YEC 3-top evidences - ONE MORE TRY- Please Read Parameters of Posting

[Dark Matter]

My last thread on this topic kind of took a sidespin, so I want to try this again because I am very interested in the answers.

I ask one thing from the others in this forum, please do not argue with the responses. If something is posted worthy of reply, perhaps if another thread could be started to discuss it. That way, this thread will simply be a collection of top three evidences for a young earth and a reference for future discussions.

Let's give it a try.

Note to YECers posting: I am not asking for long explanations, simply a few statements of fact.
For example, "my top three evidences for Young Earth Creation are:
1. The amount of dust on the moon
2. Radio-halos
3. Shrinkage of the sun

[Edit: The Bible, if you choose to use it, can be a fourth item. I am looking for the natural evidences you are finding compelling.] I don't need all the references, simply that it is an evidence for you.

Thank you,
Dark Matter

 

[Remus]

I would like to answer your question the way that you want, but I don’t believe it would be possible. My opinion is formed from a different direction. Ultimately, I would have to present the Bible as my number one piece of evidence based on my conclusion that it is the best source for truth.

If you would like to discuss this, I’m open to it. But, if you wish to discuss it just being ‘my interpretation’, then I’ll have to respectfully decline since this has is constantly being discussed and I don’t believe either of us will say anything new.

 

[Remus]

So I won’t be misunderstood, I thought it might be best to add that I’m not implying that anyone here believes that the Bible is less than the best source for truth.

 

[Dark Matter]

I would like to answer your question the way that you want, but I don’t believe it would be possible. My opinion is formed from a different direction. Ultimately, I would have to present the Bible as my number one piece of evidence based on my conclusion that it is the best source for truth.

If you would like to discuss this, I’m open to it. But, if you wish to discuss it just being ‘my interpretation’, then I’ll have to respectfully decline since this has is constantly being discussed and I don’t believe either of us will say anything new.

Hello Remus,
Thank you for your reply. No, on the contrary, I don't want to discuss Bible interpretation. That is why I don't ask for it on the list. That topic has been, and will continue to be hashed out elsewhere. I am a former YEC. I know the nature of evidence always changes over time. I am interested in what evidence is being used currently to support YEC ideology.

I will argue with no one who posts here. I will not argue your evidence in this post. I may later discuss it in other threads, but not here, and not as a direct argument with the one who posts here. If I argue it in another thread, it will not refer this thread or post, only the general argument.

You have my word on this. I hope others follow, but I cannot vouch for their actions or decisions.

Dark Matter

 

[vossler]

Like Remus I too can't answer the way you'd like. For me it is rather simple, the Bible tells me so. I know this is rather simplistic, especially for a forum where scientific rather than theological arguments are dominant.

 

[Remus]

Hello Remus,
Thank you for your reply.
...
Dark Matter

I’m guess I really can’t help you then. If you do have any questions regarding my opinion, I have no problem with discussing them either here or in another thread. I fear that my time is somewhat limited at the moment, so I can't get into anything in depth.

 

[SBG]

The problem seems to exist that most of us YECs hold to the Bible as the clear Authority in all matters, including origins. So, really you aren't going to find many who will go after scientific problems, but there are some very knowledgable YECs on the subject of science.

I suggest you seek and talk with Mark Kennedy. He has spent a lot of time in this area.

If you want to talk theology, then I am sure more YECs would be willing to speak on this. We tend to hold the Bibles Authority higher than science.

 

[Calminian]

I ask one thing from the others in this forum, please do not argue with the responses. If something is posted worthy of reply, perhaps if another thread could be started to discuss it. That way, this thread will simply be a collection of top three evidences for a young earth and a reference for future discussions.

Let's give it a try.

Note to YECers posting: I am not asking for long explanations, simply a few statements of fact.
For example, "my top three evidences for Young Earth Creation are:
1. The amount of dust on the moon
2. Radio-halos
3. Shrinkage of the sun

[Edit: The Bible, if you choose to use it, can be a fourth item. I am looking for the natural evidences you are finding compelling.] I don't need all the references, simply that it is an evidence for you.

There seems to be a huge language barrier in this debate. You ask for natural evidences of a young earth, yet no YECs believe the earth came about naturally.

Perhaps the wine analogy would help. Imagine some wine was just created by God. The you and I came and examined it the next day. The wine is 1 day old, but some might think it's older because it's fully developed. In examining this miracle, would it be right to ask for the 3 top natural scientific evidences that the wine is 1 day young? Since the wine was not formed naturally, you can see how absurd that question is. Yet in essence, OECs continually ask YECs this same question. So as usual the debates go nowhere.

 

[Dark Matter]

The problem seems to exist that most of us YECs hold to the Bible as the clear Authority in all matters, including origins. So, really you aren't going to find many who will go after scientific problems, but there are some very knowledgable YECs on the subject of science.

I suggest you seek and talk with Mark Kennedy. He has spent a lot of time in this area.

