Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC without the bible, possible?
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 1 of 133 (508959)
05-17-2009 3:34 PM


I notice that 99% of supporters of a young earth (most evangelical Christians) believe what they do based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Most conversations I've had on the topic with Creo's seem to keep coming back to the first chapters of Genesis.
But what happens if we pull the rug out from under their feet? Suppose the bible was never written (or any religious document dealing with creation) and only observable evidence was available to us. Would there be sufficient reason for anyone to argue a young earth?
Now I realize this is a question about a hypothetical situation, but I'm addressing it mainly to young-earthers out there. Assuming you didn't have the bible, how convinced would you be of a young earth? Would you still seek evidence for it? Would you still oppose evolution?
I look forward to your replies.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 05-18-2009 9:12 AM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 5 by GDR, posted 05-18-2009 5:40 PM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 11 by lyx2no, posted 05-18-2009 6:08 PM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 17 by Minority Report, posted 05-25-2009 10:17 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 4 of 133 (509094)
05-18-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Huntard
05-18-2009 9:12 AM


I for one wouldn't know how it could exist without religion, since that is all that it is based on.
But perhpas the creationists could shed some light on the subject?
I agree. And it is my personal theory that most resident young earth creationists on this forum would not be defending their case if they didn't have a belief in the literal interpretation of Genesis.
If the bible had instead described a 14.5b year creation period, including millions of years of biological evolution, would they still be digging up "evidence" to support the idea of a young earth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 05-18-2009 9:12 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by onifre, posted 05-18-2009 5:45 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 8 of 133 (509100)
05-18-2009 5:47 PM


I just discovered another thread on this topic that seems to confirm my theory. I was surprised to see how in http://EvC Forum: Kurt Wise - A YAC and an old earth evolutionist? -->EvC Forum: Kurt Wise - A YAC and an old earth evolutionist? some young-earthers admit that they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, but understand that observational evidence is to the contrary.
I'm curious as to how this kind of belief holds together. Do they see the world created in the bible as a different one than the one with the evidence in it? Do they believe that God planted evidence of an old earth deceitfully in order to "test" us?
Im curious as to how you come to the conclusion that 99% of evangelical Christians are young earth creationists. If I were to guess, as I presume you have done, I'd put it closer to 10% or less. It's actually primarily a North American belief. JMHO
You're right GDR, I guesstimated that number. And I was referring to the American situation. I know that European Christians are a lot more keen on accepting evolution. But I've looked up several polls that seem to show how almost 50% of the American population believe in a young earth. To me, that's pretty scary.
From Wikipedia: (Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia)
As of 2008 a Gallup poll indicated that 50% of US adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life." Whereas 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."[26]

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 05-18-2009 6:25 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 10 of 133 (509103)
05-18-2009 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by onifre
05-18-2009 5:45 PM


The key point though, to support their argument, is that the Bible is quite vague in it's primitive attempt to describe our origin.
Is it vague though? Isn't that a point of contention among Christians? Young Earthers tend to argue that it's pretty simple and straightforward, seven actual days of creation, and the genealogies are accurate person for person records of the generations after creation. Christians who believe that the world is indeed 4.5b years old (me, for instance) tend to read it metaphorically.
But to get back on topic, I'd love to hear the opinions of some YECs on the OP question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by onifre, posted 05-18-2009 5:45 PM onifre has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 12 of 133 (509106)
05-18-2009 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by lyx2no
05-18-2009 6:08 PM


Re: I'm Still Fuzzy
To clear this up for me, did you mean:
I notice that 99% of supporters of a young earth (mostly evangelical Christians) believe what they do based on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Yes. And at the time of writing, I also assumed that most American evangelicals were young earthers. However, I may have overestimated the prevalence of that belief based on personal experience. If someone has the correct numbers I'd be happy to see them.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by lyx2no, posted 05-18-2009 6:08 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 14 of 133 (509112)
05-18-2009 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Jack
05-18-2009 6:25 PM


I can't speak for any such people. But I have heard the view expressed that it's just a matter of us having not investigated fully enough and, with the right techniques, we'll find that science and Genesis point to the same conclusion.
Which again points to what I "theorized" in the OP. If you're right, their belief is 100% faith based and would fall apart without the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 05-18-2009 6:25 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by lyx2no, posted 05-18-2009 6:58 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 18 of 133 (509865)
05-25-2009 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minority Report
05-25-2009 10:17 AM


