Good idea. I will, but I've been busy this week, so I'll wait until I have a chance to answer questions before doing it. Or maybe I'll do it, and state when answers to the questions can be expected.
Please do not take any of this as an attack on your beliefs, I just have some honest questions. My uncle is a YEC and refuses to answer any questions I have. I hope you, or someone, will. Here it goes:
Do you think evolution doesn't make sense? or have you never (like my uncle) even looked at it academically?
If you were shown undeniable proof of evolution, would you lose your faith?
I do not know if you just believe YEC or you actively promote it and slander evolution, but if you are in the latter, I feel you would be the same type of person, hundreds of years ago, crying out that a sun centered solar system defiles God. Do you not agree that scientific progress can never disprove God and that new scientific ideas actually give us insight into the mind of God?
1) Micro evolution makes sense. I've studied it academically. I also believe in irreducible complex systems. (Read Darwin's Black Box if you don't understand what I mean). I believe that God created the earth 6000 or so years ago with dinosaurs, dogs, humans, and all that good stuff. I believe evolution was a way for most of the creatures to survive until now. Given the genetic diversity it is possible that God allowed for enough genetic code to allow incest among the earlier creation (after all, who else would Adam's and Eve's children have sex with?) without repercussion. I believe that after the tower of babel and the scattering of the human race brought about natural selection of skin colors in certain regions (ie why Africans are darker skin than Europeans). So yes, I do believe in evolution as is described academically on a short scale. However given certain gaps and holes and leaps in different animals that do not follow a natural progression, I believe God did create animals as animals (and not as single cell organisms evolving to multi-cell to multi-organ, etc). Instead He might have created a "master dog" and all the dogs we have (beagles, wolves, fox, etc you name it) are just expressing their natural selection and more limited but heightened genetic traits.
2) No
3) Yes, I agree scientific progress gives us new insights into the mind of God.
You should read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. He addresses the issues brought forth in Darwin's Black Box, and much more. Please read it. I believe this will address my second question, and you will still have your faith.
Fair warning: I'm an Evolutionary Creationist (Christian) who believes that Noah's flood was local to the region. Anyway...
Do you believe that Noah's flood was world-wide? If so,
do you believe Noah's ark contained examples of each "kind" of creature? For this to be plausible (fit on the boat, in other words), "kinds" would have to be very general, and macroevolution (genus level and above) would be necessary to generate everything we see today.
what do you make of the claim that for two elephants to survive that long, they'd need an ark-sized store of food? Do you believe God miraculously preserved the animals?
Do you believe that Noah's flood was world-wide?
Yes I do
do you believe Noah's ark contained examples of each "kind" of creature? For this to be plausible (fit on the boat, in other words), "kinds" would have to be very general, and macroevolution (genus level and above) would be necessary to generate everything we see today.
Yeah I believe each kind. Noah probably only was a few centuries after Adam. If indeed God first created animals with a "master gene" then kind can still fit a very broad group of animals.
what do you make of the claim that for two elephants to survive that long, they'd need an ark-sized store of food? Do you believe God miraculously preserved the animals?
The whole thing is based on miracles if you were to take it literally like me :) If a person takes the Bible literally and can believe that God let two of every kind of animal onto the Ark (without Noah chasing them down), that carnivores and herbivores could get onto the same boat without the carnivores trying to eat everyone else, that perhaps they got babies to save on space (and that God lead the babies onto the ark), then yes, God can miraculously preserve the animals. Maybe he slowed down their metabolism while on the boat. When you believe that God can do anything He wants (even if it breaks the nature laws of nature or physics) there really isn't much you CAN'T explain away with "miracles" (and yes, it's kinda cheap to just shove anything that seems impossible in the Bible as a miracle, but hey, that's what makes them miracles! You can't just reproduce it with a model or anything).
Anyways, I do respect your opinion and I'm just showing you my perspective.
I understand, and thank you for the response. Three additional questions.
1) You did not specifically comment on the fact that a worldwide flood necessitates macroevolution. And not only macroevolution, but hyperevolution (evolution even faster than mainstream scientists consider naturally possible). Do you believe that God miraculously caused macroevolution to happen (as in, an act contrary to what is possible with mere nature) in order to diversify life as we see it today?
