Why Young Earth Creationism is dangerous to Christianity

[LittleNipper]

Both, obviously.

Those people have no hope nor do they provide any for anyone else...

 

[kahri]

Those people have no hope nor do they provide any for anyone else...

Sarcasm doesn't exist on the internet.

 

[If Not For Grace]

“I was brought up being taught YECism and that Christianity is incompatible with evolution. When I grew up and started learning more, I learned more about evolution, about how it ACTUALLY worked, about the mountains of supporting evidence, learned that creationists had been lying about all this and had been misleading people, etc. Being an honest seeker of truth, I had no choice but to accept evolution as truth.


And the tragedy is that YEC is not just a stumbling-block, but an UNECESSARY one, since the issue of origins is not a salvation issue.

ICOULD NOT AGREE MORE:
Why is creation the main focus? Start with Resurection from the DEAD and work that way. If you can buy Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days, the rest can be dealt with.
(There is more historical proof than you would 1st think to back this up--look for it)

 

[DanielJamesSimon]

the difference is that YEC opposes many scientific fields. evolution does not. YEC vs. science seems quite appropriate to me.

What scientific fields do YEC oppose? Elaborate.

ICOULD NOT AGREE MORE:
Why is creation the main focus? Start with Resurection from the DEAD and work that way. If you can buy Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days, the rest can be dealt with.
(There is more historical proof than you would 1st think to back this up--look for it)

I agree that there is probably historical proof of Jesus rising from the dead.

But science surely allows more for a literal Creation than it does for a man rising from the dead! Science cannot possibly allow for a dead person being raised and walking around again. Do you agree?

If you're arguing with someone who refuses to believe in Creation on the grounds of it being "unscientific" then how on Earth will you convince him that Jesus rose from the dead? It is impossible.

And if you are a Christian, then you believe in God, and that He is all-powerful, that He can perform miracles like raising people from the dead. If you believe this, it can't possibly be outside of the realms of comprehension that He created the Earth in 6 literal days a few thousand years ago, and then destroyed the Earth with a Flood a couple of thousand years afterwards, can it?

 

[Vance]

What scientific fields do YEC oppose? Elaborate.


I agree that there is probably historical proof of Jesus rising from the dead.

But science surely allows more for a literal Creation than it does for a man rising from the dead! Science cannot possibly allow for a dead person being raised and walking around again. Do you agree?

If you're arguing with someone who refuses to believe in Creation on the grounds of it being "unscientific" then how on Earth will you convince him that Jesus rose from the dead? It is impossible.

And if you are a Christian, then you believe in God, and that He is all-powerful, that He can perform miracles like raising people from the dead. If you believe this, it can't possibly be outside of the realms of comprehension that He created the Earth in 6 literal days a few thousand years ago, and then destroyed the Earth with a Flood a couple of thousand years afterwards, can it?

Actually, it is just the opposite of what you say. Science has more to say against a six-day, recent creation than the resurrection. Science does not say miracles can not happen, and does not say the supernatural does not exist. These things are outside the scope of science, which just studies and describes how the natural world works. Science is unable to confirm or deny something when there is no direct evidence upon which to base a conclusion. The fact that an event might violate a natural law does not make it unscientific. It just makes it something about which science can not provide any support or contradiction.

So, if the problem with a recent creation of the world and all the species was that it would be supernatural, that would actually not be a problem for science. But this is NOT the problem. The problem is simply a matter of contradictory evidence. We have evidence that would NOT exist if the earth was a recent creation. And we LACK evidence that would be there if the earth was young, there was a world wide flood, etc.

Science is not opposed to miracles, it is just a naturalistic philosophy that is against it. And, yes, many scientists also have such a philosophy. But not all by a long shot. The reason we can even have Christian scientists (most of whom accept evolution and an old earth, btw), is because there is no direct conflict between miracles and science.

And, as for Christians, the issue is the same. There is no Christian who opposes a young earth or special creation because such things would be "miracles" or require a supernatural act. We all accept the supernatural without a problem, the same as you. The problem is that when we look to see HOW and WHEN God did it, we have very clear and convincing evidence that, while He COULD have done it the way YEC's say, He didn't do it this way. And, since we have no problem with God doing it however He likes, and do not think that an old earth and evolution contradict Scripture, why would we not accept the evidence that comes from God's Creation?

