Young or Old Earth Creationism?

[mulimulix]

I would like to know, without creating a commotion (which my threads always end up as), whether you guys believe in Old Earth or Young Earth Creationism just because I want to get an indicator of what proportion of Christians believe in.

if you would like, you can include why and if you have information on what percentage of christians believe in each, please share.

Thanks

P.S. I would be glad to start a discussion/argument, if you please, but I do not want to cause controversy by starting one here.

 

[oi_antz]

I would like to know, without creating a commotion (which my threads always end up as), whether you guys believe in Old Earth or Young Earth Creationism just because I want to get an indicator of what proportion of Christians believe in.

if you would like, you can include why and if you have information on what percentage of christians believe in each, please share.

Thanks

P.S. I would be glad to start a discussion/argument if you please one topics we disagree on but I do not want to cause controversy by starting one here.

I believe the only way to reconcile the Bible with science, is that God created the world "old" as in "having dinosaur fossils", but for intents and purposes of humanity's spiritual well-being, the creation of the earth happened in 6 physical days, however on the sixth day it appeared old as has been predicted 40 billion years or so? It stretches the brain.

As far as the Bible is concerned, it is meant for the spiritual advancement of mankind in the age of man, once the era of mankind has passed there is prophecy that the existing earth and heavens will be replaced with a new earth and heavens and the knowledge of God will be abundant.

 

[seashale76]

I was, at one point, an OEC and then a theistic evolutionist. Now, I've pretty much decided that it doesn't matter, and I'm rather agnostic about the whole kit and kaboodle. At any rate- if one is speaking about which makes more sense- OEC or YEC- then I think OEC wins. As far as an official Orthodox stance- I don't think there is one. If the folks I personally know in my own parish are any indication (it's a large parish), then you'll find people all over the place with their opinions on the matter- YEC, OEC, TE. The good news about it- one's opinion on this topic doesn't affect the fact that we all agree that God is responsible for the creation of the world and it doesn't change our need for salvation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is always a hot button topic. I'm a 'gapper' myself. There is enough physical evidence for an old earth, and there is abundant biblical support as well. Of course it has to be knit together in the right way. When studying the original language one quickly realizes that the bible story was 'interpreted' by 'translation' and can be reinterpreted the same way to say something a little different, or a lot different. An example of this is the 'personification' of the Holy Spirit by use of the personal pronoun 'he' and 'him'. It was the belief of the translators that the HS was a person thus the use of these words. The words 'he','she','it', or 'the same' could have been used. 'It' or 'the same' would have been more accurate, imo. Thus the translators helped shape a major doctrine, the Trinity.

 

[Harry3142]

I'm an Old Earth Creationist. I believe that God has had a direct, ongoing involvement with the molding of the universe, our galaxy, and our solar system from the very beginning.

The various eons which some claim are evidence of blind evolution I personally see as the means which God used in order to prepare this planet for those flora and fauna which came next. Every plant and animal leaves its 'mark' in some way; I accept this as God's molding of the planet in order for it to better tolerate other lifeforms. Many of these lifeforms, both in flora and fauna, needed the 'byproducts' of those plants and animals which had previously lived on this planet, or else they never would have been able to 'take root' and flourish themselves through their own epoch.

Even the oxygen that we need for life was not here as of the beginning, but instead was 'manufactured' by the lifeforms which were able to breathe the toxic gasses of early earth and then expel oxygen from their systems as a waste product. The surface of the planet also was unable to sustain plant and animal life as we now know it; all this had to be 'manufactured' or else the presentday earth would be uninhabitable to all but the most primitive lifeforms.

To say that this all happened through blind chance, survival of the fittest, and genetic 'birth defects' (which some scientists use as an explanation for one lifeform becoming a totally different lifeform) is, insofar as I'm concerned, comparable to saying that if you have enough earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and avalanches, you will eventually find a perfect duplicate of Michaelangelo's Pieta. It won't happen.

 

[zaksmummy]

Im a young earth creationist because I know that God does not lie. He says he created the earth in six days, then thats how long it took. No question. I have always believed it, and no scientist will ever convince me otherwise. Its the science thats wrong - or should I say the interpretation of the evidence that is wrong, not the time line.

Sorry I dont know how many people believe either way, have a happy discussion

 

[Mr Dave]

I reject both OEC and YEC*.
Maybe it would be worth doing a poll thread

I think, but don't quote me on this, that about 40% (give or take) of US Christians go for one of the creationist standpoints, but outside the US the figures are much much lower. I'll have a look see if I can find any actual figures.

