, if we are the ones at fault in our searching/interpretation then there is no problem ...
but if God did in fact make the Earth appear 4.5 billion years old, when in reality it is only a couple thousand years old then most people I talk to call that
deception, which is somewhat a form of Sin? (at least thats what I get from most people)

Exactly. The problem with the YEC viewpoint is first, that we cannot take physical evidence with any seriousness, since it is intended to deceive by providing an appearance of age that is not real. And more than just an appearance of age, but of history as well. For example, was Adam created with a navel, remnant of an umbilical cord, implying a gestation in the womb that he never experienced? Did his adult teeth show any wear from years of chewing food? Were there fossils already in the ground of animals that never existed? And so forth.

Second, the YEC viewpoint depends on assuming there were many supernatural events associated with creation beyond those mentioned in scripture. And even more if one adds in all the effects attributed to Noah's flood.

Jig is certainly right that if one assumes supernatural causes were in play, timing is irrelevant. Miracles explain any apparent contradictions. This is exactly WHY science cannot use miracles as explanation. They explain too much to be useful. All of science is built on the premise that "This is probably what happened IF there was no miracle." But IF there WAS a miracle, all the scientific study flies out the window because there is no way to predict when a miracle will happen or what it will do.

The problem is these are miracles of convenience. All Christians believe that miracles can occur and have occurred. We all believe, for example, in the miracle of the resurrection. But to believe in miracles only because they make my interpretation of scripture work is a different matter. YE creationists have to uphold certain miracles (like creating an already mature earth, adult Adam, light in transit, etc.) only because their interpretation demands it. The rest of us, without disowning the principle that miracles happen, don't have to believe in these particular miracles, because our interpretation of the creation accounts does not require it.

My position is that such miracles of convenience demean real miracles. The primary point of a miracle is to draw attention to the power of God acting for the benefit of his people. There is scarcely any scriptural report of a miracle that does not have these characteristics.

If the only point of alleging a miracle is to save one's preferred interpretation of scripture, that indicates a pretty weak interpretation of scripture.

 

[Mallon]

I hate the labels YEC and OEC. "Young" and "old" are subjective terms. Both camps have the same evidence in front of them but both interpret the evidence differently based on their philosophical and theological bias.

Real science doesn't have a theological bias because it has nothing to do with theology (think about it... What "theological bias" does atomic theory have?).

You're right about creation science differing from real science in philosophy, though. In real science, conclusions are drawn based on evidence. In creation science, the conclusion is first assumed and evidence is cherry-picked in order to support that conclusion. Evidence that contradicts the assumed conclusion is ignored. Or, as AiG puts it, "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." Claims about star light being created in transit are a perfect example of this. Such claims aren't actually supported by any evidence. They are simply contrived in order to protect an assumed interpretation of Scripture. Gluadys was spot on: "If the only point of alleging a miracle is to save one's preferred interpretation of scripture, that indicates a pretty weak interpretation of scripture."

 

[Calypsis4]

Hi,

I have a question. When it comes to our origins, I am not sure. I believe and know that we've been made by God, but I just can't decide whether YEC or OEC is right. Both ideas have compelling arguments. I'm not a scientist so I can't comprehend the details of the regarding sciences. From a cursory study of related web pages I just found again that both sides have their arguments and with the current information we have a honest scientist cannot prove either theory 100% certain and correct.

In other areas of life I'm a conservative christian, so please don't bash me.

But given what I currently know I feel unable to decide myself definitely.

What do you think?

I love honest seekers. Maybe this will help:

Perhaps the most compelling evidence for a young earth was compiled by R.AT.E. over the last 10 yrs. R.A.T.E. (Radio-isotope & Age of the Earth) is a group of PhD’s including physicists, geologists, and geophysicist and their findings concerning coal, diamonds, and granite rock were turned over to the American Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America. The former organization welcomed the data they received from R.A.T.E. with great interest.

Dr. Larry Vardiman and his group gave their findings before a Seattle conference in 2005. In an attempt to eliminate the charge that they had ‘doctored’ the samples to favor creationism the scientists sent their samples to 14 different labs for independent confirmation of their samples. Nonetheless, the charge of doctoring the evidence came anyway. They also anticipated the charge that their samples were contaminated so R.A.T.E. took great precautions to eliminate possible contamination and they published their methods and activities in great detail to stress that this did not occur during their eight-year research effort.[/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] One of the most surprising things that the R.A.T.E. scientists found was that for many years other labs throughout the world have been coming up with measurements of carbon in rocks that differed so widely with the status quo of evolution (millions/billions of yrs) estimations but those private findings were not popularized. The evidence is very compelling.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMy2IUeXJRI

I’ll give here just a few examples brings out the powerful witness of the many rock samples that were taken from all over the earth in this five year study.