Finally!
Minority Report writes:
Hello, this is my first ever post, so please be gentle.
Welcome Minority I'm new here too, as you can see. Don't worry, I play nice.
Minority Report writes:
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.
Thank you for your honest answer! I thought this thread would go to its grave without a reply from a young earther!!
So, you are saying that without the bible, you would be unconvinced about the age of the earth? That statement can be turned around to say, the bible is ultimately what convinced you of the young age of the earth. Is that accurate?
Do you believe observational evidence supports your position, contrary to scientific consensus in Geology (ancient sedimentation), nuclear physics (radiometric dating), paleontology (fossils), astronomy (distance light has traveled from the furthest stars), etc? (Let's leave debating the specific evidence to another thread).
Do you believe physical evidence has to agree with the bible, or do believe the evidence is unimportant next to your literal interpretation of Genesis?
Minority Report writes:
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.
I disagree. While I agree that many prominent scientists have been Christians, plenty of discoveries and advances, on the subject of our origins, have been made by non-Christians, who also were not hostile toward a belief in God.
Albert Einstein comes to mind, who, despite being quoted as saying "God does not play dice", was not a Christian. Einstein's theories eventually lent support to the Big Bang theory. He did not need a belief in God to motivate his discoveries.
Darwin is another good example. From Wikipedia:
When going to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible. He learnt John Herschel's science which, like William Paley’s natural theology, sought explanations in laws of nature rather than miracles and saw adaptation of species as evidence of design. On board the Beagle, Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality. He looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, and related the antlion found near kangaroos to distinct "periods of Creation".
Darwin started out as a creationist, but lost this belief as he made his great discovery. A case where his faith did not so much influence his research, as the other way around.
Minority Report writes:
If it were not for the Bible, would each method receive equal weighting, instead of most attention being paid to one method (radiometric)?
Radiometric dating is one of hundreds of different methods that give evidence of an ancient world. Just tree rings push the age of the earth back to more than 10,000 years ago. About twice as old as most YEC's argue.
The earth's crust has a similar pattern to tree rings that go out from divergent boundaries between tectonic plates. I won't describe it here, for fear of going too far off topic, but I will give you a link.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/stripes.html
Surely you realize that there is far more support for an old earth than just radiometric dating?
Minority Report writes:
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.
I went through the same process... But it appears I came to a different conclusion. Did you study or read about discoveries and research done from a non-YEC perspective? Or were you more objective, looking at the evidence for all sides? (not that I've seen much evidence for a young earth, but that's another topic) Kent Hovind, a prominent creationist, has been known to misrepresent science, and to lie about discoveries.
Page Not Found - The Skeptic Tank
Kent Hovind - Wikipedia
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/HovindLie.html
I'm not saying you relied on the garbage claims by Rev Hovind (I feel sorry for you if that's the case). But many people do. Did you check the credentials of those whose works you were reading and comparing?
Minority Report writes:
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.
I don't know the percentage either. Being a Christian myself, I just feel like I'm surrounded by people who reject scientific evidence in favor of an a priori belief in a young earth. Last week I went to a church where the pastor laughed at the idea of an old earth, making it seem to the congregation, as if a young earth is the only possible interpretation of scripture.
Thanks for your post. I look forward to seeing your reply.
God bless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minority Report, posted 05-25-2009 10:17 AM Minority Report has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 21 of 133 (509894)
05-25-2009 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minority Report
05-25-2009 10:17 AM


Re: RE - YEC without Bible?
Sorry for giving you so much to reply to.
Minority Report writes:
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.
I agree with your division of YEC's into two parties. The vast majority of them I'd class as nr 2. They believe because their pastors or Sunday school teachers told them so. It is appalling to me when members of this group rally to get evolution out of school. They don't even understand what they're rallying against.
I believe some YEC's can be grouped under nr 1. They have honestly looked at scientific evidence, but have probably relied on the arguments of Creationist "scientists" (who can sometimes sound pretty convincing until you pick apart their arguments). At least this group of YEC's have gone through the trouble of investigating their beliefs, even if they are misled.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minority Report, posted 05-25-2009 10:17 AM Minority Report has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Minority Report, posted 05-26-2009 9:09 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 25 of 133 (510048)
05-27-2009 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Minority Report
05-26-2009 9:09 AM