*and ID for that matter.

 

[Mr Dave]

This site has lots of statistics about American belief over the past few years
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

It has a brief section on "beliefs elsewhere in the world" but this is just 103 British church leaders, although this supports what I said about the rest of the world having a different view to the USA, with 97% of the British Church leaders rejecting YEC and 80% denying the existence of Adam and Eve.

...

Edit: Found this:

 

[Celtic D]

I am a Theistic Evolutionist.

 

[ks777]

I used to think young, but after reading this Yada Yahweh - Book I-Genesis -- Chapter 1-Hayah I'm thinking maybe it's older than I thought.

 

[mulimulix]

Im a young earth creationist because I know that God does not lie. He says he created the earth in six days, then thats how long it took. No question. I have always believed it, and no scientist will ever convince me otherwise. Its the science thats wrong - or should I say the interpretation of the evidence that is wrong, not the time line.

Sorry I dont know how many people believe either way, have a happy discussion

I do agree that if you believe in the OT/NT, you should believe take the view that you do. I do not understand the logic behind saying that it is a metaphor with little or no reason behind it and then say that Jesus' resurrection was true beyond doubt.

I would ever so strongly recommend (if you haven't before) look into old earth though. You may have before, but the way you worded it, it sounded like you just accepted it because that's what god said.

Call me bias, but I do not know how one can believe in YEC after you look at evidence against it.

*tries to refrain from starting an argument*

And thank you to Mr Dave for the statistics; they were very useful

 

[ebia]

Neither. Theistic evolution.

 

[razeontherock]

This is a way of reconciling an old earth w/ the Biblical record:

Without Form and Void - Chapter 1

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I do agree that if you believe in the OT/NT, you should believe take the view that you do. I do not understand the logic behind saying that it is a metaphor with little or no reason behind it and then say that Jesus' resurrection was true beyond doubt.

I would ever so strongly recommend (if you haven't before) look into old earth though. You may have before, but the way you worded it, it sounded like you just accepted it because that's what god said.

Call me bias, but I do not know how one can believe in YEC after you look at evidence against it.

*tries to refrain from starting an argument*

And thank you to Mr Dave for the statistics; they were very useful

The earth is old with a mantle of newly created life upon it's ancient surface. The Genesis account is a 'renewal' of the 'surface' of the earth. So the Genesis 'creation' can be from 6,000-10,000 years old, but rests upon an ancient earth that has seen many cataclysmic destructions. Thus both camps are correct, sortof.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I believe in theistic evolution as the best option theologically. It's probably the best option scientifically as well, but I don't know enough about biology to be sure.

 

[Jase]

I'm a theistic evolutionist. I don't believe that any form of creationism is a truthful position to hold due to the overwhelming amount of evidence against it.

 

[solarwave]

I do agree that if you believe in the OT/NT, you should believe take the view that you do. I do not understand the logic behind saying that it is a metaphor with little or no reason behind it and then say that Jesus' resurrection was true beyond doubt.

It depends what you mean by believe the OT/NT. If you believe everything it says literally then you would have a load of wacky beliefs. Just like with any non-fiction book there are phrases used which mean something to a certain culture (eg: I would go to the end of the earth for you) but are not literally true.

If you accept that and also accept that there are poems, etc, in the Bible then it isn't a big jump to think the creation story could be a myth (some people don't like that word) with spiritual truths.

'The tortoise and the hare' doesn't have to be literally true to express true facts, for example.

The Bible is made of many different books so you can't assume its one book with one type of writting in it. Even if that were so it isn't beyond imagination to think of a book which is non-fiction but uses fiction to express certain principles.

So I would like to point out I used to be an Old Earth Creationist and believed in Biblical infallibilty, but not I believe Theistic evolution best fits the evidence, and not believing in Biblical infallibilty best fits the lack of evidence for that.

I hope I don't come across as thinking I know it all in this post, I just have a strong view on this, but I know I still have much to learn in every area of life.

 

[Greg1234]

I believe in theistic evolution as the best option theologically. It's probably the best option scientifically as well, but I don't know enough about biology to be sure.

Every scientific discovery made regarding adaptation (by every i also mean that ignored by atheism, including the fact the DNA is coded with a feature for adaptation and adaptation is limited) fits the creation model perfectly. There's no need for a creationist to adopt the speculative baggage and selective ignorance that comes with it.