[__ Science __ ] "Why I'm not a YE creationist"

[Barbarian]

"One of the most painful experiences of my life was abandoning my belief in young earth creationism. I had been raised in a wonderful Baptist church that was fundamentalist but, as it was on the edge of a potato field in rural New Brunswick, Canada, it lacked the hard political edge that makes American fundamentalism so unappealing. It was a great place to grow up, to learn to love God, and I have nothing but fond memories of the believers with whom I worshipped as a child.
...
My studies led me to question the assumptions supporting my creationism–assumptions that soon dissolved and left my childhood belief in creationism without a foundation. Eventually I abandoned creationism and embraced theistic evolution–the belief that God creates through natural processes over billions of years. I discovered, to my surprise, that creationism required a certain willful blindness to both the natural world and the Bible.
There were several reasons I abandoned creationism. And now, years later, I am convinced that creationism poses insurmountable problems for anyone who would defend creationism today. I would like to mention a few general concerns and then some specifics to make my point.
Creationists have to “explain away” a gigantic mountain range of evidence that the scientific community has accumulated in the past century. Neither the scientific community nor the scientific data is is on their side. They have to believe that God created a profoundly deceptive world, with countless markers inexplicably pointing to evolution, even though that was not how things originated.
...
I am humbled to think that God’s creative work is of such grand coherence and scope that the universe is one gigantic narrative of creation. This seems far richer than my former creationist view that the universe is a collection of separately created things. And, to top it off, God created us with minds capable of unpacking the whole amazing story.
Why would any Christian find it hard to believe that evolution was God’s way of creating?"

Why I am not a creationist

Debates About Faith

www.beliefnet.com

 

[Cooper]

A brilliant post for which I thank you. The Hebrew word yome, meaning day, is a period of time, anything from a few hours to eternity. We are now living in the seventh day and it is far longer than 24 hours long. Likewise for the other six days. The fourth day when it went dark corresponds to the era in which the dinosaurs died out, thought to have happened when a meteorite hit the earth. Just as an example, it takes three hundred million years for coal to form and the Grand Canyon gouged out of hard rock by water took billions of years. The Bible is true, but not our understanding and this is what causes all the arguments on the forums. Hopefully one day it will all be ironed out. What I think is wonderful is the way in which science is proving the truth of the Bible which points to the divine inspiration of those who wrote it. Thank you.

 

[Edward]

"One of the most painful experiences of my life was abandoning my belief in young earth creationism. I had been raised in a wonderful Baptist church that was fundamentalist but, as it was on the edge of a potato field in rural New Brunswick, Canada, it lacked the hard political edge that makes American fundamentalism so unappealing. It was a great place to grow up, to learn to love God, and I have nothing but fond memories of the believers with whom I worshipped as a child.
...
My studies led me to question the assumptions supporting my creationism–assumptions that soon dissolved and left my childhood belief in creationism without a foundation. Eventually I abandoned creationism and embraced theistic evolution–the belief that God creates through natural processes over billions of years. I discovered, to my surprise, that creationism required a certain willful blindness to both the natural world and the Bible.
There were several reasons I abandoned creationism. And now, years later, I am convinced that creationism poses insurmountable problems for anyone who would defend creationism today. I would like to mention a few general concerns and then some specifics to make my point.
Creationists have to “explain away” a gigantic mountain range of evidence that the scientific community has accumulated in the past century. Neither the scientific community nor the scientific data is is on their side. They have to believe that God created a profoundly deceptive world, with countless markers inexplicably pointing to evolution, even though that was not how things originated.
...
I am humbled to think that God’s creative work is of such grand coherence and scope that the universe is one gigantic narrative of creation. This seems far richer than my former creationist view that the universe is a collection of separately created things. And, to top it off, God created us with minds capable of unpacking the whole amazing story.
Why would any Christian find it hard to believe that evolution was God’s way of creating?"

Why I am not a creationist

Debates About Faith

www.beliefnet.com

Is this the red letter edition of Barbarians Gospel? Sorry, couldn't resist.

My studies led me to question the assumptions supporting my creationism–assumptions that soon dissolved and left my childhood belief in creationism without a foundation.