Interesting
Minority Report writes:
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.
Thank you, Minority. I appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion.
Minority Report writes:
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.
C.S.Lewis is a good read, and as happy as I am to call you a brother or sister in faith, I don't see how it pertains to this thread. Unless you are implying that rejecting an old earth is a natural progression from becoming a Christian. Evolution is not an Atheist religion, although many creationists like to call it that, further claiming it is an excuse for immorality etc etc... I accept the theory of evolution, but I don't consider myself an Evolutionist any more than I consider myself a Gravitationalist for accepting the theory of gravity. I'm just convinced by the evidence.
Minority Report writes:
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.
Interesting, because DNA is the very basis of biological evolution, and carries many indications of shared ancestry with other species. I find the presence of ERV's and Junk DNA to be especially telltale signs of biological evolution. I've never seen any other satisfactory explanation for them.
Minority Report writes:
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 have to admit, I was prejudiced toward thinking that a YEC would never have read a book by Dawkins (except to quote-mine, naturally). But I'm not surprised at all by the credentials of the YEC's you quote.
Phillip Johnson is a law professor.
Jonathan Sarfati is a Dr of Chemistry, not biology.
Ken Ham only has a bachelor's degree in applied science.
Unfortunately, many YEC writers and speakers lack proper credentials on the topics they write about. That does not automatically disqualify them of course. I don't think Darwin had a doctorate in biology at the time he published his theory, but most who have them today support his theory.
This link shows several survey results of American beliefs about evolution.
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation
Not too surprisingly, only 5% of scientists held a belief in YEC, while 44% of non-scientists did (Gallup poll from 1997) Why do you think this is the case?
Minority Report writes:
I was then fairly convinced, that evolution had some serious problems, and a six day creation started looking more logical.
Um... Ok? So, I'm convinced evolution has some problems, therefore it follows that the earth is 6000 years old?
How about:
Because evolution has some problems, therefore Elvis was abducted by Aliens and lives on a small planet orbiting Alpha Centauri?
Sorry, but neither of the two paragraphs describes a logically coherent statement. There is no reason to assume that the earth is 6000 years old, simply because there are things we still don't know about evolution. Evolution is not directly related to the age of the earth anyway, even if creationists like to refer collectively to any science that disagrees with YEC as "Evolution".
Also, in your answer to the OP, you said that the bible is ultimately what tips the scale in favor of YEC for you. Doesn't this mean the scientific "evidence" for YEC isn't convincing enough for you? I find it strange, if God created the Earth 6000 years ago, that we'd have to rely on the Bible to make discoveries about our past, that their isn't more evidence for it. A fresh 6000 year old earth would be fairly obviously not 4.5b years old, don't you think.
Minority Report writes:
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.
I'm sorry, but really, on the topic of the interpretation of Genesis, how is reading only works by YEC's an objective look at the facts? Did you explore any works by, say, Hugh Ross, or any other creationist who accepts a different interpretation of Genesis? If you look at only one side of the argument, you've already made up your mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Minority Report, posted 05-26-2009 9:09 AM Minority Report has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Minority Report, posted 05-28-2009 7:18 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 29 of 133 (510199)
05-28-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Minority Report
05-28-2009 7:18 AM


