YEC without the bible, possible?

Hello, this is my first ever post, so please be gentle.
I am a YEC. However I did not become a YEC as soon as I became a christian. I struggled for about four years, questioning many things about the Bible, History, & science.
If it were not for the Bible, requiring a young earth to remain logically consistent and plausible, I would probably not be convinced either way. I perhapps would wonder at which camp was right, but would have no reason to invest any time investigating the claims of either one. After becomming a christian, I then had more motivation to learn more about EvC.
Would I still oppose evolution, in a world without God? Despite my belief that the world would not exist without God, I would say no. Because it would probably be just a theory amongst many, with no motivation for anyone to care too much about it. I believe the only reason people get excited or care about EvC related scientific debates, is because of God.
If we rule out the Bible, would there be any evidence for a scientist to suspect the earth might be young? Hmmm. If there were no religions and if it were not for the Bible saying so, is it possible that scientists might look more openly at the evidence, and have more freedom to theorise about the age of the earth? Would they hold just as strongly to the current estimated age, or be more tentative? There are many methods to estimate the age of the earth, each one giving a different result, ranging from thousands to billions of years. If it were not for the Bible, would each method receive equal weighting, instead of most attention being paid to one method (radiometric)?
Regarding the statement about YEC beleiving what we do because of a literal interpretation of Genesis. There are distinctions that can be made here between between different YEC.
1. I came to this belief by thinking, reading, comparing, chance discoveries etc, to first convince the rational part of my mind that it was at least scientifically plausible. At the same time I also examined the Bible to see if the text was trustworthy, and to see if there was any other viable alternative other than a literal interpretation. Basically a process of elimination.
2. Other christians have no interest in the scientific debate, but are YEC because they have come to believe, for various other reasons, that the Bible is a record of the very words of God. And if the Bible states that God created the world in six days, then six days it is.
Regarding percentages of YEC. In Australia we are definately in the minority. In the various churches that I have attended, it's just not openly talked about. From my experience less than 10% of christians would be YEC (with the excetion of 7th day adventists). Most christians either do not consider it an issue, or have a variety ways in which they try to blend evolution with christianity.

---

Two ways to easy life, believe everything or nothing, as both save us from thinking.

Hello Meldinoor, Yes I am a bit overwhelmed by all the responses. I don't know if I will have a chance or the will, to reply to all the questions. So I'll start with yours as you started this thread, and seem genuinely inquisitive.(I'd appreciate if you'd share with us what "thinking, reading, comparing, chance discoveries, etc" means to you, and what channels you went through to find support for a literal 7-day interpretation of Genesis.)I first became a christian due to many non-science related reasons. Emotions did play a part, but I also had a rational mind which needed convincing. One strong reason was due to the testimony of the apostles, which led to most of them being killed. If Jesus was a fake, then they would definately know this, and it does not make sense them dying for a false prophet. At first I read introductory christian books such as; 'More than a carpenter' by Josh Mcdowel; 'Who moved the stone' by Frank Morison; 'Mere christianity' by C.S.Lewis; 'A Sneaking suspicion' by John Dickson; 'Know why you believe' by Paul E. Little, etc.From the very beginning though, whenever I read Genesis, I questioned how could it be true, as evolution was the scientific consensus. What made it difficult, was that I saw even then, that Genesis plainly stated that God created the world in six days. But like many people I thought this could not be right in light of evolution, so then proceded to conduct 'thought experiments' and trial many possible theories, of how else to interpret Genesis. Much later I found that the theories I had envisaged(ie day/age, gap, progressive creation etc), were commonly proposed by christians to resolve the problem. I however found fault with all of them.One of the first books I read relating to EvC, was Plimmer's 'Telling lies for God'. This made me highly skeptical of YEC for a few years. I then had the privilege of going to uni to study Nursing, which included introductory units in biology. Learning about DNA was a real eye opener for me, and it was then that I began to question the very basis of biological evolution. Around that time I came across a book in the uni co-op 'In six days' by John F. ashton. This was a very influential book for me, essay's from 50 scientists from around the world explaining why they believed in a literal 6 day creation. Up to that point I thought YEC were just right wing extremist christians, but I was slowly changing.Since then I have read books such as; 'The Origin of Species' by charles Darwin; 'Darwin's Black Box' by Michael J.Behe; 'The Blind watchmaker' By Richard Dawkins; 'Darwin on Trial' by Phillip E.Johnson; 'Refuting Evolution' 1&2 by Jonathan Sarfati; 'The birth of Time' by John Gribbin; 'The lie, Evolution' by Ken Ham; and many others. I was then fairly convinced, that evolution had some serious problems, and a six day creation started looking more logical.After the scientific objections to a 6 day creation had been examined, I then took a closer look at the textual criticisms for a literal interpretation. I read books such as 'Refuting Compomise' by Johnathan Sarfati; 'Fundamentalism and the Word of God' by J.I.Packer; web articals such as 'Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy'; and chapters dealing with the topic in a number of other books. I have since come to accept (read- dragged kicking & screaming) that the Bible is the very words of God, and that Genesis is a true historical record of our origin.Though being very brief, I hope this helps answer your question.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.

