Ask a Young Earth Creationist.

[warpus]

 

[Perfection]

Why are the vast majority of scientists so greatly misled about creation?

 

[cubsfan6506]

Seconded...

 

[El_Machinae]

I was not aware that Jesus ever specifically mentioned being a proponent of the YEC theory, or anything of the kind. Referring to persons / events in the scriptures, and taking a non-scientific approach to dating the Earth @ ~10k years old... are two very different things.

Anyway, my Bible has a timeline in the index, which includes a 'pre-history' section for parts of the Old Testament occurring prior to 6-8k years ago. It does NOT say, "well, we get to 10k years ago - and STOP... that's it, that was the beginning, and there's nothing before that."

I think the main problem is that people take the seven 'days' too literally. Substitute the word 'stages', and suddenly it can coincide with science.

I think it's pretty obvious that Jesus is quoted as being wrong about Natural History. Whether or not you want to believe that Jesus actually was misinformed (rather than misquoted) is a matter of faith.

Spoiler :

In Odin's defense, I did do my 2nd highest 2RM on benchpress while calling to the High Father. A 15% improvement in benchpress strength in six weeks is not to be denied! (nevermind the carefully designed routine specifically built to increased benchpress strength)

 

[bathsheba666]

Why do most highly educated people and scientist's not believe in creatonism.

Are you implying scientists are not highly educated people?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No, he's implying they are not people.

In other words, "why do most (highly educated) people and (highly educated) scientists" . . .

 

[bathsheba666]

Because Jesus Christ Himself used a lteral interpretation of the ancient texts. He said He believed the creation story of Adam and Eve, and in the flood account of Noah. He even likened His Second Coming to how things were in the time of Noah.

He was just bigging up his dad, to look good.

 

[Cirion0000]

First of all I'm a new guy here I just am just happening by, but this post intrigued me and infact I read nearly all of it. So I had to register and post (as well as another post in another thread).

I'm a YEC but since I can see how the majority of the people here are not really interested in learning and just interested in debating, I'm not going to really bother wasting time saying much. But I will say this much:

Yes every person has a bias, as some person mentioned, we (YEC's) do tend to start from position that the Bible is 100% true and inspired of God no matter what science may say at the present time, because science is fallible and there are only a handful of things we know for sure will never change (gravity, time, round earth, etc) And thus we do tend to try to develop theories to support it. However, do not misinterpret what I mean by this.

What I mean is this. Let's see how I can explain this well and clearly... we still take the facts that are definately there, for anyone to see, creationist or not.
Then we look at the Bible, and take into consideration certain verses which may hint at scientific laws. I'll take a pretty good example here of several verses that explains a current scientific model that is against many evolutionist models, because some evolutionists believe the universe is infinate for instance, but the following model I present (as an EDIT note, I should say that this model is not my own original model, but I've read several new Christian models and this is one of my favorite ones, I could go into more detail into why it's important but I won't here) is provable should we ever manage to explore the universe far enough (so, I'm offering something scientific here, whereas simply saying something infinate is vague and really unprovable.)

Psalm 147:4

"He determines [counts] the number of the stars and calls them each by name."

In other words, I believe this is saying that the universe is FINITE and as a result the number of stars and galaxies are also FINITE. The universe is still extremely large, and we may, in fact, probably will never, map it out entirely.

If God actually counts (ie, he knows the number of) stars, then they must be finite. If the author of Psalms did not want to imply that God made a finite universe, he would have used a different wording. There are other clues (from the Bible) that lead me to believe in a finite universe.

Genesis 13:16

"I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted."

Now this may seem somewhat unrelated, but I wanted another example of the word "count" used in the Bible in context. Again, we can see that the number of objects counted is extremely massive, yet, it is FINITE, not INFINITE.

Genesis 15:5

"He took him [Abraham] outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars - if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

Again, God is saying that Abraham's descendants would be very very large, and uncountable by conventional means, but by no means infinate. I mean, there are only a few billion people on earth, certaintly not uncountable, but not really countable one by one by hand.