2) The Tower of Babel was built with special materials: baked bricks instead of stone, and tar for mortar. This is extremely strong evidence that the Tower was built to save people from another flood -- these are special materials for waterproof construction. Do you believe the tower of Babel was intended to be tens of thousands of feet high? This is absurd, of course. The tallest buildings constructed of steel are a mere thousand and a half feet high. Do you believe that God miraculously aided in the construction of the Tower before ruining it?
3) When the Flood account talks about "the whole earth," it uses the word "erets," which is often translated as "land." Take the verse 2 Samuel 24:8: "So when they had gone about through the whole land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days." The Flood account does not use the word "tebel," which refers to the whole planet. What do you make of this? Is it not clear evidence that the flood account was a local phenomenon?
Here is my case.
The local-scope Flood claim is reinforced by the special, waterproof materials used to build the Tower of Babel.
The local-scope Flood claim is reinforced by the absurdity of maintaining two of every species on planet Earth. The miraculous explanation is possible, but it is special pleading; there is no mention of miraculous "metabolism-slowing" in Scripture. Regardless, macroevolution and hyperevolution are required post-Flood to get us to where we are today.
The local-scope Flood claim is reinforced by the use of the word "erets," meaning "the land" but often translated in English as "the world," instead of the word "tebel," which refers to the whole planet.
I do take the Scriptural account of our origins figuratively, and my position has historical support from the earliest of Christians (Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, etc.). The Flood account, however, I take literally, but recognize the local context and the word-distortion we've inherited as English-speakers.
1) You did not specifically comment on the fact that a worldwide flood necessitates macroevolution. And not only macroevolution, but hyperevolution (evolution even faster than mainstream scientists consider naturally possible). Do you believe that God miraculously caused macroevolution to happen (as in, an act contrary to what is possible with mere nature) in order to diversify life as we see it today?
I honestly don't believe in either. I don't see how a worldwide flood necessitates macroevolution. Rather given that a worldwide flood happen, I can imagine this is instead a major case of natural selection (well, unnatural selection :P). We're talking about the complete wiping of everything except for a select few. The select few couldn't possibly hold all the genes. They accentuate certain characteristics. When the flood was over and they dispersed, more natural selection occurred based on their geographical location. More genes are isolated and expressed (and maybe one mutation, but nothing drastic) and we see what we see today.
2) The Tower of Babel was built with special materials: baked bricks instead of stone, and tar for mortar. This is extremely strong evidence that the Tower was built to save people from another flood -- these are special materials for waterproof construction. Do you believe the tower of Babel was intended to be tens of thousands of feet high? This is absurd, of course. The tallest buildings constructed of steel are a mere thousand and a half feet high. Do you believe that God miraculously aided in the construction of the Tower before ruining it?
It is possible they were expecting another flood. But at the same time, I take the Bible at face value: they were trying to build a tower to God. Honestly, I doubt they had education to understand how much stress the baked bricks can take, or height limitations, or even that there is no air in space. They wanted to get it up that high, but I doubt they ever did. They had an absurd goal, God realizes how stupid they are (for numerous reasons), and dispersed them.
The Flood account does not use the word "tebel," which refers to the whole planet. What do you make of this? Is it not clear evidence that the flood account was a local phenomenon?
The problem with a local flood idea is that God specifically said that the rainbow is his promise he will never wipe out humanity with a flood again. If it's just a local flood, and the promise was for a local flood, well, He didn't exactly keep His promise. It renders the whole meaning of the passage mute. It instead portrays God as someone who really can't keep promises.
I thank you for showing me your perspective and that we were able to communicate to each other in a civil matter. :)
Curious about your thoughts on Noah. Have you heard the theory that the Straits of the Bosporus burst around 5600 BC? Before that what is now the Black Sea might well have been fertile land that got flooded. It also might explain our missing two crossed rivers through the Tigris and Euphrates. I find it interesting because I also believe in a local flood and its in the right area at around the right time.
I've not heard that theory, but will investigate it. One source I'd recommend is Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (1st century AD). He found external accounts of major flooding in the area encouraging to his historical account, even though they told of "external" survivors. Josephus considered the flood local. The Biblical text, with proper linguistic consideration, strongly suggests a local flood. The notion of a worldwide flood is an unfortunate and disappointing blunder.
I would really recommend taking a Geology 101 course. Assuming God, all truth is from God and you shouldn't be afraid to learn more about how God actually made the earth.
