Young-Earth Creationism

[Sky]

Just curious, how do YEC's explain things like fossils, the Grand Canyon, continental drift, ancient rocks, sediment, and other things which seem to indicate an old earth? Do you just ignore the evidence or try to come up with a scientific explanation for it that fits your view? Or do you think that God just made the earth "mature", and things like ancient fossils don't really exist?

 

[jon1101]

I was raised on the teaching that the flood carved the grand canyon, layed a whole bunch of sediment, etc. If some piece of evidence couldn't be explained by the flood, the answer was typically something like "God created a mature earth." The argument goes along with the idea that Adam was created well into his life span, thus the earth could have been created well into its 'life span.'

The obvious trouble with this is that we can no longer really believe that God reveals himself through nature if it's true. If God just layed down fossiles of creatures that never existed and planted faulty clues as some divine sport, we simply can't trust any study of the earth, nor the God who created the deceptions.

-jon

 

[Sky]

True.

 

[Sky]

I would really like some input from YEC's as to why they believe what they do and what their views on science are.

 

[LouisBooth]

"The obvious trouble with this is that we can no longer really believe that God reveals himself through nature if it's true. If God just layed down fossiles of creatures that never existed and planted faulty clues as some divine sport, we simply can't trust any study of the earth, nor the God who created the deceptions."

I don't see how this logic flows from the previous point. Example: Adam was created mature, yes, so therefore 1. certain things also had to be done to his body for this to be so. Hormone changes, wearing of the skin, etc. This doesn't mean God is deceptive.

I don't believe in evolution because of the flaws I have seen it in.

 

[Satoshi]

So why would God lay down fossils of creatures that never existed and plant faulty clues? What possible purpose would this serve? How does a fake universe filled with stars that never existed fit into God's plan? Why would God decide to make it look like humans and other apes share a common ancestor? What's the point of scattering radioactive isotopes across the planet in just such a way that it looks like the world is some 4.5 billion years old?

 

[LouisBooth]

"So why would God lay down fossils of creatures that never existed and plant faulty clues? "

Why would God make atoms that look like the smallest thing, but they aren't? I don't know.

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"So why would God lay down fossils of creatures that never existed and plant faulty clues? "

Why would God make atoms that look like the smallest thing, but they aren't? I don't know.

If you can find no reason to believe that God's not deceptive, then why continue to claim that God is not deceptive?

Besides, if you want to believe in a non-deceptive God, then why not simply dismiss young-Earth creationism as God's word?  After all, if the universe and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy disagree, is it the universe that's wrong?

 

[Chris H]

Actually, I would welcome a few good YEC's here to debate and argue against a few of us who believe in evolution.

As far as how these things formed, I think the real trick is to

1. Read all of the young earth creation literature available...

2. Look at the actual scientific claims made by the young earthers...

3. Examine exactly why mainline science rejects those answers...

4. Determine if mainline science is a legitimate explanation...

Having done this myself, I prayerfully disagree with our moderater. This is why I now believe in a 4.5 Billion year old earth and in evolution.

In Christ

Chris

 

[LouisBooth]

"If you can find no reason to believe that God's not deceptive, then why continue to claim that God is not deceptive?
"

Because I don't have all-knowledge. There is a reason for it, I just don't know it yet, just like you claim things about science that we don't know yet

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"If you can find no reason to believe that God's not deceptive, then why continue to claim that God is not deceptive?
"

Because I don't have all-knowledge. There is a reason for it, I just don't know it yet, just like you claim things about science that we don't know yet

Argument from ignorance and tu quoque. 

Edited to add: FYI, these are fallacies, LouisBooth.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Argument from ignorance and tu quoque.

Edited to add: FYI, these are fallacies, LouisBooth"

So you think science is ignorant?

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Argument from ignorance and tu quoque.

Edited to add: FYI, these are fallacies, LouisBooth"

So you think science is ignorant?

Please try to respond to previous posts rather than asking unrelated questions.  If this question does indeed relate to my post in some way, please clarify it.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Please try to respond to previous posts rather than asking unrelated questions. If this question does indeed relate to my post in some way, please clarify it."

