Young Earth Creationism

[Willtor]

Evolution is in fact more contrary to science than Creationism, even though it pretends to be science.

Science demands verifiable proof and deals with facts based on genuine scientific principles. Evolution simply makes claims without any proof of any kind, relying on "extinction" to cover up their deception. There have also been a number of hoaxes perpetrated by evolutionists to promote their myth: Evolution Fraud and Myths

Hoaxes are perpetrated _against_ the scientific community, not by it. Fraud has been carried out by scientists to fool other scientists, not the public. Why should the public care, for example, whether scientists think the earliest modern humans appeared in Africa or in England? But to scientists, this is a big deal. It's also worth observing that every hoax have been uncovered and exposed by the scientific community, not one by a creationist.

To the larger issue, evolution is probably about as well-attested as any scientific theory that exists. Make no mistake, the views you have heard and inherited are a fight against science in general -- not just evolution.

Evolution is simply an atheistic rejection of Divine creation. Creation (while not described in modern scientific terms) is the basis of science, since God built the laws of the the universe into His creation (e.g. Gen 1:14-18).

Evolution is a scientific theory. Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Budhists, agnostics... people of basically every viewpoint on the question of and identity of God participate in discoveries in the field of evolution.

Regarding the last point, the discussion is about an understanding of creation that contradicts science -- _not_ creation, itself. The latter idea is one that I (and every other Christian) accepts. The former is not.

 

[Calminian]

You believe that the water pouring from his side was miraculous? I always read that as a natural event. If you think it was natural, why bring it up in connection with the resurrection?

Yes, it was a natural occurrence that happens upon death, according to medical findings. This militates against the swoon theory and others that posit Christ was only near death on the cross, but did not actually die.

Creationism, however, is contrary to science, wholesale. The world looks as though it's got a much longer history than 10,000 years, along with details about that history that are contrary to creationism. If you believe the world is young, you may be right, but science can't possibly back you up on that because it looks like you're wrong.

I would agree that science in a pure sense can never conclude the earth is young. And likewise science cannot point directly to a resurrection from the dead. But it can be used to support both.

An important distinction between creationism and the resurrection is that there's no physical evidence one way or the other about the resurrection. Science has no way of talking about it. It's been claimed to have happened, but since it's supernatural, science can't look into the mechanisms by which it might have occurred. It can look for physical evidence, one way or another, but none has ever turned up, nor is it likely to do so. A 10,000 year old earth, on the other hand...

Both are virtually identical, though the creation is a bit harder to look at scientifically that the resurrection. You've actually got that part backwards. The creation is by nature a one-time event that can't be repeated in a laboratory or anywhere else to observe it. It's the point where things came into existence. By nature it can't repeat. We do, however, have humans born and dying everyday, and can observe them quite regularly. Thus, we can trust medical science, and even use medical science to confirm the resurrection must have been a miracle if it did happen.

The only record we have on both is the Bible. I just find it interesting you choose science over the creation account, but the resurrection account over science. Why not just be consistent, like Bishop Spong and others like him?

 

[Calminian]

....Those of us who reject YEC do it because of scientific evidence and because we have a presupposition that God created the universe to be orderly and consistent, such that things like its age can be discovered by examination. There is no scientific evidence that the resurrection did not happen. There is scientific evidence that the earth is much older than six thousand years.

But don't you realize that miracles are not orderly and consistent? By their very nature they are disorderly, and bypass orderly processes? There is no intelligible distinction between the two events.

The oder of the universe provides us a way to recognize miracles, not to deny them. All you've done is chosen to believe some miracles over others. You are choosing to view the creation account through science, but leaving science out of it when viewing other miracles. It's strange that christians do this.

You say there is no scientific evidence that the resurrection never happened, yet there is ton of medical evidence that it couldn't have happened naturally. Likewise, there is good evidence the creation account couldn't have happened naturally. But that doesn't prove it didn't happen. It just tells us that God must have done it.

Conversely, when you ascribe naturalistic explanations, like the big bang and evolution, to God, it renders Him unnecessary.

