Young earth creationist questions

[preacherinblack]

I got a question(I must preface this by saying I do not mean to offend any body), are there any creditable young earth creationists, that have creditable evidence?The reason I ask is that I would like to look at some creditable source because some YEC have been accused or guilty of lying and falsifying evidence.I need some good solid answers and please no fighting please thanks.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I got a question(I must preface this by saying I do not mean to offend any body), are there any creditable young earth creationists, that have creditable evidence?The reason I ask is that I would like to look at some creditable source because some YEC have been accused or guilty of lying and falsifying evidence.I need some good solid answers and please no fighting please thanks.

There are today about 22-25 men (no women) who have earned a Ph.D. in some field of science and who have identified themselves as young earth creationists. They are all extreme fundamentalist Christians who have allowed their religious beliefs to blind them to such a severe extent that they dismiss the views of over 3,000,000 scientists who have earned a Ph.D. or some other doctoral degree in some field of science. Moreover, they hold to an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that is viewed as severely incorrect by nearly all Old Testament scholars who are currently publishing research in peer-reviewed biblical journals. None of the 22-25 men have a background in evolutionary biology, and they either lie about the basic principles of the mechanics of evolution, or they make fools of themselves by exposing an ignorance for which there is no excuse in the 21st century.

Genesis 1-11 is one of the most studied and researched portions of the Bible. For more than a century, the predominant interpretation, based upon the internal and external linguistic and literary evidence, has been that Genesis 1-11 is a series of epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends that, over a period of many years, were edited and woven together giving us their present form. Theologically conservative Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the God had a major role in the process. Theologically liberal Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the God had little, if anything, to do with the process.

The evidence that the earth is extremely old is not only massive, it is conclusive. No one who is familiar with the evidence believes that the earth is young. Everyone who disagrees is unfamiliar with the evidence. None of the people posting to the contrary on this message board are scientists or scholars of the Old Testament who are currently publishing research in peer-reviewed biblical journals.

Furthermore, when young earth creationism is commingled with the gospel, every non-Christian who has even a basic knowledge of science knows for certain that they are being fed a lie, and they reject as false the gospel along with the young earth creationism. In the last several decades, this has had a devastating impact on the Christian faith with millions upon millions of people rejecting the gospel. Indeed, this past Saturday, I was witnessing to a group of atheists who rejected the gospel for that very reason!

Young earth creationism ignores both scientific and biblical research and substitutes a baloney sandwich.

 

[preacherinblack]

Ok I got a question about day three in genesis 1.(please don't get offended)That is if the days atleast up to day 4 are long periods of time,how do you explain the plants popping up on day 3,it could not have been a long period of time because after a few days they would have died of from the lack of sun?This is a reason I have a problem with having those days as long periods of time.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Ok I got a question about day three in genesis 1.(please don't get offended)That is if the days atleast up to day 4 are long periods of time,how do you explain the plants popping up on day 3,it could not have been a long period of time because after a few days they would have died of from the lack of sun?This is a reason I have a problem with having those days as long periods of time.

In the first chapter of Genesis, the plants are created on the third day, and man is created on the sixth day. This creation story is concluded in Genesis 2:3, and a new creation story is begun in the following verse:

Genesis 2:4. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
5. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
6. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
7. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
8. The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
9. Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (NASB, 1995)

In this second creation story, the plants are not created until after man is created, and the reasons for the delay are stated in v. 5. Based upon these two very different accounts of creation in Genesis, and other internal and external linguistic and literary evidence, we know that Genesis 1-11 is a series of epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends that, over a period of many years, were edited and woven together giving them to us in their present form. In the first creation story (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3), we have six days that appear to be 24-hour days followed by a seventh day. In the second creation story, Genesis 2:4 – 2:25, we have only one day of creation (verse 4), and the order of creation is very different.

Moreover, in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3, God is spoken of as “God” (אלהים beginning in Genesis 2:4, God is spoken of as “the LORD God” (אלהים יהו&#1492. However, the ancient Jewish people believed that the proper name of God was too holy to be spoken, so they referred to Him as “The Lord” (אדונ&#1497 This practice was used by the early Christians, and in the New Testament God is spoken of by his title, “Lord” (κύριος in Greek) rather than by His personal name. In the Old Testament in the KJV, the NASB, and many other translations, we read “the LORD” (using all uppercase letters) where in the Hebrew text the personal name of God is used. In the Old Testament in the same translations, we read “the Lord” (using an initial uppercase letter followed by three lowercase letters) where in the Hebrew text the title of God is used. This is further evidence that we have in the first two chapters of Genesis two stories of creation that are not only very different from each other regarding their chronology, but also regarding their designation of God.