Hello again Meldinoor,
Sorry for delay, other commitments. I can only reply to some of your comments now, but will try answering more later. No I wasn't implying anything, just giving a general overview of my personal journey to becomming a YEC, in response to your question of what 'thinking...etc' means to me. I agree this is not too surprising. Firstly this is an American poll. If a worldwide poll was conducted I think the percentages would be very different. Secondly, we have already agreed in a distinction between two types of YEC. I suspect the 5% of YEC scientists would be in class no.1, and the majority of the 44% non-scientist YEC would be in class no.2. Thirdly, what are you implying by this poll, and when is truth ever determined by one? Unfortunately, this is a fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. Attempting to discredit a person instead of their argument. So why bother to mention it? Careful now, your teeth are showing. This is ridicule, based on a faulty assumption of what you think I meant. So much for playing nice. This is not what I assumed or meant, and is a strawman fallacy. My belief in a young earth is not just due to doubting evolution (though they can be seen as mutually exclusive), but also due to evidence presented in fore-mentioned books, and in the Bible, and personal experiences at uni. No, this is not what I meant. Yes the Bible is what 'tips the scales', but not how you are implying. I was trying to make the point that I probably would not have even looked at the evidence. I was a lazy agnostic before becomming a christian (did not know what the truth was, and it was not a high enough priority to invest time in looking). If I had seriously examined the arguments & evidence for both sides before becomming a christian, I doubt whether the evidence alone would make me commit to either party. This does not mean that evidence for YEC is weak, only that with two groups debating, each presenting valid arguments, it's sometimes hard to judge who is right.It was the evidence & personal experiences which did ultimately convince me, but I would not have gone to uni or looked seriously at the evidence, if it wern't for the Bible & becomming a christian in the first place. So, it is in this sense, that I would not be a YEC if it weren't for the Bible. In addition, while becomming a YEC because of the Scientific evidence, the textual evidence for a young earth was also becomming very convincing. (Keep in mind that these were learned in conjunction, both feeding back on each other.) I now believe that the Bible is a true historical record of God revealing Himself to us, and that six days means six days.

Hello Meldinoor, It was indeed a tea party by comparrison to other threads, and I hope we can try & keep it that way. I guess I was 'ruffled' because of the general enviroment in this forum, and the common ploy of attacking YEC scientists credentials. I'm sorry if I've over reacted, but I feel that to make any mention at all of a persons credentials in a debate such as EvC, is an attempt to disregard their views, which can be seen as ad hominem. Because it's not about relying on their arguments, or their knowledge of the subject, or how many of them believe it, but on whether their argument itself is valid. I believe I have already answered this question in my last post, regarding the poll. Because I believe history has demonstrated, that any new concept/theory is introduced to society through one person, or small group, and usually finds much opposition from the educated people of the day. In the past, large groups of scientists believed in a substance called ether, or in the spontaneous generation of insects from waste, or many other things which are now not accepted. This form of argument(polls, statistics etc), is also a type of bandwagon fallacy, or appealing to popularity, and suggests a paucity of valid arguments. I know that at the moment we are just discussing the topic philosophically, and have not yet advanced to debating actual evidence. But I feel you are just wasting time with this approach. The pervasiveness of evolution in education & society, and language used to describe it, had led me to believe up to then, that it had answered all the questions, and there were no problems for it to overcome. YEC was seen as totally obsurd. All I was trying to say, was that after reading a number of books, I then discovered that evolution did not have all the answers yet, and there were a number of serious problems yet to overcome. Also that YEC was now not so absurd. This is a fair summation of what I was attempting to say, but there is still more to discuss on this topic. Another point is that prior knowledge, culture, expectations etc, can effect the way we 'view' evidence. In his book 'What is this thing called science', A.f.Chalmers made the point that what we 'see', is as much determined by our mind than by the image on our retina. He demonstates this with a simple drawing of a staircase. Most people immediately see a staircase ascending up to the left. However if you look at the drawing for a while, you see that it can also be a view of the underside of a staircase. You can swap between perspectives at will, but the image on our retina remains unchanged. Furthermore if the image is shown to a remote tribesman who has never seen stairs before, all they see is a bunch of two dimentional lines.Now applying this to our topic. Sometimes evidence can be viewed from one perspective which appears right, until either someone points out another was of seeing it, or you learn something new or have an experience enabling you to see the same evidence, but from a different perspective. Viewed from either perspective, the evidence does fit both.After becomming a christian, the Bible gave me a new perspective with which to view the same evidence. In case you ask, yes I can see from your perspective, the evidence, what you 'see', does fit your theory. I hope you can at least attempt to do the same, for my theory.

