What do you guys think of Young Earth Creationism ?

[RichardT]

I am currently a young earth creationist , because it seems to make sense to me. What are your thoughts on Young Earth Creationism ?

Also , what do you guys think of Kent Hovind ?

[knownbeforetime]

IMHO, your interpretation of Genesis affects the rest of the Bible. The Bible is one book and changing any aspect of it makes the story almost nonsensical.

[Kahalachan]

I believe in old earth and theistic evolution. Carbon dating is pretty effective and not a scientific process I want to ignore.

[Stan53]

Ok I'll be a dummy, what is Young Earth Creationism. Actually God created the earth in 6 days. Rested on the seventh. I don't blame Him for resting. Man, look at what He has got to put up with. And we think we have something to complain about.
Oh, and I happen to believe our Jewish brethren have about got it right. The earth is around 6000+- years old.

[vincejohn]

The universe is 6000plus years old. Carbon dating is a scam of scientists.

[knownbeforetime]

The universe is 6000plus years old. Carbon dating is a scam of scientists.I think the scientists themselves are deceived.

[Raistlinorr]

I believe it says that one day to the Lord is 1000 years, so that would make the universe over 7000 yers old.

Unless of course you think we are in the seventh day and the Lord is still resting.

Don't worry Richard T, I myself rescently came to the conclusion that YEC is along my thinking. I'm not going to get into the long version of how I came to this because it will only throw this thread off track and I don't want that. If you wish to know what brought me to this idea feel free to PM and I'll explain.

So to sum it up the universe should be around 8000 -9000 years old IMHO.

God bless!
Raist

[Raistlinorr]

BTW I get the one day/thousand year from 2nd Peter 3:8


8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


God bless!
Raist

[oliveplants]

I believe God knew what He was talking about when He wrote the Bible. "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." (2nd, 3rd, 4th etc). It couldn't be more plain.

Kent Hovind is a little eccentric (his stand on certain things seems misplaced), and lacks a little tact, and oversimplifies some things. That being said, he is the instrument used to get my hubby interested in Creationism.

If you can throw out the first of Genesis, you can easily write off most of the rest of the Bible. It isn't what the whole thing is about, but it is the foundation.

[Kahalachan]

The universe is 6000plus years old. Carbon dating is a scam of scientists.

I wouldn't call it a scam. You can suggest that there is another mechanism behind radioactive decay and science doesn't have the full picture.

Kinda like the law of gravity. Back then they didn't know what caused gravity, where we know now that gravitons are responsible.

Science is meant to be unbiased.

Nuclear physics is based on this so called "scam" of radioactive decay. If it is a scam, then the US Navy is in extreme danger for running nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines since scientists have scammed our government. We also don't have to worry about nuclear weapons cause those are also based on a scam.

Science has proven itself wrong in certain occasions. Freud had many crazy ideas, that we now know are false. Some of his other ideas, such as an unconscious, are very well supported.

I don't think young earth believers should have a problem with science, since if the earth is really young it will eventually be discovered.

[prophecystudent]

I wouldn't call it a scam. You can suggest that there is another mechanism behind radioactive decay and science doesn't have the full picture.

Kinda like the law of gravity. Back then they didn't know what caused gravity, where we know now that gravitons are responsible.

Science is meant to be unbiased.

Nuclear physics is based on this so called "scam" of radioactive decay. If it is a scam, then the US Navy is in extreme danger for running nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines since scientists have scammed our government. We also don't have to worry about nuclear weapons cause those are also based on a scam.

Science has proven itself wrong in certain occasions. Freud had many crazy ideas, that we now know are false. Some of his other ideas, such as an unconscious, are very well supported.

I don't think young earth believers should have a problem with science, since if the earth is really young it will eventually be discovered.

With all due respect, there is a world of difference between carbon 13 dating and the physics involved in nuclear reactions (like bombs).

"Many living systems are not in equilibrium for the C14 exchange, It has bee found that the shells of living mollusks may show radiocarbon ages up to 2300 years.