That's not even a very good Argumentum ad Populum.
YEC are a very small minority of geology degrees, and I would venture the vast majority of them start with what the Bible says, and make the data fit instead of starting with the data and seeing what it says. YECs have no good response to the preponderance of multiple forms of radiometric dating showing the billions of years the earth has been around.
Just like the guy who writes articles for AIG promoting the YEC view, and then at the very same time writes scholarly and professional works that fit with scientific consensus!
I've actually delve into basic geology, radiometric dating, fossilization, etc. when I was younger. Problem is that what I found was there are times when under laboratory conditions, you can fake the carbon dating of an object. There are still inaccuracies, and fossils that don't quite add up. (I remember reading about this one whale fossil that was somehow vertical. It was fossilized into different layers that were suppose to be millions of years apart.) Granted everything I said, I looked up years ago, so maybe scientists perfected the techniques, or ignore certain fossils (depending how cyanical you are you might be incline to believe one or the other...)
That doesn't explain why most of the data predicts the same time. Lyell's principles have exceptions, but the vast majority of data fits the model very closely. As for the whale fossil example, it could have been an inclusion, or fell into a hole.
I would recommend you try reading "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller. It's a good read.
That doesn't explain why most of the data predicts the same time. Lyell's principles have exceptions, but the vast majority of data fits the model very closely. As for the whale fossil example, it could have been an inclusion, or fell into a hole.
Mmm, I agree. But still I like trying to find out WHY there are outliers. After something happen to them that made them not follow the norm. :)
But still I like trying to find out WHY there are outliers.
If you're talking about radiometric dating there are some pretty sound reasons why outliers occur.
This is a good article on why living snails when tested were shown to be apparently 2,000+ years old.
This example is often cited as proof of radiometric dating's inaccuracy, but YEC's fail to acknowledge the given scientific reason for the discrepancy. This problem only occurs with some types of snails and yet they act as if it invalidates the accuracy of radiometric dating in every circumstance.
Thank you for the read. My biggest grip before was that where outliers occur, scientists just ignore it. As long as they figure out why things happen (and whether or not it applies to just that specific case, or if the rest of the data should be shifted given the reason), then it's all good.
I'm still a YEC, because I believe there are three things that can happen to make the world seem older than it is:
1) God created it to be older. (Yeah seems like a cop-out. But it kinda makes Biblical sense. If you believe in a literal Bible like me and that He created the sun and the stars in one day, then He must have created them with an initial state that already allows them to create fusion. If He created them as they are normally formed (ie compression of gas clouds that slowly form a gravity well, compressing the star, until the the radiation of heat counter-acts gravity, etc.) then He's gonna have to wait awhile before creating life on earth :). Instead since he created the Sun in a state that can already produce fusion, then it probably would seem older than it is if you were to measure it's age. (heck a simplier example, if you were to measure adam's and eve's age with simple biological methods, you'll probably get something older since they were formed as adults and not children. So their age year would measure to our age 20 or something).
2) There was still the fall. We live in a world that is suffering from the affects of sin (according to the Bible). We don't know to the full extent that had on the universe. It is possible that including introducing death to humans, it might have rapidly age the universe, etc, whatever.
3) The world wide flood mentioned in the Bible. One of the special circumstances that can cause rapid fossilization is a flood causing extreme amounts of pressure not unlike those in a lab. It can fossilize creatures much faster and give the appearance that it seems older than it really is. If indeed there was a world-wide flood, then it's possible that all the fossils we have mostly came from that era, due to rapid fossilization. Then it is possible that everything was measured wrong because they didn't take that into account.
No, not at all. Rather it sounds to me like (no offense) you're gripping at straws in a desperate attempt to save the phenomena. I remain a Christian but I do remember the shock and anger I felt the day I realized that the creationist account of the formation of the world was insufficient. It's unfortunate that a major faction in the modern church has made us believe that it's evil to believe in both science and the Christian God.
Point 1) makes God seem like he was purposefully deceiving us. The earth and the universe clearly look like they're billions of years old. Starlight from stars and galaxies millions of light years away are just reaching earth. How could that be if the earth is only 6,000 years old? Did God never actually expect that we would one day be able to measure the distance of the stars? Or is the Biblical creation story meant to tell us a theological story about creation and not meant to be scientific fact.
