Young Earth Creationism

[Vesi9000]

Does it still exist?
If so:
Do you hold to it?
If so:
Why? How do you grapple with the Scientific view of time and the Universe?
If not:
Why? How do you grapple with those who do hold to it?

***Please, don't debate one another. I'm interested in individual responses. Just pretend you're giving a Testimony or something. I may ask for clarification here or there, but for the most part I'd like this to be a one-off response thread.***

 

[GakuseiDon]

Does it still exist?

Yes.

If so:
Do you hold to it?

No.

If not:
Why? How do you grapple with those who do hold to it?

Why? I believe that the evidence shows an old earth, with all life evolving from a common ancestor.

How do I grapple with creationists? With the scientific evidence. Creationism is bad science, not bad theology.

 

[charsan2]

Does it still exist?

Yes, of course

If so:
Do you hold to it?

Yes, very much so.

If so:
Why? How do you grapple with the Scientific view of time and the Universe?

I don't

If not:
Why? How do you grapple with those who do hold to it?

deluded. Here is a good resource for how God created everything Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics it contains layman articles and scientific articles

 

[laconicstudent]

Does it still exist?
If so:
Do you hold to it?
If so:
Why? How do you grapple with the Scientific view of time and the Universe?
If not:
Why? How do you grapple with those who do hold to it?

***Please, don't debate one another. I'm interested in individual responses. Just pretend you're giving a Testimony or something. I may ask for clarification here or there, but for the most part I'd like this to be a one-off response thread.***

Yes, it does exist unfortunately.

No, I do not hold to it.

I don't hold with it because it has been completely refuted by observable reality.

 

[Vesi9000]

deluded. Here is a good resource for how God created everything Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics it contains layman articles and scientific articles

Would you mind just giving a brief summary of your favorite argument in support of Young Earth Creationism? I'd rather know some of your own personal views than those of AnswersInGenesis.org.

 

[charsan2]

Genesis is my argument

 

[salida]

Does it still exist?
Yes, young earth
http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa

How do you grapple with the Scientific view of time and the Universe?
Time Diliation
http://creation.com/a-5d-spherically-symmetric-expanding-universe-is-young

 

[Vesi9000]

Time Diliation
http://creation.com/a-5d-spherically-symmetric-expanding-universe-is-young

That's c-decay right? I've never heard that one before. Thanks.

 

[drich0150]

Does it still exist?

yes

If so:
Do you hold to it?

I not sure

If so:
Why? How do you grapple with the Scientific view of time and the Universe?

I view it as I do the christian account of origins.. A story that takes the same measure of Faith to believe as it's counter part does.

If not:
Why? How do you grapple with those who do hold to it?

One does not have to "grapple" with anything position. Because it would be the truth if that person simply said i understand what both sides are representing, but i personally do not know what happened all those many years ago. Therefore i do not Need to believe anything. It is also easy to see that even a faith in facts is still a faith at it's core.

To "Need" to believe one account over another is the result of a desperate need to excise one's faith in this area... We all do not have this Need.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Does it still exist?
If so:
Do you hold to it?

Yes, it exists. No, I'm not a Young Earth Creationist.

If not:
Why? How do you grapple with those who do hold to it?

Because it doesn't reflect what we know of the natural world, it's an overly wooden and sterile interpretation of Genesis 1, and it causes more problems theologically, scientifically and hermeneutically than it solves. I usually try and explain that overly literal readings of Genesis 1 are not essential to Christianity (just ask St. Augustine or Origen) and that wrestling with the text of Genesis 1 can engage us in a deeper appreciation for what it's actually saying instead of forcing it into a modernistic literal-historical-scientific framework that it was not intended to be.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ebia]

What Crypto said.

 

[solarwave]

Does it still exist?

It would seem so.

If so:
Do you hold to it?

No, theistic evolution for me

If not:
Why? How do you grapple with those who do hold to it?

I'm not sure I understand the question. As long as they don't try to force it on people I am ok to leave their to their beliefs.

If they are trying to spread it then I'll try to show them that the Bible can be infallible yet the creation story/s be metaphorical spiritual myths.

 

[The Fourth Horseman]

Anyone who holds to YEC needs to get their head checked. The existance of modern society and very basic laws of physics, chemistry and biology all discredit it. Claiming the earth is 6000 years old is on pat with thinking the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. Oh wait...

I'm an Atheist but it really comes down to a Bible Literalists vs Symbologists (not sure of the exact term for these guys). I was once Christian and I always took the Bible as more metaphorical but it seems many take it literally. In which case the world was created in seven days and not several billion years.

