Wild claims about only SDAs being young Earth Creationists in the 1800's and early 1900's.

[The Barbarian]

I’m not the one pretending to be ignorant here.

If you are, then one person here is.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you are, then one person here is.

No my point is that you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that Jews used their father’s name to indicate their family affiliation. Why do you still refuse to admit that? You know full well that it is true but you won’t acknowledge it because you’d have to admit you were wrong and you don’t want to admit that. So then pride takes presidency over truth which is greatly discrediting your argument and integrity.

 

[The Barbarian]

No my point is that you still refuse to acknowledge the fact that Jews used their father’s name to indicate their family affiliation.

Who their father was, not family affiliation. Here's a clue for you; in Europe, there came a time when Jews were required to take a family name, which most of them did not have.

Historically, Jews used Hebrew patronymic names. In the Jewish patronymic system the first name is followed by either ben- or bat- ("son of" and "daughter of," respectively), and then the father's name. (Bar-, "son of" in Aramaic, is also seen.)

Permanent family surnames exist today but only gained popularity among Sephardic Jews in Iberia and elsewhere as early as the 10th or 11th century and did not spread widely to the Ashkenazic Jews of Germany or Eastern Europe until the 18th and 19th centuries, where the adoption of German surnames was imposed in exchange for Jewish emancipation. European nations gradually undertook legal endeavors with the aim of enforcing permanent surnames in the Jewish populations. Part of the Alhambra Decree of 1492 contained a provision mandating fixed legal surnames for Sephardic Jews, but it was not until the 17th and 18th centuries that the rest of Europe followed suit. The Kingdom of Prussia began sequentially requiring Jews in its eastern provinces to adopt surnames in the 1790s, an edict affirmed by Napoleon Bonaparte following his invasion of Prussia in 1812.

Jewish surname - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was sort of the way it goes in Russian society. " Vladimirovich" is not Vladimir Putin's family name. It's his middle name; "Vladimir Vladimirovich" is what his mom shouted at him, when he was in big trouble. (His dad was named "Vladimir").

This is why the patronymic excuse won't work. Set your pride aside and go on.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You said 'similar', not 'identical'. Of course most genes aren't identical between humans and chimpanzees. Most genes aren't identical across all humans, either. The great majority of the differences in both cases don't have any meaningful effect on the traits of the creatures in question -- something the authors of that paper conclude.

No, that's not correct. More than 98% of the DNA of genes is also the same between humans and chimpanzees. The relatively small number of DNA differences that there are entirely explain the differences in their proteins, which is typically only 2 different amino acids per protein. We know perfectly well that humans and chimpanzees share the same genetic code.

That is simply wrong.

Once again, you complain about how bad the science of evolution is, but when examined, your complaints turn out to be based entirely on a misunderstanding of facts.

Yet you offer no proof. You just think that it does
That is called the fallacy of probability

You said 'similar', not 'identical'. Of course most genes aren't identical between humans and chimpanzees. Most genes aren't identical across all humans, either. The great majority of the differences in both cases don't have any meaningful effect on the traits of the creatures in question -- something the authors of that paper conclude.

No, that's not correct. More than 98% of the DNA of genes is also the same between humans and chimpanzees. The relatively small number of DNA differences that there are entirely explain the differences in their proteins, which is typically only 2 different amino acids per protein. We know perfectly well that humans and chimpanzees share the same genetic code.

That is simply wrong.

Once again, you complain about how bad the science of evolution is, but when examined, your complaints turn out to be based entirely on a misunderstanding of facts.

You’re right in that I should be more thorough. I do read evolutionary literature and most of it is written in very vague terms. It can be tedious to find exactly what it is taking about

For example, some articles tell us that chimps and humans are 98.8% identical, but due to the size of the genome, that equals about 35,000,000 differences. Given that many difference, would there have been enough time to have mutation cause the differences in small increments?
The article you cited at first for evidence of common ancestry served to minimize differences and amplify similarities. It was a very crude experiment

A better study would be to map the 35 million differences to see if evolution was possible.
Too many articles assume before hand that evolution is true and don’t allow examination of problems with the theory. 35 million differences suggest that mutation is not as simple as we are lead to believe

I still don’t like the science, as it reads more like indoctrination and propaganda rather than a search for truth

The genetic code varies among species and is not absolutely universal, yet the differences are not investigated

 

[The Barbarian]

For example, some articles tell us that chimps and humans are 98.8% identical, but due to the size of the genome, that equals about 35,000,000 differences. Given that many difference, would there have been enough time to have mutation cause the differences in small increments?

Well, that's something we can consider. First, you (and everyone else) has about 100 mutation that were present in neither of our parents. Let's assume a population of 100,000 individuals. That would mean about 10,000,000 mutations per generation. Assuming a generation is about 20 years, that would mean in 3,000,000 years, we would have about 150,000 generations, or about 1,5 trillion mutations. Many, of course would be duplications , but that would still mean about 43,000 mutations for every difference.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[The Barbarian]

Too many articles assume before hand that evolution is true

It's like assuming gravity is true. Hard to deny what is directly observed.