 

[classicalhero]

I got a question(I must preface this by saying I do not mean to offend any body), are there any creditable young earth creationists, that have creditable evidence?The reason I ask is that I would like to look at some creditable source because some YEC have been accused or guilty of lying and falsifying evidence.I need some good solid answers and please no fighting please thanks.

The fraud happen on the evolution side. Nebraska man, Embyronic recapitulation, The Peppered Moth study and that is just a sample. There has been little to no problems on the YEC side.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I got a question(I must preface this by saying I do not mean to offend any body), are there any creditable young earth creationists, that have creditable evidence?The reason I ask is that I would like to look at some creditable source because some YEC have been accused or guilty of lying and falsifying evidence.I need some good solid answers and please no fighting please thanks.

The fraud happen on the evolution side. Nebraska man, Embyronic recapitulation, The Peppered Moth study and that is just a sample. There has been little to no problems on the YEC side.

How is this “credible evidence” for young earth creationism?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The fraud happen on the evolution side. Nebraska man, Embyronic recapitulation, The Peppered Moth study and that is just a sample. There has been little to no problems on the YEC side.

During the past hundred years, hundreds of thousands of fossils have been identified, and sometimes the identification has been wrong. However, these mistakes are so extremely rare that when one is made, creationists throw a party and celebrate while they go about fraudulently mischaracterizing the honest mistake. In the case of the Nebraska Man, the president of the American Museum of Natural History, Henry Fairfield Osborn, published a paper in a 1922 issue of Science identifying a fossil tooth as the tooth of an advanced primate. Many of Osborn’s colleagues believed that he was mistaken, and further investigation took place. After just five years, the error was retracted by the journal. Since 1927, nearly every imaginable lie has been told and published by young earth creationists concerning the mistake and its subsequent retraction. For a summary of some of these lies, and actual quotes and documentation, please see this article:

Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

 

[BookishGirl]

"Genesis 1-11 is one of the most studied and researched portions of the Bible. For more than a century, the predominant interpretation, based upon the internal and external linguistic and literary evidence, has been that Genesis 1-11 is a series of epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends that, over a period of many years, were edited and woven together giving us their present form. Theologically conservative Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the God had a major role in the process. Theologically liberal Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the God had little, if anything, to do with the process."


PrincetonGuy,

If Genesis 1-11 is "a series of epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends", what is the explanation for the origin of original sin?

(I am not being sarcastic; I genuinely want to undertand. I also apologize for not quoting your earlier post correctly.)

 

[1watchman]

Why not ask the question at icr.org (the Institute of Creation Research) and one can try to understand that explanation upholding creation as written in sound Bibles. These are Ph.D scientists who value the Bible and are devoted to God. They also can direct one to the paper on "The Gap Theory" and its' fallacies, which is quite informative on the idea of millions of years of existence.

 

[walkinginthelightnow]

this may answer a few questions...Dr Kent Hovind is pretty good on the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKyyaURZW-o

 

[thankfulttt]

PrincetonGuy,

If Genesis 1-11 is "a series of epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends", what is the explanation for the origin of original sin?

(I am not being sarcastic; I genuinely want to undertand. I also apologize for not quoting your earlier post correctly.)


[/SIZE][/FONT]

Excellent question. I would also like to hear the answer to that.

Terry

 

[classicalhero]

During the past hundred years, hundreds of thousands of fossils have been identified, and sometimes the identification has been wrong. However, these mistakes are so extremely rare that when one is made, creationists throw a party and celebrate while they go about fraudulently mischaracterizing the honest mistake. In the case of the Nebraska Man, the president of the American Museum of Natural History, Henry Fairfield Osborn, published a paper in a 1922 issue of Science identifying a fossil tooth as the tooth of an advanced primate. Many of Osborn’s colleagues believed that he was mistaken, and further investigation took place. After just five years, the error was retracted by the journal. Since 1927, nearly every imaginable lie has been told and published by young earth creationists concerning the mistake and its subsequent retraction. For a summary of some of these lies, and actual quotes and documentation, please see this article:

Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man

Please see this article.
Fresh look at Nebraska man - creation.com
If he was mistaken, then he is an extemely sloppy scientist in the extreme. But that is not how he presented himself with the find. We could also talk more about Pitdown man if you want to.