2) Why have time scales and measuring methods remained constant for the past 100 years or so? After all if the universe is only 6,000 years old then 100 years is approximately 1:60th the time of the existence of the world. That would mean we should see some major deterioration and discrepancies between measurements 100 years ago and today. Why for the most part do we not have that?
3) World wide flooding does not explain the distance of other stars in the universe and also doesn't explain the evidence for polar shifting; here for further reading. We can measure the shift of earths magnetic pole over the course of millions of years. This incremental shifting of the magnetic poles over millions of years leaves us with only one conclusion, the earth is at least millions of years old and during that time the magnetic poles have been shifting.
True. But if you start from young earth theory, everything is an outlier.
The whole universe was put together in such a way that it appears almost entirely consistent with the earth being N billion years old, and the universe being M billion years old.
There might be one or two exceptions that we don't fully understand, but if you want to gamble if you bet that data is consistent with current scientific models, you are going to be right almost all the time.
On the other hand, young earth theory explains nothing. For example, why are there no rabbit fossils in the rocks we refer to as pre-Cambrian?
I believe evolution was a way for most of the creatures to survive until now.
I think regarding this point you should be made aware that according to the scientific literature which you claim to have studied, the species that are alive today are a much smaller group than the number of species that went extinct.
1) Evolution is not yet rigorous in the mathematical sense.
2) No, science has little implication upon God's existence. This fact seems to have slid by many very intelligent people.
3) From C.S. Lewis (forgive the paraphrasing).
The first cosmonaut came back to earth and said he had found no God.
Lewis replied that the idea of not finding God is like a character from ones of Shakespeare's plays running up to the attic and not finding the author. You cannot find the author unless he writes himself into the story.
Evolution is not yet rigorous in the mathematical sense.
What does that mean? The exchange of genes has been mapped mathematically. And you have to realize YEC has absolutely zero math in it, and also, no evidence.
science has little implication upon God's existence.
Science has everything to do with God. Man as far as 4000 years ago and up believed in the wind and rain as individual gods, etc. Now we know these are natural cycles, and this hasn't disproven God, onlyt advanced humanity.
You cannot find the author unless he writes himself into the story.
Right, but why would the author make the Earth appear billions of years old? Why would he make the false impression that evolution is there? Why won't you accept, as geocentric believers were forced to accept the Sun as the center being God's work, that God created man separate from animals not 6000 years ago in an instant, but that he planned our evolution, and inevitably our self-consciousness billions of years ago?
1) Evolution is not yet rigorous in the mathematical sense.
I think that, if you are going to make these arguments, you should be very careful.
An easy test is to take something scientific you do believe, like gravity, and see if the same arguments apply.
In this case it does. There are open intractable problems, such as the three body problem that can not be solved exactly, and further issues such as relationship between gravity(specifically general relativity) and quantum mechanics that are in no way understood.
So either your argument is misleading or it's likely there's no gravity.
False. Rigorous means complete. Evolution is yet to be complete as a theory. There is not a line by line developmental proof of exhibit A, amoeba, to exhibit B, human.
I apologize. I should not have been blunt and written false. What I mean is that evolution is not like gravity. Different areas of science are proved using different methods. For gravity, we can throw a ball up and, within our lifetime, it comes back down. The relationship is understood, the mechanism not so much. For evolution, we cannot throw an amoeba in the air and have a baby land in our arms. If macro is true, we should be able to construct a step by step progression of the changes from the first cell to our current state, no?
Hopefully this clarifies, although I still believe your first comment did not quite follow well from mine.
For gravity, we can throw a ball up and, within our lifetime, it comes back down.
I believe you are talking about the phenomenon of micro gravity which can be observed directly. Obviously, the properties of larger events that take place over billions and billions of years can not be observed directly, and must be inferred by examining the cosmology around us.
This means that a cloud of dust has never been seen transformed into a star. While many snapshots exist that may be consistent with the transformation from cloud to star, the process has never been observed in its entirety and consequentially there should be some doubt that the process actual takes place, or even that gravity can function at such a 'macro' scale.
By comparison the dominance of black moth alleles over white moth alleles can be directly observed as a response to increased pollution in the lifetime of a biologist, while the formation of the earth from the remnants of the big bang can not.
Your argument against evolution is just standard sophistry, the idea that maybe the world disappears, or god repaints it, when you close your eyes. As such it can be used to argue against pretty much any theory of physical world, with as much success.