This is an interesting statement so perhaps we can take a closer look at it. Now, I am a YE Creationist so I'd be happy to debate this a bit with you.

Like you, I found this topic to be very innteresting and poses some mighty good questions, so I myself was led to further studies on the topic...But unlike you, my studies were all biblically based and led me to a reinforced understanding that, the earth is young, and was created. Whereas your studies led you to believe the opposite, so I think it's fair to assume that your study of this question was nn biblical and secular. Scientific. Am I right?

Succinctly, my conclusions weren't so much mainstream YE creationism but a slightly different YE creationism. So in short, I do believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, give or take. I do also believe in evolution and that the earth IS 13 point whatever billion yeras old.

Now I will explain. Think, spacetime. The scientific community says that when one speaks of space, they can not exclude that they speak of time in the same instant. The reason for this is that the universe is expanding...and coincidentally at the same exact rate that time elapses. So, space-time. You with me?

Now think, perspective. How can both be true?

We know that God is outside of the time domain and not subject to time. God can see the end from the beginning and is omnipresent, which means everywhere at every moment. Right? Ok so from God's perspective, the earth was created six days ago. I *think* we're early in the morning on the seventh day actually. But the reality of it is that God is here today, and simultaneously still at day one also. It's like, God is looking at us through binoculers and there is magnification so he knows what day it is from His perspective.

Man's perspective is this, man can not look forward in time. But we can look backwards in time. And our Lord is so nice that He left us plenty of archeological evidences to thoroughly confuse and enlighten us. It's exciting to dig up old relics!

And we have binoculers too, we have science. but from our perspective view through the binoc's (front lens towards rear lens, everything looks way wayyy out there.

You see space and time were the very first things created.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning (Time and space) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (Matter).

So at the very moment that space time was created, it began expanding. It expanded for a full day (from God's perspective) before He created earth's atmosphere on the 2nd day. But from man's perspective how much expansion had taken place. 1000 years is as 1 day? SO I guess this idea sounds like the gap theory, but it isn't. There was no gap in time. There is a gap of perspective only.

And the reason reason that we have archeological evidinces which are literally hundreds of thousand years old has got to do with the expansion of space and so even if it was only one thosand years between the first day and the second day, between the 2nd day and third day there would be some sort of geometric progression of the effects of time to our perspective. I am no mathmetician nor have I ever played one on TV, So I don't quite remember exactly how they figured the offsets of time per day. But they found the constants and multipliers and all that which I don't undertand the math part so much, but it figured out accurately to, somewhere between 13 and 14 billion tears old.

But He is God, and we are not. And He chose to not give us His perspective, so that's ok. We just try to believe and to understand. In this presentation that I watched, they were able to chart the amount of years (man's perspective) between each day and the times got more and greater differences each day. Which was the nexus between the two differing views of YEC vs Evo... they are both true from the correct perspective.

Luckily for us, when the end comes...we will not be at the end of anything. We will be at our beginning!

And btw, I agree with you that the Lord did take a 'non-hands on' approach to creating many things on earth. God created the earth it says, and put all of the necessary constituants into the ground that would be necessary for the earth to be able to respond when Jesus gave the command, let the earth bring forth da da da.

I wish I would have taken notes on this. I can't even remember the exact presentation or it's name, (yet!) But it makes sense to me. Perspective. We look back though a glass darkly, that has reverse magnification! Doh!

 

[Barbarian]

This is a bit like the "virtual history" YE creationism of Dr. Gerald Aardsma. The advantage is that it can be reconciled with everything science has found, but retains the YE interpretation of Genesis.

It works, and it lets you keep your faith. So not such a bad thing.

 

[Mosheli]

It could be said that willful blindness is also/alternatively found in the old earth creation/evolution theory to the world and bible too. Like they ignore shelved forbidden archaeological out of place artifacts and missing links and reversals and immense ages/gaps which all don't fit in their theory. Many things that the "experts" adamantly assert are gospel truth facts are not so, like for example there are evidences that the Andes were pushed/pulled up quicker within the lifetime of humans and civilization despite them insisting they rose very slowly over millennia.
I do find some things like the Grand Canyon daunting but even there there are possible explanations within a young creationist worldview.
But I think one big mistake of YECs is they have only One world scale Flood to explain everything, whereas ancient cultures have a number of large catastrophes during world history.

