[_ Old Earth _] Why I am a Young Earth Creationist

[dad]

I think Nieztche said: "A single stroll through the mad house shows that faith proves nothing".

But since he spent the last part of his life there as an insane inmate, shows faith would be better than what he had.

 

[Khristeeanos]

I thought the point of Christ's coming, life, crucifixion, death, rising from it, and ascension were to reforge the broken bond between man and God that sin put asunder. Christ came to redeem us and pay the price for our sins. Whether or not there was a literal Fall seems fairly irrelevant to me because it in no way detracts from the simple fact that sin exists. Without the literal Fall, we may not know when sin entered the human existence or how, but I think we can agree that it did.

If there was no literal fall, what need do we have for a literal Jesus?

Why not spiritualize or allegorize everything, including the life, work, and teachings of Jesus?

 

[Wertbag]

All the disparity in dating proves is that the "dating game" evolutionists use has flaws and the information is not reliable when it comes to speculation of thousands, millions, and billions of years.

The thing that most YECs are not aware of is the share number of dating methods that have been used thousands of times world wide by numerous scientists in numerous fields and the results all agree.
Have a look at:
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/datingmethods.htm
There are some 20 different dating techniques listed, and there are many more (off the top of my head climate change, glacial movement, contenintal plates, genetics etc) that are used.
When testing samples there is multiple techniques, multiple samples and often a control test, the results are then peer reviewed to make sure the process is correct. The claim against dating techniques isn't that carbon dating doesn't work, but that the dozens of agreeing techniques are all wrong and that every scientist who has tested and tried the techniques are all wrong.
I know Christians can't agree how to interpret the bible, but as some famous clergy put it:
"While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

 

[ArtGuy]

Why not spiritualize or allegorize everything, including the life, work, and teachings of Jesus?

Because it's important to understand the precise nature of Jesus. His goodness, his sinlessness, his personality, his love. I believe that God sent Jesus not so much because he needed to, strictly speaking, but because he wanted to better communicate his love by creating a real, tangible vessel for it. It's easier to relate to Jesus Christ than to relate to the abstract idea of a non-tangible deity, even if that deity is very much real.

The precise details of how sin came into being? That's not as important. Maybe a literal woman took a literal bite from a literal apple given to her by a literal snake, or maybe that was just a way of communicating the idea that mankind sought to replace God with Knowledge, and in essence become gods themselves. Either way, the central truth of Genesis is preserved - man rejected the gift of God, sought knowledge it shouldn't have, and has been punished through the introduction of sin to the world. Does it really matter whether or not it involved a real, live apple?

 

[Khristeeanos]

Why not spiritualize or allegorize everything, including the life, work, and teachings of Jesus?

Because it's important to understand the precise nature of Jesus. His goodness, his sinlessness, his personality, his love. I believe that God sent Jesus not so much because he needed to, strictly speaking, but because he wanted to better communicate his love by creating a real, tangible vessel for it. It's easier to relate to Jesus Christ than to relate to the abstract idea of a non-tangible deity, even if that deity is very much real.

The precise details of how sin came into being? That's not as important. Maybe a literal woman took a literal bite from a literal apple given to her by a literal snake, or maybe that was just a way of communicating the idea that mankind sought to replace God with Knowledge, and in essence become gods themselves. Either way, the central truth of Genesis is preserved - man rejected the gift of God, sought knowledge it shouldn't have, and has been punished through the introduction of sin to the world. Does it really matter whether or not it involved a real, live apple?

A quick reading of Genesis 3 will show you that there is no mention of an apple or a snake.

 

[ArtGuy]

A quick reading of Genesis 3 will show you that there is no mention of an apple or a snake.

It mentions a "serpent", which is, at the very least, snake-like. And it mentions "fruit". You're quibbling with semantics, when you know very well what I'm getting at.

But in the spirit of pedantry, I will rephrase: Does it really matter whether a literal serpent gave a literal Eve a literal piece of fruit in order that mankind suffered a fall from grace?

 

[reznwerks]

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 8-)

The Bible is clear.... -

Your post is titled why you are a young earth creationist. I fail to understand the correlation. The bible is not a textbook for one and the evidence geologically states otherwise. Even with all the so called conflicts within Carbon 14 dating even YEC'rs admit that the test is accurate to 50,000 years which is a lot longer than the 6000 years as claimed by some YEC'rs. There are other tests being used to test the age of rocks etc and the funny thing is that all tests being used corroborate each other. It's kind of a checks and balance system.

 

[reznwerks]

read

A quick reading of Genesis 3 will show you that there is no mention of an apple or a snake.