Hello Meldinoor,
It may not be appropriate on this thread & I may have to start another for you to answer this. But can I mirror the same question back to you. If there existed a world where everyone was a christian & TOE did not exist, would there be enough textual evidence for you to conclude, from a plain reading of genesis, that God created the world billions of years ago? Would the long ages just jump out of the pages at you? Would you look for evidence of long ages in the text, if it were not for the naturalists/materialists/atheists/OEC claiming they exist?Just something for you to consider, while we are still examining the subtle points of my reply to your original question.

Hello Meldinoor,
I agree, agressive behaviour stifle's debate. I just don't bother answering other posts simply because of their tone. I've learned that it's just not worth it. Some may see this as evading tough questions. No, just evading abuse. Good question. I guess I couldn't decide......if we were to rely on scientific evidence alone. Firstly, science has not yet revealed 'all' knowledge, so both beliefs are based on incomplete knowledge, so there is always the element of doubt. Both could be wrong.Secondly, the information that is known, could be interpreted a number of different ways. Not only is there debate between evolutionists & creationists over evidence, but there is debate amongst evolutionists and debate amongst creationists, over what each piece of evidence could mean.So looking at all this as an impartial non-scientist outsider, I'll stick with my original answer, that I could not discern and probably would not have been convinced either way.There are still a few things we need to discuss about the nature of the scientific method. We are already agreed that our mind can influence what we see. But there is alot more too this. The scientific method is an excellent way of discovering how this world works, but it is limited to this. It should not be presented as the ultimate infallible method to discover all truth.In regards to historical events, which would provide more conclusive evidence, an archaeologist picking through rubble, or a book recording an eye witness account? Sorry, I thought the question was mainly about the differing % between scientist YEC & laymen YEC. I suspect that you are referring to the poll which indicates, that a greater percentage of scientists, than the general population, believe evolution. Is this what you mean?
There is alot in answering this and your following questions, and I may not do justice to it, but will have a go. The poll may not take into account the difference between the different christian factions, and whether they say they are christian because their parents were, or because they were truly saved. I'd be interested to know just what questions were used in the poll, to determine this. There may be more people counted as being christian in the general population, than what there actually were.Is there a breakdown of figures in the poll, showing the total percentage of christian scientist? There could be a sociological reasons for more non christians in the sciences than christian. Too many unanswerable questions about this poll to give definate answers.Perhapps the reason why most educated people accept evolution, is for the same reason why most uneducated people accept it. If they do not accept that there is a God, and believe there can only ever be a natural explanation for our existance, then evolution would appear the most plausible theory. Now matter how highly educated you are, the problem still exists of the prior acceptance that there can only ever be a natural explanation for our existance. You may be aware of the famous quote by Lewontin 'that materialism is an absolute','we are forced by our a priori adherance to material causes'. And also from Dr Scott Todd: 'Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it it not naturalistic.' Many christians do accept evolution, but are still thought of as deluded by most non-christian evolutionist, for clinging to a divine being in spite of the 'overwhelming' evidence in favour of a purely natural explanation. A God who created through an evolutionary process, is indistinguishable from no God at all. Evolution, though originally a biological theory, is now a figurehead term, which includes all disciplines that seek to describe how everything came to be as it is now, buy natural means alone. How can this be combined with a belief that we were created by a supernatural being? I can't see how. Christians who accept evolution are not fooling the non-christian evolutionists. I think many evolutionists respect YEC more than OEC, because they are at least consistent.That's enough for now. I still want to reply to the rest of you post, but just keep running out of time.

Hello Meldinoor,
Thank you for answering this question. Yes, but same as now, it was not due to the words & context of the Bible itself, but due to sources outside of the Bible, namely greek philosophy. Interestingly, some wondered why God would take as long as six days.If I may be allowed to ask another question along the same line. If God really did create the world in six days, could He have communicated this any clearer, than what He has already done so in Genesis? How could He have made it any clearer, so that it would not be taken as metaphor?Edited by Minority Report, : Clarifying the question.