Re: Interesting
How did our peaceful tea party discussion turn into an all-out boxing match? I had no intention of ruffling your feathers.
Minority Report writes:
Hello again Meldinoor,
Sorry for delay, other commitments. I can only reply to some of your comments now, but will try answering more later.
As always, Minority, I appreciate you taking the time to post here.
Minority Report writes:
Unfortunately, this is a fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. Attempting to discredit a person instead of their argument.
No, it is not argumentum ad hominem. If I had written: "Phillip Johnson believes in Santa Claus, Sarfati is afraid of heights, and Ken Ham smells like a block of moldy cheese on a good day", that would have been argumentum ad hominem. That's because neither of these traits says anything about their ability to judge the issue at hand.
I was very careful to point out that a lack of credentials, in any given case, is not an automatic dis qualifier. Heck, I even threw Darwin in as an example. But the reason I point this out is because we're not just looking at one individual.
Most doctors of Biology accept evolution. Most scientists who disagree with evolution are not in the field of biology. In fact, polls show that an increase in education correlates with an increase in an acceptance of the ToE. You argue that this is an ad hominem.
But what if I did a poll of preschool teachers*, asking them if they accept, say, the Theory of Relativity. Then say I polled a group of physicists. If you were to make up your mind about the Theory of Relativity, which poll would you rely on the most.
The same thing can be said for the Theory of Evolution. Since Evolution is a scientific problem, not a religious one, scientists would be far more knowledgeable about its ins and outs than kindergarten teachers. Furthermore, scientists with a degree in biology would be expected to know more about it than scientists in other fields.
Why then do you argue that we should rely on the arguments of a group of people, with statistically less knowledge on the subject than another group?
More importantly, why do you think there are far less educated scientists who believe in YEC, than the general public? I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong. I'm asking you a question, and I'd like to hear your opinion.
Minority Report writes:
Thirdly, what are you implying by this poll, and when is truth ever determined by one?
Truth is never determined by poll. But statistically speaking, large groups of scientists agreeing unanimously, tends to coincide with truth. I'd like to know why it doesn't in this case.
Minority Report writes:
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.
I'm sorry if it sounded like ridicule to you. I just gave an absurd example in order to demonstrate the absurdity of the statement that I apparently falsely assumed you made.
Perhaps you'd like to explain what you meant?
Minority Report writes:
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.
They are mutually exclusive. But what's to say the earth isn't 20,000yrs old, or created last Thursday? (With memories and all the evidence of an old earth in place just to fool us). When I "committed the strawman fallacy" I was simply assuming that what you meant was:
Problems in Evolution = 6000yr old earth
I think that was a fairly natural assumption given your statement:
Minority Report writes:
I was then fairly convinced, that evolution had some serious problems, and a six day creation started looking more logical.
I apologize for misunderstanding. Next time, instead of screaming "FALLACY!" just because someone misinterprets your post, simply explain what you actually meant. Thanks
Minority Report writes:
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.
Minority Report writes:
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.
I see. So assuming you did look at the evidence regardless, your answer to the OP would be: maybe. Is that about right?
Minority Report writes:
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.
So how do you judge who is right? Your interpretation of Genesis, I presume? If that is the case, then the bible is what ultimately makes you a YEC. That would, as far as I can tell, make your answer to the OP: yes.
Now, why does the evidence favor both sides equally, as you seem to be claiming? (correct me if I'm wrong) Why should we need your interpretation (and that of other YECs) of Genesis in order to determine the age of the earth? Why isn't the evidence obviously in favor of a 6000yr universe? That is the question I'm ultimately trying to get at here.
*Disclaimer: I am by no means arguing that YEC scientists have the level of education of a preschool teacher. I am merely using an extreme example to clearly show where I'm coming from. End of disclaimer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Minority Report, posted 05-28-2009 7:18 AM Minority Report has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Minority Report, posted 05-29-2009 1:42 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 31 of 133 (510224)
05-29-2009 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by dwise1
05-28-2009 9:31 PM


Re: Interesting
Thanks dwise, I have often wondered myself how YEC could survive this long without any real evidence. It is curiously arrogant to assume they're right if only they can find enough holes in Evolution.
I like to think of science as a constructive process. The ToE is continuously being built upon and refined, while YECs, unable to build any theory supported by evidence, busy themselves trying to tear down the opposing theory.
They also don't seem to realize that their movement is fairly young. Many of the early church fathers did not interpret Genesis as they do. Augustine himself did not believe in a 6-day creation. Notice that they were not influenced by modern science, yet still arrived at these conclusions.
I'm a Christian, I believe in the truth of the Bible, and yet I accept evolution. And I'd love to know why that's wrong.
Minority Report has claimed that the Bible was not all of what led him to his YEC position. But he does admit that without it, the evidence would not have been sufficient for him. Is that all that YECs have? Their interpretation of the Bible? If Augustine, or any of the early church fathers are right, then their whole interpretation, and their whole "theory" crumbles.
Just out of curiosity, dwise. You say you've been active in the creation-evolution debate for some time. What is your religious affiliation, if any?
Edited by Meldinoor, : Looks like I lied

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by dwise1, posted 05-28-2009 9:31 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by dwise1, posted 05-29-2009 2:51 PM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 42 by dwise1, posted 05-29-2009 7:25 PM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 44 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-30-2009 7:08 PM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 39 of 133 (510304)
05-29-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Minority Report
05-29-2009 1:42 PM