It mentions a "serpent", which is, at the very least, snake-like. And it mentions "fruit". You're quibbling with semantics, when you know very well what I'm getting at.

But in the spirit of pedantry, I will rephrase: Does it really matter whether a literal serpent gave a literal Eve a literal piece of fruit in order that mankind suffered a fall from grace?

Are you really implying that the "fruit" was just that , a fruit? I seem to recall that the "fruit" was not a real fruit but it is an analogy of something other and more specifically it is called "knowledge." If you are reading your bible further and delve further into the story knowledge is what is at issue here not a real fruit. As to the serpent he is only guilty of temptation because if you read further on whatever the serpent said was in fact true or came to pass. The serpent said you would die in that day if you ate and they did not. The serpent said that the real reason God did not want them to eat of the tree was that they would become like Gods. They ate and that is what happened. It can't be more clear than that but it probably contradicts what you have been led to believe.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: transformed

[
Some have been born of God and the Holy Spirit conveys the evidence to the believer, while others have no idea what the evidence is because they refuse to see and hear the truth of God.

If genuine evidence is present it should be presentable. As I said making the claim is different than presenting the evidence or proof of God. Many people of different faiths make the same claim. Are they valid as well even though they might not acknowledge the "Holy Spirit? Or is God generic and no particular religion is required?

And that's where the credibility of the messenger comes in. Mohammed was a self-confessed fallible human being who murdered and lusted after young girls.
Maybe , maybe not. I have heard he was accused of such but being self confessed? I need the source for that one not that it matters a whole lot.

If one believes that he has knowledge of God, then he deserves what he gets. I prefer to believe a man who gave up his life for me than one who would take it if I didn't do what he wanted.
THe only evidence you have for this comes from one book written by anonymous sources with first names only of which no information on them is found outside the book they are mentioned in as well.

Most children insinctively know who's more trustworthy. But unfortuately, most adults do not.
LOL! Who told you that? The bible wants adults to be like children for the very reason you say doesn't exist. Children are gullible plain and simple. They believe every story told them: Santa , Easter Bunny, Goblins, Spooks, Tooth fairy and you know the last one _ _ _.

 

[Khristeeanos]

A quick reading of Genesis 3 will show you that there is no mention of an apple or a snake.

It mentions a "serpent", which is, at the very least, snake-like. And it mentions "fruit". You're quibbling with semantics, when you know very well what I'm getting at.

But in the spirit of pedantry, I will rephrase: Does it really matter whether a literal serpent gave a literal Eve a literal piece of fruit in order that mankind suffered a fall from grace?

Why would anybody try and allegorize the passage anyway? What reason do we have for not taking it literally?

Was Jesus a literal human who literally died for the sins of mankind?

Of course he was!

And the same way, there was a literal fall which caused the descendants of Adam and Eve to have a sinful nature.

The creation and fall story only makes sense when you understand the life and work of Christ.

 

[Khristeeanos]

Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 8-)

The Bible is clear.... -

Your post is titled why you are a young earth creationist. I fail to understand the correlation. The bible is not a textbook for one and the evidence geologically states otherwise. Even with all the so called conflicts within Carbon 14 dating even YEC'rs admit that the test is accurate to 50,000 years which is a lot longer than the 6000 years as claimed by some YEC'rs. There are other tests being used to test the age of rocks etc and the funny thing is that all tests being used corroborate each other. It's kind of a checks and balance system.

Understand that the Bible teaches that there was a global flood that lasted for over a year.

This throws into the mix that all elements would be in a state of chaos, which means that Carbon 14 and all other dating methods are inaccurate.

The dating methods are dependant on "all things continue as they were from the beginning" (see 2 Peter 3 below) and there are so many assumptions that evolutionists use to "prove" that the earth is young when dates of known age give dates of millions of years.

Things like lava rock in Hawaii and Washington state which are known to be either several hundred years old to only 26 years old. They give dates of hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years.

It is sort of like if something is known to be 200 years old and the date gives hundreds of thousands of years old the dates don't work. But if we don't know for certain the date of something and it gives a date of millions of years it is assumed to be correct.




2 Peter 3:
3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

 

[Khristeeanos]

Re: read

A quick reading of Genesis 3 will show you that there is no mention of an apple or a snake.

It mentions a "serpent", which is, at the very least, snake-like. And it mentions "fruit". You're quibbling with semantics, when you know very well what I'm getting at.

But in the spirit of pedantry, I will rephrase: Does it really matter whether a literal serpent gave a literal Eve a literal piece of fruit in order that mankind suffered a fall from grace?