 

[Willtor]

Yes, it was a natural occurrence that happens upon death, according to medical findings. This militates against the swoon theory and others that posit Christ was only near death on the cross, but did not actually die.

This is useful for apologetics, but if it isn't supernatural, then it isn't relevant to talk about the limits of science. Before, we were talking about the resurrection and the question of what science can (or cannot) say about it.

I would agree that science in a pure sense can never conclude the earth is young. And likewise science cannot point directly to a resurrection from the dead. But it can be used to support both.

Both are virtually identical, though the creation is a bit harder to look at scientifically that the resurrection. You've actually got that part backwards. The creation is by nature a one-time event that can't be repeated in a laboratory or anywhere else to observe it. It's the point where things came into existence. By nature it can't repeat. We do, however, have humans born and dying everyday, and can observe them quite regularly. Thus, we can trust medical science, and even use medical science to confirm the resurrection must have been a miracle if it did happen.

But we don't assert that people are rising from the dead every day; Just that once, some 2000 years ago. Science can be used to debunk the resurrection of Jesus, but it would be different from what you've said for that reason. The example you've given is like arguing that science says that the Spartans didn't hold off the Persians because we don't see it happening, today. This is not what one does in science. You must have a wrong understanding of science because this would make science say many things it doesn't actually say.

On the contrary, we could debunk the resurrection using science by producing the body. We don't have the body. So, although science can't say it did happen, it also cannot say it didn't. It simply doesn't have data.

But this is the critical thing: If you acknowledge that the body would debunk the resurrection, then you acknowledge that science can be used to talk about things that happened in the past. This is called forensics.

The only record we have on both is the Bible. I just find it interesting you choose science over the creation account, but the resurrection account over science. Why not just be consistent, like Bishop Spong and others like him?

If you think this is the line of reasoning I use to arrive at my position, you understand neither my line of reasoning, nor my position. Instead of fighting me, communicate with me. Listen and understand. Don't assume you know.

 

[Saricharity]

I believe in YEC.
God created humans.
God doesn't need to have man made and interpreted science prove creation.
I also don't believe you need to be a YEC for salvation. Secondary issue IMO
Jesus came to save sinners. If you believe Jesus died for your sins and rose again defeating death and if you have a personal relationship with Christ...THAT is what matters. Believing in evolution or OEC or YEC or whatever makes no difference. It may inhibit your ability to witness for Christ, but it's not a necessity for salvation. JMHO

 

[Calminian]

I believe in YEC.
God created humans.
God doesn't need to have man made and interpreted science prove creation.
I also don't believe you need to be a YEC for salvation. Secondary issue IMO
Jesus came to save sinners. If you believe Jesus died for your sins and rose again defeating death and if you have a personal relationship with Christ...THAT is what matters. Believing in evolution or OEC or YEC or whatever makes no difference. It may inhibit your ability to witness for Christ, but it's not a necessity for salvation. JMHO

Jennae, I would agree, but stop short of saying it doesn't matter. You are correct, though, you can reject the plain reading of Genesis and be a christian. All that matters for salvation is believing the gospel. But let's not forget, the gospel message begins in Genesis, in fact the events of Genesis are the basis of the necessity of Christ having to come and die for our sins.

My concern is for the next generation—those raised in the church and considering the christian faith of their parents. In school they're being taught that Genesis is not true, replacing it with the Big Bang, and Evolution. Then when they come home, their parents tell them it doesn't matter and they can believe whatever they want about Genesis. Even worse, their pastors tell them the same thing. My concern is, the youth in the church will pass on christianity altogether. Why should they believe the latter portions of the Bible, when the church itself doesn't believe the beginning portion?

So while it's not essential to salvation, it's vitally important to biblical authority. The gospel comes from the Bible. Do we tell our kids its 100% reliable, or only partial reliable? Today, kids are leaving the faith of the evangelical parents at alarming rates. Some statistics estimate up to 80% which is very scary. Ken Ham wrote a book about this I highly recommend. Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it. You can read the very alarming first chapter of this book here for free. I'd be curious your thoughts on it, if you get a chance to read it.