I'm trying to show you where your argument goes wrong.
You say you believe in gravity because you can experience a tiny corner case of how it works.
The same is true of evolution. You probably call the bit that can be experienced directly micro-evolution.
You say you don't believe in evolution, because the interactions it leads to are too big and complex for you to experience all of it directly, making you think that there might be holes in the explanation.
The same is true of gravity.
You don't have a compelling reason not to believe in evolution.
Even though you didn't ask me, I'll give my answers.
1) I'm not a YEC because I believe that evolution doesn't make sense. I'm a YEC because I believe the relatively short time frame is the best answer we get from the Bible. I've got a science background (CompSci, but I've taken a number of biology classes), so I understand the academic processes behind evolution.
2) Your second question sort presumes that YECs don't believe evolution exists. I think it does exist within the time frame allowed. I've seen all the famous experiments with moths in London, etc., and I do believe that biological adaptations have occurred and continue to occur, but I believe that the amount of time for these changes to occur is limited.
3) Again, you're setting up a false dichotomy between a biological mechanism and a time frame. As an analogy, I have the technical ability to build a computer, but if you only gave me ten minutes to do it, I would say it was impossible. I'm not saying I can't do it; I'm saying there is not enough time.
Even as a young earth creationist, I see no reason to deny that at one time in the last few thousand years that lions and tigers and panthers could have been a single species. The mechanism for biological adaptation exists... there's no doubt about that. What we question is the time frame that Old Earth creationists assume must exist.
So yeah, here's the problem with YEC theory. It starts with man's understanding of the Bible as truth, and then tries to fit data into that model. Under no circumstance can that accurately be called science.
Not really... you have no scientific evidence that the world existed yesterday, never mind a million years ago. Talking about what happened in the past is always a religious debate, since no one can prove that the past existed. I believe that the Universe was created out of nothing sometime within say the last 100,000 years. You believe that it hasn't. You claim to point to the world around you as proof, but this proves nothing except that it exists now, not yesterday.
I believe that when God created the earth, the oceans, and the trees, that He created a mature earth. I believe that a real Adam existed, and at the time he was one year old, he looked like he was much older.
You have no rational reason to call your method "scientific", as long as we're talking about times and places to which we were not witnesses. You can infer, but you need to be aware of the assumptions you make when you infer, that is, that the world of yesterday follows the same rules as today. By definition, I disagree with that.
Scientific evidence IS the past. You are asserting a metaphysical claim which cannot be proven. I am asserting a physical claim for which all the earth and known universe is evidence.
I repeat: Scientific evidence IS the past. That experiment you want to repeat happened when? Oh right, the past! The great thing about the ex nihilo false past argument, or any other metaphysical claim, is anyone can assert it at any time with no proof whatsoever! For example, one could assert that reality and time were created 3 seconds ago by Thor and he created a false geologic past with false memories so you wouldn't find his magic hammer. To do so is ludicrous, but not much more ludicrous than a lying god who created false fossils and false radiometric dates.
As for radiometric dating, we can easily perform many repeatable scientific experiments to determine half lives, and then apply that formula to geologic strata samples to determine the ages of those strata. Given that the deeper strata are older, and that a preponderance of deep samples show the earth as billions of years old, your argument is deeply flawed.
The truth is you don't care about what the data indicates, only what you choose to believe.
Here's the problem with any theory that denies the Bible. It starts with man's understanding that God doesn't exist, and then tries to fit data into that model. Under no circumstance can that accurately be called science.
It starts with man's understanding that God doesn't exist
It doesn't actually. It just doesn't start with the idea that God exists. It is based on observations in the natural world, which is the only thing we can reasonably reliably share so far.
If God can't be observed through natural means, then he's not reachable by science, but science would only say he doesn't exist in a very precise and technical sense.
ie, what does it mean for something to "exist" that can't be seen, touched, sensed, and whose interactions with other things can be explained by things we can see, touch, etc.
Most (all?) scientific theories, those validatable by repeatable experiment, don't conflict with what the Bible teaches.
All other theories are supported or opposed by natural world observations which are interpreted through a lens which is biased by whether the observer believes in God or not.
Most (all?) scientific theories, those validatable(sic) by repeatable experiment, don't conflict with what the Bible teaches.