 

[MAC]

Hi Vance

If you don’t mind can you provide few samples of why Young Earth Creationism is dangerous to Christianity, what you have seen and read comparing them with the Word of God. I know there is many things in the Word of God that are not clear for us to understand but are His and for His good pleasure.

Examples like 24 hours, meat eating, ect.. Not forgetting that there is NO err nor sin in God! Everything lays down in a perfect timing.



Thank you, MAC

 

[Vance]

MAC, the reason YEC is dangerous is not the YEC teachings in and of themselves. It is in the insistence of many of them that if Scripture is true, evolution is not true. If Scripture is true, then the earth is young. Period. They do not present it as something that Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians disagree about, but as a dogmatic fact: if evolution is true, the Bible is false. They do not leave open the possibility that if evolution were true, it might just be their reading of Scripture that had been wrong. It is not a matter of believing something about Scripture or doctrine that is dangerous, but believing that you can not possibly be wrong about it, and teaching it that way.

In my opinion, such dogmatism should be reserved for salvation issues. What some YEC's have done is raise this issue TO a salvation issue, and thus put a lot of people's faith on the tight rope.

As someone very wise once said:

In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
In all things, love.

Many YEC's have eliminated the second part, or have moved the "method and timing of Creation" issue from the second tier, to the first tier, and do not allow liberty of thought.

This "either/or" teaching is so strong, that many YEC's in these very forums have said that if they found out tomorrow that evolution was true, without doubt, they would have to abandon their Faith! Then those same people who said THEY would abandon their faith point their fingers at these folks in the OP and say they are just coming up with excuses.

Do you not see the danger?

 

[MAC]

I know that some of the passages God gives us bring in our tiny minds many views in how the Earth was and when it began. I agree with you that there is to side to a conversation and we most look and compare both sides.



Rom 4:17 (as it has been written, "I have made you a father of many nations") --before God, whom he believed, who makes the dead live, and calls the things which do not exist as though they do exist.

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the ages were framed by a word of God, so that the things being seen not to have come into being out of the things that appear.

You know in Gen 1:1 God tells us that in "the beginning" but we know that there is no beginning with God, He have always been. This is place because the earth and our-selves have a beginning. In Joh 1:3 God tells us "All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being." All things are those that God has made known unto us that we may see and witness a Creator.

In Psa 33:9 we will find one of the most powerful word we can relate to creation; For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood. I most agree with you that if is not presented in a biblical honest view it can become a gain saying.

Exo 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.

Pro 16:4 Jehovah has made all for His purpose; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

 

[Lilandra]

and the TEs are saying here let me unscrew that thing for you. But the YECs are like No thanks, why don't you give it a try?

 

[Vance]

I feel like YEC's are in a vice and the TEs are saying here let me unscrew that thing for you. But the YECs are like No thanks, why don't you give it a try?

Lily, I think most TE's would love to help YEC's unscrew the vice they have created for themselves, but actually I would be content if they just stopped trying to put others in the same vice!

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Lots of theists believe in Evolution.

I never denied this. In fact, that's the entire reason I made the comment. The very fact that there are theists, including Christians, who accept the conclusions of modern science including evolution disrupts your attempt to polarize the issue into atheism vs. theism.

Do not say "young earth creationism vs. science" -

Why not? How can you deny that young earth creationism disputes basic conclusions in biology, geology and astronomy, for starters? Some young earth creationists even dispute basic concepts in physics, usually from a lack of understanding of what those concepts are.

Young earth creationism opposes not just biology, but other sciences as well. Furthermore, young earth creationism is not scientific, and professional creationists do not use a scientific methodology.

Therefore the dichotomy of young earth creationism vs. science is accurate.

that would be just the same as me saying "Evolution vs. science".

No, because your statement would be false. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and is considered the unifying theory of biology just as plate tectonics acts as the unifying theory of geology. Those sciences simply do not work in any meaningful way without evolution or plate tectonics, respectively.

Right. Christian creationists "disproved" YEC?

That is correct. Needless to say, they weren't young earth creationists much longer. When sciences like geology were new, they were young earth creationists by literalist necessity, before examining the physical evidence. Once they did this, they realized that they were wrong about topics like the age of the earth and a global flood.

1) Which Christian creationists did this?

There are several early geologists, for example, who were creationists responsible for the demise of young earth creationism. They disproved it in the early 19th century.

Adam Sedgwick is a good example. He is often credited as being the first geologist to formally denounce and disprove a global flood by presenting evidence at a scientific seminar.

