Quick and simple- YEC

[Revelation 22:21]

Ok what does YEC stand for?

I've only been here for a week or two- and I have no idea what this stands for-I assume the E stands for evangelical- and C stands for either creationist- or christian.

Just answer the question- then this topic can be closed

 

[Arikay]

YEC= Young Earth Creationist.

A YEC is someone who believes in creationism and that the earth/universe is 12,000 - 6,000 years old.
The most common is those that believe it is 6000 years old. This would include people who believe in the 6 literal days of creation in genesis.
Often YECs also say they take the bible literally.

Another term is OEC.

OEC=Old Earth Creationist.

They believe in creationism but that the earth/universe could be billions of years old.

Ok what does YEC stand for?

I've only been here for a week or two- and I have no idea what this stands for-I assume the E stands for evangelical- and C stands for either creationist- or christian.

Just answer the question- then this topic can be closed

 

[Revelation 22:21]

Wow I was way off--

Thanks
As far was what I am...
I am open to both sides- and I don't really care- I can see how the 6 day creation can be taken literally- and how it can be taken figuritivly (forgive spelling)-
I am open to both sides- and I'm probably not going to really take either one of them too seriously.

 

[Arikay]

Also, another thing to mention, is there is a difference between creation and creationism.

Creation: Those that believe in creation believe god created. Whether by evolution or creationism.

Creationism: is pretty complicated, however a basic description would be the falsified science that god created all as it basically is today, and a belief that the theory of evolution is wrong.

 

[lucaspa]

We should add ID to your list of abbreviations. ID stands for Intelligent Design. This is variation of OEC but seeks mainly to show that natural selection could not have designed biological organisms. The main ID websites are www.arn.org and www.discovery.org

 

[Evo]

YEC= Young Earth Creationist.

A YEC is someone who believes in creationism and that the earth/universe is 12,000 - 6,000 years old.
The most common is those that believe it is 6000 years old. This would include people who believe in the 6 literal days of creation in genesis.
Often YECs also say they take the bible literally.

Another term is OEC.

OEC=Old Earth Creationist.

They believe in creationism but that the earth/universe could be billions of years old.

I never understood the 10,000-12,000 yr old possiblity. I understand the 6,000 year old theory as stated by bishop usher. But could someone explain what supports the 10,000 year old theory. Its not that statement that says 1 day is a 1,000 years to God, because all that means is that time is meanigless to God, IMO.

 

[Arikay]

Generally it seems to be just corrections. Often it comes from exceptance of some evidence that leads them to push the date back. Like an ICR article about tree ring dating, they accepted tree ring dating and thus suggested the date of creation be pushed back a bit to better fit with the tree rings.

In Usshers calculations there are some spaces of time that could have been longer. Sometimes it also comes from lengthening those spaces.

I never understood the 10,000-12,000 yr old possiblity. I understand the 6,000 year old theory as stated by bishop usher. But could someone explain what supports the 10,000 year old theory. Its not that statement that says 1 day is a 1,000 years to God, because all that means is that time is meanigless to God, IMO.

 

[Revelation 22:21]

Ahhh thanks for the help

 

[Evo]

Generally it seems to be just corrections. Often it comes from exceptance of some evidence that leads them to push the date back. Like an ICR article about tree ring dating, they accepted tree ring dating and thus suggested the date of creation be pushed back a bit to better fit with the tree rings.

In Usshers calculations there are some spaces of time that could have been longer. Sometimes it also comes from lengthening those spaces.

Thanks for the info

 

[Arikay]

An interesting aspect of it is that the supposably scientifically Correct (and perfect) bible has a possible margin of error of 50% (9000 +- 3000 years). Now its still a young earth, but its just interesting that the margin of error is so high.

Although the ICR article came to a bad/incorrect conclusion, it did suggest that there is hope for ICR as they were willing to accept a scientific method and willing to accept that it might falsify their first claim. I was rather amazed.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

It should be pointed out that only a small (and I hope diminishing) minority or christians in the world could be considered YEC.