 

[classicalhero]

This is an interesting article about recent scientific fraud.
Science fraud epidemic - creation.com

 

[PrincetonGuy]

This is an interesting article about recent scientific fraud.
Science fraud epidemic - creation.com

Before my career change, I was a research biologist and I was very much aware of instances of faulty research and the falsification of data. The consequences of such behavior have been extremely harmful, not only in the loss of lives, but in causing many people to lose whatever faith they may have had in science. To say, however, that there is an “epidemic of fraud in science” and to imply that there is some credible evidence for young earth creationism is a lie. Faulty research and the falsification of data on the part of some unscrupulous scientists does not make the excellent research and impeccable data of the vast majority of scientists any less reliable.

 

[Blue Wren]

-

 

[Blue Wren]

-

 

[Blue Wren]

-

 

[Ringo84]

No.
Ringo

 

[keith99]

There are today about 22-25 men (no women) who have earned a Ph.D. in some field of science and who have identified themselves as young earth creationists. They are all extreme fundamentalist Christians who have allowed their religious beliefs to blind them to such a severe extent that they dismiss the views of over 3,000,000 scientists who have earned a Ph.D. or some other doctoral degree in some field of science. Moreover, they hold to an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that is viewed as severely incorrect by nearly all Old Testament scholars who are currently publishing research in peer-reviewed biblical journals. None of the 22-25 men have a background in evolutionary biology, and they either lie about the basic principles of the mechanics of evolution, or they make fools of themselves by exposing an ignorance for which there is no excuse in the 21st century.

Genesis 1-11 is one of the most studied and researched portions of the Bible. For more than a century, the predominant interpretation, based upon the internal and external linguistic and literary evidence, has been that Genesis 1-11 is a series of epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends that, over a period of many years, were edited and woven together giving us their present form. Theologically conservative Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the God had a major role in the process. Theologically liberal Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the God had little, if anything, to do with the process.

The evidence that the earth is extremely old is not only massive, it is conclusive. No one who is familiar with the evidence believes that the earth is young. Everyone who disagrees is unfamiliar with the evidence. None of the people posting to the contrary on this message board are scientists or scholars of the Old Testament who are currently publishing research in peer-reviewed biblical journals.

Furthermore, when young earth creationism is commingled with the gospel, every non-Christian who has even a basic knowledge of science knows for certain that they are being fed a lie, and they reject as false the gospel along with the young earth creationism. In the last several decades, this has had a devastating impact on the Christian faith with millions upon millions of people rejecting the gospel. Indeed, this past Saturday, I was witnessing to a group of atheists who rejected the gospel for that very reason!

Young earth creationism ignores both scientific and biblical research and substitutes a baloney sandwich.

Bolding mine.

You might want ot spend some time in http://www.christianforums.com/f70/

to see how much of the current damage you can at least mitigate.

 

[branchofthevine]

One of the big problems of a lot of interpretations of Genesis 1-11 is simply forcing a certain viewpoint onto the text. Many people believe Genesis has to be a literal scientific explanation of the origins of the world, but the text itself does not lend to that idea, it is forced upon it.

However, the idea that it is all just myth, and saga and that creation isn't literal, the day being many years, is also a viewpoint forced upon the text as a reaction against the scientific one, but both are wrong.

Genesis is written with a specific point that it is trying to teach its readers, but sadly most of it is lost to most people simply because they do not know enough of the Ancient Near East, nor of the over-arching themes of the Biblical worldview such as "chaos, sea, and leviathan."

By looking for a scientific explanation of the origins of the world in Genesis 1-11, the reader is missing the entire point of the whole narrative. I don't know much about science, but as a Theology student, I can say that consideration needs to be given to the ANE context in which the book was written, and what message it was trying to say in light of other creation narratives (commonly understood as the De-mythologization of the Genesis narrative).