Hello Meldinoor, This does not really answer the question. The question was in regards to the actual wording of the Bible, and whether there was any better way of stating it, so that the text could in no way be misinterpreted as metaphoric/myth etc. Can you comment on this please?An overall re-occuring message of the Bible is that God chose to teach us using words, and that we are to have faith in God's words. How many times did Jesus say 'Haven't you read...', or 'It is written...'? Jesus confirmed what was already well understood, that the scriptures were the very words of God. Saying that God could have made a clear point in the rocks, is in total disregard to what God has already said in the scriptures.Also I do believe there is evidence in the rocks, but only if viewed from the perspective that a worldwide flood actually occured.

Hello Meldinoor,
Congratulation on you membership status.Yes I agree that Genesis contains lyric & chorus to aid remembering, but this does not necessarily hint to it being a metaphor. How do memory aids such as lyric & chorus suggest metaphoric language or suggest that Genesis is not true? Plus repeating the chorus 'and there was evening and there was morning', is the author's attempt to make absolutely clear we understand each day was a literal 24 hour day. Taking such a 'chorus' out of Genesis would make it more easy to dispell it as being metaphoric.I am still pondering the rest of you post. Will reply to that ASAP.

No. And I don't know how you could possibly read that from my statement.

Hello Meldinoor,
Still trying to catch up with reply's to your earlier posts. In the meantime, for those still crying for evidences for young earth(though not suitable to debate in this thread), published today was an article titled '101 evidences for a young age of earth' at Age of the earth - creation.com, for anyone interested. Yes I agree. When I first read this part, there initially seemed to be a contradiction. Henry Morris in his book 'The Genesis Record' states;'The primary warning is undoubtedly that of spiritual death, or separation from God. But this also entails physical death, since God is the source of physical life as well as spiritual life. Literally the warning could be read: "Dying, thou shalt die!" The moment Adam disobeyed God, the principle of decay and death would begin to operate in his body.'Now I know this explanation might seem bit weak to you, but I have also read elsewhere that a hebrew scholar agrees the verse could be translated 'Dying, thou shalt die', though can't confirm yet. Need more time to research. If this is the case then it makes much more sense & no more problem interpreting day as metaphorical in this verse.ps. Also found this excerpt at The page you requested was not found on our site - creation.com'The fruit of the tree of knowledge is said to kill within a day of being eaten, yet Adam and Eve don’t die after eating it.
Relevant Scripture: Genesis 2:16—17, 3:1—24.Answer: Young’s Literal Translation makes this a bit clearer:And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of itdying thou dost die.’
‘Dying thou dost die’ indicates progressive death, not immediate death. The Hebrew provides the nuance this objection overlooks by reading Scripture like an English newspaper. The Fall began ‘in the day’ with Adam and Eve’s separation from God (3:24), the spiritual death, and later they experienced the physical death at the end of their life on Earth. ‘In the day’ (beym) is a Hebrew idiom for ‘when’, which is why the NIV translates: ‘but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’I know we are starting to get a little off track with this, but the case I'm trying to present is this; Though believing to have evidence for a young universe/earth, YEC is still dependant on infallible Bible as basis for belief. OEC believe Bible not clear on age(disagree), and does not exclude possibility of old earth (does not explicitly say this either), and is mostly based on man's fallible interpretation of physical evidence.Edited by Minority Report, : Addition of information.

Hello Meldinoor, The point I was trying to make, was that as christians, we should give precedence to God's word, over our interpretation of God from the natural world. When a point of conflict occurs between what God has said, and what we interpret from nature, we should give the benefit of doubt to God's word, and not immediately assume it wrong and in need of a different interpretation. I believe evidence found in nature should confirm what is written in the Bible, and I believe it does. Sometimes it will appear to contradict, but I put that down to our lack of complete knowledge of the situation.Regarding Dr Scott Todd's statement. Yes I do understand what he meant in context, that science, as a method, can only look for natural explanations, which does not necessarily rule out a supernatural God. I completely understand that this is the role of science. However, because science can only look for a natural explanation, it can come to faulty conclusions about our past. For example, the global flood, being an event started & perhapps maintained supernaturally, would leave behind vast quantities of sedimentary layers containing dead plants & animals. Now if we can only look for natural explanations, to explain the evidence left behind by this supernatural event, how could it ever be interpreted correctly?Back to your statement that 'God could have made it clear in the rocks'. I believe that He has, but if scientists disregard the flood they will never see it, and if you accept these naturalistic conclusions as fact, neither will you.