2) How exactly did they "disprove" YEC?

The way any good scientist does: using physical evidence.

European geologists like Hutton and Sedgwick examined geologic features and realized that earth's geology was far more complex than previously thought. They concluded that a global flooding event is not evidenced in the sedimentary rock record, cannot be used to explain numerous features in the sedimentary rock record, and that an earth only a few thousand years old is not compatible with the evidence--the only thing it was compatible with was a literalist reading of Genesis popularized by Ussher.

One of those exact features those geologists examined was the angular unconformity at Siccar Point, Scotland (pictured below). The bedding planes of two very different rock types are at distinctly different orientations. That cannot be explained in a short time frame or during a global flood because it requires a sedimentary haitus and time for depositional environments to change:

That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, and there are numerous threads on the forum that discuss geological evidence disproving young earth creationism.

What way was that that is so threatening to Christianity?

Combined with what I'm going to quote you as saying in the next part of my reply is the fact that YECism is itself absurd, as I stated.

Its basic elements of a young earth and global flood were disproved nearly two centuries ago. Only those ignorant of the history of the geological sciences and/or those emotionally unable to handle that fact and/or those ignorant of the complexities of the geologic record deny this.

It's threatening when it is also used as an evangelical tool, as I have so often seen it, particularly by people in the United States. The quickest way to turn someone off your religion is to state that its holy text absolutely implies that the earth is 6,000 years old, a global flood is responsible for earth's geology, and evolution does not and did not occur.

I did not define YEC as "true" Christianity.

That is exactly what you implied when you wrote:

Likewise, any Bible-believing Christian who bases his faith on what the Bible says cannot accept TE, because it is not allowed for in the Bible.

YEC is a logical result of Christianity, for most people.

Not really because most Christians are not YECists. This is a phenomenon practically unique to the United States.

The rest of your post had nothing to do with what I was responding to. You keyed in on the wrong sentence that made the implication I was talking about. Now of course that sentence can be construed another way than defining YECism as "true" Christianity, but that is indeed how the bolded sentence you wrote reads. Christians by definiton base their faith on what the Bible says. You said that they cannot accept evolution and went on to state that only YECism makes sense as per the Bible.

 

[DanielJamesSimon]

The problem is simply a matter of contradictory evidence. We have evidence that would NOT exist if the earth was a recent creation. And we LACK evidence that would be there if the earth was young, there was a world wide flood, etc.

What evidence (or lack thereof)?

I never denied this. In fact, that's the entire reason I made the comment. The very fact that there are theists, including Christians, who accept the conclusions of modern science including evolution disrupts your attempt to polarize the issue into atheism vs. theism.

I am not attemption to polarise the issue into atheism vs. theism. Read carefully.

Why not? How can you deny that young earth creationism disputes basic conclusions in biology, geology and astronomy, for starters? Some young earth creationists even dispute basic concepts in physics, usually from a lack of understanding of what those concepts are.

There are many YEC scientists who have come to conclusions that Evolution is false because they have studied it, and have then applied these conclusions to the Bible - not the other way around. My own father, for example, was a Christian but believed in Theistic Evolution - he was also a science teacher, and through his science studies and teaching, he came to believe in YEC.

Young earth creationism opposes not just biology, but other sciences as well. Furthermore, young earth creationism is not scientific, and professional creationists do not use a scientific methodology.

Wrong again. YEC base their whole YEC beliefs on their scientific studies and their scientific methodology, and in fact often build arguments against Evolution on the very scientific method that you claim they do not use.

Therefore the dichotomy of young earth creationism vs. science is accurate.

If you are going to use the term Creationism vs. Science, then I will use the term Evolution vs. Science. Okay?

No, because your statement would be false. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and is considered the unifying theory of biology just as plate tectonics acts as the unifying theory of geology. Those sciences simply do not work in any meaningful way without evolution or plate tectonics, respectively.

The Theory of Evolution has been repeatedly tested and observed again and again by scientists? The origin of mankind has repeatedly been observed? Biology got on very well before Evolution came along. The fact that animals produce after their own kind, and only produce after their own kind - that is, they never turn into anything else - seems to me to be a pretty important fact of biology.

There are several early geologists, for example, who were creationists responsible for the demise of young earth creationism. They disproved it in the early 19th century.

Adam Sedgwick is a good example. He is often credited as being the first geologist to formally denounce and disprove a global flood by presenting evidence at a scientific seminar.