I am making the same claim science does about things yet to be discovered. you called it ignorance, thus I asked, so you think science is ignorant then?

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Please try to respond to previous posts rather than asking unrelated questions. If this question does indeed relate to my post in some way, please clarify it."

I am making the same claim science does about things yet to be discovered. you called it ignorance, thus I asked, so you think science is ignorant then?

You are incorrect on this point.  The argument from ignorance ("argumentum ad ignorantiam" or "appeal to ignorance" may turn up better hits on Google) is a fallacy that occurs when an arguer uses the fact that nothing has been proved about something as evidence in support of some conclusion about that thing [from Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic, page 643].  In short, you were claiming that you don't have all the facts, therefore God is not deceitful, despite what the current evidence would suggest.

Science, on the other hand, has a successful record of discovery.  Researchers are continually improving their methods, instruments, and knowledge base.  As such, there is reason to expect scientific discoveries to continue for a while yet.  It's the difference between claiming that an instrument will work because it hasn't ever been tested (and thus, has never failed) and claiming that an instrument will work because it's been extremely successful in a variety of tests.

 

[LouisBooth]

"In short, you were claiming that you don't have all the facts, therefore God is not deceitful, despite what the current evidence would suggest."

"Science, on the other hand, has a successful record of discovery. "

So? The evideience only shows that God created an earth. Nothing else. If created mature, it doesn't logically follow that he is being deceipive. Just as if science finds evdience for something it thinks of the reverse, it doesn't imply science is being desceptive.

"As such, there is reason to expect scientific discoveries to continue for a while yet. "

Good, I expect to eventually find out why God created the earth mature, so we are on the same level, thus the question still stands, do you think science is ignorant as well?

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"The obvious trouble with this is that we can no longer really believe that God reveals himself through nature if it's true. If God just layed down fossiles of creatures that never existed and planted faulty clues as some divine sport, we simply can't trust any study of the earth, nor the God who created the deceptions."

I don't see how this logic flows from the previous point. Example: Adam was created mature, yes, so therefore 1. certain things also had to be done to his body for this to be so. Hormone changes, wearing of the skin, etc. This doesn't mean God is deceptive.

I don't believe in evolution because of the flaws I have seen it in.

 

I guess perhaps God could still be trustworthy, but only if he never intended us to study the earth. If I create a building and go through all forms of trouble to ensure that it looks like it's been around for the past hundred years when in fact it's brand new, and then invite people to come inspect my building - to study it and find as much 'truth' about it as possible -, I am being deceptive.

-jon

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"In short, you were claiming that you don't have all the facts, therefore God is not deceitful, despite what the current evidence would suggest."

"Science, on the other hand, has a successful record of discovery. "

So? The evideience only shows that God created an earth. Nothing else. If created mature, it doesn't logically follow that he is being deceipive. Just as if science finds evdience for something it thinks of the reverse, it doesn't imply science is being desceptive.

You assumed that the God created the Earth.  Your assumptions are not evidence.  Nonetheless, I've accepted this premise for the sake of argument.  Furthermore, it seems that you've accepted that the Earth looks old.  If the Earth is actually young, you must find reasons for why it would look old, or accept a deceptive God.  That's all.

"As such, there is reason to expect scientific discoveries to continue for a while yet. "

Good, I expect to eventually find out why God created the earth mature, so we are on the same level, thus the question still stands, do you think science is ignorant as well?

There's a difference between ignorance and the fallacy of argument to ignorance.  Please learn it before posting again so that we may avoid miscommunicating.  In any case, your expectation and science are hardly identical.

 

[Sky]

Double post, sorry. 

 

[Sky]

Satoshi,

LouisBooth is a MODERATOR, so I wouldn't disagree with him.......


LouisBooth,

God did not create the earth "mature" (God does not decieve). God did not even create Adam mature, Adam was a baby when he was first created. based on the evidence, the earth really is 4.5 billion years old and evolution is true, however, if you want to ignore the evidence because of your preconcieved belief, then that's OK. However, I wsh you would at least consider the evidence before making an assumption that the earth is only a few years old.