I'm going to quote one last verse for good measure, and this ties in with the other two I used from the Bible as well:

Genesis 22:17

"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand in the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies.


For those of us who believe in YEC, there will never be a scientific theory or history record that becomes hard 100% fact which can possibly fully disprove anything in the Bible, for if even one event was disproved, then the Bible is actually nearly entirely false and as a result, Christianity would be false.

However. Evolution does the same thing, infact, you could go so far as to call evolution a religion too (that's something to discuss another time and another place though.) I'd say that most people who believe in evolution are also starting from the viewpoint that evolution is inherently 100% accurate, but that some of the scientific models are inaccurate. For instance, the age of the universe and how certain things came to be via evolution are always being modified with scientific theory. But all the evolutionists still believe that all the animals and people etc came about by evolution in some way. I think any honest evolutionist will attest to this.

So basically, we YEC's must keep our foundation (the Bible) as our starting place, and use science to support it. Otherwise we'd be compromising ourselves, since evolutionists also have their own foundation that they work upon.

To say that you don't have a bias, quite frankly, you wouldn't be telling the entire truth. This is the reason YEC's must bring up the Bible even if they are PH.D scientists/engineers/whatever (I'm only on my second year of college myself, but gaining a PH.D is indeed an eventual goal for me).

 

[warpus]

The problem with taking verses out of the Bible and attributing some sort of scientific knowledge to them is that it's a matter of interpretation. You'll see whatever it is you want to see, if you try hard enough.

In other words, I believe this is saying that the universe is FINITE and as a result the number of stars and galaxies are also FINITE. The universe is still extremely large, and we may, in fact, probably will never, map it out entirely.

It is possible to have an infinite set that is countable. So if we are take that phrase to heart, it just means that the number of stars is countable, not necessarily finite.

See how a "common sense" interpretation of a verse can lead to confusion? You can interpret that particular phrase in many ways, but in the end, it is saying a very simple thing: Some guy is counting stars and giving them names. Big deal!

You are finding meaning where there is none.

For those of us who believe in YEC, there will never be a scientific theory or history record that becomes hard 100% fact which can possibly fully disprove anything in the Bible, for if even one event was disproved, then the Bible is actually nearly entirely false and as a result, Christianity would be false.

Again, it's a matter of interpretation. Some people correctly view the Bible to be a non-literal account, making it fully compatible with The Theory of Evolution, and other scientific theories.

I'd say that most people who believe in evolution are also starting from the viewpoint that evolution is inherently 100% accurate, but that some of the scientific models are inaccurate. For instance, the age of the universe and how certain things came to be via evolution are always being modified with scientific theory. But all the evolutionists still believe that all the animals and people etc came about by evolution in some way. I think any honest evolutionist will attest to this.

Not too many people believe that the theory of evolution is 100% accurate, because it's not. We are constantly making new discoveries, leading to new advances in the theory.

All the animals on this planet did come about by evolution, that much is certain. What's uncertain is the theory as to how exactly this happened - this is the theory of evolution - an always changing explanation of how all of this occurred.

I think you need to brush up on what constitutes a scientific law and what constitutes a scientific theory. Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are two entirely different things.

 

[Cirion0000]

The problem with taking verses out of the Bible and attributing some sort of scientific knowledge to them is that it's a matter of interpretation. You'll see whatever it is you want to see, if you try hard enough.



It is possible to have an infinite set that is countable. So if we are take that phrase to heart, it just means that the number of stars is countable, not necessarily finite.

See how a "common sense" interpretation of a verse can lead to confusion? You can interpret that particular phrase in many ways, but in the end, it is saying a very simple thing: Some guy is counting stars and giving them names. Big deal!

You are finding meaning where there is none.



Again, it's a matter of interpretation. Some people correctly view the Bible to be a non-literal account, making it fully compatible with The Theory of Evolution, and other scientific theories.