Okay I'll look into Adam Sedgwick. But does it really matter who started the demise of YEC? There are plenty (and a growing number) of YEC scientists in the world today who disagree with the people who started the demise of YEC no matter who they were.

That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, and there are numerous threads on the forum that discuss geological evidence disproving young earth creationism.

In that case I'll read those threads if I want to get into an argument about the geological evidence disproving YEC, if you don't mind. I'll leave this thread to its original topic.

Combined with what I'm going to quote you as saying in the next part of my reply is the fact that YECism is itself absurd, as I stated.

Its basic elements of a young earth and global flood were disproved nearly two centuries ago. Only those ignorant of the history of the geological sciences and/or those emotionally unable to handle that fact and/or those ignorant of the complexities of the geologic record deny this.

So the scientists who study the history of geology and who study geology are ignorant and/or emotionally unable to... etc.? You are being very dogmatic here, not accepting that there are hundreds of scientists who accept YEC.

It's threatening when it is also used as an evangelical tool, as I have so often seen it, particularly by people in the United States. The quickest way to turn someone off your religion is to state that its holy text absolutely implies that the earth is 6,000 years old, a global flood is responsible for earth's geology, and evolution does not and did not occur.

It is TE and the compromising issues that seems to be the main topic of the thread, so I will now focus mainly on TE and what the Bible actually says and discuss the fact that TE is dangerous to Christianity, rather than get too technical just at the moment, from now on. That being the case, let me just say that the Holy Text does imply that the Earth is 6,000 years old (or so - maybe more, maybe less, but no more than 9 or 10,000).

The Holy Text does imply that the Earth is 6,000 years old. It does talk of a Global Flood. Evolution is not allowed for in the Bible. MAC provided just a few verses that show this. I will go into more detail at a later date.

That is exactly what you implied when you wrote:

Likewise, any Bible-believing Christian who bases his faith on what the Bible says cannot accept TE, because it is not allowed for in the Bible.

If that is how you interpreted that sentence, then let me restate it.

Any Bible-believing Christian who claims to base his faith on the Bible and its Words alone, and who does not make compromises with the world in order to please men, should not accept TE. There may be some that do (I would say are misguided). I do not believe TE is allowed for in the Bible.

I know of a number of very sincere Christians who accept TE. I do not claim that YEC = True Christianity. If you felt that I implied that, then I take that sentence back.

Not really because most Christians are not YECists. This is a phenomenon practically unique to the United States.

I have known hundreds of Christians personally (that is, that I have met, dealt with in some way, and/or count among my personal friends). Almost all of them are YECists. I live in Australia, not the U.S. To say most Christians are not YECists seems to me to be a guess - I would like to see statistics from a reliable source to back up your claim, otherwise I will just assume that you don't know what you are talking about.

The rest of your post had nothing to do with what I was responding to. You keyed in on the wrong sentence that made the implication I was talking about. Now of course that sentence can be construed another way than defining YECism as "true" Christianity, but that is indeed how the bolded sentence you wrote reads. Christians by definiton base their faith on what the Bible says. You said that they cannot accept evolution and went on to state that only YECism makes sense as per the Bible.

Ah, the focus of the thread. According to the Bible, the Earth is young, and was Created in six days ex nihilo.

You reply to MAC's verses and tell me how you interpret them. Read the first couple of chapters of Genesis and tell me how you interpret them. Tell me why God said that the Jews should rest on the seventh day just as God did. Read the account of the Flood and tell me what you think. If you can show me that there is a reasonable argument that the Bible does allow for TE, then I'll be glad to acknowledge this.

 

[caravelair]

What scientific fields do YEC oppose? Elaborate.

geology, biology, astrophysics, archaeology...

 

[caravelair]

Wrong again. YEC base their whole YEC beliefs on their scientific studies and their scientific methodology, and in fact often build arguments against Evolution on the very scientific method that you claim they do not use.

they do? hmmm...

I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant.

Kurt Wise - Young Earth Creationist

The Theory of Evolution has been repeatedly tested and observed again and again by scientists?

yes.

Biology got on very well before Evolution came along.

actually, no it didn't. that's why evolution is considered to be the unifying theory of all biology. that's why dobzhanski said "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

The fact that animals produce after their own kind, and only produce after their own kind - that is, they never turn into anything else - seems to me to be a pretty important fact of biology.

how is that a fact of biology when we have observed the evolution of new species?