I'm glad we're able to keep this discussion civil. Unlike most threads on this forum, there has yet to be any name-calling or completely off-topic nonsense. Call me soft, but I think refraining from aggressive behavior is more likely to get us somewhere than otherwise.
Minority, I was myself a YEC at a time, so I know where you're coming from. I will do my utmost to see things from your perspective, if you will see things from mine. Deal? Good.
Minority Report writes:
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 agree. But you said yourself that both sides have valid arguments. If both sides are making valid points (I don't hold this view, but just for the sake of argument) how do you choose a side? If it doesn't matter who's making the argument, or how many, or how educated they are, how do discern?
For a Christian, the Bible is a source of discernment. However, every time you read the Bible you are understanding it according to an interpretation. Have you considered the arguments for a non-6 day creation interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis? The list you provided only included works by YECs, so I wonder if you've been entirely objective in this?
You are very right in saying that what we see is partly what we expect to see. Well, the same thing can be said for the Bible. If you assume that Genesis 1 can only refer to a 6 day creation, then any argument to the contrary will seem like rubbish, heresy even. Most people don't know that even the early church was split on how to interpret the first chapters of Genesis. St Augustine, one of the early church fathers, and a great theologian, believed the 6 days to be allegorical.
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html
Without further digressing into that topic, I will simply restate my question:
If both sides make valid arguments, and if it doesn't matter who's making the argument, or how many, or how educated they are, how do you discern?
Minority Report writes:
Meldinoor writes:
why do you think there are far less educated scientists who believe in YEC, than the general public?
I believe I have already answered this question in my last post, regarding the poll.
While I don't think you intentionally shirked the question, I think you may have misunderstood what I was really asking.
I agree that truth is not determined by poll. But that's not my question. I merely want your opinion on why most educated people accept the theory of evolution. If evolution has so many problems, wouldn't a higher education, indeed deeper studies of it, reveal these problems to the scientist? Why aren't we seeing progressively more YECs as educations get higher? Many of the scientists who accept evolution are Christians, so you can't really argue that there's an atheistic axe to grind here. Do you have an answer to this?
Minority Report writes:
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.
Usually that's the case. Evolution was introduced by several individuals, weathered a storm of criticism, then took off like a bonfire once scientists found out that it actually stood up to the test.
It is important to realize that this hasn't always been the case. Scientific progress has picked up enormous momentum in the past two centuries. With the dawn of the Scientific Method, a framework for testing theories was in place. This promoted several theories and crushed the untenable ones underfoot. That evolution has survived more than a century of critics trying to poke holes in it says a lot about its tenacity as a theory.
In the days of aether and phlogiston, science was more like a set of popular beliefs. Testing the theories was nearly impossible, nobody was able to isolate phlogiston, and nobody ever filled a test tube with aether. It is worth noting that both theories ended when scientific experiments proved their predictions wrong. The great number of experiments and tests of evolution has never proven it wrong. YEC scientists are sadly enough too preoccupied with poking tiny holes wherever they can. Arguing that the fossil record is missing one or two links here and there for example, rather than giving any really convincing evidence that it can't possibly be occurring.
But I digress. You probably know of arguments that I don't, and this topic isn't about evidence. Perhaps in another thread we can discuss evidence with the same civil tone we keep in this thread.
Minority Report writes:
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.
Thank you for the clarification. Let me just make a point before I go on. You are setting very high standards for evolution. It seems to me that you are saying that for evolution to be true, it has to be absolutely flawless, we have to explain everything with 100% certainty. No scientific theory has ever had to stand up to such high expectations. Of course there are things we don't know. We can't explain the evolutionary paths of each species until we study it. Doubtlessly, several subtle modifications will be made to the theory as more science is done. Even gravity is not completely understood, and with the addition of dark energy, and quantum gravity, Newton's theory of gravity may actually need modification. That doesn't mean he was totally off! We still send rockets to Mars using his theories.
YEC doesn't have such high standards. Forgive me if I'm being a little bit slanderous today, but from what I've read about many creationist institutes (their own documents, ever heard of the wedge strategy?), they assume their position before they look for evidence. They don't need evidence, because they have their interpretation of Genesis. Unfortunately Genesis doesn't mention evolution, otherwise evolutionists could fill the gaps with the Bible too. They have to explain everything scientifically. Does this seem fair to you? One side has to explain everything, and dig up the evidence. The other side is so confident that they are already right, so all they have to do is attack and poke holes in evolution. How do you poke holes in YEC?
That's just my perspective. Sorry for going off on a rant there, but I thought it's worth mentioning. It'll be interesting to read how you see it.
Minority Report writes:
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.
I am and have been a Christian for most of my life, yet my faith has not yet revealed the true and absolute interpretation of Genesis. I used to be YEC, before I moved to OEC, and then theistic evolution. So yes, I think we are both capable of understanding each other's perspectives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Minority Report, posted 05-29-2009 1:42 PM Minority Report has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Minority Report, posted 05-31-2009 6:57 AM Meldinoor has replied
 Message 48 by Minority Report, posted 05-31-2009 11:05 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 41 of 133 (510306)
05-29-2009 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by bluescat48
05-29-2009 3:10 PM


