Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T

Tankman131

Guest
#141
#141
RachelBibleStudent said:
nobody here thinks God's word 'disagrees with science'...young earth creationists simply hold to a -different scientific model- to explain the same evidence...

so quit it already...

for that matter it isn't enough simply to show that 'progressive creationism isn't contradictory to the bible'...you have to show that this idea is -actually derived from scriptural exegesis-... it wouldn't contradict the bible for me to claim that there are unicorns in my backyard either...but that doesn't mean i got that idea from the bible...

and finally...just the fact that you make a point of describing yourself as someone 'who doesn't disregard science' insinuates that those who disagree with you on this issue -do- disregard science...which is exactly what i said old earth creationists do on a constant basis...and now you don't even appear capable of stopping...

i have news for you...i am a young earth creationist and i -don't- disregard science...
Click to expand...
1st: when someone says science is inherently naturalistic, that is antiscience.
2nd: it is shown to be derived from scriptural exegesis if you are willing to actually study it.
3rd: when someone says science is inherently naturalist they tend to sound like they disregard science
4th: im glad that you dont disregard science. I dont care to convince you of OEM but if you read up on it you may find it wuite convincing
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#142
#142
Tankman131 said:
Tintin said:
One book that isnt the bible, 400-500 pages. Written when? What evidence does it refute? Ill tell you now if it was written in the 70s it probably sounded good, but it was not facing the beat scientific evidence.

how about you do as i did. Read from the sources and compare. I read from answers in genesis and god and creation. Dont read a counter book and assume you have heard it sll
Click to expand...
I know it was one book and it wasn't the Bible, but it was most certainly informed by reading the Bible and working outwards. Exegesis is a biblical skill. The book I read is by Jonathan Sarfati was actually written in the late 2000s and updated in the last couple years. But good try. I read from a variety of sources (both sides) and compare them and I find anything but biblical creation wanting. I think it's telling that in the Foreword, Sarfati actually mentions that many progressive 'creationists' took him to task for 'attacking' Dr. Hugh Ross. Yet all he did was pull apart Ross' beliefs, by pointing to the Bible. He didn't say anything against the man personally. Criticism isn't an attack. Sarfati was firm, but he was loving. It's easy to slander someone you disagree with. It's another thing altogether to treat them with love, while disagreeing strongly with what they believe. I haven't seen much of the latter from OECs.
Click to expand...
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#144
#144
Tankman131 said:
The belief that the universe is old is not informed by naturalism. It is informed by a methodological study of repeatable and testable or observable events, such as the red shift of the light of galaxies.
Click to expand...
more accurately the belief that the universe is old is informed by uniformitarianism...the belief that natural processes have always proceeded at practically the same rates at all points in time...

the fact is that there are -other- ways to account for the data scientists have collected that -don't- rest on the assumption of uniformitarianism...
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#145
#145
Tankman131 said:
1st: when someone says science is inherently naturalistic, that is antiscience.
2nd: it is shown to be derived from scriptural exegesis if you are willing to actually study it.
3rd: when someone says science is inherently naturalist they tend to sound like they disregard science
4th: im glad that you dont disregard science. I dont care to convince you of OEM but if you read up on it you may find it wuite convincing
Click to expand...
I don't disregard Science, I disregard human philosophies that are mistakenly understood today as Science. There's a difference. Or haven't you heard?
 
MarcR

MarcR

Senior Member
#147
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#147
As I see it, the six days of creation in Genesis chapter 1 must be understood as literal (24 hour) days.

The Hebrew word 'yom' can signify either a day or an indefinite period of time; but indefinite periods of time do not have evening and morning. This does not preclude an old earth, however. The actual language used in verses 1-3 allows for an indefinite gap in time between verse1 and verse 2 and/or between verse 2 and verse 3.
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/66395-young-earth-vs-old-earth-does-matter-3.html #84.
 
Last edited:
T

Tankman131

Guest
#148
#148
RachelBibleStudent said:
more accurately the belief that the universe is old is informed by uniformitarianism...the belief that natural processes have always proceeded at practically the same rates at all points in time...

the fact is that there are -other- ways to account for the data scientists have collected that -don't- rest on the assumption of uniformitarianism...
Click to expand...
I wouldbe interested to hear your arguments as to why someone should believe that?
 
T

Tankman131

Guest
#150
#150
MarcR said:
As I see it, the six days of creation in Genesis chapter 1 must be understood as literal (24 hour) days.