 

[FireDragon76]

As somebody who has studied the history of Protestant thought, what he is saying is more or less in line with the evidence. 19th century Protestants were not of one mind in how to understand Genesis in light of new scientific discoveries. Young Earth Creationism wasn't even a distinctive belief in the Fundamentalist movement until the late 20th century. Early Fundamentalists accepted the antiquity of the Earth, and even Darwinism, as scientifically valid.

 

[The Barbarian]

Early Fundamentalists accepted the antiquity of the Earth, and even Darwinism, as scientifically valid.

It wasn't until the Seventh-Day Adventists convinced many evangelicals to accept their new doctrines, that YE creationism became a major part of evangelical faith.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

As somebody who has studied the history of Protestant thought, what he is saying is more or less in line with the evidence. 19th century Protestants were not of one mind in how to understand Genesis in light of new scientific discoveries. Young Earth Creationism wasn't even a distinctive belief in the Fundamentalist movement until the late 20th century. Early Fundamentalists accepted the antiquity of the Earth, and even Darwinism, as scientifically valid.

That is more of an observation of human psychology than natural science. Just because people believed something does not make it true.
The converse is also valid in that just because people disbelieve something does not make it untrue. You are making an argument for group think which is horrible science.

 

[The Barbarian]

That is more of an observation of human psychology than natural science.

More precisely, it's an observation that YE creationism is a rather modern revision of tradtional evangelical Christian belief.

Just because people believed something does not make it true.

But what they do and did believe are facts.

You are making an argument for group think which is horrible science.

He's just noting historical facts.

 

[sfs]

Early Fundamentalists accepted the antiquity of the Earth, and even Darwinism, as scientifically valid.

As I recall, The Fundamentals was cautious about evolution but not hostile. The antiquity of the Earth was not a problem at all.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

As somebody who has studied the history of Protestant thought, what he is saying is more or less in line with the evidence. 19th century Protestants were not of one mind in how to understand Genesis in light of new scientific discoveries. Young Earth Creationism wasn't even a distinctive belief in the Fundamentalist movement until the late 20th century. Early Fundamentalists accepted the antiquity of the Earth, and even Darwinism, as scientifically valid.

As someone who also studied Christian history, this can be a misleading statement. If Protestants were not of one mind in how to understand Genesis in light of new scientific discoveries, it would allow for there to be Protestants to take Genesis literally, and there were Protestants who did so starting from The Reformation. That alone fulfills the argument that Young Earth Creationism did not start with SDAs, but with earlier Christian believers. The foundations of Biblical literalism goes back to First Century Christians and it was of course eroded long before Darwin stepped on the stage by various non-literal interpretations over the centuries leading up to the final erosion by German Universities roughly around the 18th Century. All of this indicates that before 18th-19th centuries, plenty of Christians believed in a young Earth starting from the earliest years post Jesus and continued up to the 1800s and beyond to today. This is especially evident when you had anti-literalists and literalists of the time fighting with each other through written works among other things. This idea that the belief in a young Earth is a novel idea is in itself a novel idea. Yes, there were early Protestants who embraced Darwin because there was pre-Darwinian thought that sat the stage. Pro-Darwinian thought or in this sense, Old Earth beliefs no more came out of a vacuum or was novel at the time than Anti-Old-Earth thought or the belief in a young Earth.

 

[BNR32FAN]

for context:
From Science and Faith - Young-Earth Creationism

"The Bible clearly teaches the young-earth creationist view of Genesis 1–11. That was the almost universal belief of the church for 1800 years. Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolutionism in all their various forms (day-age view, gap theory, framework hypothesis, analogical days view, local flood view, etc.) are recent and novel interpretations that will not stand up to scrutiny with an open Bible. A growing body of overwhelming scientific evidence also shows that evolution and millions of years are religiously motivated myths masquerading as scientific fact."

====================== now for the claims in the video below

The following video makes some pretty wild claims -- about there being few to no young Earth Creationists - before the 1960's -- other than Seventh-day Adventists.

by contrast:
From: Old-Earth (Progressive) Creationism: History and Beliefs - Article - BioLogos
"The literal creation week and the instantaneous creation were the two major alternatives for most of Christian history, "

Yes I am SDA and yes I do believe Ellen White was a real Bible prophet - but even I would not make such a wild non-historic claim about limiting the origin of acceptance of the young earth creation doctrine to "those who read and accept what Ellen White wrote". How in the world does such an idea even come about?

The video appears to debunk it's own self-conflicted claim that the creationist movement was not based on Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 but rather was based on Seventh-day Adventist doctrine and not Christians studying the Bible and observations in nature etc that do not fit blind faith evolutionism's doctrines on origins and ages.