 

[Hydra009]

Wrong again. YEC base their whole YEC beliefs on their scientific studies and their scientific methodology, and in fact often build arguments against Evolution on the very scientific method that you claim they do not use.

You can't be serious. YECs base their whole YEC beliefs on science! YECs use the scientific method!

Have you seen the statements of faith? Is that what you think science is??

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html

It is painfully obvious that they start from the position that Genesis is literally true and that if the Bible claims that the Earth is young, then it is. There is no room for any data that doesn't fit the conclusion, and this sure as heck isn't how real science works. At best, this is pseudoscience.

 

[LittleNipper]

Creationism has provided thoughful logic and scientific understanding and brought it back to Christian thought. For years Christians had to listen to evolutionists' ponderings and feel basically left out. Suddenly, it is most obvious that GOD fills the voids of the unknown and it is okay for Christians to think outside the box of evolutions retoric.

If mainline churches are losing attenders, independent Bible believing churches are growing by leaps and bounds. Salvation is not provided by the theory of evolution.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I am not attemption to polarise the issue into atheism vs. theism. Read carefully.

No, you aren't anymore. You have since retreated on that attempt.

There are many YEC scientists who have come to conclusions that Evolution is false because they have studied it, and have then applied these conclusions to the Bible - not the other way around.

The only reason professional YECists come to the conclusions they do is their literalist reading of the Bible. It has nothing to do with evidence.

They do put the cart before the horse. Their conclusions from the Bible are used to determine what their arguments can be. Otherwise there would be no sense in bringing the Bible into it at all. If YECism were actually a scientific position, it should stand on the evidence, on its own merits. There would be no need to appeal to any religious text.

My own father, for example, was a Christian but believed in Theistic Evolution - he was also a science teacher, and through his science studies and teaching, he came to believe in YEC.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it actually had something to do with changing his religious leanings, such as adhering to a more fundamentalist stance that provoked that change of position. Furthermore, I have a sneaking suspicion that he was not a teacher of biology or geology or any relevant science to YECism.

Wrong again. YEC base their whole YEC beliefs on their scientific studies

No, they don't, otherwise they wouldn't be appealing to the Bible, as I said earlier. The conclusions should stand on their own merits rather than depend on the assumption that Genesis is literally true and infallibly true.

and their scientific methodology, and in fact often build arguments against Evolution on the very scientific method that you claim they do not use.

No, they don't use the scientific method. One of the basic elements of practicing a scientific methodology is letting the evidence dictate the conclusion rather than the other way around.

Yet we find that all professional creationist organizations, most popularly represented by AiG and ICR, do present their conclusion first and only accept that evidence they like and omit that which they don't like:

AiG: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)

Therefore AiG is not using the scientific method if they are to throw out any evidence that contradicts the way they want to read the Bible.

ICR: "...the administration and faculty of ICR are committed to the tenets of both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism.... t is the position of the Institute that the two are compatible and that all genuine facts of science support the Bible." (http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm)

Therefore ICR is not using the scientific method if the people who work there must adhere to the claims of young earth creationism and that the only facts that exist must support the way they want to read the Bible.

That is not how science works.

If you are going to use the term Creationism vs. Science, then I will use the term Evolution vs. Science. Okay?

No, because that would be lying given that I've explained to you why the dichotomy of creationism vs. science exists (including in this post by illustrating how professional creationists don't practice science) and why your dichotomy is false.

The Theory of Evolution

That you emphasize the word theory indicates a basic misunderstanding creationists exhibit regarding how science works.

Evolution is both fact and theory. It is a fact that evolution occurs--we observe changing gene pools of populations of organisms, we observe the evolution of new species, we observe these changes in the fossil record. The theory of evolution is an explanation for why we make these observations and how they occur, via mutation and natural selection combined with other concepts.

A theory is the pinnacle of the scientific method, and the word theory in science does not equate to how it is used colloquially.

Your implication in an attempt to nitpick the word theory is vacuous.

has been repeatedly tested and observed again and again by scientists?

Yes, that is correct.

The origin of mankind has repeatedly been observed?

We can make repeatable observations of that which we find in the fossil record pertinent to human origins.

Biology got on very well before Evolution came along.

Geology got on very well before plate tectonics came along. But in both cases, there was no viable mechanism to fully account for the observations made in those sciences.