Not too many people believe that the theory of evolution is 100% accurate, because it's not. We are constantly making new discoveries, leading to new advances in the theory.

All the animals on this planet did come about by evolution, that much is certain. What's uncertain is the theory as to how exactly this happened - this is the theory of evolution - an always changing explanation of how all of this occurred.

I think you need to brush up on what constitutes a scientific law and what constitutes a scientific theory. Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are two entirely different things.

Allright you make some fair points here, and perhaps I didn't make the answers quite clear. However there are some things to note too.

I'm well aware that the model I suggested could have flaws. And there are some verses in the Bible we may never fully understand properly (Revelation has alot of non-literal stuff in it for instance, and is arguably the most confusing book in the Bible to understand to this day because of the language it is written in.)

The Bible contains literal, non-literal, metaphorical, poetry, and many more forms of writing. Sometimes its fairly clear whether something is literal or not, and sometimes it is not.

What I suggested is not written in stone, because I could have butchered the true meaning of some of the phrases and wordings used in the original language. What I AM saying, by what I suggested above, is that it's fully feasible to suggest modern scientific theories based on the Bible and not just "ghosts and creepy supernatural things", things we can't readily see etc. That was my point, I am in no way suggesting what I said is hard fact. Because we won't know until we can explore the universe.

That is my two cents. I'll be quite honest that I'm still learning about the vast universe we live in, and I am not afraid of science in that it might destroy my faith - because I have confidence in what I believe in. There are many christians out there that are afraid of science, but I don't really understand why. And I continue to learn about evolution every day as well, I like to learn both sides of the argument so that I can further understand the big picture and understand why the other side believes what they do etc.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

What I suggested is not written in stone, because I could have butchered the true meaning of some of the phrases and wordings used in the original language. What I AM saying, by what I suggested above, is that it's fully feasible to suggest modern scientific theories based on the Bible and not just "ghosts and creepy supernatural things", things we can't readily see etc. That was my point, I am in no way suggesting what I said is hard fact. Because we won't know until we can explore the universe.

Okay, so it's fine to suggest modern scientific theories based on the Bible, but then you have to look at the evidence supporting those theories compared with the evidence supporting alternate and mutually exclusive theories. Right?

 

[Cirion0000]

Okay, so it's fine to suggest modern scientific theories based on the Bible, but then you have to look at the evidence supporting those theories compared with the evidence supporting alternate and mutually exclusive theories. Right?

Yes you are right -

And there are literally whole books on this one scientific model so it would take far too long to explain everything going for and against it. Posts on a forum aren't gonna change anyone's viewpoint, so I never really understood the point of debating. Quite honestly, a person believes what he wants to in the end.

 

[warpus]

What I AM saying, by what I suggested above, is that it's fully feasible to suggest modern scientific theories based on the Bible and not just "ghosts and creepy supernatural things"

How do we test theories based on the Bible?

 

[Perfection]

Dude, Cirion, the current scientific consensus is that the (observable) universe is finite.

Here's the deal, there is no significant present scientific debate for creationism, the number of professional scientists with such a viewpoint is extremely small and it plainly contradicts with practically every single field of science.

 

[Cirion0000]

How do we test theories based on the Bible?

The theory before will take a long time to test, so perhaps a better example at hand is in question. A good theory makes accurate predictions about the future. Take something extremely simple... a person named Bob will get old and die within the century. This prediction is good because it ends up actually happening and is observable.

Now... let's take something else pretty simple. When would you say that the book of Isaiah was written? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah tells us that it was written somewhere around 700ish B.C. Now take a look at this verse,

Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth....... He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in"

Notice how the roundness of the earth was predicted LONG before scientists "discovered" it. A popular opinion of christians is that they were the ones that promoted the flat earth theory when in fact it's the other way around.

This is a simple example of good theory that is testable and observable and which was originated from the Bible itself.