The amount of natural carbon may have varied in the past. It is known today that the earth once had far more vegetation than today. This is indicated by the vast amounts of coal deposits now known all over the world. Consequently, organisms living at that time would be subjected to only a very small amount of C14/C12 ration and their remains now would contain no radio carbon at all, evenif they had lived 6000 years ago. On the other hand, during the ice age there would have been much less C12 than during the vegetation age."

From Wilmington's Guide to the Bible.

The book contains a number of other refutations of the multi-billion evolution theory as well.

Fred

[RichardT]

With all due respect, there is a world of difference between carbon 13 dating and the physics involved in nuclear reactions (like bombs).

"Many living systems are not in equilibrium for the C14 exchange, It has bee found that the shells of living mollusks may show radiocarbon ages up to 2300 years.

The amount of natural carbon may have varied in the past. It is known today that the earth once had far more vegetation than today. This is indicated by the vast amounts of coal deposits now known all over the world. Consequently, organisms living at that time would be subjected to only a very small amount of C14/C12 ration and their remains now would contain no radio carbon at all, evenif they had lived 6000 years ago. On the other hand, during the ice age there would have been much less C12 than during the vegetation age."

From Wilmington's Guide to the Bible.

The book contains a number of other refutations of the multi-billion evolution theory as well.

Fred

I wish I could find books like these at my library... But they don't have any creationist books....

[Svt4Him]

I don't think carbon dating is a scam, but there are aspect of it that need to be understood. Carbon dating is based on a constant set of assumptions. If God created a tree right in front of me, how old would that tree look, and if you were to cut it down, would it have rings for years in it? Carbon dating assumes that tree has been there for a long time, as it has aged. I realize that's simplistic, but it's the easiest way to explain it.

[RichardT]

You know , I didn't think there were so many creationists like me out there... I thought I was one of the only nuts in christianity who actually believed it lol ...

Well , that's really cool :)

[Advent Christian]

Svt4Him :clap: Well said.

[jad123]

I have never understood this Theistic Evolution approach. It seems like a weak and feable attempt to make sense of what we can not fully understand and to try and place God in a box of limited understanding.

Then what is meant by:

Gen 1:27 And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.

Is God a single cell organism? He is a Ape?

[lismore]

I am currently a young earth creationist , because it seems to make sense to me. What are your thoughts on Young Earth Creationism ?



:thumbsup:

Me Too.

Creation scientists explain things about creation that deepen our understanding of what God did and how he did it.

;)

[lismore]

You know , I didn't think there were so many creationists like me out there... I thought I was one of the only nuts in christianity who actually believed it lol ...

Well , that's really cool :)

Its very hard to be a Christian and not believe the foundation of the bible: Genesis.

:wave:

[Kelly]

I fall somewhere around "Gap Theory" or ...topic not vital for my salvation, so spend zero energy on it. something to ask God when I'm in heaven.

[Kahalachan]

I have never understood this Theistic Evolution approach. It seems like a weak and feable attempt to make sense of what we can not fully understand and to try and place God in a box of limited understanding.

Then what is meant by:

Gen 1:27 And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.

Is God a single cell organism? He is a Ape?


Personally, it's a desire not to repeat previous mistakes. A brilliant man Galileo was under scrutiny by the church cause he said the earth revolved around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth. We all know now the solar system is heliocentric and Galileo was right.

The verse about stopping the sun in the sky was taken too literally and so much it prevented the advance of science.

Svt4Him has a point and that if God made a tree now, it would be dated wrongly of course.

I don't see believing in evolution or a theistic big bang as taking away from the Bible. When I was a non-Christian it even strengthened the Bible for me, cause the events were in order if taken figuratively. If the Bible said God made mammals before fish, there would be conflict.

Evolution has good qualities and has helped us understand adaptation and mutation on smaller scales. We can adjust our medical procedures for bacteria and viruses that have mutated and are resistant to previous medications.