The fact that animals produce after their own kind, and only produce after their own kind

And yet there is no definiton of what a "kind" actually is. Since you don't know what a "kind" is, there's no basis to say that populations of organisms cannot evolve beyond that barrier, considering you don't even know what that barrier is.

- that is, they never turn into anything else - seems to me to be a pretty important fact of biology.

That is not in conflict with evolution. Evolution does not state that organisms suddenly "turn into" other organisms. Speciation is the basis for all such major changes. New taxa don't suddenly appear. That would disprove evolution.

Okay I'll look into Adam Sedgwick. But does it really matter who started the demise of YEC?

Yes, because it shows that modern YECists aren't practicing science. Those early scientists were honest scientists, and even in early stages could see why YECism was false. Modern YECists are not honest: they have been caught in lies and are not practicing science.

But yes, in the end, what really matters is the evidence, not who found it.

There are plenty (and a growing number) of YEC scientists in the world today who disagree with the people who started the demise of YEC no matter who they were.

Plenty? You're talking about ~5% of all scientists worldwide and less than 1% of all scientists in relevant fields. That isn't "plenty" and there certainly isn't a growing number of them (rhetoric from YECist websites).

The only reason they disagree is because they are dishonest. They don't let the evidence dictate the conclusion like those creationists who disproved YEC.

In that case I'll read those threads if I want to get into an argument about the geological evidence disproving YEC, if you don't mind. I'll leave this thread to its original topic.

That's ironic considering you were the one who asked for that evidence. You even asked Vance in the reply to which I am replying for evidence disproving YEC:

"What evidence (or lack thereof)?"

I agree the thread should probably deal with its original topic, but there's no sense in pretending like your requests weren't the impetus for providing that evidence. And if you want to defned YEC, the most important thing you have to deal with is evidence. This thread is essentially meaningless.

So the scientists who study the history of geology and who study geology are ignorant and/or emotionally unable to... etc.?

No, because geologists aren't emotionally attached to religious beliefs that prevent them from coming to particular conclusions like YECists are. They certainly aren't ignorant either because they are well educated and actually research to find evidence.

It is TE and the compromising issues that seems to be the main topic of the thread, so I will now focus mainly on TE and what the Bible actually says and discuss the fact that TE is dangerous to Christianity, rather than get too technical just at the moment, from now on. That being the case, let me just say that the Holy Text does imply that the Earth is 6,000 years old (or so - maybe more, maybe less, but no more than 9 or 10,000).

Then the text is wrong, plain and simple.

That's why YEC damages Christianity.

Its proponents claim the Bible says something that (1) it never explicitly states and (2) is demonstrably false.

When you link the Bible to something demonstrably false, that only makes it look foolish and absurd.

It does talk of a Global Flood.

You should probably read the Epic of Gilgamesh to see the global flood myth therein. The story in the Bible was stolen from this older myth. That should be indication enough that it isn't mean to be taken literally.

Again, you are claiming that the Bible says something that (1) its authors would never know about (global flood; they didn't know much about what a global scale means), (2) was already written about in a myth that predates it, and (3) is demonstrably false.

When you link the Bible to something demonstrably false, that only makes it look foolish and absurd.

Any Bible-believing Christian who claims to base his faith on the Bible and its Words alone, and who does not make compromises with the world in order to please men, should not accept TE. There may be some that do (I would say are misguided). I do not believe TE is allowed for in the Bible.

If TE is not allowed for in the Bible, then it is not compatible with Christianity. If only YEC is allowed for in the Bible and is what is compatible with Christianity, the implication still remains that only YEC = "true" Christianity.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but even in your attempt to reword what you are saying, the implication still exists.

Furthermore, TE's don't make compromises and certainly don't do so to please men. They do so because they believe the Bible is true and shouldn't be so easily disproved by having it linked to absurd ideas like YEC.

I know of a number of very sincere Christians who accept TE. I do not claim that YEC = True Christianity. If you felt that I implied that, then I take that sentence back.

I have known hundreds of Christians personally (that is, that I have met, dealt with in some way, and/or count among my personal friends). Almost all of them are YECists. I live in Australia, not the U.S. To say most Christians are not YECists seems to me to be a guess - I would like to see statistics from a reliable source to back up your claim, otherwise I will just assume that you don't know what you are talking about.

There is no single source that has examined this, but they have examined multiple denominations and how their position on evolution is not one of dismissal but acceptance, or at least tolerance as compatible with the religion.

In reality, the burden is on you to demonstrate that YEC dominates Christianity as a whole...and that means beyond your personal anecdotal experiences.

