OEC, YEC, TE?

[BigFriendlyApologist]

Hey guys!

In my efforts to get to know people around here and see what people believe, I was wondering what everyone's stance is on the origins of the universe/life. So are you guys Young Earth Creationists (6000-1000 year old earth/universe), Old Earth Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists? What evidence do you base your belief off of (I would appreciate scientific evidence if you have any)?

Thanks

 

[Willot]

I've went for other because I'm a deistic/atheistic evolutionist. I include deistic in that as there is no evidence for or against God, just like there's no evidence for or against the flying spaghetti monster (his noodlyness).
I didn't select Theistic evolution because I don't believe in a theistic God.
And I didn't choose creationism because I believe in evolution.

Scientific evidence for evolution is all over the place

Here's a little wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
And here's a short clip from Carl Sagan's Cosmos: Evolution in Five Minutes by Carl Sagan - YouTube

Here's an article on natural selection in mosquitoes from a website:
Evolution - The theory of natural selection (part 1)
Have a scan through

And please don't refute evolution...

 

[trust_in_the_name]

Hey guys!

In my efforts to get to know people around here and see what people believe, I was wondering what everyone's stance is on the origins of the universe/life. So are you guys Young Earth Creationists (6000-1000 year old earth/universe), Old Earth Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists? What evidence do you base your belief off of (I would appreciate scientific evidence if you have any)?

Thanks

The efforts of young-Earth creationists to refute modern science and pretend that the evidence actually fits with a 6000-year-old Earth (Answers In Genesis and the like) are just plain silly and about as convincing to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of science as a plastic ice cream cone.

Young-Earth creationism is correct, since the world was created recently as the Bible suggests. However, God created the universe and the Earth with the appearance of age. Modern science, including cosmology and evolutionary theory, properly reflect the way the way the universe was created to appear and are in accord with the data available to us, even though they don't (and could not) reflect what actually occured.

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

And please don't refute evolution...

Don't plan on it. I'm a theistic evolutionist

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

The efforts of young-Earth creationists to refute modern science and pretend that the evidence actually fits with a 6000-year-old Earth (Answers In Genesis and the like) are just plain silly and about as convincing to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of science as a plastic ice cream cone.

Young-Earth creationism is correct, since the world was created recently as the Bible suggests. However, God created the universe and the Earth with the appearance of age. Modern science, including cosmology and evolutionary theory, properly reflect the way the way the universe was created to appear and are in accord with the data available to us, even though they don't (and could not) reflect what actually occured.

So would you say that God intentionally misinformed humans as to the age of the Earth? Seems a view unconsistent with a theistic loving God.

 

[shawntc]

YEC? OEC? TE?

My answer: IDK.

I'm actually unsure right now. I mean yeah, there's plenty of scientific evidence to support the idea of an old Earth, universe, and evolution. Nonetheless, when the original Jews received the Torah, they interpreted Genesis 1 as being a literal 7-day event. These words were from God himself. The fact that God himself meant a 7-day creation makes me want to learn toward a Young Earth. At it stands, I simply don't know what's right. I can argue either way and don't look down on people who hold to any particular belief. If it ever becomes a big issue for me then I'll look into it more. Otherwise, I'll let it be.

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

YEC? OEC? TE?

My answer: IDK.

I'm actually unsure right now. I mean yeah, there's plenty of scientific evidence to support the idea of an old Earth, universe, and evolution. Nonetheless, when the original Jews received the Torah, they interpreted Genesis 1 as being a literal 7-day event. These words were from God himself. The fact that God himself meant a 7-day creation makes me want to learn toward a Young Earth. At it stands, I simply don't know what's right. I can argue either way and don't look down on people who hold to any particular belief. If it ever becomes a big issue for me then I'll look into it more. Otherwise, I'll let it be.

At least you are honest in saying that you don't know. As to the whole 6-yom Genesis accounts, I have talked to a lot of rabbis who contend that yom is properly interpreted as a long period of time for several logical reasons. I found them most persuasive.

 

[trust_in_the_name]

So would you say that God intentionally misinformed humans as to the age of the Earth? Seems a view unconsistent with a theistic loving God.

Not at all. In fact, creationism aside, we know that God deceives people (see below), and we also know that He is love (1 John 4:8, 16). This might seem inconsistent to some people, but that's not really relevant since what is true isn't determined by how things seem.

12 There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. (Proverbs 14:12)

God's ways are not our ways. In fact, His ways are past finding out and His judgments are unsearchable.

8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord. 9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! (Romans 11:33)

God does indeed deceive people, but in general He deceives the wicked and the reprobate, not His own people.

9 And the prophet who is deceived and speaks a word, I the Lord deceived that prophet and will stretch out my hand against him and will cause him to be destroyed from the midst of my people Israel. (Ezekiel 14:9)

11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

10 And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that 'Seeing they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.' (Luke 8:10)

(More examples available upon request.)

