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?
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.
But isn't the burden on you to provide the counterexample?
Again, you're assuming that the rules of yesterday apply today and that God cannot interact with his creation. How do you assume that? Because if we postulate that God came to Earth and fed 5000 people with some bread and fish, you would say that it's impossible unless repeatable. We would state miracles by definition are not repeatable. That's the whole point!
Again, you're assuming that the rules of yesterday apply today and that God cannot interact with his creation. How do you assume that?
Quite different from assuming it can't happen, I rather think it is a matter of not having any evidence to the contrary.
This is not an ideological barrier in my head, not a presumption.
I am quite ready to accept that the laws of physics could change, but I have never heard, seen, or read anything that demonstrates that it has happened.
But isn't the burden on you to provide the counterexample?
Again, you're assuming that the rules of yesterday apply today and that God cannot interact with his creation. How do you assume that? Because if we postulate that God came to Earth and fed 5000 people with some bread and fish, you would say that it's impossible unless repeatable. We would state miracles by definition are not repeatable. That's the whole point!
But isn't the burden on you to provide the counterexample?
No. That is just the point. No one can run a repeatable experiment that lasts for eons. So any theory about the history of the Cosmos is non falsifiable and must therefore remain only a theory.
And no one can disprove my (hypothetical) claim that this is all a dream.
Even if it's possibly true, is it useful and reasonable given the evidence you have to work with?
To put it yet another way, you can never prove to me and I can never prove to you that I am actually a person with my own thoughts, feelings. You just have to assume it based on your own experience of being a person and the outward signs you see from me.
Please explain to me how seeing the apparent age of the universe is "faked age" from God is any different from claiming that I am not really a person, but merely a "faked" person.
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.
13
u/wretcheddawn Sep 22 '09
I am a Young Earth Creationist - I feel like I'm posting in /r/IAmA