I don't find the yome "day" as an age very convincing though going by the details in the Genesis account and other bible books.

My analysis of the geological time table shows it is maybe possible that it can fit with the biblical timeline whether young or old in length.

Cambrian explosion - Creation Gen 1-2?
Jurassic no seasons - temperate before flood?
4 rivers in Israel area in Cretaceous - Eden?
Cretaceous worldwide break - Flood?
Cenozoic "New Era" - post-Flood world?
Oligocene seasons 1st occur - summer & winter 1st mentioned at end of Flood (axis tilt)?
Ice Age(s) - postflood unstable climate/weather, famines Genesis, Gomer?

See full timescale here:
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37877

Geological Time Scale

Geological Time Scale

biblehistory.createaforum.com

 

[T. E. Smith]

Cambrian explosion - Creation Gen 1-2?

Cambrian explosion was actually not so explosive. It took place over literally millions of years in the fossil record. Perhaps it should be called "Cambrian slow fuse."

 

[Mosheli]

Cambrian explosion was actually not so explosive. It took place over literally millions of years in the fossil record. Perhaps it should be called "Cambrian slow fuse."

I don't think they can prove that. They were not there, etc. I tend not to just trust "experts" claims on only authority alone. There is not much fossil record in the Geo Tim Scale before/during then, most of the GTS is after Cambrian. The immense millions of years ages in the GTS and prehistory stretches my belief. In some cases like the continental "drift" and Andes "slow rising over millenia" there is evidence to the contrary of them happening faster and closer to the present than the experts adamantly assert.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I don't think they can prove that. They were not there, etc. I tend not to just trust "experts" claims on only authority alone. There is not much fossil record in the Geo Tim Scale before/during then, most of the GTS is after Cambrian. The immense millions of years ages in the GTS and prehistory stretches my belief. In some cases like the continental "drift" and Andes "slow rising over millenia" there is evidence to the contrary of them happening faster and closer to the present than the experts adamantly assert.

What makes your opinion more trustworthy though? If we can't trust the experts, why you?

 

[Barbarian]

It's not just that the Cambrian took a long time. It's that transitional forms of complex animals existed many millions of years before the Cambrian, in the Ediacaran. The "explosion" seems to have coincided with the evolution of fully-armored bodies, which allowed many new ways of life for organisms.

But the "small, shelly fauna" of the precambrian clearly show that a transition was occurring at the time.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Mosheli Barbarian Evolutionist Donald Prothero (who specializes in fossils) explained the Cambrian "explosion" very well in his textbook Evolution.

Of all the distortions of the fossil record that the creationists promote, the worst is their version of the “Cambrian explosion.” . . . The major group of invertebrate fossils do not appear suddenly at the base of the Cambrian but are spaced out over strata spanning 80 million years—hardly an instantaneous “explosion”!

. . . the earliest stages of the Cambrian (known as the Nemakit-Daldynian and the Tommotian stages, from 520 to 545 million years ago) are dominated by tiny (only a few millimeters) fossils nicknamed the ‘little shellies’ . . .

Then he gets right to the point:

The Cambrian explosion is a myth. It is better described as the Cambrian slow fuse. It takes from 600 to 520 million years ago before the typical Cambrian fauna of largely shelly organisms (especially trilobites) finally develops. . . . Apparently, creationists persist in presenting a version of the Cambrian that is at least fifty years out of date either because they don’t know any better (the ‘clueless’ hypothesis) or because they do know better (the ‘deceiver hypothesis). Either way, it is bad science.

 

[Edward]

Evolutionist Donald Prothero Didn't take into account that the Bible looks forward, and man looks back, or the effects of an expanding universe warping time to our point of view.

God created the Heavens and the Earth, the universe, from nothing. A command. And it was so good that later on, He only had to create certain life forms for the earth. Some things He siad, Let the earth bring forth grass and plants and many life forms which do ot breath air but are alive.

