Why Creationists Believe in a Young Earth

[jpcedotal]

The scientific method handles that. What it doesn't handle is your increasing fear everytime your small god gets pushed further and further into a diminishing corner.

From your slanted view maybe. For me, science reveals God as the Creator. The DNA strand is a fine example of an intelligent creator.

I don't know... does your God have a beginning? If not, why are you satisfied with that?

Because God is the great I AM. He is the only being outside of time itself.

I don't know. Maybe it was always there like your god.

Eternal matter? so science just fades into the past forever?

You seem to have that same problem.

It is not a problem for me. In the beginning God....I am good with that explanation.

yeah. A useless answer that provodes no practical benefit to our understanding of the world around us.

That is coming from someone who has never known God. For me, I have been where u are (an unbeliever), and now I know God, so I know your statement is false based on observation and experience...aka science. You are talking about something you have no observable first hand knowledge of. In fact, from your point of view, I am actually a more evolved creature than you are...I have taken the next step in evolution by becoming a son of God...right?

Nonsense.

great come back...did u cover your ears when you typed that?

More nonsense. Science does not promote atheism.

Real science doesn't promote atheism, your worldview science does.

 

[Split Rock]

Real science doesn't promote atheism, your worldview science does.

I am talking about "real" science. You wouldn't know "real" science if you dropped your bible on it and tripped over your bible.

Here is the results of a PubMed search for the term "evolution" in the published scientific literature: Results: 1 to 20 of 308846 evolution - PubMed - NCBI

Here is one for the term "natural selection":
Results: 1 to 20 of 66144 natural selection - PubMed - NCBI

That is "real" science.

 

[jpcedotal]

I am talking about "real" science. You wouldn't know "real" science if you dropped your bible on it and tripped over your bible.

Here is the results of a PubMed search for the term "evolution" in the published scientific literature: Results: 1 to 20 of 308846 evolution - PubMed - NCBI

Here is one for the term "natural selection":
Results: 1 to 20 of 66144 natural selection - PubMed - NCBI

That is "real" science.

If you want real science, align that up with the Truth and you might have something usable.

 

[AV1611VET]

<staff edit>

That goes both ways:

My favorite cartoon &#8593;

 

[keith99]

<staff edit>

I was going to say Garbage, then I realized you said 'Your "TRUTH"', not Scripture or Christianity. I now instead agree with you. Scripture has much that is useful (and much that is not). But the kind of "TRUTH" in this thread obscures that in Scripture that is useful and valuable.

 

[jpcedotal]

like water off a duck's back

hold up, let me brush it off...

I am gonna keep preachin', you can keep hatin', makes no difference to me.

 

[cupid dave]

I was going to say Garbage, then I realized you said 'Your "TRUTH"', not Scripture or Christianity. I now instead agree with you. Scripture has much that is useful (and much that is not). But the kind of "TRUTH" in this thread obscures that in Scripture that is useful and valuable.

When you say scripture has much that is not useful, what do you mean?
Give us an example.

 

[Huram Abi]

What is the context?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the context?

Pick one and I'll point it out.

 

[Huram Abi]

You pick one.

 

[CabVet]

Besides, God has since given us doctors who can effectively combat many diseases today that would have otherwise killed us back then.

Yeah, so why does this work for some things but not for Genesis? God has since also given us scientists that understand the world a lot better than Abraham and Moises did.

 

[Davian]

not a science,

So just what is *science*, in your own words?

Why, this of course!

A far more coherent - and funnier - response than jpcedotal could muster!

 

[Davian]

How far back can science reach before it quits being science and simply becomes an "educated guess" at best

From what I understand, to within a fraction of a second of the current instantiation of our cosmos.

or just simply "anti-God propaganda" at worst?

You may perceive it as 'anti-god' only as it does not include *your* god.

From a secular view point what is the beginning? Is there a point where there was nothing, then there was something? Or was there just always something? Does matter itself have a beginning or is it ... eternal?

Is the Big Bang still the accepted beginning of all that is? If so, where did the stuff come from that made up the Big Bang?

Interesting questions. Where did you get the impression that there should be absolute answers to these questions?

I guess I have a hard time understanding where the point secular science is legit and God left out.

This is very apparent.

"God" is left out as it is, scientifically, without significance.

For every point that secular science tries to claim is the beginning, the question can always be asked "Where did the stuff come from at this beginning point?"

It can be asked, but science has also shown that cause may not always follow effect.

In the beginning God....is the only statement that covers these questions totally.

A statement that cannot be demonstrated to be more than wishful thinking.

I don't have to look any further back because there isn't a "further back".

In your opinion. Where did this deity of yours come from?

Any other statement given by secular science, even if believed is true, leaves unanswered questions about time before.

Yes. That is the nature of science.

The first verse of the Bible does not leave any room for debate, IF the statement is believed.

Why should one believe the bible?

That's the difference to me and that is the reason there is a God. He is the final answer to everything.

But not an answer that is of any significance.

It has to do with belief. With secular science there is never a final answer. With God science, there is.

But not an answer that is of any significance.

 

[Davian]

...The unwillingness to acknowledge the Biblical account of Creation comes from the unwillingness to acknowledge that there is a higher power that holds us accountable.

Do you take into account that the unwillingness to acknowledge the Biblical account of Creation comes from the inability of the those preaching it to demonstrate its validity?