So, did God intentionally misinform mankind about the age of the Earth? It's certainly possible, and would be consistent with what we know from the Bible. But the Bible doesn't address that question so we don't know one way or the other. As mentioned above, His thoughts are not our thoughts. In any case, if God did create the universe with the appearance of age, that doesn't obligate Him to tell us that He did so, nor can we justifiably claim to have been deceived for assuming that He didn't do so in the first place.

20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" (Romans 9:20)

The same principle applies to the way He made the universe.

 

[Willot]

I'm not going to dignify that with a response, other than this.

 

[Alex314]

I'd say naturalistic evolution, because that is the view currently held by the majority of scientists (that, and I accept and understand the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution)

To all those who are doubting, I would argue that please, please, look around you and search for the evidence in the real world. Would you trust a book God gave to fallible men, who has been translated over and over again throughout the centuries, or would you trust to find answers directly in God's work? Uranium dating shows that the earth cannot possibly be 6,000 years old. Do you prefer to trust in a mathematician who long ago added the ages of all the people in the Bible to arrive at an imperfect 6-10 thousand years, or would you trust the evidence God himself planted in the earth in the form of dozens of radioactive material giving us dozens of radioisotopic clocks who all date to almost the same time?

 

[eugenius]

I am probably both an Old Earth Creationist and a Theistic Evolutionist. Ultimately when trying to study something that happened billions of years ago you are liable to have some errors, so the theory of evolution as it is understood today is not rock solid by any means, but we cannot deny certain evidence unless we are lying to ourselves and to God.

 

[distantshores]

How young is young, and how old is old?

I know evolution is in vogue right now because it's pretty much the only thing that could possibly complete with creationism, and of course the more billions of years they add, the more of a chance there is that it might have happened (which is still pretty much zero, but oh well), as long as they can keep pushing it further into the murky past.

Still, I'd give the earth between about 10,000 and a few hundred thousand years.

 

[bonnie2]

YEC! God created a mature earth just as He created mature people (Adam and Eve were adults, not babies).

 

[trust_in_the_name]

How young is young, and how old is old?

I know evolution is in vogue right now because it's pretty much the only thing that could possibly complete with creationism, and of course the more billions of years they add, the more of a chance there is that it might have happened (which is still pretty much zero, but oh well), as long as they can keep pushing it further into the murky past.

Still, I'd give the earth between about 10,000 and a few hundred thousand years.

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. The whole impetus for believing in a young Earth as opposed to the commonly accepted 5 billion years is because of the biblical account in Genesis which yields an age of about 6,000 years. If you don't believe the biblical account, and you don't believe the scientific account, you're just making up numbers.

 

[distantshores]

The reason for my numbers is simple: I have no problem with the idea that the biblical geneaologies have gaps in them (I doubt that they were intended to be comprehensive), so I allow for a rather large number of years. I think that neither the literal 6,000 year interpretation nor the billions-of-years interpretation is correct, and that the right answer is somewhere in between. I simply disagree with the extremists on both sides. I'm not sorry, and my view does make sense.

 

[rainacorn]

Theistic evolution over here, although I don't really ever use that term.

God created the universe.

Evolution is a thing.

Separate things, in my opinion. One speaks to the origin of life, the other doesn't. But whatever makes it easier to understand, I guess.

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

Theistic evolution over here, although I don't really ever use that term.

God created the universe.

Evolution is a thing.

Separate things, in my opinion. One speaks to the origin of life, the other doesn't. But whatever makes it easier to understand, I guess.

All I meant with theistic evolutionist, is one who is both a theist and an evolutionist . Sorry for the confusion.

 

[BigFriendlyApologist]

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. The whole impetus for believing in a young Earth as opposed to the commonly accepted 5 billion years is because of the biblical account in Genesis which yields an age of about 6,000 years. If you don't believe the biblical account, and you don't believe the scientific account, you're just making up numbers.

Hmm... don't know if I like your phrasing here. I would argue that if the world yom is interpreted as a long period of time as many scholars have inferred then I would tend to believe that both science and religion could be compatible. Again, this is just one opinion among many.

 

[trust_in_the_name]

The reason for my numbers is simple: I have no problem with the idea that the biblical geneaologies have gaps in them (I doubt that they were intended to be comprehensive), so I allow for a rather large number of years. I think that neither the literal 6,000 year interpretation nor the billions-of-years interpretation is correct, and that the right answer is somewhere in between. I simply disagree with the extremists on both sides. I'm not sorry, and my view does make sense.

Hmm... don't know if I like your phrasing here. I would argue that if the world yom is interpreted as a long period of time as many scholars have inferred then I would tend to believe that both science and religion could be compatible. Again, this is just one opinion among many.

I had kind of forgotten about these intermediate sorts of interpretations. Gap theory and day-age theory, I think they are called.

 

[distantshores]

I'm not going to rigidly adhere to 6,000 years when it's possible that the days weren't literal days, and when the geneaologies have gaps. The earth might be only 6,000 years only, and I have no problem with that, of course, but I won't defend the idea to the death.