Re: Interesting
bluescat48 writes:
For the umteenth time, what is this evidence? You YECs are always saying there is much evidence for a young earth, but you never present any. So again I ask, what is this evidence?
While I'm anxious to see evidence, this particular thread is not the place. This thread is about discussing just how important evidence is to Young Earth Creationism, not what the specific evidence is. I have a feeling that introducing evidence into the discussion will get us nowhere but an argument about what is valid evidence.
Perhaps instead you'd like to request Minority Report to present his evidence in an appropriate thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by bluescat48, posted 05-29-2009 3:10 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 43 of 133 (510324)
05-30-2009 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by dwise1
05-29-2009 7:25 PM


Nice
Thanks for the history lesson, dwise. Ever since I heard of the Wedge strategy leak I have been appalled at the motives of the Creationist movement. On the surface it seems like an honest effort to provide Christians with a non-materialistic alternative to evolution.
But it goes MUCH further than that. Their long-term goal:
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
really means the removal of evolutionary theory from academia. Why? Because it's wrong? No, because it's materialism and has "destructive moral, cultural and political legacies".
Phillip E Johnson, who played a large part in drafting the wedge strategy had this to say:
"To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is slow creation. When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end." ..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves."
Mr Johnson starts with the assumption that evolution is not true. He posits that "slow creation" is not creation. (Although if we're talking speed here, God is omnipotent so he could have created it all in 6 nanoseconds. Is that more amazing?) To connect this to the OP, it seems that a Young Earth interpretation of the Bible is the driving force behind the YEC movement. Heck, the movement started even before they started calling themselves "creation scientists". They have said, as you have pointed out dwise, that a 6 day creation event is the only thing that agrees with "all of scripture". What harm is this going to cause Christians who explore the evidence and find that it doesn't match what they are preaching? I myself am a casualty here, as I've anguished over how to reconcile the fossil record with Genesis. Reality can't contradict itself. I hold the Bible to be true, but also believe that I'm in a world where things make sense, so the facts have to agree with the Bible. The only other option would be that God is cruel and intentionally planted a plethora of evidence for an ancient universe. This I can not believe.
If I believed that a Young Earth is the only interpretation that the Bible permits, then I would be faced with a choice. Either I'd reject the Bible. Or I'd reject all physical evidence and go completely looney, unable to believe anything my eyes can see.
So could the creationist movement be shooting itself in the foot? Could it be causing people doubt, and driving non-Christians away from God? This is a digression, but definitely worth its own thread.
Johnson is further quoted as saying:
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."
Is he admitting that they have nothing scientific to bring to the table? Can't they debate the science without having to engage it on a philosophical level?
Granted, I do not know out of what context the above quote was taken. I have a hard time believing that one of the leading "creation scientists" would make such an honest admission
Edited by Meldinoor, : Took a closer look at a quote
Edited by Meldinoor, : Shortened a quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by dwise1, posted 05-29-2009 7:25 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 45 of 133 (510406)
05-31-2009 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by BobAliceEve
05-30-2009 7:08 PM


Thank you, BobAliceEve.
BobAliceEve writes:
Only if Adam and Eve were created immortal, innocent, and accountable did the fall occur. Only because of the fall was a Savior and Redeemer necessary. A Redeemer to recover from the resulting separation from God and a Savior to recover from the resulting loss of immortality.
In which passage does the Bible say they were physically immortal? On the day they sinned they would surely die, but they didn't die physically on that day.
Did Jesus redeem us from a physical death, or a spiritual death?
So did Adam and Eve have to have been physically immortal?
BobAliceEve writes:
The Bible says that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and were therefor driven from the garden. If their ape parents did the same act but were not driven from God's presence then how can the change of a few genes reconcile the unfairness of that? Our genes are significantly different than Adam and Eve's - are we more accountable or less?
To a Christian, the main thing that separates humankind from other animals is the presence of a mysterious soul. It is thanks to this soulish character that humans are able to communicate with God, and it is presumably because of the soul that we humans are held accountable for our actions.
Before God created the first human souls, our ape ancestors would therefore not have been held accountable for their actions.
I don't see why YEC is a necessary conclusion to reach, even if you just look at scripture.
Thank you for your input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-30-2009 7:08 PM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-31-2009 11:21 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024