Why I'm not a young earth creationist...

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
The question is, how do you reconcile all of what the Bible has to say yet believe in 4 billion years, ape men and that Adam was some allegory? Which comes first, God's word or man's words?

I don't believe in evolution and I don't believe that Adam was some allegory. There is such a thing as an old earth creationist. Where does the Bible say specifically that earth is less than 10,000 years old?
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe in evolution and I don't believe that Adam was some allegory. There is such a thing as an old earth creationist. Where does the Bible say specifically that earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Okay, so what exactly does that mean in real point by point terms and can you outline how you formed this doctrine from scripture?

I have asked this countless time to get nothing back. I would love to get something back.

Also did you not see my long post to you on the other thread? I explained that YEC believe anywhere from 6-10-15-20 and some even 50 thousand years. Yet all you can see is "less than 10" as if that was a magical number.
If you didn't see that post maybe you could go read it? Why I'm not a young earth creationist...
 
Upvote 0

Humble_Disciple

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2021
1,121
387
38
Northwest
✟39,150.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Divorced
Also did you not see my long post to you on the other thread? I explained that YEC believe anywhere from 6-10-15-20 and some even 50 thousand years. Yet all you can see is "less than 10" as if that was a magical number.
If you didn't see that post maybe you could go read it? Why I'm not a young earth creationist...

Why can't the earth be 4.5 billion years old? Are you familiar with old earth creationism?
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why can't the earth be 4.5 billion years old? Are you familiar with old earth creationism?

You realize that 4.5 million years is for evolution right? They need that time for how they think the earth evolved. They also believe Adam is an allegory.

So far all I have found from you:
I don't believe that Adam was some allegory
Okay, there is one of your beliefs. Thank you.
So you believe Adam was a real person and you believe God created him 4.5 billion years ago?

I don't assume to know your beliefs because you slapped a 'old earth creationism' label on it, that can mean a whole variety of things.

Do you even know what and why you believe?
Have you come to this belief by study of the scriptures and have a well fleshed out doctrine? At least be honest if you have no scripture. But if you don't you might want to think deeply on why that is.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
They also believe Adam is an allegory.

No. A real Adam is quite compatible with evolution. Remember, evolution is an observed fact. You've likely confused evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population) with a consequence of evolution, namely common descent.
 
Upvote 0

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
450
125
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟433,117.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. A real Adam is quite compatible with evolution. Remember, evolution is an observed fact. You've likely confused evolution (change in allele frequencies in a population) with a consequence of evolution, namely common descent.
Except Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification", and that all living things can trace their descent to a common ancestor. So, when was the definition changed?
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You realize that 4.5 million years is for evolution right?

Actually it was known that the earth was millions of years old by geologists before Darwin was even born.

The conclusions of geology predate the theory of evolution and really have nothing to do with evolution.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Except Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification", and that all living things can trace their descent to a common ancestor.

Yep. Genetics has long since confirmed his findings. Currently, it's "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." Which is really the same thing, with genetics added.

So, when was the definition changed?

Why would it change? You do know that evolution is consistent with a single pair being the ancestors of all humans, right?
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually it was known that the earth was millions of years old by geologists before Darwin was even born.

The conclusions of geology predate the theory of evolution and really have nothing to do with evolution.

"it was known that the earth was millions of years"

Oh of course, it's "Known". Man said it so it must be right, wow who knew that man was all knowing, must be great to be them.

1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

You keep telling yourself how much man "knows" keep trusting in those geologists. I will continue to trust in God's word.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"it was known that the earth was millions of years"

Oh of course, it's "Known". Man said it so it must be right, wow who knew that man was all knowing, must be great to be them.

1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

You keep telling yourself how much man "knows" keep trusting in those geologists. I will continue to trust in God's word.

Changing the subject much?

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
450
125
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟433,117.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yep. Genetics has long since confirmed his findings. Currently, it's "a change in allele frequency in a population over time." Which is really the same thing, with genetics added.



Why would it change? You do know that evolution is consistent with a single pair being the ancestors of all humans, right?
This is what Darwin believed which is utter nonsense: Darwins Theory of Common Descent | Actforlibraries.org Darwin’s theory of common descent is a basic theory in modern biology which states that different species of living organisms can ultimately be traced to a single common ancestor. Ultimately, at least in theory, it leads to the conclusion that all forms of life-bacteria, fungi, plants, and animals-can be traced back to a single universal common ancestor. Over hundreds of millions of years, life branches from a single species into multiple ones through natural selection.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Why would it change? You do know that evolution is consistent with a single pair being the ancestors of all humans, right?

his is what Darwin believed which is utter nonsense: Darwins Theory of Common Descent | Actforlibraries.org

From that source:
Essentially, says Lynn Fancher of the College of DuPage, there are two parts to the Darwinian theory of evolution. Natural selection, she says, is “the how part of the theory”-basically, the idea that only the fittest will survive and pass on their genes to the next generation. Common descent, however, is “the ‘what’ part of the theory.” Over millions of years of natural selection, one common ancestor can give rise to populations of completely separate species.

