Ask a Young Earth Creationist.

[Murky]

I think the Bible has about as much validity as the Beowulf poem, perhaps less so. How can you trust it so passionately even though no one can prove for a fact; any of it is actually the word of God?

 

[useless]

i see no evidence of god, thus he doesnt exist and the bible has no truth to it.

 

[warpus]

1.) Do you keep an open mind and accept that you might be wrong, or are your beliefs set in stone?

2.) Do you read the entire Bible as literal truth, or only parts?

 

[nihilistic]

How do you differentiate your ontology from Last-Thursdayism?

 

[kulade]

Were you raised this way?

 

[Joe Harker]

If God created the earth and it's creatures, surely he created science and evolution/adaption. I am not a christian(not religious at all) but if i was i would take the bible story of creation as a metaphor

Also how do you explain that when we grow in the womb we seem to go though our evolutionary path, for the early stahes of it we resemble tadpoles

 

[Bluemofia]

His sister of course. It would have been plain wrong for him to have sex with his mother. :gross: I really do not understand why this is a big issue. This would also be a problem for evolutionists on how the first humans had sex, because everyone is related and thus we all had to have dome from one source.

So what do you have to say that evolution states that populations evolve, not individuals?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Also how do you explain that when we grow in the womb we seem to go though our evolutionary path, for the early stahes of it we resemble tadpoles

he would respond that this is not true - which is more or less correct. he would then go into Ernst Haeckl (sp?) faking the drawings, and if he is typical (I dare not speak for him, but I have seen it) try to imply that this is the basis of all evolution and is clear fraud.

 

[GenMarshall]

1. The supreme belief that the Bible is accurate in what it says. There is no way you could plainly read the Creation account and get billions of years into it. You have to force a reading that is unnatural to it. Many people have tried and failed to do so

So you interperate the Bible very literal? Strange cause I see the Bible as more of a collection of Epics, Stories, Poems, and Teachings. Not something to back up with science itself. I myself only take the Creation account as a poetic story and expand the time span in Millions or Billions of years, knowing God's time is way different than our time.

If your interperatation of the Bible is only a 1000 years in a time span, how do you explain Dinosaurs, Prehistoric life, and Prehistoric Man?

Have you given to any consideration that the Old Testament, espeicaly with the Creation stories found in Genesis could be an amalgamation from other Creation stories from the Mesopotamia region? Since I myself cant see the Bible as accurate as what it says when it contains Epics from the Mesopotamia region, Zoroastrianism, and Jewish Epics.

2. They clash with every single one of those that you have mentioned.

Since Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution can co-exist with science. How do you feel Young Earth Creationism is compatible with Science?

Well considering some the data that does against that view, I believe it is the wrong interpretation of the data. I will give more info about that, but it just too late for me to go into details.

So you reject the scientific method despite that the radiological testings have been shown to be accurate?

 

[Stacmon]

There's been talk about the theory of evolution, and mutation conferring positive benefits. Even in the extremely rare case that mutations are positive, one thing we don't see in the fossil record is the variety of "transitory species" that Charles Darwin presumed existed (for his theory to be valid).

This is one strong argument I've heard made by some members of the Muslim community. Islam does not claim that the Earth or Universe in contrast to YECs is several thousands of years old.

If evolution was the gradual, "barely observable" process of minute changes and adaptations among living beings, we should see a much greater variety of species in the process of this transition. More than that however, we should see a lot of "unsuccessful" examples of mutations in the fossil record. This isn't at all the case.

Even the few fossils of animals we find that seem to "fill in" a few of the gaps, are fully formed and functional creatures in their own right.

The theory of evolution is also unable to explain the development of life before the Cambrian Explosion (which included the appearance of almost all complex organic designs). The great variety of creatures of this period have no "ancestors" in the fossil record. Evolution also doesn't address the question of how life came into being in the first place.

The above is something that's made me very skeptical about the theory of evolution in its current form.

 

[El_Machinae]

That reminds me; can a YEC tell me what they think a transitional fossil is supposed to be?

Why wouldn't you just use the idea of common ancestors, that then have now-extinct decendants that lead to current species?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

yes, would you recognize one if you saw it?

 

[Lord_Iggy]

We wouldn't see a lot of unsuccessful mutations in the fossil record because there would only be a few of them (because the unsuccessful mutations would die off, probably before managing to start their own race with their mutant traits).

'Transitional species' can only exist if there is a niche for them. So something cannot evolve into something else if the transitional species is impractical.

Furthermore, one can't really call them transitional species, they are a result of evolution and are fully adapted for their niche. Further development causes them to outcompete their ancestors or move into a new niche.

IE: Flying squirrels are probably similar to the ancestors of bats, before they were capable of powered flight. They fit into the niche of 'gliding tree-dweller' before becoming full-fledged flyers.

 

[carlosMM]

Why do you tend to post your religious belief in each and every thread about science?
Why do you refuse to answer simple questions about your supposedly scientific claims whenever your religion is involved?


Honest questions - can I get honest answers please?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yes, indeed in several million years some of the descendants of flying squirrels will be capable of real flight. We will be long gone, but the YECs among the hyperintelligent dolphins will probably insist that the fossilized remains of today's flying squirrels don't count, just as the remains of the terrestrial whale ancestors "don't count" today.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, indeed in several million years some of the descendants of flying squirrels will be capable of real flight. We will be long gone, but the YECs among the hyperintelligent dolphins will probably insist that the fossilized remains of today's flying squirrels don't count, just as the remains of the terrestrial whale ancestors "don't count" today.

I'm betting on a divergence that will allow the wing-flaps to be used to mimick the face of a larger predator; so we'll have ground-dwelling squirells that can look like a bobcat when they're scared.

Of course, with evolutionary theory, we can have both.

 

[ironduck]

1) Wooly mammoths and polar bears and the like: Did they look like that on Noah's ark? How did all the various animals that today require completely different habitats coexist on Noah's ark with no climate control and the like?

2) How did all these animals get to their current location from where the ark landed?

3) How come animals are often isolated to distinctly defined areas? There are no kangaroos in Africa or the middle east or anywhere else but Australia, why not? Why are the Elephants in Asia different from those in Africa?

4) Do you think some animals evolved somewhat, so that all elephants looked the same, but then after the landing of the ark they changed into different forms?

5) How many in your church are YEC? Is it common in the area where you live? What is the name of your church or its teachings?

6) If the earth was conclusively proven to be billions of years old in a way that convinced you, would that in any way change or weaken your belief in your god?

 

[scy12]

How can there be scientific evidence that supports Bible's young earth theory when the scientific evidence proves the evolutionary theory ?

 

[Margim]

I have seen through the times that I have been here that many people seem to have absolutely no idea what a Young Earth Creationist truly believes and as a result many people make fun of our position, based on what they believe our position to be on a certain issue, when they are just making things up. So I have decided to give the Creation/evolution debate through the eyes of YEC.

What are the hallmarks of a YEC?
The most important one is that we defend the Bible's veracity right from the first word to the last. We believe that the first few chapters in the Bible are talking about history and as such we also believe that there is scientific evidence that backs up this view.

I will try and update this post with the really important questions and answers to those question, so that people can have a good reference point on our views. I will try and do my best to answer as many questions as possible, but that will not always be the case. Remember that if you want an answer, then ask kindly.

So ask away.

Okay...

'Why?'

 

[Yuri2356]

What defined the length of the first "Day" of creation, if the Sun didn't exist yet?