I'm fine with the idea that people believe in a young earth. I just don't like to see the progress of science hindered because people force supernatural explanations over our desire to understand what we can.

[WAB]

I believe in old earth and theistic evolution. Carbon dating is pretty effective and not a scientific process I want to ignore.

Certainly agree that carbon dating is revealing. Suggest you get a copy of the book "THOUSANDS... NOT BILLIONS". It is collated by Dr. Don DeYoung, and the first printing was Aug. '05.

It includes the latest C-14 data; Radioisotope Dating; Radiohalos; etc., etc.

The book is put out by: Master Books, and although I got it along with a video (from another source), the video was poorly done, and the book is much less expensive by itself.

[Svt4Him]

Certainly agree that carbon dating is revealing. Suggest you get a copy of the book "THOUSANDS... NOT BILLIONS". It is collated by Dr. Don DeYoung, and the first printing was Aug. '05.

It includes the latest C-14 data; Radioisotope Dating; Radiohalos; etc., etc.

The book is put out by: Master Books, and although I got it along with a video (from another source), the video was poorly done, and the book is much less expensive by itself.

Since there's probably a 0% chance anyone will buy this based on your post, perhaps you can highlight a bit of it for us?

[WAB]

Since there's probably a 0% chance anyone will buy this based on your post, perhaps you can highlight a bit of it for us?

Oh Boy...! There is so much to quote to reach a legitimate conclusion.

Will just brief it re coal.... "If Pennsylvania coal is truly hundreds of millions of years old, then no remaining carbon-14 whatsoever should be present within it. However, since the AMS method.... there have been ongoing reports in the literature of traces of radiocarbon detected in coal." (pg. 52)

Since the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, and since much of the coal tested is from the so-called Pennsylvania Period, which standard assumptions date to 300 million years ago, there should be no C-14 whatsoever in coal. But there is.

"Diamonds are typically assumed to be many millions of years old, if not billions." (pg. 56) And then the research goes on to show that C-14 residues are found in diamonds.

"Rocks and fossils containing carbon occur in abundance throughout the earth's strata... all of this original C-14 content should be completely decayed away." (pg.48).

But said C-14 is still in material that is assumed to be billions of years old. Only those who have a pre-conceived commitment to an old age for the earth are willing to dis-regard this evidence. Many even declare the evidence to be fabricated. But the RATE team was extremely strict in their research, and sent the samples to labs used by evolutionists for the research.

Of course there are tables and photos throughout the book that verify what is written...

The conclusion? We can trust the Word of God as true no matter what.

[Mrs. Enigma]

I am currently a young earth creationist , because it seems to make sense to me. What are your thoughts on Young Earth Creationism ?

Also , what do you guys think of Kent Hovind ?

Well, I would reccomend Ken Ham over Kent Hovind.
The reasons are because Kent Hovind throws some of his personal ideas in with his teachings and he talks very cocky and down about other people.
That being said, my hubby was an atheist, and some of Kent Hovinds messages are what opened his eyes to start really seeking, and being more open to other stuff.
I think Kent Hovind is trying to do a really good thing, but when trying to reach someone, I would rather head to Answers in Genesis website and get some of Ken Ham's stuff.

[Vedant]

I am currently a young earth creationist , because it seems to make sense to me. What are your thoughts on Young Earth Creationism ?

Also , what do you guys think of Kent Hovind ?

Young earth creationists are ignorant of facts that God has given us the ability to observe in my opinion, but to each his/her own, I suppose.

[Svt4Him]

Young earth creationists are ignorant of facts that God has given us the ability to observe in my opinion, but to each his/her own, I suppose.

What an intelligent post. Haven't offered anything but an ad hominem attack (that means you didn't post any substance, you simply insulted people, but you probably knew that already). Obviously with that kind of post, you are clearly smarter then any YEC.

[Raistlinorr]

Young earth creationists are ignorant of facts that God has given us the ability to observe in my opinion, but to each his/her own, I suppose.