At 16:29 the video introduces an author of a number of books on Geology "George McReady Price". The video says "He wrote several papers and books arguing that the geological column was a result of Noah's flood" ( an observation that comes as no surprise to Christians today - familiar with Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11). The video claims that the "arguments" that creationists use today - date back to Price when it comes to geology and what he called "flood geology". The video does not claim that anyone is/was claiming that they got their ideas from Ellen White. (Sadly for the wild claim in your post).

Price (as do many Christians today) noted that the so-called geological-column was based on circular reasoning where fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils. (A complaint that many observers make about the whole thing).

At 17:30 in the video Price is said to have quoted Ex 20:11 (which is a direct quote of Gen 2:1-3) for the 7 day week of creation being the same as the 7 day week at Sinai. And scripture of course is something for which at least some Christians have a I value. Instead of claiming Price was appealing to Ellen White - your own video claims he was affirming Ex 20:11. (I am guessing you do not consider Ellen White to be the author of Ex 20:11 or Gen 2:1-3).

At 18:20 the video correctly states that Price did not claim the entire universe is only 6000 years old --- he only claims that life on Earth is no more than 6000 years old.

At 20:09 the video says that after not getting much popular story-telling support behind Price's findings about the flood - Dr. Henry Morris (a scientist with a Ph.D in hydraulic engineering) published a book for literal 7 day creationism. This is how the whole thing gained more popular acceptance and the video admits Morris was definitely not a follower of Ellen White (as if anyone had been using that claim for Ex 20:11 or Gen 2:1-3 regarding the literal week -- in the first place for creationism). 1961 the book 'the Genesis Flood" by Morris and Whitcomb was published and became very popular.

At 21:53 about 200,000 copies of that book were sold and so Morris and Whitcomb became 'celebrities' - neither of which followed Ellen White and neither of which were SDA - sadly for the wild claims made in the post above. At 22:20 we see a lot of Creationist scientific groups forming due to support from Dr. Morris. At 22:45 the wild claim was made that in the 1920 there were only a TINY number of folks in the "anti-evolutionist community" and they were almost all SDA. (Note that Ellen White was not still alive in 1920). This is shocking since a lot of the evangelical churches today that reject blind faith evolutionism today - were also opposed to it in the 1920's.

The video keeps saying that "SOME believed that the Earth was older than 10,000 years old" when referencing ancient groups. But the problem with "SOME" or "A FEW exceptions" etc - is that is far from saying "nobody believed the actual text stating that it is a literal 7 day creation week on Ex 20:11 and in Gen 2:1-3" --

The video even admits that most people accept that this is what everyone believed (except for SOME) about the 7 day creation week of Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11

Near the end of the video we have this Mea Culpa - 23:14 "I am not saying there were NO young Earth creationists before the Seventh-day Adventists" He adds "in centuries past MANY believed that the Earth was relatively young"

Yeah I watched this video a few days ago and completely disagreed with his closing statement that YEC came from Ellen White. YEC predates Christianity itself by over 1,000 years since it was first a Jewish teaching that came from the writings of Moses.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah I watched this video a few days ago and completely disagreed with his closing statement that YEC came from Ellen White. YEC predates Christianity itself by over 1,000 years since it was first a Jewish teaching that came from the writings of Moses.

As far as we can know, Moses didn't write anything. The Penteteuch or Torah was merely attributed to him without evidence.

 

[BobRyan]

As far as we can know, Moses didn't write anything. The Penteteuch or Torah was merely attributed to him without evidence.

Christ on the other hand affirms it in places like Mark 7:7-13

We also see NT saints affirm it in places like 2 Cor 3 -
"15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts;" 2 Cor 3:15

As far as we know - the Bible is true.

How did Moses write Deuteronomy if it records his death? | GotQuestions.org

How did Moses write Deuteronomy if it records his death? Did someone else, possibly Joshua, finished Deuteronomy after Moses died?

www.gotquestions.org

"Prior to his death, Moses transcribed his collection of speeches and “gave it to the Levitical priests, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:9). Moses is identified in the book of Deuteronomy as the author (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24), and Jesus often quoted from Deuteronomy, confirming Mosaic authorship (Matthew 19:8, citing Deuteronomy 24:1–4)."

Deut 31: 9 So Moses wrote this Law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel. 10 Then Moses commanded them, saying, “At the end of every seven years, at the time of the year of the release of debts, at the Feast of Booths, 11 when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this Law before all Israel so that they hear it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Christ on the other hand affirms it in places like Mark 7:7-13

Moses surely wrote some things that were later incorporated into scripture. However...

Deuteronomy 34:5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there, in the land of Moab, by the commandment of the Lord: 6 And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre until this present day. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, neither were his teeth moved.

Obviously, Moses did not write of his death and burial, even though he is said to have written that book.