Are you really implying that the "fruit" was just that , a fruit? I seem to recall that the "fruit" was not a real fruit but it is an analogy of something other and more specifically it is called "knowledge." If you are reading your bible further and delve further into the story knowledge is what is at issue here not a real fruit. As to the serpent he is only guilty of temptation because if you read further on whatever the serpent said was in fact true or came to pass. The serpent said you would die in that day if you ate and they did not. The serpent said that the real reason God did not want them to eat of the tree was that they would become like Gods. They ate and that is what happened. It can't be more clear than that but it probably contradicts what you have been led to believe.

The Hebrew (according to several Hebrew sources I have read) means "dying you will die".

In other words, they would have lived forever physically and spiritually, but when they "died", they died immediately spiritually, and the ball started rolling on their physical death as well.

Note that they became aware that they were naked and hid from God. They became aware of their spiritual death state.

 

[cubedbee]

Re: read

The Hebrew (according to several Hebrew sources I have read) means "dying you will die".

Please, show me the non Young Earth Creationist Christian sites that say this is the correct English translation? I don't believe they exist, and I know the translation is wrong, which is trivial to prove by actually inserting that 'translation' into the verses and seeing how it doesn't make any sense 95% of the time it appears.

 

[Khristeeanos]

Re: read

The Hebrew (according to several Hebrew sources I have read) means "dying you will die".

Please, show me the non Young Earth Creationist Christian sites that say this is the correct English translation? I don't believe they exist, and I know the translation is wrong, which is trivial to prove by actually inserting that 'translation' into the verses and seeing how it doesn't make any sense 95% of the time it appears.

huh? :o

The Christian Scriptures are clear, there was no death before Adam, who was the first man.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Wertbag Wrote:

The thing that most YECs are not aware of is the share number of dating methods that have been used thousands of times world wide by numerous scientists in numerous fields and the results all agree.
Have a look at:
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/datingmethods.htm
There are some 20 different dating techniques listed, and there are many more (off the top of my head climate change, glacial movement, contenintal plates, genetics etc) that are used.
When testing samples there is multiple techniques, multiple samples and often a control test, the results are then peer reviewed to make sure the process is correct. The claim against dating techniques isn't that carbon dating doesn't work, but that the dozens of agreeing techniques are all wrong and that every scientist who has tested and tried the techniques are all wrong.

Each can be refuted easily when taking out the circular reasoning used by

the assumption that ToE is fact. First and foremost: The assumed evolution

time span of the fossil record is used to calibrate radio-dating instruments.

Secondly, the dating assumes uniformity (common assumption for ToE

issues).

The next batch fall under the uniformity assumption soley: genetics; plate

techtonics; geological sequence; etc...

Like the old saying goes: Trash in, trash out.




How do recent Radio-dating results at the Topper Site in South

Carolina (50,000 RCYBP), The Calico Early Man Site in California

(200,000 B.P. U-235/ U-238 Dating), and the Toluquilla Mexico Site

(1,300,000 B.P. Argon-Argon Method) influence the Theory of Evolution?

In some very, very drastic ways.

Generally accepted evolution theory has man originating in Eastern

Africa 120, 000 B.P. U-235/ U-238 Dating (There's other opinions, but this is

what is taught in ToE textbooks), migrating into the Middle East and South

Africa by 80,000 B.P. U-235/ U-238 Dating, Southern Asia by 60,000 B.P.

U-235/ U-238 Dating, and Europe and Australia by 40,000 RYCBP.

So what are well dated human artifacts doing in North America

50,000 RCYBP, 200,000 + B.P. U-235/ U-238 and 1.3 million argon-argon?

Please bear with me as I describe my hypothesis.

Whitelaw's Nonequilibrium Age Versus Published Equilibrium Age

1,000 1,115
1,500 1,730
2,000 2,310
2,500 2,900
3,000 3,500
3,500 4,110
4,000 4,725
4,500 5,350
5,000 5,990
5,500 8,860 (Flood) (North American Early-Archaic Sequence Starts)
6,000 12,530 (North American Clovis and Folsom Complexes)
6,500 19,100 (North American PreClovis Complex)
7,000 Infinite (Creation)

Table 1: Relationships between corrected and published ages of specimens

in years since death (Whitelaw, 1970, p. 65)

Applying this model, Paleo (preClovis, Clovis, Folsom, Cody)

cultures in North America were present ante-deluge. Ethiopian

human samples (oldest radiocarbon dated human remains worldwide)

date to around 160,000 + B.P. U-235/ U-238. With conservative

interpolating, these humans roamed the earth 500 years after creation,

assuming Whitelaw's assumptions. This seems reasonable, with Ethiopia

being approximately 1200 miles from the commonly accepted location of

The Garden of Eden in Southeastern Iraq.