 

[drachasor]

Yes you are right -

And there are literally whole books on this one scientific model so it would take far too long to explain everything going for and against it. Posts on a forum aren't gonna change anyone's viewpoint, so I never really understood the point of debating. Quite honestly, a person believes what he wants to in the end.

In the end though, no matter what scientific evidence pops up, you believe the Bible is literally true (though some section subject to the vagaries of what the correct literal interpretation is), right? In short, nothing would provide sufficient evidence for evolution for you, since it inherently contradicts the Bible, correct?

-Drachasor

 

[Lotus49]

To read scripture, interpreting it as you deem fit to meet the assumption that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, while effectively totally flushing everything written in the science books down the toilet, is far more than just a 'stretch', in fact I'd say it's the product of someone that is merely aiming to cause a stir/reaction, gain attention/publicity, etc.

Obviously it has succeeded.

 

[Perfection]

The theory before will take a long time to test, so perhaps a better example at hand is in question. A good theory makes accurate predictions about the future. Take something extremely simple... a person named Bob will get old and die within the century. This prediction is good because it ends up actually happening and is observable.

Now... let's take something else pretty simple. When would you say that the book of Isaiah was written? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah tells us that it was written somewhere around 700ish B.C. Now take a look at this verse,

Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth....... He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in"

Notice how the roundness of the earth was predicted LONG before scientists "discovered" it. A popular opinion of christians is that they were the ones that promoted the flat earth theory when in fact it's the other way around.

This is a simple example of good theory that is testable and observable and which was originated from the Bible itself.

Dude, circles aren't spheres. And the bible didn't really predict it. It's not like someone read the bible, said "from this verse I surmise the world is a sphere" and then observed it. That would be a legitimate prediction. This is just a passage that was observed to have a nice coincidence with present knowledge.

I see no reason to believe that the bible tells any information about the universe that wasn't known by ancients.

BTW. There were ancient people who knew the Earth was a sphere via geometry.

 

[drachasor]

To read scripture, interpreting it as you deem fit to meet the assumption that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, while effectively totally flushing everything written in the science books down the toilet, is far more than just a 'stretch', in fact I'd say it's the product of someone that is merely aiming to cause a stir/reaction, gain attention/publicity, etc.

Obviously it has succeeded.

Are you saying that all/most YECers don't really believe what they are saying? I find THAT a massive stretch.

 

[Cirion0000]

In the end though, no matter what scientific evidence pops up, you believe the Bible is literally true (though some section subject to the vagaries of what the correct literal interpretation is), right? In short, nothing would provide sufficient evidence for evolution for you, since it inherently contradicts the Bible, correct?

-Drachasor

To answer this question I will have to be pretty hypothetical. If by some shape or fashion or some form that evolution proves to be true without a doubt, I am certain that the Scripture will support whatever evidences come to light somehow.

There would be major problems indeed if somehow it's true that the universe is millions or even billions of years old. In that case, I really do not see how the Bible can be true - because, if even one aspect of the Bible can be disproven, then the whole thing is forfeit.

BUT again this is all hypothetical, and really, I'm not worried - I will cross the bridges when I get to them. Some christians are trying to plug in evolution into the bible because they are afraid for this very reason, but it doesn't really work that way.

I would like to think of myself as fairly intellectual, but I'm still gaining knowledge, and am extremely far from being a genius, so I'm not even going to pretend that I am yet or even in the future if/when I get a Ph.D.... a Ph.D doesn't make you God, nor even a million of them.

But, as such, I do not just blindly accept the Bible and the word of God. I don't think he intends that, I infact think it's our duty to use science and ask questions. Blind faith is ridiculous, though with any religion, some amount of faith is always going to be required. Because some things simply cannot be explained away by science.

All I can say in response, is that as of yet I have not had any serious questions towards the Bible and if anything doesn't make sense, I will look around and ask questions myself. There are nearly limitless aspects of life to study. But it is my hope as I study more in both my college work as well as through extra-curricular books, lectures, and the Bible that I will continue to receive the answers that I seek.