I'm not particularly against Christianity, I personally find it illogical, but if you're moderate in your beliefs and and don't go around trying to force Jesus into everything we won't have any problems.

 

[Spirko]

Does it still exist?

Yes.

Do you hold to it?

Yes.

Why? How do you grapple with the Scientific view of time and the Universe?

I don't. Science is wrong all the time. Scientists are constantly saying, "we thought 'X' was true but now we know that 'Y' is true".

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Anyone who holds to YEC needs to get their head checked. The existance of modern society and very basic laws of physics, chemistry and biology all discredit it. Claiming the earth is 6000 years old is on pat with thinking the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. Oh wait...

I'm an Atheist but it really comes down to a Bible Literalists vs Symbologists (not sure of the exact term for these guys). I was once Christian and I always took the Bible as more metaphorical but it seems many take it literally. In which case the world was created in seven days and not several billion years.

I'm not particularly against Christianity, I personally find it illogical, but if you're moderate in your beliefs and and don't go around trying to force Jesus into everything we won't have any problems.

I'm not a biblical literalist, and I don't force my faith down other people's throats; this isn't because I'm "moderate" in my beliefs, but because I take my faith very seriously.

Fundamentalists don't have a monopoly on devotion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Spirko]

Anyone who holds to YEC needs to get their head checked.

So then, not only are you breaking the rules by debating in an area where atheists aren't allowed to debate, you're breaking the rules by flaming? Wow! Two rule violations in one post? I'm impressed.

Claiming the earth is 6000 years old is on pat with thinking the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. Oh wait...

...which is kind of ironic when you stop to consider that the Bible declared the Earth to be round and the universe heliocentric at a time when science believed it to be flat and geocentric.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

...which is kind of ironic when you stop to consider that the Bible declared the Earth to be round and the universe heliocentric at a time when science believed it to be flat and geocentric.

If it spoke of a heliocentric model for the solar system then why did it take until Copernicus and Galileo to convince people?

Scripture doesn't present a heliocentric model, it presents a geocentric model. In Joshua God doesn't stop the earth, He stops the sun,

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, ..." - Joshua 10:13

The earth is said to be "fixed", never to "move" (e.g. Psalm 93:1)

A literal reading of biblical cosmology leads to geocentrism, not heliocentrism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Exial]

...which is kind of ironic when you stop to consider that the Bible declared the Earth to be round and the universe heliocentric at a time when science believed it to be flat and geocentric.

Thats the beauty of science, it changes its theories when new evidence becomes available.

Bible declared the Earth to be round

Hmm, this seems suspect to me. Do you have any evidence for this?

Also round does not equal spherical. A circle is round, but it is not a sphere. I think the bible uses the phrase circle rather than directly mentioning a sphere.

and the universe heliocentric

It quite plainly states the opposite in a few verses.

Psalm 93

1The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.


Psalm 96:10


10Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.


Psalm 16:30


30Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

In a heliocentric model, the earth moves around the sun and thus is not stable or unmovable which contradicts the biblical verses. It also wobbles and tilts on its axis. It is anything but stable.

 

[Spirko]

Thats the beauty of science, it changes its theories when new evidence becomes available.

But why does it need to change if it's never wrong?

Hmm, this seems suspect to me. Do you have any evidence for this?

Isaiah 40:22.

It quite plainly states the opposite in a few verses.

Actually, none of the verses you cited say anything about the Earth's movement in relation to the Sun. Nice try, though.

Psalm 93

1The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Two problems with your...*ahem*...logic.

The first is that the book of Psalms is poetic language. You would think that you would know this from the first part of this verse, as neither majesty nor strength are kinds of clothing.

The second is that the verse is referring to God's power to create the world, not the Earth's movement in relation to the Sun.

Psalm 96:10


10Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

See above.

Psalm 16:30

30Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

See above.

 

[Spirko]

Scripture doesn't present a heliocentric model, it presents a geocentric model. In Joshua God doesn't stop the earth, He stops the sun,

"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, ..." - Joshua 10:13

And how is that geocentric?

The earth is said to be "fixed", never to "move" (e.g. Psalm 93:1)

Two problems with your...*ahem*...logic.

The first is that the book of Psalms is poetic language. You would think that you would know this from the first part of this verse, as neither majesty nor strength are kinds of clothing.

The second is that the verse is referring to God's power to create the world, not the Earth's movement in relation to the Sun.

A literal reading of biblical cosmology leads to geocentrism, not heliocentrism.

Only if you don't know what geocentrism or heliocentrism means.