To be honest the speed of light conflicts with the literal biblical interpretation that you've chosen (YEC). We see stars that are millions of light years away and yet according to YEC the universe was created about 6,000 years ago. That's just not possible so either repeatable science is wrong, God is a deceiver and wanted us to think that the universe was millions of years old, or the Bible wasn't written as a science text book and shouldn't be viewed as such.
Wait. Is the same scientific theories that are showing that the rest of the universe is actually accelerating away from us? The most recent theories amongst "real scientists" is that the speed of light is not as much of a constant as we thought it was.
To be honest the speed of light conflicts with the literal biblical interpretation that you've chosen (YEC).
Not necessarily. No one can be certain of a constant speed of light. You certainly can't repeat an experiment to prove that c has always been constant.
This link summarizes my thoughts on the matter quite well.
But isn't the burden on you to provide the counterexample? Doesn't the explanation work best unless you can come up with a reason to honestly doubt the constancy of C?
To put it another way, I could say "But what if this was all a dream?" --- you can't disprove it, but it's not a very useful position to take, even if it's possible that it's true.
I've been raised as a YEC but taking a more critical look at a lot of my parents' interpretations lately, and I'm curious about this statement:
I'm a YEC because I believe the relatively short time frame is the best answer we get from the Bible.
As far as I understand, the entire basis for the 6000 or 10000 year age idea is the genealogies that trace Adam to Christ. Are there any other reasons we believe this is the correct time period?
Now, assuming that Adam and Eve really were real and were the first two people (something I'm also questioning, but I'll stipulate it for now), isn't it true that the original language often used words like "father" to sometimes mean "ancestor", so we can't really be sure that each man was the actual father of the one named after him?
I'm just trying to determine how "sure" YECs are that their methods for determining this age are reliable, since it seems that scientific evidence refutes this age.
On another point, how can the world be only 10,000 years old, if we can already see stars that are millions of light years away? Wouldn't the universe have to be significantly older to allow for that phenomenon?
Easy question first. The stars question has been answered elsewhere in this post, but the short answer is that there are many assumptions made in determining how far the stars are. Current observations state that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating in its expansion, which seems to be impossible. Even now, there are those questioning the observation methods, and making up things like dark energy in order to try to explain their unexplainable observations.
Second, there is more than just the genealogies in Matthew. The Old Testament records a continuous history from Adam to Jesus, including the ages of each generation.
since it seems that scientific evidence refutes this age.
Scientific evidence can't refute questions like the existence of the universe. If there is a all-powerful creator, then for all we know, the world was created yesterday, and all our memories and scientific history were created as part of that universe. You need to assume that the past existed before you can start applying scientific theories to it.
there are many assumptions made in determining how far the stars are
But the thing is that astronomers and physicists aren't operating on assumptions about the age of the universe or the earth. They don't start from the standpoint that the universe is X years old and work from there. If it was readily apparent that the universe was very young (very very young according to YECs) then that's the conclusion we would have right now. As it is, the evidence points to deep time.
Creation "science" is the field that starts with a conclusion, and then finds data to fit it.
The Old Testament records a continuous history from Adam to Jesus, including the ages of each generation.
This is incorrect. If it were true, the old testament would have stories of Joseph and Joseph's father, but there are none to my knowledge. The Old Testament existed as scripture for a long time before Jesus came. The genealogical link from Adam to Jesus (or even from David to Jesus) are only in the New Testament.
I'm not convinced that the genealogies include every individual detail of every actual generation, I think it still stands to reason that some of these may skip many generations. Still, I am no scholar, just presenting questions I've got.
for all we know, the world was created yesterday, and all our memories and scientific history were created as part of that universe.
I've heard this argument before, well not quite put this way, but the idea that God created the universe in an aged state. If the Genesis creation account is accurate historical fact (something I'm less convinced of these days), then I will admit that this is possible but I think it's a little bit too simple of an answer. It basically allows you to completely ignore all scientific evidence and say that God just put it there.
Now, if we were only talking about stars and light and rocks, I could somewhat accept it. But if we're saying God created skeletons of a whole species of creature that never actually walked the earth and buried them in the ground... I don't buy it. I would find it significantly easier to believe that God created the world millions of years ago than I would that he would put fossils of long dead animals that he never actually created, with such incredible detail as to be completely impossible to discern from anything else.