Ah, the focus of the thread. According to the Bible, the Earth is young, and was Created in six days ex nihilo.

The Bible never explicitly says that the earth is young.

This is derived from an interpretation of the Bible popularized by Bishop Ussher.

You reply to MAC's verses and tell me how you interpret them. Read the first couple of chapters of Genesis and tell me how you interpret them. Tell me why God said that the Jews should rest on the seventh day just as God did.

I'm not interested in doing that. I think YECists make a better argument scripturally, but if their arguments do nothing but prove their own scripture wrong, that doesn't exactly lend their religion much credibility.

Non-creationists have been able to make convincing interpretations of Genesis from an allegorical point of view. You can ask people like Vance and they will clue you into what they are.

Read the account of the Flood and tell me what you think.

I already have, and here is what I think: it was written by someone who didn't know what they were talking about, had no concept of what they were talking about, and was not a witness to what they were talking about.

It mirrors the flood myth in the earlier Sumerian myth. The likely explanation is that it is not history but rather borrowed from an earlier myth.

Of course we already know that a global flood is false. If you are going to claim the account in the Bible must equate to a global flood, all you are doing is destroying the credibility of the Bible and illustrating exactly why it was written by ignorant people rather than being divinely inspired.

 

[Event Horizon]

Creationism has provided thoughful logic

Creationism blocks people from logic and reality. Because of it there are still people believing in a flat earth.

and scientific understanding

Creationism was falsified long ago by science. It is a set of religious beliefs that you can either accept as falsified or claim "goddidit" to every problem and make him look deceptive (or you can just flat out ignore reality like most creationists do). The only thing relevant to science creationism has brought is a misunderstanding of science. It has brought people to be ignorant of many areas of science such as evolution, abiogenesis, big bang, plate tectonics, and depending on the extent of the creationist, many others.

and brought it back to Christian thought.

From what I have witnessed in my life, creationism is dangerous to Christianity. It has made many believers to into unbelievers and may even be responsible for why the religion is decreasing in members worldwide. It initially caused me to leave Christianity when I was younger because I began to become more interested in Christianity and while searching I found the YEC beliefs and started to notice all the Christians around me believed them and some had even learned the YEC beliefs in private Christian schools so I thought it was the only way to interpret the Bible.

For years Christians had to listen to evolutionists' ponderings and feel basically left out.

The majority of Christians worldwide are evolutionists.

Suddenly, it is most obvious that GOD fills the voids of the unknown and it is okay for Christians to think outside the box of evolutions retoric.

You lost me. It sounds like you are saying creationism is more recent than evolutionary theory.

If mainline churches are losing attenders, independent Bible believing churches are growing by leaps and bounds. Salvation is not provided by the theory of evolution.

It's pretty obvious creationism isn't either considering the number of souls lost as a result of it.

 

[Vance]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mechanical Bliss again."

 

[LittleNipper]

Creationism blocks people from logic and reality. Because of it there are still people believing in a flat earth.
Creationism was falsified long ago by science. It is a set of religious beliefs that you can either accept as falsified or claim "goddidit" to every problem and make him look deceptive (or you can just flat out ignore reality like most creationists do). The only thing relevant to science creationism has brought is a misunderstanding of science. It has brought people to be ignorant of many areas of science such as evolution, abiogenesis, big bang, plate tectonics, and depending on the extent of the creationist, many others.
From what I have witnessed in my life, creationism is dangerous to Christianity. It has made many believers to into unbelievers and may even be responsible for why the religion is decreasing in members worldwide. It initially caused me to leave Christianity when I was younger because I began to become more interested in Christianity and while searching I found the YEC beliefs and started to notice all the Christians around me believed them and some had even learned the YEC beliefs in private Christian schools so I thought it was the only way to interpret the Bible.
The majority of Christians worldwide are evolutionists.
You lost me. It sounds like you are saying creationism is more recent than evolutionary theory.
It's pretty obvious creationism isn't either considering the number of souls lost as a result of it.

Actually, true Christians never believed that they could fall off the earth. They know that GOD holds everything together. It were the pagans, the secularists, and simple fools who could be led astray that placed their faith in superstitions, fables, and theories of men that did not know that GOD sits on a circular earth and not a flat one. The majority of "so called" Christians simply are "christian" as long as it is convenient. As soon as they think they are in the minority they are no where to be found. They like the crowd...