If you want to talk theology, then I am sure more YECs would be willing to speak on this. We tend to hold the Bibles Authority higher than science.

So then, would I be accurate if I were to sum up the YEC position, of those who post here, as the following:
"Young Earth Creationism is true because this is the only valid interpretation of the Bible. There may or may not be actual material evidence in the natural world to support this theology, however, such evidence will be validated or invalidated by the greater weight of the YEC theological interpretation."

Is this accurate. I don't post it to argue. I just want to be sure I understand.

Dark Matter

 

[Dark Matter]

There seems to be a huge language barrier in this debate. You ask for natural evidences of a young earth, yet no YECs believe the earth came about naturally.

Hello Calminian. Let me see if I can clarify. To speak theologically, "natural evidence" means knowledge from natural revelation--as opposed to knowledge from special revelation.
Natural revelation is Biblical and spoken of in Romans 1,2. God says that knowledge ascertained from the material world (natural revelation) is accurate and sufficient to hold men accountable to truth. Hopefully that clarifies?

Perhaps the wine analogy would help. Imagine some wine was just created by God. The you and I came and examined it the next day. The wine is 1 day old, but some might think it's older because it's fully developed. In examining this miracle, would it be right to ask for the 3 top natural scientific evidences that the wine is 1 day young? Since the wine was not formed naturally, you can see how absurd that question is. Yet in essence, OECs continually ask YECs this same question. So as usual the debates go nowhere.

Thanks for the explanatory analogy. I believe your analogy mistakes maturity for age. I don't find these to be the same. For example, Adam and Eve would be adults, but not old. They would not have the years of oxidation damage typical to mature skin, they would not have age spots, they would not have worn joints. They would be mature, but not old.

With your wine analogy, the molecular structure of fresh miraculously created wine would be mature, but not old. For example, there would not be mold in the cask, or rolling marks on the cask. There would not be drip marks on the unused spout. If there were, then it would be a reasonable arguement that the one who created it wanted people to believe it was old.

In turning this analogy to our subject at hand, I agree that God could have created the universe in a split moment, as it is, fully mature. However, if so done, then it would be young and not old. When OECist argue old earth, they do so for reason of evidential age (processes that are produced by age and not by maturity). Now, if God purposefully created aged attributes in a young universe (a false history), then it would seem to me that he wishes us to believe it to be old, for the scripture says that God does not tempt us to sin and neither does he lie, and I'm not sure how else to explain such an act except as deceptive. I am willing to hear your understanding of these challenging questions.

Dark Matter

 

[vossler]

In turning this analogy to our subject at hand, I agree that God could have created the universe in a split moment, as it is, fully mature. However, if so done, then it would be young and not old. When OECist argue old earth, they do so for reason of evidential age (processes that are produced by age and not by maturity). Now, if God purposefully created aged attributes in a young universe (a false history), then it would seem to me that he wishes us to believe it to be old, for the scripture says that God does not tempt us to sin and neither does he lie, and I'm not sure how else to explain such an act except as deceptive. I am willing to hear your understanding of these challenging questions.

Another way of seeing this would be to say that with our current knowledge (or lack there of ) and technologies available to the scientific community we are not truly able to determine the age of anything beyond a rather relatively short period of time. Yet we are today basing millions (even billions) of years on hundreds of years, at best, worth of evidence. The very attempt is frought with errors. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt it, no! What it means to me is that we shouldn't place too much stock in such evidence, at least when compared to God's own Word.

 

[SBG]

So then, would I be accurate if I were to sum up the YEC position, of those who post here, as the following:
"Young Earth Creationism is true because this is the only valid interpretation of the Bible. There may or may not be actual material evidence in the natural world to support this theology, however, such evidence will be validated or invalidated by the greater weight of the YEC theological interpretation."

Is this accurate. I don't post it to argue. I just want to be sure I understand.

Dark Matter

I would prefer a different statement from what you said above, but your free to your thoughts and conclusions of what I believe.

My view of Genesis 1-2 would be summed up as such:

"God's Word - The Bible - speaks clearly about a six day creation in Genesis 1-2. This is understood because of the usage of the words and the context of the original language, Hebrew. The context suggest that in Genesis 1 where it says 'there was evening and there was morning - X day' it is speaking of a literal day, not a figurative one. Furthermore, upon further examination of the rest of the Genesis Book, we can see that when the author clearly speaks of literal history, such as Genesis 12, - the calling of Abram - the usage and context of the hebrew language does not change to suggest a shift from figurative/mythical/allegorical writing to literal historical writing. These teachings, taught in the Bible, are views held by YECs and are believed to be the true and correct interpretation of Genesis. These views are widely supported by the Apostles, early Church Fathers, and Jesus Christ, by their words and writings. In Jesus Christ we trust and follow."

That is how I see it, and I cannot speak for others here, but would think others see a similiar view as well.