Hello Meldinoor, I've noticed. I guess I'd expect criticism of this statement from non-beleivers, if I was asking them to accept it. But it was strictly an appeal to a fellow believer. Yes, but it appears you claim a verse is metaphorical, whenever that verse is in disagreement with an interpretation of nature, regardless of actual context of the text. Don't you think this can be seen as a convenient escape clause?I know you claim textual support, but your support has to be read into the text, it is not self evident from a plain reading. Basically this approach allows you to escape the implications of all the difficlt verses in the Bible. It can allow non-believing scientists to re-interpret the Bible for you. If you allow an interpretation of nature to controll your interpretation of the Bible, where will it end, and what will remain of the Bible and your faith?Nature reveals to us that people do not rise again from death, yet our whole faith is based on this actually occuring to Jesus. Why do you not also interpret those passages referring to Jesus's ressurection as metaphoric? To be consistent in your approach to scripture, wouldn't you have too?Also to be consistant you would have to claim that Jesus was mistaken, or a liar, regarding Noah's Ark & worldwide flood. Read Luke 17:26&27. If a worldwide flood did not occur, why did Jesus refer to it as if it did? Read John 5:46&47. If Jesus & moses were mistaken on matters of history, why should we trust them about spiritual truth? Well played. I guess I can't blame you for this reasoning, for I would probably done the same if I were you. But if you remember, I originally was only applying this to scientific arguments from the perspective of when I was an agnostic. And I put in a disclaimer '...if we were to rely on scientific evidence alone', implying that the Bible gave me additional information to help decide.But you are right, we can go on arguing endlessly, as everything is seemingly open to debate, and our beliefs seem to be just as arbitarily decided by a coin, as by reason. I really don't know where we can go on from here. I guess we would need a foundation, a yard stick, something which we both agree on to act as an judge on who is right. I thought our shared beleif in God's inerrant word would suffice, but it looks like the matter has come down to debating whether Genesis is metaphorical or Historical.I could continue to debate the OP along the line 'I believe YEC is clearly implied in Bible because....', if you think that it would still be relevant, or unless that particular debate already exists on another thread?Edited by Minority Report, : Re-phrasing question.

Hello dwise1,
Sorry for bare link, beginners mistake. I really had no intention of debating the specific evidences in the link. I joined specifically to answer Meldinoor's post, and have a frank discussion with him about my personal position on the matter. I only posted that link due to a repeated call for evidence, to get people off my back so to speak, so I could concentrate on the philosophical debate we were having. In hindsight it was probably a mistake, but so was the pestering me for evidence in the context of our discussion. I barely have enough time to answer Meldinoor, let alone everyone else. So don't expect much comment from me in coyote's new thread. I have read the first 30 entries though, and you have given me alot to research.I would like to engage because not doing so may appear as if I was somehow lying as you stated. But goading me into battle in this way is a very low act. If I have time, perhapps I will engage. But if I do not, you cannot imply anything at all, as you have done so, from my silence.Also in hindsight, the question could allow for a debate examining the specific evidence for YEC without Bible. However, to some extent I was letting Meldinoor controll the direction our discussion took. Also as it turned out Meldinoor was a christian, and this further influenced our direction. We may yet still get to specific evidence for YEC, but as I have stated in my last post to Meldinoor, I would like to examine the Biblical evidence for YEC, if he will allow.Edited by Minority Report, : Additional comments

Hello Meldinoor,
Getting back to some earlier posts. Perhapps. But I tried to think of what other words that could be used to describe how 'God commanding & stuff happenning', could be better explained explained in english. I then realised however that most books are not written from the perspective of the reader, but the author. It is the job of the author to describe events from their perspective, and of the reader to attempt to understand what this perspective is. From the authors perspective, what does 'Let the land produce...' mean?As you stated: You have already answered the question. If you just examine the name 'Adam' in isolation, it could mean 'human race'. However if you read passages such as Luke 3:23-38, which traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam. This indicates that Adam was a real man whom Jesus & everyone elso descended from. But Adam & Eve ate a piece of fruit from it, this does suggests that the tree of knowledge at least was a real tree. This was indeed a special tree. This and other verses indicate that Adam & eve were originally created to live forever. But sin changed all that, and God prevented them from living forever separated from Him. Whether Adam & Eve died due to the curse of death directly from God, or from being prevented from eating the fruit of the tree of life, it is unclear. However if you believe God created the universe, then you should not doubt His ability to indefinately maintain the life of Adam & Eve, through their eating of fruit from a special tree. The tree may not have conveyed any knowledge at all, but was simply a test of obedience. The moment Adam took a bite, he knew he had doubted & disobeyed God, and had thus 'knowledge' of evil.