JMHO, also, but I definitely think it matters.

 

[Willtor]

Jennae, I would agree, but stop short of saying it doesn't matter. You are correct, though, you can reject the plain reading of Genesis and be a christian. All that matters for salvation is believing the gospel. But let's not forget, the gospel message begins in Genesis, in fact the events of Genesis are the basis of the necessity of Christ having to come and die for our sins.

My concern is for the next generation—those raised in the church and considering the christian faith of their parents. In school they're being taught that Genesis is not true, replacing it with the Big Bang, and Evolution. Then when they come home, their parents tell them it doesn't matter and they can believe whatever they want about Genesis. Even worse, their pastors tell them the same thing. My concern is, the youth in the church will pass on christianity altogether. Why should they believe the latter portions of the Bible, when the church itself doesn't believe the beginning portion?

So while it's not essential to salvation, it's vitally important to biblical authority. The gospel comes from the Bible. Do we tell our kids its 100% reliable, or only partial reliable? Today, kids are leaving the faith of the evangelical parents at alarming rates. Some statistics estimate up to 80% which is very scary. Ken Ham wrote a book about this I highly recommend. Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it. You can read the very alarming first chapter of this book here for free. I'd be curious your thoughts on it, if you get a chance to read it.

JMHO, also, but I definitely think it matters.

The Church has gone through periods of pro-figurative interpretation of Genesis. I don't see why this time would have different consequences.

 

[Calminian]

The Church has gone through periods of pro-figurative interpretation of Genesis. I don't see why this time would have different consequences.

Yet that's what the statistic show, especially since the theory of evolution became popularized. A poll not too long ago showed belief in essential Christian doctrines (deity of Christ, bodily resurrection) falling at the same rate belief in evolution was rising. Coincidence? I think all we have to do is look at Europe to see where the church in America is headed. We're destroying our own foundation. Genesis is the foundation of the entire Bible.

 

[Willtor]

Yet that's what the statistic show, especially since the theory of evolution became popularized. A poll not too long ago showed belief in essential Christian doctrines (deity of Christ, bodily resurrection) falling at the same rate belief in evolution was rising. Coincidence? I think all we have to do is look at Europe to see where the church in America is headed. We're destroying our own foundation. Genesis is the foundation of the entire Bible.

I don't think evolution plays any kind of a significant role. I think it has more to do with globalization. People increasingly see a variety of views from an early age rather than just one, and some of those views expose weaknesses in the traditional view. IMO, Christianity has gotten bogged down in 18th/19th century views of the world, and it is those views that drag down the core things you mention (deity of Christ, etc.).

But if Christ really is God incarnate, the belief won't disappear. It'll wane until the cruft falls away. As evangelism becomes easier (from an intellectual perspective -- not commentary on whether persecution will rise), freed from the extra burdens, it will rise again.

I suppose I should say something more about "easier" where evangelism is concerned. I talk to my lab mates about God-type-things, from time to time. I'd like to talk about the resurrection because, to me, that's where to begin in talk about God. Invariably, however, the topic quickly goes to something else: combating science, interracial and gay marriage, Westboro Baptist Church, imperialism, etc. Evangelism is hard, not because there are so many barriers to thinking that Jesus rose from the dead, but because there are so many _legitimate_ criticisms of popular Christianity that stand at center stage.

Those things need to die away -- the Church needs to divorce itself from the 18th/19th century -- and Christianity can begin again with its core observation: the dead, now risen Christ.

 

[Calminian]

I don't think evolution plays any kind of a significant role. I think it has more to do with globalization. People increasingly see a variety of views from an early age rather than just one, and some of those views expose weaknesses in the traditional view. IMO, Christianity has gotten bogged down in 18th/19th century views of the world, and it is those views that drag down the core things you mention (deity of Christ, etc.).

But if Christ really is God incarnate, the belief won't disappear. It'll wane until the cruft falls away. As evangelism becomes easier (from an intellectual perspective -- not commentary on whether persecution will rise), freed from the extra burdens, it will rise again.