As to Whitelaw's Nonequilibrium Age Model's validity, I prefer it's predictive

value.

I mean, does it make sense that humans evolved into their modern form

160,000 B.P. U-235/ U-238 in Eastern Africa, migrated to the Middle East

and Southern Africa by 80,000B.P. U-235/ U-238 , to Europe by

40,000RCYBP, the East coast of the U.S. by50,000RCYBP, California

125,000-200,000 B.P. U-235/ U-238 , and Mexico 1,300,000 B.P.

Argon-Argon Method?


Interpreting these dates with Whitelaw's model, these dates are all within

200-300 CY of one another.

If that be the case, then there's no way oceans could have separated these

individuals.

It would be necessary for them to be, at least, on the same continent. Most

geologists are in agreement the earth was one supercontinent- Pangaea in

it's earliest forms (Read about Peleg in Genesis 10:25/ 1

Chronicles 1:19).

I also like the fact the model agrees with the well known S-shaped,

long-term radiocarbon dating error. One bend of the curve peaks in the

middle of the first millennium A.D. Radiocarbon ages during this period over

estimate dendrochronological ages by up to a hundred years. The curve

switches direction around 500 B.C., when radiocarbon ages begin to

underestimate supposed dendrochronological ages. The discrepancy grows

as we go back in time, so that by the fifth millennium B.C., radiocarbon

dates are too recent by 900 + years.

If we assume production of carbon-14 began only 6,000 to 7000 years

ago, the approximate time of Creation, and then roughly 1,500-2500 years

later the Flood upset the entire carbon cycle, by the temporary lack of life

shortly afterwards, the carbon-14 dates from samples derived from

these eras would read close to infinity in both cases.


As the discrepancy between SPR and SDR shows, the Earth is still in the

process of attaining equilibrium.

Further, we know from the radiocarbon dating of tree rings that as we go

back in time, we find less and less carbon-14. If there was less carbon-14 in

the past, then there has been less decay in our samples than the

equilibrium model assumes. And if there has been less decay, then the

samples are not as old as they may seem.

Reznwerks wrote:


Your post is titled why you are a young earth creationist. I fail to understand the correlation. The bible is not a textbook for one and the evidence geologically states otherwise. Even with all the so called conflicts within Carbon 14 dating even YEC'rs admit that the test is accurate to 50,000 years which is a lot longer than the 6000 years as claimed by some YEC'rs. There are other tests being used to test the age of rocks etc and the funny thing is that all tests being used corroborate each other. It's kind of a checks and balance system.

Uranium and argon dating methods have a whole different set of inherent

problems based on circular reasoning (i.e.-using the fossil record to

calibrate the dating).


Peace

http://www.preclovis.com

 

[ArtGuy]

Things like lava rock in Hawaii and Washington state which are known to be either several hundred years old to only 26 years old. They give dates of hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years.

It is sort of like if something is known to be 200 years old and the date gives hundreds of thousands of years old the dates don't work. But if we don't know for certain the date of something and it gives a date of millions of years it is assumed to be correct.

Are you familiar with a mathematical technique known as Newton's Method? It works something like this:

Pretend you're trying to find the root of an equation that's difficult to solve analytically. x^2 + 3x + 5, for example. You can't simply factor that into nice, convenient roots. Now, you can use a technique in which you basically guess at the answer, and use that guess to generate a better guess, and so on.

The technique can be proven to work, and it can yield approximations that are as close to the real answer as you want, provided you're willing to spend the time to do the calculations. The caveat, though, is that your initial guess needs to be good. If your initial guess is way off, then repeated iterations of the process will yield wildly inaccurate answers. If your guess is close, though, you'll know because the answer will converge upon a single point.

While this isn't a perfect analog to dating techniques, it's close enough to get the point across. Dating methods generally require that you have some idea of how old the substance is that you're dating. If your guess is way off, then you're going to get gibberish as a result. This is what happens when people use uranium dating to determine the age of a football, or something equally silly. Uranium dating presupposes something old, so if you try it on something young, it won't work. But like Newton's method, dating techniques are generally such that if you start with an accurate guess, you'll get a convergent answer that let's you know that you were right, and it will give you useful data.

Your objections are similar to someone using Newton's method to find the square root of 6, making a bad guess, getting an answer of 381.4, and using this as evidence that Newton's method is worthless. In reality, it just meant that the person using the tool didn't know what he was doing.