Quote – “If Pennsylvanian coal is truly hundreds of million of years old, then no remaining carbon-14 whatsoever should be present within it. However, since the AMS (accelerator mass spectrometry) method came into widespread use in the 1980’s, there have been ongoing reports in literature of traces of radiocarbon detected in coal. The RATE group further explored this possibility. Ten coal samples were obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, a storage site which is maintained at Pennsylvannia State University. These samples were collected from major coalfields across the United States for comparative research studies. The coals are carefully preserved at low temperature in an environment of argon gas. The particular RATE samples, 300 grams each, were chosen from across the geologic span of time. They cover the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic eras. These samples were analyzed for their C-14 content using the modern AMS method. The work was contracted out to one of the foremost carbon-14 laboratories in the world. Four AMS carbon-14 measurements were made for each sample and the results were averaged. As always, extreme care was taken to eliminate all possible sources of carbon-14 contamination.[/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] Table 3-2 summarize the RATE results for the coal samples. Also listed are the locations of the coal beds and their assumed geologic ages. The right column shows that a residue of carbon-14 atoms was found in all ten samples.” (from Thousands, not Millions or Billions by Dr. Don DeYoung, p. 52-53).

Folks, there should have been NO carbon in those samples. But the findings revealed that the coal could be no older than 50,000 yrs old.

Secondly, concerning the matter of C-14 in diamonds; Quote- “Twelve diamond samples were analyzed for possible carbon-14 content. These specimens originated from West and South Africa. They were about 0.25 carat in weight, or 50 milligrams each. The diamonds averaged two millimeters in diameter, about the thickness of two dimes. Unfortunately the AMS analysis for C-14 requires that the diamonds be destroyed. They are first crushed to very small[/font] chips, then rigorously and carefully cleaned, and finally burned, converting them to carbon dioxide. This gas is then condensed to a speck of graphite which the AMS instrument analyzes. In this process, one should not picture beautiful diamonds being hammered to dust! The raw, uncut diamonds analyzed by RATE have a rounded, glassy appearance. They are of industrial grade rather than gem quality, and are not excessively expensive.

“The carbon-14 content measured for the 12 RATE diamonds is show in Table 3-3. Similar to the earlier results for coal, all 12 diamond samples have detectable C-14 content, once again measured in person modern carbon, pMC.” (ibid, p. 56).

​

Again, dear readers, C-14 should not be found in diamonds. Not only so but diamonds are virtually impossible to contaminate. The matter is re-iterated at
YouTube - RATE (Radioisotopes And The Age of the Earth)

If I could just get a few people who are willing to read this through and listen to the video evidence of the R.A.T.E. evidence carefully it could be a life changing experience for them. The matter of accelerated decay of rock that reduces the time frame from millions and/or billions of yrs to thousands of yrs is very compelling. Quoting just one aspect of their study of zircons and helium diffusion:

“Based on the measured helium retention, statistical analysis gives an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 + or – 2000 yrs.” (Thousands, not Millions of Billions, p. 76).

Naturally, the skeptics attacked the R.A.T.E findings in talk/origins (Dr. Kevin Henke) but Dr. Russell Humphreys (PhD & formerly with Sandia National Labs) revealed the sloppy and careless examination of the talk/origins reply in his rebuttal on true/origins/.com (Helium Evidence for a Young World Overcomes Pressure). These scientists drew real interest from the American Geophysical Society in San Francisco and were encouraged by them to continue sending in their findings to the society.

Humphreys said: “All of Henke’s slung mud cannot obscure the obvious conclusion: the helium leak age is very much closer to 6,000 years than it is to 1.5 billion years. "

Not only so but so strong is the evidence that R.A.T.E. has produced in this matter that (Quote)"Ken Farley, a world expert on measuring helium diffusion in minerals (including zircons) at Cal Tech… has been searching for an alternative interpretation to our helium data for years.” (Russell Humphreys in true/origins.com.)

For those who don’t wish to watch the entire version of Dr. Vardiman’s message in the first video clip mentioned then just click on the 24.30, 37.20, & 40.00 times and listen carefully to the evidence. For creationists it’s stunning and very powerful; perhaps the most powerful evidence of all that the world is what Moses revealed in Genesis 5 – approximately 6,000 yrs. of age.
Lutherangerman, I know this data will be attacked by the Darwin fans but I am well prepared to answer their objections. It's a young earth and Moses was right all along.

God bless you.

 

[crawfish]

Hi,

I have a question. When it comes to our origins, I am not sure. I believe and know that we've been made by God, but I just can't decide whether YEC or OEC is right. Both ideas have compelling arguments. I'm not a scientist so I can't comprehend the details of the regarding sciences. From a cursory study of related web pages I just found again that both sides have their arguments and with the current information we have a honest scientist cannot prove either theory 100% certain and correct.

In other areas of life I'm a conservative christian, so please don't bash me.

