On what basis do you accept the YEC arguments as opposed to the evidence from mainstream scientists? How do you decide which arguments to trust?
1 Like
OK, equate is the wrong termâŚmy point is that both ignore obvious scienceâŚflat earthers can just look at a picture of the globe from space and know that they are wrongâŚlikewise YEC can just look at a galaxy calculated to be >6000 light years away and know that they are wrong. In that respect, I donât get the insistence of hanging on to a scientifically proven flawed belief.
I honestly donât know enough about common descent, but I would guess that it also proves YEC wrong in terms of the time it takes for genetic mutationsâŚbut again, I canât speak to it intelligently.
I take nothing away from God or His word by saying science has the ability to prove and understand the natural wonder of His creation.
1 Like
I agree with this!
2 Likes
It is logically not possible to hang on to YEC and state that there is enough evidence to prove the universe is 14 billion years old. The two statements are contradictory.
1 Like
OK, the acronym is Young Earth CreationismâŚYoung specifically meaning the universe and earth were created simultaneously in roughly 4000 BCâŚIf you take out the time element, there is no part of the theory that remains, it becomes OEC or something else entirely. A YEC proponent can try and refute this and I would just tell them if they think it means something else, they would need to change the name, which again means they are not YECâŚ
When a modern day astrophysicist tells me the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old, Iâm going to trust that they know better than Moses did how to calculate that. I have the capacity to understand the physics of light, and the speed at which it travels and that there are calculable things that emit light that we see further away than 6000 light years. I can trust that Moses left the Word purposefully ambiguous and poetic (not literal), so that science could discover it without proving the Word of God wrong. The Word tells me that God was in the beginning (eternally past, older than the universeâŚgreater than 13.8B y/o), which makes the science in regard to age of life irrelevant concerning the things of God, we cannot fully understand God or prove God scientifically. God IS. (emphatic period there).
So when we discuss how Neanderthal children were similar to modern day humans in a certain regard, and science can prove that it was 100k+ years ago that they did thisâŚYEC proponents cannot say, âthe dating is wrongâ without proving it (which they canât because scripture is not science). So, I get frustrated because YEC proponents obviously love God, but are misled into false beliefs by a man made conspiracy theory.
2 Likes
By the way, that should be âthrow outâ.
Yes, @Michelle started with that typo, but then you seem to have copied the mistake.
Yes, it is. It is more complex because of the ways that it has to twist and weave in an attempt to evade the clear evidence.
1 Like
sorry for the typo. Just corrected it 
3 Likes
If you think that, you havenât read enough flat earth literature. YEC and flat earth are, in fact, both conspiracy theories, literally, because they both rely on the claim that scientists are deliberately ignoring and/or faking evidence. Radiometric dates: cherry-picked. Moon landings: faked. And so on.
3 Likes
Hi Mark
Science is always tentative. Proof is not a real word properly used in science. We can say the evidence supports an inference but that is only as good as the data we collect. YEC is a scientific model with strengths and weaknesses. The YEC community uses the biblical narrative of Genesis to support its model. It is certainly possible that their Biblical interpretation is faulty.
I am not a YEC as I am open to an older earth. I do however think it should not be rejected as a model to be considered against other origin models. Alternative explanations expand on ideas even though they may have inherent flaws.
I have learned a lot from looking into Nathaniel Jeansons models even though I do not think he or other YEC scientists have a solid answer to the age of the earth or universe.
1 Like
He doesnât have a model for creation. He canât tell us what the âkindsâ are. He has no explanation for fossil ages.
No Bill, YEC is not a scientific model at all because it is not based on any scientific findings and is not supported by any scientific findings. How many times does that need to be explained to you?
OK, I wonât use the word proveâŚthere is no evidence that supports the YEC model other than very poor hermeneutics. YEC is not a scientific model. In fact, almost all science contradicts the notion that the earth is only 6000 years old. It is very simple, there is zero âvalueâ to a model that starts with a false premise. If I said to you that the sky is really yellow, but most people on earth donât see it that way, you would think me insane. I am not a scientist, but I can see the logic behind the evidence that every major branch of science puts forth. I say this as a Christian that knows and values the Word of God. Trying to force a false literal reading of Genesis is annoying.
3 Likes
I understand your resistance to the model as I have experienced the same skepticism myself.
I think the premise is that Genesis 1 is an accurate description of the Origin of the earth, the universe and living organisms. While I see potential interpretation issues I donât think this is a poor standard to consider.
Why? This seems like the first thing that would prove YEC right. Not as tough and complex as astrophysics. Not as messy as biology can be.
Sort of hard to observe geologically catastrophic events that no longer happen. Astrophysics and biology are observable right now.
Not true at all. Rocks are visible right now. We can see that a big asteroid hit Yucatan to end the Cretaceous. Thatâs about as catastrophic as anything. We can see all manner of floods and inundations throughout the geological record. If there had been a worldwide, catastrophic flood at any time, we would be able to see that too.
2 Likes
Not all of it.
Perhaps it was at the dawn of mankind, when figurative language led to understanding complex arguments that were far beyond their understanding, even up to the middle ages before science took root⌠I get a lot out of Genesis 1, but I can see that it is not intended to be literal. The book does not state scientific fact, it provides a general poetic guideline with no specifics (or at least no specifics by todayâs standard).
Even so, I know from reading Genesis 1-3 that God created everything, God existed before existence, He also created the means by which all is sustained. Manâs disobedience (sin) is what keeps us from being in the presence of God, but He has also given us a way back to Him. I know none of that can be proven scientifically. It surprises me that people that claim to understand the scripture waste their time trying to prove what even God says is not possible to prove. To me, it feels like insisting that Godâs plan can be proven scientifically is on its own being disobedient to God.
1 Like
Hi Mark
This is a very thoughtful response. Thanks.
What seems to me to be the case is that God provided to the earth with what is in Genesis 1-3. That appears to be the starting point of science. By science I mean creating hypotheses that can be tested. The hypotheses may include creating predictive models such as Newtonâs model of Gravity or Maxwells model of electro magnetism. These models help us understand what God has provided.
It is fascinating to me what was given by God to the Israelites in the Torah which was beyond current human knowledge such as the concept of âclean animalsâ in Leviticus.
9 posts were split to a new topic: Levitical Laws and Science