 

[Remus]

So then, would I be accurate if I were to sum up the YEC position, of those who post here, as the following:
"Young Earth Creationism is true because this is the only valid interpretation of the Bible. There may or may not be actual material evidence in the natural world to support this theology, however, such evidence will be validated or invalidated by the greater weight of the YEC theological interpretation."

Is this accurate. I don't post it to argue. I just want to be sure I understand.

Dark Matter

I don't believe this to be accurate, although I can only speak for myself. I do believe that the Bible could be interpreted differently (to a certain degree) and still be valid. However, without any outside influence, the Bible plainly speaks to a young earth. Granted, we can’t ignore outside influences, so we must decide what influences we allow. At one time I might have been more open to what comes out of the scientific community, but over the past few years, I’ve lost faith in parts of it. So I’m left with two things that seem to disagree with each other. But before I can even attempt to reconcile the two, I must have faith in both.

 

[Dark Matter]

However, without any outside influence, the Bible plainly speaks to a young earth.

Yes, this is true. If we had no other revelation other than special revelation, then I concur that YEC would be the reasonable conclusion.

Granted, we can’t ignore outside influences, so we must decide what influences we allow. At one time I might have been more open to what comes out of the scientific community, but over the past few years, I’ve lost faith in parts of it. So I’m left with two things that seem to disagree with each other. But before I can even attempt to reconcile the two, I must have faith in both.

Thanks. Quite honest. I understand.

Dark Matter

 

[Dark Matter]

I would prefer a different statement from what you said above, but your free to your thoughts and conclusions of what I believe.

Thank you for your clarification. Regarding the above quoted words, actually, no, I'm not free to my own conclusions. That would be true in secular post-modern thought--not in Christ.

Dark Matter

 

[Vance]

What I think the YEC's here are missing is that IF God created in the way, and in the time frame, they believe the Bible says it was created, then there WOULD be evidence from the natural world which supports this method and time of creation. It is not a matter of WHY you believe what you believe in the first place (ie, what you believe the Bible says), but what evidence, if any, from the natural world supports that interpretation.

I can see only three possible responses:

1. Here they are (and list them)
2. I don't think there are any specific evidences of a young earth
3. I think that God could have created it recently and there would NOT be any specific evidences that it is young.

Of course, 2 and 3 could be combined. And, in that case, we have an entirely different discussion.

But, the reason why the question is important is that many Creationists believe there IS specific evidence of a young earth.

If we could all agree that there is none, and that the answer is 2 and 3, that is a step forward, since we can do away with the "evidences FOR a young earth" debates, and focus instead on evidences for an old earth and whether God could have created recently without any evidence of having done so.

 

[Vance]

"Yes, this is true. If we had no other revelation other than special revelation, then I concur that YEC would be the reasonable conclusion."

Actually I would not even agree that we need any other "revelation" from God to see that the Bible is not describing a young earth. An understanding of the literary styles of the culture from which the Creation stories arose, ie. how they wrote and told stories about their past, informs us that they would not have considered those stories to be strict literal history. Thus, with that understanding, we conclude that Scripture is not attempting to provide this type of historical narrative. Thus, these accounts do not speak to the age of the earth, or the exact method of creation at all. Thus, since Scripture tells us nothing at all about the timing and exact method of Creation, we must look elsewhere for that type of information, and we can then get to God's revelation in nature itself.

But even if nature was also silent (which it is not, it screams "old"), we would still not have a Scripture teaching a young universe.

 

[GenemZ]

My last thread on this topic kind of took a sidespin, so I want to try this again because I am very interested in the answers.

I ask one thing from the others in this forum, please do not argue with the responses. If something is posted worthy of reply, perhaps if another thread could be started to discuss it. That way, this thread will simply be a collection of top three evidences for a young earth and a reference for future discussions.

Let's give it a try.

Note to YECers posting: I am not asking for long explanations, simply a few statements of fact.
For example, "my top three evidences for Young Earth Creation are:
1. The amount of dust on the moon
2. Radio-halos
3. Shrinkage of the sun

[Edit: The Bible, if you choose to use it, can be a fourth item. I am looking for the natural evidences you are finding compelling.] I don't need all the references, simply that it is an evidence for you.

Thank you,
Dark Matter

The answer is a simple one. But, you will not get it from YEC's. The universe and planet earth are very old. Its only the present creation which sits on the surface of the earth that was created in Genesis 1. This creation is relatively young. What is buried beneath it normally gets progressively older the deeper you go.

The problem with YEC's is that they have a concept stuck in their heads that they refuse to let go of. Same can be said of TE's. The truth of the matter, is that God replaces one creation by destroying one, and creating a new one above it. This will happen once a again in the future. This creation will cease to exist as we know it.

Isaiah 65:17
"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind."

This creation will be forgotten someday. The same rationales could be used by evolutionists if they found fossil remains of this one. As far as the YEC's? If they were in the dark about this creation? They will make the same claims.

Grace and peace, GeneZ