So here is my question, if YEC were true and an otherwise faithful believer believes in OEC, would that be a sin, and if so, would God hold it against him? I mean, He could just say I'm telling you in the bible how it is and you should believe in me like you do in the cross and resurrection. On the other hand there are all these scientific evidences for an old Earth which seem pretty compelling to me. However, there is still the trap of taking the bible and simply deciding for myself what to believe and what not to believe. I must say that the OEC has a certain beauty and allure for me. It might also matter that before I got into the faith I always believed in an atheistic idea of OEC ... so maybe I'm clinging to the past really.

But given what I currently know I feel unable to decide myself definitely.

What do you think?

If God is going to judge us based on our lack of understanding, then we are all in trouble.

It takes a great deal of faith to be a YEC, to deny all sorts of evidence and the prevailing opinion and believe in spite of it. It takes a great deal of faith to be an OEC. It takes a great deal of faith to be a TE, to stand fast to God when it seems the entire Christian world is against you. In the end, put your faith in God - not in science, not in some bible interpretation, but in the fact that God created all things, had a purpose for all things, and any natural truth can only point back to Him.

 

[Hammster]

I probably won't post in here much since I think there are other places that I am better suited to post in, but reading some of the comments made me wonder. Why would someone think that God is being deceptive if He made things with the apperance of age? If the YEC view is correct, yet things have the apperance of age, how is that deceptive? The YEC view looks at the same evidence as the OEC group does and comes to different conclusions. Yet if the YEC side is correct, they are also going off of a literal view of Scripture which says that the Earth is 6000-10,000 years old. So if that is indeed correct, God said how old things are. If man-made dating is different, I don't think we should hold God accountable for that.

 

[The Lady Kate]

1. Empirically true in not necessary true.

Actually, it is necessarily true. That's what empirical means... able to be proven.

2. If a so-called truth (logically) leads to something unGodly, then it is not true.

Since God is truth, what you're proposing can never happen. Anything that is true must lead to God... or do you think God must be protected from truth?

 

[Mallon]

Why would someone think that God is being deceptive if He made things with the apperance of age?

The Bible says that we can learn about the nature of God from the things that He has made (Rom 1:20). If God made an earth with a false history (e.g., implanted fossils, meteor craters, polarity reversals), what should we conclude about the nature of God?

Also, there's a good review of the RATE that C4 touted here:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf

Notably, from the last paragraph: "Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems." Essentially, the RATE project folks admit to there being at least 500 million years worth of nuclear decay in nature, but they have no way of cramming that much decay into a young-earth timeframe short of invoking miraculous heat dissipation. And invoking miracles is not science.

 

[Hammster]

If God created Adam and Eve with the apperance of age, yet tells us that they weren't that age, how is that deceptive? It would seem to me to be much more deceptive to give a six day creation account, but really be billions of years.

 

[Mallon]

If God created Adam and Eve with the apperance of age, yet tells us that they weren't that age, how is that deceptive? It would seem to me to be much more deceptive to give a six day creation account, but really be billions of years.

The point is that the earth doesn't just look old, it looks like it has history. It has fossils, and craters, and polarity reversals, and ancient lava flows, etc., etc., etc. If you want to analogize the age of the earth with Adam, you would have to argue that Adam was created with a bruise on his knee, dirt under his fingernails, and healed bone fractures. I can understand why God would create Adam with false age, but why a false history? What purpose does that serve?

 

[Hammster]

The point is that the earth doesn't just look old, it looks like it has history. It has fossils, and craters, and polarity reversals, and ancient lava flows, etc., etc., etc. If you want to analogize the age of the earth with Adam, you would have to argue that Adam was created with a bruise on his knee, dirt under his fingernails, and healed bone fractures. I can understand why God would create Adam with false age, but why a false history? What purpose does that serve?

Why is your knowing the purpose a factor? Do you know the purpose of everything?

 

[Mallon]

Why is your knowing the purpose a factor? Do you know the purpose of everything?

In that case, maybe God just made us all last week and implanted our brains with false memories. That's just as credible as the Omphalos theory.

 

[jpcedotal]

careful OP...

Answering your question does not require trying to recruit you to OEC or YEC. Neither can be proven, and neither has any more "true scientific" backing.

It all depends on how you interpret the Bible. The more literal, the more you are going to lean towards YEC. IF you believe a lot of what Moses contributed to the Bible were fables and "stories of old" that had been passed down through the generations, then you wll probably lean toward OEC. Neither view will get you into heaven, so don't let it cause you to question who our Lord Jesus Christ is.

Don't sweat the small stuff. Carbon dating is our most scientific way of dating ancient times...but to say it is flawless or even 50% right is pushing it.

Here is a good read on carbon dating.

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net

I have taken college level Biologys and Chemistrys, and I am a YEC...go figure.