And the reason you can trust that Brothers word more than pothero's is because he reads the scriptures and pothero don't.

 

[Edward]

It's not just that the Cambrian took a long time. It's that transitional forms of complex animals existed many millions of years before the Cambrian, in the Ediacaran. The "explosion" seems to have coincided with the evolution of fully-armored bodies, which allowed many new ways of life for organisms.

But the "small, shelly fauna" of the precambrian clearly show that a transition was occurring at the time.

Can you appreciate Albert Einstein's contributions to science? The theory of relativity. Do you believe that?

 

[Edward]

Found it. Here, tis guy explains how time expands and stretches at the same rate as the universe. This stretching of time affects how we see age since we are looking backward in time.

Part of it actually. He has an entire series on all of this.
It makes sense to me.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Evolutionist Donald Prothero Didn't take into account that the Bible looks forward, and man looks back, or the effects of an expanding universe warping time to our point of view.

God created the Heavens and the Earth, the universe, from nothing. A command. And it was so good that later on, He only had to create certain life forms for the earth. Some things He siad, Let the earth bring forth grass and plants and many life forms which do ot breath air but are alive.

And the reason you can trust that Brothers word more than pothero's is because he reads the scriptures and pothero don't.

Found it. Here, tis guy explains how time expands and stretches at the same rate as the universe. This stretching of time affects how we see age since we are looking backward in time.

Part of it actually. He has an entire series on all of this.
It makes sense to me.

First, Prothero has a PhD in geological sciences in 1982 from Columbia University and has been writing about this topic for decades, so he is more than qualified to make such statements.

Second, yes space-time are one, at expand and stretch at the same rate, hence why we have "time dilation" etc. But That does not nullify radioactive dating, not by any means, and no scientist thinks so. Furthermore, if that was true, then we could not trust the radioactive dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I don't think any Christians discount those.

Third, it is the case that when we look at distant stars, we see them in the past. The furthest star we know of is 12.8 billion light years away from Earth. So when scientists looked up with advanced telescopes and saw it, they saw it as it was literally 12.8 billion years ago. Distant stars are time travel machines. It's truly amazing. And it is unfortunate when YECs deny it.

 

[Barbarian]

Can you appreciate Albert Einstein's contributions to science? The theory of relativity. Do you believe that?

We can see relativistic effects in the solar system. But that doesn't affect the time things take to develop.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Edward If you want a "creationist" explanation (that is actually cogent) of Einstein's theories of relativity, check out Jason Lisle's The Physics of Einstein.

 

[Edward]

We can see relativistic effects in the solar system. But that doesn't affect the time things take to develop.

Time is expanding at the same exact rate that space is. This is what the scientific community has established and believes. How can you so casually refute them? On what do you profess your rejection of this?

 

[T. E. Smith]

How can you so casually refute them?

How ironic, since if you ask any physicist they will refute you. Like I said (https://christianforums.net/threads/why-im-not-a-ye-creationist.90488/post-1669952), if you don't like the "establishment" science books, you can read the creationist book, which gives a much better explanation of relativity than either you or I could articulate.

 

[XNYHCX]

"One of the most painful experiences of my life was abandoning my belief in young earth creationism. I had been raised in a wonderful Baptist church that was fundamentalist but, as it was on the edge of a potato field in rural New Brunswick, Canada, it lacked the hard political edge that makes American fundamentalism so unappealing. It was a great place to grow up, to learn to love God, and I have nothing but fond memories of the believers with whom I worshipped as a child.
...
My studies led me to question the assumptions supporting my creationism–assumptions that soon dissolved and left my childhood belief in creationism without a foundation. Eventually I abandoned creationism and embraced theistic evolution–the belief that God creates through natural processes over billions of years. I discovered, to my surprise, that creationism required a certain willful blindness to both the natural world and the Bible.
There were several reasons I abandoned creationism. And now, years later, I am convinced that creationism poses insurmountable problems for anyone who would defend creationism today. I would like to mention a few general concerns and then some specifics to make my point.
Creationists have to “explain away” a gigantic mountain range of evidence that the scientific community has accumulated in the past century. Neither the scientific community nor the scientific data is is on their side. They have to believe that God created a profoundly deceptive world, with countless markers inexplicably pointing to evolution, even though that was not how things originated.
...
I am humbled to think that God’s creative work is of such grand coherence and scope that the universe is one gigantic narrative of creation. This seems far richer than my former creationist view that the universe is a collection of separately created things. And, to top it off, God created us with minds capable of unpacking the whole amazing story.
Why would any Christian find it hard to believe that evolution was God’s way of creating?"