The Hebrew word 'yom' can signify either a day or an indefinite period of time; but indefinite periods of time do not have evening and morning. This does not preclude an old earth, however. The actual language used in verses 1-3 allows for an indefinite gap in time between verse1 and verse 2 and/or between verse 2 and verse 3.

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/66395-young-earth-vs-old-earth-does-matter-3.html
Click to expand...
How can you have evening and morning before the creation of the sun on the fourth day?
 
crossnote

crossnote

Senior Member
#151
Nov 24, 2012
30,779
3,681
113
#151
What's at stake is not salvation but once you start taking things figuratively without sufficient cause, you open the floodgates of spiritualizing Genesis. So 'day' no longer means 'evening and morning' and death no longer means death, or sin/sin. Consequently man no longer needs redeeming via a Redeemer but rather a new environment through education...knowing good and evil.

I'm sticking with 6 days, float away in the philosophical abyss if you want.
 
T

Tankman131

Guest
#152
#152
Tintin said:
Tankman131 said:
Well, you show me how you come up with believing in souless humanoids and all of that other crap, from reading the Bible. Then we'll start talking Bereans. :)
Click to expand...
*facepalm* you arent willing to consider the other side. I provided you something to read and all you do is give snide remarks and ignore it.

Why should i continue talking to you about this if you are going to simply insult me and ignore what i say?
Click to expand...
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#153
#153
Tankman131 said:
Tintin said:
*facepalm* you arent willing to consider the other side. I provided you something to read and all you do is give snide remarks and ignore it.

Why should i continue talking to you about this if you are going to simply insult me and ignore what i say?
Click to expand...
That's a perfect description of what you've been doing to Rachel and myself. Well done. Congratulations. Here's a ribbon.
Click to expand...
 
T

Tankman131

Guest
#154
#154
crossnote said:
What's at stake is not salvation but once you start taking things figuratively without sufficient cause, you open the floodgates of spiritualizing Genesis. So 'day' no longer means 'evening and morning' and death no longer means death, or sin/sin. Consequently man no longer needs redeeming via a Redeemer but rather a new environment through education...knowing good and evil.

I'm sticking with 6 days, float away in the philosophical abyss if you want.
Click to expand...
Progressive creationists dont take it figuratively. Yom has two possible meanings and there was no sun on the first three days
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#155
#155
Tankman131 said:
1st: when someone says science is inherently naturalistic, that is antiscience.
2nd: it is shown to be derived from scriptural exegesis if you are willing to actually study it.
3rd: when someone says science is inherently naturalist they tend to sound like they disregard science
4th: im glad that you dont disregard science. I dont care to convince you of OEM but if you read up on it you may find it wuite convincing
Click to expand...
1...nobody said -science- is inherently naturalistic...it was said that 'human philosophies that are mistakenly called science' are based in naturalism...this was already pointed out to you...

2...i have studied progressive creationism...they don't get their idea of species being created...allowed to go extinct...and then replaced with new created species from genesis 1...because it -just isn't there-... it is on roughly the same hermeneutical level as the ancient theory of emanations where God created everything through the action of intermediary entities...not flagrantly contradicting genesis 1...but very clearly not derived from exegesis of the text either...

3...see #1

4...like i said...i have studied progressive creationism...i find it to be one of the most -unconvincing- attempts at harmonizing scripture with old earth assumptions...
 
T

Tankman131

Guest
#157
#157
RachelBibleStudent said:
1...nobody said -science- is inherently naturalistic...it was said that 'human philosophies that are mistakenly called science' are based in naturalism...this was already pointed out to you...

2...i have studied progressive creationism...they don't get their idea of species being created...allowed to go extinct...and then replaced with new created species from genesis 1...because it -just isn't there-... it is on roughly the same hermeneutical level as the ancient theory of emanations where God created everything through the action of intermediary entities...not flagrantly contradicting genesis 1...but very clearly not derived from exegesis of the text either...

3...see #1

4...like i said...i have studied progressive creationism...i find it to be one of the most -unconvincing- attempts at harmonizing scripture with old earth assumptions...
Click to expand...
Please see the above. Im done talking to you and tintin. You arent willing to read the sources i put forth and tintin has been trying to minimize his backtracking after calling me a naturalist since he first got called on it.
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#159
#159
Tankman131 said:
I wouldbe interested to hear your arguments as to why someone should believe that?
Click to expand...
i made two assertions in that post...which one did you want me to defend?
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#160
#160
Tankman131 said:
How can you have evening and morning before the creation of the sun on the fourth day?
Click to expand...
because there was another source of light for the first three days...

honestly this is something young earth creationists learn on day one...

have you -really- read any of the young earth creation apologetics literature?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.