 

[JohnR7]

Its not that statement that says 1 day is a 1,000 years to God, because all that means is that time is meanigless to God, IMO.

Yes, 1000 years to man is a day to God. That means the age or era we live in began about 12,970 years ago. There is no conflict at all with science because they basicly say the same thing, that about that time, the last major ice age came to a end, and we entered into the age we are currently in.

Science does a petty good job of showing that the Bible is true. It is just that everyone wants to ignore or disregard that.

 

[Arikay]

Some interesting info and commentary on the 2peter 3:8 verse:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1058268912-9676.html
"a. In truth, we have little understanding of God's promise; what seems like forever for us is but a short time for God, just as an hour may seem an eternity for a child but a moment for an adult

i. Peter is not giving some prophetic formula, saying that a prophetic day somehow equals a thousand years; he is communicating a general principle regarding how we see time and how God sees time - great error has been fostered by using this verse as a rigid prophetic "key"

ii. He is quoting this idea from Psalm 90:4: For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night."

 

[Jet Black]

I wish people would put this day is like a thousand years quote to rest. the context of the phrase is entirely obvious, and this kind of out of context use of the bible just reminds me of those crazy americans I saw on TV who believe that they should wave irate rattlesnakes and cobras round in the air because the bible made some reference to god protecting people from snakes or something.

 

[Siliconaut]

@John:

Yes, 1000 years to man is a day to God. That means the age or era we live in began about 12,970 years ago. There is no conflict at all with science because they basicly say the same thing, that about that time, the last major ice age came to a end, and we entered into the age we are currently in.

Science does a petty good job of showing that the Bible is true. It is just that everyone wants to ignore or disregard that.

I strongly disagree. First, there is no exact "end" to ice ages, and certainly not at "about 12,970 years ago". If you need to define the beginning of the Holocene, this would be 11.000 years ago - but errors never bother you, do they? This is religious distortion of scientific facts - but then, you never promised to refrain from this tactic. Second, there was not just one ice age, there were many, and probably many yet to come - so in geological terms, the last big one wasn't that outstanding (see http://www.scotese.com/lastice.htm for an idea of how far the ice extended).
Third, the "1 day == 1000 years" hypothesis hasn't got much going for it, as it still takes genesis literally, with all its contraditctions and obvious false claims.
Fourth, it doesn't change anything - 6 thousand or nearly 13 thousand years, there still is abundant data to show earth is much older. From a scientific POV, it's a feeble attempt to rescue YEC.

Last but not least, science has proven any literal reading of genesis to be far from the truth. Only you seem to disregard or ignore this.

 

[lucaspa]

An interesting aspect of it is that the supposably scientifically Correct (and perfect) bible has a possible margin of error of 50% (9000 +- 3000 years). Now its still a young earth, but its just interesting that the margin of error is so high.

Although the ICR article came to a bad/incorrect conclusion, it did suggest that there is hope for ICR as they were willing to accept a scientific method and willing to accept that it might falsify their first claim. I was rather amazed.

Also notice that ICRs moving the date of "Biblical" creation back refutes the creationist arguments that 1) the Bible never changes and 2) that science should be rejected because it changes but creationism is constant.

AiG's acceptance of speciation does the same thing.

 

[lucaspa]

Science does a petty good job of showing that the Bible is true. It is just that everyone wants to ignore or disregard that.

Science does an excellent job of showing that a literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

How many different ways of science showing the Bible to be correct have you used, John?

1. Standard YEC
2. The idea that all species were re-created at the end of the last Ice Age.
3. Schroeder's attempt to apply relativity and have a 15 billion year old universe that only appears to be 6 days to some outside observer.
4. Standard Gap Theory which has a formless earth up until the rest of the 6-day creation.
5. Lots of people around but a special creation of Adam and Eve.
6. The flooding of the Black Sea as the world-wide Noah's Flood.

Now, if science actually showed the Bible is true, why do you need all these mutually contradictory methods of having science show the Bible to be true?

The theological messages of the Bible are outside of science and science can't tell you whether they are true or not.

What science does tell you is that any literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8 is wrong. Those chapters are NOT science or history in any shape or form