Why I am not a creationist

Debates About Faith

www.beliefnet.com

That's interesting. I'm the opposite. I grew up in an atheist family and took evolution for granted. I'd never heard of anyone not believing in it, though some of what 10th grade biology taught sparked some questions.

It wasn't until I took a biology class in college that I became interested enough to seek some answers. By the time I'd changed my mind I'd taken an advanced biology class and attended a global conference at the university of Chicago on evolutionary morphology.

Thinking my questions would all be answered by the worlds leading biologists, I was instead dumbfounded by the lack of support or rational answers.

I attended a smaller conference in my homes city of NY and walked out. I'm not sure when I stopped supporting it, but I remember being at The Museum of Science in Boston and reading something about evolution at the whale display and thinking to myself, "This is all speculative bull crap that can't even withstand the crucible of critical thought."

It wasn't until years later that I became a Christian and learned that not everyone believed in it. I don't know what young earth creationists believe as a whole, and I really don't care and neither do I identify as one. (In fact I don't believe the bible suggests that the earth was created during the genesis creation, rather that it's form was given.)

*Imagine this: My father graduated Harvard in the early 60s and was taught that there was little to no life in the deep parts of the ocean do to lack of photosynthesis. Shortly after that a submersible was designed that could dive a few hundred meters deeper than the previous and they discover hydrothermal venting. By the time my daughter graduated she was taught that nearly half of life on earth is in the deep ocean. But it took seeing it to believe. Before that scientists were absolutely certain.

Scientific study is in the hands of mankind, subject to agendas (financial/political/other), egos, assumptions, and all manner of persuasion. Much grant-based research is granted specifically to come to a particular conclusion.

I'm glad you're not just believing what you're told to.

P.S. I apologize for typos. I typed this on my phone, which I hate doing.

 

[T. E. Smith]

That's interesting. I'm the opposite. I grew up in an atheist family and took evolution for granted. I'd never heard of anyone not believing in it, though some of what 10th grade biology taught sparked some questions.

It wasn't until I took a biology class in college that I became interested enough to seek some answers. By the time I'd changed my mind I'd taken an advanced biology class and attended a global conference at the university of Chicago on evolutionary morphology.

Thinking my questions would all be answered by the worlds leading biologists, I was instead dumbfounded by the lack of support or rational answers.

I attended a smaller conference in my homes city of NY and walked out. I'm not sure when I stopped supporting it, but I remember being at The Museum of Science in Boston and reading something about evolution at the whale display and thinking to myself, "This is all speculative bull crap that can't even withstand the crucible of critical thought."

It wasn't until years later that I became a Christian and learned that not everyone believed in it. I don't know what young earth creationists believe as a whole, and I really don't care and neither do I identify as one. (In fact I don't believe the bible suggests that the earth was created during the genesis creation, rather that it's form was given.)

*Imagine this: My father graduated Harvard in the early 60s and was taught that there was little to no life in the deep parts of the ocean do to lack of photosynthesis. Shortly after that a submersible was designed that could dive a few hundred meters deeper than the previous and they discover hydrothermal venting. By the time my daughter graduated she was taught that nearly half of life on earth is in the deep ocean. But it took seeing it to believe. Before that scientists were absolutely certain.

Scientific study is in the hands of mankind, subject to agendas (financial/political/other), egos, assumptions, and all manner of persuasion. Much grant-based research is granted specifically to come to a particular conclusion.

I'm glad you're not just believing what you're told to.

P.S. I apologize for typos. I typed this on my phone, which I hate doing.

YEC is human teaching too, it is not in the Bible.