So let's see how Darwin's theory adds up...


From a science site:
The four key points of Darwin's Theory of Evolution are: individuals of a species are not identical; traits are passed from generation to generation; more offspring are born than can survive; and only the survivors of the competition for resources will reproduce. The variations of individuals give some members of the species advantages in the competition to survive and reproduce. Those advantageous traits will be passed to the next generation.

Quite a difference, um? Does this suggest why it's a good idea to get your science from scientific sources?

They've confused the theory with a consequence of the theory. If God had poofed a number of living things into existence instead of a universal common ancestor, evolution would still work exactly as Darwin's theory says. In fact, Darwin mentioned that:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

It is true that genetics confirms common descent of living things on Earth. The first inkling of this came before Darwin, in the discovery by Linnaeus that all living things formed a family tree that only happens with cases of common descent.

You should know that the four points of Darwinian theory remain more firmly documented in evidence than ever, today.
 
Upvote 0

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
450
125
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟433,117.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Quite a difference, um? Does this suggest why it's a good idea to get your science from scientific sources?

They've confused the theory with a consequence of the theory. If God had poofed a number of living things into existence instead of a universal common ancestor, evolution would still work exactly as Darwin's theory says. In fact, Darwin mentioned that:
Actforlibraries (Act For Libraries) is a community of science, medical, health and wellness professionals, experts and ordinary consumers dedicated to developing and enhancing an open dialogue about health and wellness. We are committed to bringing you the latest in medical health facts and research.

From a science site
In the first edition of "On the Origin of Species," published in 1859, Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears (Ursus americanus), which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open.

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," he speculated.

The idea didn't go over very well with the public or with other scientists. Darwin was so embarrassed by the ridicule he received that the swimming-bear passage was removed from later editions of the book.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Actforlibraries (Act For Libraries) is a community of science, medical, health and wellness professionals, experts and ordinary consumers dedicated to developing and enhancing an open dialogue about health and wellness. We are committed to bringing you the latest in medical health facts and research.

Notice, though that they got Darwin's theory wrong. So there is that.

In the first edition of "On the Origin of Species," published in 1859, Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale.

Subsequent evidence confirmed his hypothesis. Whales did indeed evolve from land animals. We now have a rather complete set of transitionals, so well-documented that one YE creationist admits the series of whale transitionals is one of the most difficult problems for creationists to explain. Wasn't a bear though; Darwin got that wrong. However, he got his theory right. "Act for Libraries" got it wrong. But that's not surprising for a medical site. Doctors are often not great biologists; there are some exceptions, of course.

Still, we often see them make basic errors as they did for Darwinism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Notice, though that they got Darwin's theory wrong. So there is that.



Subsequent evidence confirmed his hypothesis. Whales did indeed evolve from land animals. We now have a rather complete set of transitionals, so well-documented that one YE creationist admits the series of whale transitionals is one of the most difficult problems for creationists to explain. Wasn't a bear though; Darwin got that wrong. However, he got his theory right. "Act for Libraries" got it wrong. But that's not surprising for a medical site. Doctors are often not great biologists; there are some exceptions, of course.

Still, we often see them make basic errors as they did for Darwinism.

What an incredible hypothesis. Did Darwin recognize that bears were mammals and not fish, thereby allowing him to make that prediction?

Though it's not particularly accurate in that bears are not ungulates, but it's close in the sense that whales are mammals.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
What an incredible hypothesis. Did Darwin recognize that bears were mammals and not fish, thereby allowing him to make that prediction?

Yep. If he had known more of whale anatomy, the ungulate digestive system would have given it away. Carnivores (bears, canids, felids, and mustelids) did however, give rise to seals, sea lions, and walruses. So close but no whale.

Though it's not particularly accurate in that bears are not ungulates, but it's close in the sense that whales are mammals.

Right Class, wrong order. Correct order is Artiodactyla. One fellow thinks they evolved from tenrecs, but cannot explain the artiodactyl digestive system in whales.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0