Rauser: What’s Wrong with YEC

Unless the theories proposed by Dr Russell Humphries or Dr Jason Lisle are correct. Or unless there are other fundamental assumptions we’re making that turn out to be simply wrong. I don’t claim to have the answer to the distant starlight question, but it’s not going to change my position on the Bible.

I just posted the idea again. Without all the extraneous discussion, that idea really needs to be overturned first. The days of creation remain as 24 hour days. Please deal with the idea if you can.

The point, gentlemen, is if God created everything in the straightforward way depicted in Genesis, why do we need all these convoluted explanations for why things do not appear the way you would expect. Why create a young earth and then have it look so old? If I woke up to a young earth tomorrow, I would be YEC.

1 Like

No more talk. Deal with the idea. Get @PdotdQ if necessary. Blast away.

Deal with the idea or you have no argument.

Hasn’t this been thoroughly discussed in the R_speir’s theory of backwards in time creation thread?

In any event, your theory is anything but a straight forward reading of Genesis one. That is my point. Why doesn’t nature line up in a simple way with the literal interpretation? Why should this conversation about varves, radioactive decay, and dinosaur ecosystems even exist?

No it has not. The physics needs to be dealt with. Call on a professional. Deal with it and lay it to rest.

I would take issue with “faithfully” in that statement.

Their conclusion and behavior is anything but faithful. They clearly lack the faith to examine the evidence for themselves. If they were truly faithful, they would dive deep into the evidence with faith that their interpretation of Scripture is correct. Instead, they avoid the evidence in favor of interpretations.

1 Like

Yak yak yak. @PdotdQ, will you please come and take a look at this idea so we can all put it to bed? I say that 6 24-hour days is possible, but I may be wrong. Please show me and all of us what is wrong with this picture:

Minkowski spacetime is four-dimensional – 3 spatial and 1 temporal. In speaking of God we are quick to say “God is everywhere”, but of course, we usually mean spatially only, not thinking that there is an entire dimension of time that God can equally occupy simultaneously - past and present and future.

If on creation day 1 God creates the earth (say as a ball of water) in the Minkowski present or “now”, then 2 or 3 days later, occupies a temporal MInkowski dimension that predates the “now” of earth by 14 billion years and creates the Universe, then the “now” of earth on creation day 3 or 4 would be immediately flooded with a fully mature and vast Universe. Too, the water of earth would be “re-created” into a mature geology of land masses, mountains, seas. The days of creation in the Minkowski “now” would remain as 24 hour days.

Yeah, I guess poetry can’t use metaphors. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

1 Like

What do you trust more, certain men’s [mis]understanding of scripture or the truth that comes from reality, the reality revealed in God’s scripture and the reality revealed in God’s creation? (FYI, they cannot conflict. If they appear to, then man’s understanding of one or both is in error.)

1 Like

Scripture doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Scripture was written by humans and is interpreted by humans. If you can’t trust humans to interpret scientific evidence, then the same would have to be true of scripture.

What we all seem to trust is reason and logic. For most people, when an interpretation of a story in a book does not match up to the physical facts of the universe we tend to question our interpretation of the story. The map is not the territory. This is the basic reason and logic that people are using, but creationists are not.


This is poor theology. One, Genesis never claims a recreation occurred. Two, there is no logical reason to create something with one history only to recreate it with another in the midst of the process of Creation.


I’ll reword that for you:

What do you trust more: man’s understanding of Scripture, or man’s understanding of C and of the nature and behavior of light, and of the space-time continuum of the cosmos in general?

That’s the question we are dealing with here. Can you admit that? It would help the discussion flow more smoothly and honestly.

I don’t. Do you? (If yes, what advantage do you have that gives you special insight which others lack?)


Ok, for you we will substitute the word “transformed” for re-create.

The Genesis creation account does not follow physical logic, so one more break in logic does not give you a valid point. Also, the motivation of God may have been to deliberately create in 6 calendar days in order to later hand-off the prototype to Man.

So with no one present to legitimately challenge the physical construction of the idea presented, it looks like we will pass through an evening and morning and call it a day 1 victory for YECs. Thus far, the score is

R Rauser 0

We will see what tomorrow holds.


I thought I understood Young Earth Creationist positions quite well but I am baffled by your last two posts. I hope that you will explain them further—especially as to why you think there is a 1-0 score against Rauser.

…did not involve substituting the word ‘perfect’ for ‘very good’.

Most people would call it a night.

1 Like

If you have specific question, we can start there. But overall, I have provided a little physical construction whereby God could have created in six calendar days and we still have a vast universe with distant starlight in our neighborhood. That is enough to demonstrate that people like you and Rauser have not given enough time and merit to the Genesis text. What I am saying is that it may very well be a literal rendering of what happened and skeptics may be all wet.

What is your specific question.