It is this accountability that causes the absolute rebellion of God....not that He exists or not, but simply that by claiming he does not exist relieves the unbeliever of being held accountable to an absolute good.

Simply claiming that a god does exist does not relieve the believer of being held accountable for demonstrating the existence of that god.

 

[USincognito]

What does any of this have to do with Why Creationists Believe in a Young Earth?

 

[jpcedotal]

What does any of this have to do with Why Creationists Believe in a Young Earth?

because I take Genesis literally. There is no use arguing about the six days if the argument really lies in the first four words of the Bible....hence the sidetrack.

You can't tackle your question or any Creation vs Evolution or Young Earth vs Old Earth if we can't come to some sort of agreement on the Creator himself.

All of these type of threads always come back to God...which they should since that is where the Truth lies.

Now, if we want to say, just for argument's sake that God does exist, we can move forward. If we say, God does not exist, then to me, this thread loses all credibility and is worthless.

 

[AV1611VET]

because I take Genesis literally. There is no use arguing about the six days if the argument really lies in the first four words of the Bible....hence the sidetrack.

You can't tackle your question or any Creation vs Evolution or Young Earth vs Old Earth if we can't come to some sort of agreement on the Creator himself.

All of these type of threads always come back to God...which they should since that is where the Truth lies.

Now, if we want to say, just for argument's sake that God does exist, we can move forward. If we say, God does not exist, then to me, this thread loses all credibility and is worthless.

x2

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

because I take Genesis literally. There is no use arguing about the six days if the argument really lies in the first four words of the Bible....hence the sidetrack.

You can't tackle your question or any Creation vs Evolution or Young Earth vs Old Earth if we can't come to some sort of agreement on the Creator himself.

All of these type of threads always come back to God...which they should since that is where the Truth lies.

Now, if we want to say, just for argument's sake that God does exist, we can move forward. If we say, God does not exist, then to me, this thread loses all credibility and is worthless.

I simply find it odd that your "literal" interpretation can never be changed by any outside knowledge. That's the big difference between dogma and science. You live in a static world where beliefs cannot be changed. If science has taught us anything, it's that beliefs should be challenged and if they are contradicted by evidence, they should be changed.

The science that says the universe is 14 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is the same scientific methodology that has provided all of the technology and medicine that you benefit from. You are the one that is picking and choosing; except you are picking and choosing the science you wish to accept. You are not consistent at all. If you were consistent, you'd trash all of modern biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, and geology because all of it is consistent with a world much older than your "literal" interpretation of the Bible.

Stop picking and choosing and man up. Your interpretation of the Bible can change easily. Everything we know about science changing -- that's a bit more of a task. If you're going to side with your "literal" interpretation of the Bible, ditch all of the science.

 

[Split Rock]

I simply find it odd that your "literal" interpretation can never be changed by any outside knowledge. That's the big difference between dogma and science. You live in a static world where beliefs cannot be changed. If science has taught us anything, it's that beliefs should be challenged and if they are contradicted by evidence, they should be changed.

The science that says the universe is 14 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is the same scientific methodology that has provided all of the technology and medicine that you benefit from. You are the one that is picking and choosing; except you are picking and choosing the science you wish to accept. You are not consistent at all. If you were consistent, you'd trash all of modern biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, and geology because all of it is consistent with a world much older than your "literal" interpretation of the Bible.

Stop picking and choosing and man up. Your interpretation of the Bible can change easily. Everything we know about science changing -- that's a bit more of a task. If you're going to side with your "literal" interpretation of the Bible, ditch all of the science.

x4

 

[SkyWriting]

I simply find it odd that your "literal" interpretation can never be changed by any outside knowledge.

Not true. Literalism is the basis of understanding scripture and forms the base of our understanding. There is an enormous amount of non literal understanding that can be added on top of that. But to start out assuming that nothing you read means what it says....will U kin geet da IDR frum dis ick zample. And that's putting it midly.

That's the big difference between dogma and science.

We know that Science is base on human observations and opinions. As such it is always open to criticism and challenge by noobs and more importantly, majority opinion. And of course we accept that the majority is correct, especially is it's the "Scientific" majority.

You live in a static world where beliefs cannot be changed.

Just your human opinion. Clearly you've not actually attended a church much. My Church split 4 times. Do you know why churches split? It's not because of love and harmony of beliefs.

If science has taught us anything, it's that beliefs should be challenged and if they are contradicted by evidence, they should be changed.

Sometimes. But not too quickly.

The science that says the universe is 14 billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is the same scientific methodology that has provided all of the technology and medicine that you benefit from. You are the one that is picking and choosing; except you are picking and choosing the science you wish to accept. You are not consistent at all. If you were consistent, you'd trash all of modern biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, and geology because all of it is consistent with a world much older than your "literal" interpretation of the Bible.

Not true. The Bible describes the earth as old in many places. It was some man who came up with a young earth age. Not the scriptures.

Stop picking and choosing and man up.

You said we should challenge whatever we want and not swallow any particular source as correct. It's called discernment.

Your interpretation of the Bible can change easily. Everything we know about science changing -- that's a bit more of a task. If you're going to side with your "literal" interpretation of the Bible, ditch all of the science.

No. Some science is good. Some is incorrect. Some is just not science.
For example, anything that cannot be repeated with an experiment, is not science. History is not a repeatable experiment and is not science.
We should challenge what doesn't seem correct and not believe just one source. It's your idea not to swallow it all.