I have personaly found most who believe in the science that says the world is a certain age to be ignorant of how these ppl truely decide what age it is.

Meaning most ppl just follow mans word blindly as opposed to just following the bible just as blindly on the issue. See it's about a little thing called faith some have more than others.

But can you realy sit back and date the age of rock or earth yourself? If so how do you know what you were taught to look for is correct and not a lie that is continued because no one knows the truth any more?

See believing in some thing you can not personaly prove to be exact fact is no more IGNORANT than some one believing in YEC. But this is just my opinion.

To clarify ignorance is nothing truely bad as it's simply a lack of knowledge and can be fixed.

God bless!
Raist

[JVD]

I am open to YEC and also an older earth. There certainly are things that make the universe seem older. Especially starlight.

There are also dating methods that make the earth seem older than 10K years.

I say they make the earth and universe "seem" older. If you take the different dating methods with an open mind and accept the constants in the equations, then the earth does "seem" old.

And it could be old. We all know that God is certainly a lot older than the earth/universe no matter how old it is.

Of course, it is also just a possible that the earth is younger and God made it to "seem" old. I really don't think the answer is that diffinitive. Or even really that important.

What is important is Jesus Christ.

[eldermike]

God used a process for creation. First He created things without form, then He formed them. To me Genisis supports that God created elements, then laws, then form. It says 6 days, I have no reason to believe that God would need more than 6 days. The question has already been asked by Svt4Him but here it is again. How old is a created tree on the day of it's creation?

[AJtheIrishLass]

I am currently a young earth creationist , because it seems to make sense to me. What are your thoughts on Young Earth Creationism ?

Also , what do you guys think of Kent Hovind ?
I don't have a problem with people accepting that belief as long as they don't make it a mandated salvation issue for others. However, that is a relatively new belief in terms of theology and isn't based on sound Scriptural interpretation, IMO.

[AJtheIrishLass]

If you can throw out the first of Genesis, you can easily write off most of the rest of the Bible. It isn't what the whole thing is about, but it is the foundation.
I can't speak for everyone else on the matter, but just because one doesn't accept creationism doesn't mean that they don't believe in Genesis at all. It's the manner of interpretation that's the issue.

[RichardT]

and isn't based on sound Scriptural interpretation, IMO.

How ? It is a litteral interpretation of the bible....

[Silent Enigma]

Young earth creationists are ignorant of facts that God has given us the ability to observe in my opinion, but to each his/her own, I suppose.

Har!

[Silent Enigma]

However, that is a relatively new belief in terms of theology and isn't based on sound Scriptural interpretation, IMO.

Believing in a literal creation is a new thing?

Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, ....
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

[JonF]

Uh, just wondering, what do YEC mean by “time” without mass existing? It’s apparently a non standard definition. Or do you deny general relativity also?

[JVD]

You know, I just read Genesis one again this morning. I noticed that God created light and darkness before the sun and the moon.

So how long exactly was the first few days without a sun and moon to make them our current 24 hours.

I realized that YEC also has to make a univerlasist type of assumption.

[Raistlinorr]

You know, I just read Genesis one again this morning. I noticed that God created light and darkness before the sun and the moon.

So how long exactly was the first few days without a sun and moon to make them our current 24 hours.

I realized that YEC also has to make a univerlasist type of assumption.

Maybe this would help. I don't believe it was 24 hour days but 100 year days. :)

2 Peter
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


God bless!
Raist

[JonF]

Maybe this would help. I don't believe it was 24 hour days but 100 year days. :)

2 Peter
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


God bless!
Raist
equivocation error

[handmaiden97]

The bible says, that God created the earth in 6 days and rested on the seventh. I beleive that is a literal 6 24 hour days. There is scientific evidence to back that up, and besides if we cant beleive Genesis why else would we believe the rest.....And If He is God, why could he not everything in 6 days?

I believe science gives enough evidence for us to beleive it is a literal 6 day creation about 6,000 years ago