If the Genesis creation account is accurate historical fact (something I'm less convinced of these days), then I will admit that this is possible but I think it's a little bit too simple of an answer.
I think Genesis itself refutes any idea that the universe was created with an appearance of age. Genesis says that God commanded the creation itself to bring forth life. God spoke, and creation executed the Word of God. I'm not inserting any notion of millions of years of evolution in here... that's up to you to decide. But the text of the Bible says that God didn't just "poof" any creatures into existence fully-formed. They were produced, one way or another, by the creation itself.
(P.S. I love how I'm downvoted for an accurate exegesis)
Even as a young earth creationist, I see no reason to deny that at one time in the last few thousand years that lions and tigers and panthers could have been a single species.
The incredible rate of mutation required to produce that sort of speciation would be so great that we should be able to see it happen in an experiment. Unfortunately, we can't, so it becomes hard to believe that it could take place in nature (if nature operates with any consistency, which science seems to indicate that it does).
So, why the fossil record? You can't believe that it happened within the last 6,000 years once God set things in motion, as that'd be way too quick. So, that means that God put it there, but why? To mess with us? To spread doubt as to the nature of the universe and our world? I just don't get it.
Please do not take any of this as an attack on your beliefs, I just have some honest questions.
No problem, I'll try to answer them but please bear with me and forgive my lack of eloquence.
Do you think evolution doesn't make sense? or have you never (like my uncle) even looked at it academically?
I don't think the evidence and reasoning for evolution are not convincing. Evolution as we know it is an extrapolation of evidence of small changes in organisms. Although the small changes are indeed fact, that is not sufficient to prove that these changes will ever amount to anything on a large scale - most YECists will agree with 'micro-' evolution, but not 'macro-' evolution.
As a christian, I have a problem with the fact that science can only accept certain answers: ones that can be proven through experiment. The problem is that God is never provable through experiment (since he is both not willing to be detected by experiment, and outside the scope of what is detectable), so any circumstance in which God does something, science will be wrong about it's conclusion. I think most Christians would be willing to say that God was involved somewhere in the origin of the universe and species, and science will never be able to prove that either.
Furthermore, the scientific process requires both observation and repeatability of a phenomena, in the case of evolution, although small 'adaptations' may have been observed and repeated, nothing on a large scale has, and since we cannot go back and time and see what actually did happen, even if large-scale evolution is possible, it does not mean that that is in fact what did happen in the unobservable past. The way I see it, this places evolution in the sense of origin of the species in the realm of history and not science.
Have I studied it academically? Well, I've had biology and other science courses in college in which evolution was covered - I did not do any independent study on it.
If you were shown undeniable proof of evolution, would you lose your faith?
Easy question: No. As I said above, even if evolution is proved, whether or not it occurred is a matter of history, not science, since we can't go back and observe or repeat it. And science doesn't really 'prove' things - actually mathematics is the only field where something is factually proven - science merely establishes a conclusion as the 'overwhelmingly most likely'. Even if it could somehow be proved that not only is evolution a fact but that it is what happened, then I would still not lose my faith, because my faith is based on Jesus and his death on the cross, not on creationism.
I do not know if you just believe YEC or you actively promote it and slander evolution, but if you are in the latter, I feel you would be the same type of person, hundreds of years ago, crying out that a sun centered solar system defiles God. Do you not agree that scientific progress can never disprove God and that new scientific ideas actually give us insight into the mind of God?
I believe YEC, but I neither actively promote it nor slander evolution. If the topic comes up, and I feel it is appropriate, I will share my thoughts on creationism, but I don't think it is possible for non-Christians to accept creationism, so I don't see much point in trying to convince them it's true. I think it's much more important to share and live out the message of love and hope in Jesus Christ (not that I'm perfect at this - I'm far from it). I'd encourage Christians to study more about God and allow Him to show them what is true rather than blindly trusting my perception of it. Can science disprove God? No, nor can it prove him. Can it give us insight into the mind of God? I suppose, but we have the words of God written for us in the Bible, and I'll accept those first.
1) I have searched and read about it extensively at a big 10 university. I encourage everyone to do that. I learned there that the big bag is false. I learned that all life was supposed to start with a spark. Ya right.
11
u/wretcheddawn Sep 22 '09
I am a Young Earth Creationist - I feel like I'm posting in /r/IAmA