I suppose I should say something more about "easier" where evangelism is concerned. I talk to my lab mates about God-type-things, from time to time. I'd like to talk about the resurrection because, to me, that's where to begin in talk about God. Invariably, however, the topic quickly goes to something else: combating science, interracial and gay marriage, Westboro Baptist Church, imperialism, etc. Evangelism is hard, not because there are so many barriers to thinking that Jesus rose from the dead, but because there are so many _legitimate_ criticisms of popular Christianity that stand at center stage.

Those things need to die away -- the Church needs to divorce itself from the 18th/19th century -- and Christianity can begin again with its core observation: the dead, now risen Christ.

Seems this is what you're advocating:

But I doubt this will escape the minds of our kids. They know what Genesis says. Genesis 1-3 are likely the most read chapters in all of the bible. How are we going to tell the them these first chapters don't matter, and direct them to the end of the book? The whole gospel actually starts in Genesis and ends with Christ's return in Revelation. If we don't believe the whole story, they're not going to listen us. they're too smart.

 

[Willtor]

Seems this is what you're advocating:

But I doubt this will escape the minds of our kids. They know what Genesis says. Genesis 1-3 are likely the most read chapters in all of the bible. How are we going to tell the them these first chapters don't matter, and direct them to the end of the book? The whole gospel actually starts in Genesis and ends with Christ's return in Revelation. If we don't believe the whole story, they're not going to listen us. they're too smart.

No. I would never advocate that. I'm sorry if I communicated badly and that was what you got from any of my posts.

 

[Calminian]

No. I would never advocate that. I'm sorry if I communicated badly and that was what you got from any of my posts.

I'm sure you're sincere and have good motives. But this is in essence what you're doing.

 

[Willtor]

I'm sure you're sincere and have good motives. But this is in essence what you're doing.

No. Perhaps I am a poor communicator. But it is a long way, indeed, from the essence of what I'm doing.

 

[BobRyan]

And virgin birth-ism

And bodily-ascension-into-heaven-ism.

Not just creationism as God stated it in His Word.

All are historic accounts.

All are doubted as to their historicity by devout atheists.

Nothing changed there.

The Church has gone through periods of pro-figurative interpretation of Genesis. I don't see why this time would have different consequences.

So then they dump Genesis - and the Gospels and anything that an atheist evolutionist would not call "naturalism" or "science" -- then what???

Agnostic??

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

How long would the church need to 'deny the obvious' all in service to blind faith evolutionism - before T.E.'s of one sort or another would be satisfied?

And why even have that as an agenda??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

So then they dump Genesis - and the Gospels and anything that an atheist evolutionist would not call "naturalism" or "science" -- then what???

Agnostic??

...

I'm talking about before the theory of evolution had been proposed.

 

[Calminian]

No. Perhaps I am a poor communicator. But it is a long way, indeed, from the essence of what I'm doing.

Perhaps. Or perhaps you're just wrong. None of us are perfect.

 

[Willtor]

Perhaps. Or perhaps you're just wrong. None of us are perfect.

That's a possibility.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm talking about before the theory of evolution had been proposed.

ok so then Augustine's complaint that 7 literal days was wayyyy tooo long and it must have all have happened in a single literal day??

And this helps the T.E.??

 

[Willtor]

ok so then Augustine's complaint that 7 literal days was wayyyy tooo long and it must have all have happened in a single literal day??

And this helps the T.E.??

Yes. Not T.E., specifically. It supports those who argue that the creation account should be taken figuratively.

 

[Calminian]

Yes. Not T.E., specifically. It supports those who argue that the creation account should be taken figuratively.

But Augustine argued for a narrative approach to Genesis, and even argued against long age theories of origins that were common in his day. Augustine believed Genesis a book of historical events including a global flood, and he believed the earth was about 10,000 years old.

He wasn't right about everything, but he was a young earth creationist and literalist. And most of the other early fathers believed the days were literal, as evidenced by their typological beliefs that the world would only last 6,000 years.