Best YEC argument

[RaisedCatholic]

That is so incorrect it’s not even wrong.

Well, the burden of proof is on you. I don’t have to prove a negative.

 

[po18guy]

So, God wears a Rolex"?
Never mind the Greek. It was not written in Greek.

Problem.

The Hebrew word used meant “period of time”

No one on earth interpreted this as you have been taught until the last 100 years in the gold o’ US of A.

Problem 2.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

So, God wears a Rolex"?

How is this relevant?

Never mind the Greek. It was not written in Greek.

No, but Jesus cited from the Septuagint, which was written in Greek, and it’s the exact same word “in the beginning” written in Genesis 1:1.

The Hebrew word used meant “period of time”

If you are referring to the Hebrew word “yom,” it has numerous meanings. But whenever the word is used along with “evening & morning” AND with a number, like “first, second, third,” etc. it always means a literal 24 hour period in the OT. Plus, Moses who wrote both Genesis & Exodus compared the literal six day work week, with the literal six day creation week. That is consistent exegesis.

Plus, Jesus was addressing the creation of mankind, as well as the first marriage, when He cited Genesis 1 & 2 when He said “in the beginning,” indicating when this first marriage & creation of mankind took place.

No one on earth interpreted this as you have been taught until the last 100 years in the gold o’ US of A.

False. A young earth was the prevailing view in the early church. Even Catholicism acknowledges this. It has only been from the influence from the anti-God evolutionists, who have infiltrated Christianity that YEC has been rejected by many in the church. Even Catholicism allows for Catholics to believe in a young earth if they choose to. There is no official doctrine or dogma preventing them.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That is so incorrect it’s not even wrong.

Well, the burden of proof is on you. I don’t have to prove a negative.

You made a positive statement. That evolutionary theories can’t be tested. Show me one.

 

[Inquiry]

Yes, exactly. And it is a sidestep because it does not deny a several billion year old universe, it just questions whether that several billion year old universe existed ‘yesterday.’

Note my point is not to prove YEC, my point is that YEC can’t be evaluated fully without more clearly stated hypotheses.

 

[tafan2]

Could he have created the universe 6000 years ago with a 15 billion year history built in? I suppose. I am undecided if this would constitute a deception on God’s part, which raises a doubt. But if we ignore that, and just think about it for a bit, it would be a really strange thing for God to do. Granted, I am not suggesting I can know God’s ways. But I can not imagine one single reason why He would do so.

 

[Dan123]

you cannot see or test historical science in the same way as you can observe current science. So, at best they are theories, but not theories that can be tested.

Jesus rose bodily from the dead, which can be proven historically.

Suppose that sums it up well.

 

[Pattylt]

And Jesus rose bodily from the dead, which can be proven historically.

A correction to this statement. Jesus can be proven to have been raised from the dead theologically but not historically. History can show that people believed that Jesus rose from the dead but no evidence is available to show it happened historically…only theologically. Even Catholic historians agree.

 

[lelinator]

RaisedCatholic:

And Jesus rose bodily from the dead, which can be proven historically.

A correction to this statement. Jesus can be proven to have been raised from the dead theologically but not historically. History can show that people believed that Jesus rose from the dead but no evidence is available to show it happened historically…only theologically. Even Catholic historians agree.

Actually, if one ascribes to the YEC line of reasoning then there’s no evidence that Jesus ever lived at all. Because if it’s possible that the earth was only created 6000 years ago, then by the same reasoning the earth may have been created only five minutes ago. In which case Christ never actually existed, in the same manner that the dinosaurs never actually existed.

Once you start down the path of denying the evidence, then any conclusion that you put forth can be questioned on the same grounds.

 

[rom]

It’s not merely a question of raw elements – it’s also a question of arrangements and proportions of elements. In a “recently created universe”, the presence and prevalence of elements are different than those of a not-recently-created universe.

Why not? I am not sure that you understood me correctly. So, let me put this another way. Suppose the world (that means, the universe) started at time t1 (say 14 billion years ago) at the initial state S1 (maybe just a super-dense, super hot mass). Then it went through a process of cosmic evolution so that at a later time t2 (say 100,000 years ago) it had a new state S2 (with stars, galaxies, solar systems, including the earth with some hominids and other animals and thousands of dead bones left behind by extinct animals). The question is this: If the world did not begin at t1, and therefore no cosmic evolution took place, is it possible for God to create the world out of nothing, ex nihilo, at time t2 at the state S2? In other words, can God create the world out of nothing at time t2 with the same elements and the same proportion of elements, with the same living plants and animals, and with the same fossils left behind by extinct ones, as if the world had begun at time t1 and state S1? I say YES! If God is God, and is infinitely powerful, He can create the world at any state He wants, and He will not need a prior evolution to create the world in that state anymore than He would need a cub to be born and to grow to create a mature lion. Is it likely that He would create the world in that fashion? Maybe not, which is why I am not a YEC. But that does not mean that He couldn’t do it.

If there’s a man on third base, we either assume that he’s there because the game had actually been being played, or that someone duplicitously created the appearance of a game that had been being played.

Yes, it would have that appearance. But I would not thereby think that God wanted to deceive. If there is a crime, we always ask for a motive. So, ask yourself, what might be God’s motive for deceiving us in this manner? What does He get out of it? Short of a bad motive, then there probably was no crime. I’d rather think that He has reasons unknown to us, but deception is not one of them.

I’m always suspicious when someone says “let’s agree to disagree”. It tends to mean “I can’t disprove what you’re saying, but I want to ask you to allow me to think things that you think are unreasonable.”

Hahaha. You are free to think what you want. But I am here to explain and defend my position, not to disprove or convince you. I have done my job. I will let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

 

[rom]

Jesus can be proven to have been raised from the dead theologically but not historically. History can show that people believed that Jesus rose from the dead but no evidence is available to show it happened historically…only theologically. Even Catholic historians agree.

What would constitute historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead? Is it not enough that people saw him dead on Good Friday and saw him alive again a few days after that? These are recorded in the gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles, which we consider as historical documents. Are these not enough? Do we need to have witnesses of the actual resurrection before we can declare the event as historical?

 

[Dan123]

These are recorded in the gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles, which we consider as historical documents.

That’s the bias you’re bringing. You consider them historical accounts and therefore their accounts are historical. It’s circular. There are books written about many fantastical events and even other gods but I assume you consider them non-historical, and therefore not history.

 

[tafan2]

To be fair, that argument only works for one version of the YEC theory. Namely, the one that posits the 15 billion year history is correct, but just created into the universe by God 6000 years ago. Or the one that, in an attempt to have everyone satisfied, ie biblical literalists and folks who believe the scientific record, ends up satisfying no one.

If, I am a biblical literalists with regards to Genesis, your argument fails.

 

[Gorgias]

Why not?

Why is it not “merely a question of raw elements”, but “of arrangements and proportions of elements”?

Because we believe that the universe is well-ordered and rational. We believe that God created a universe that follows certain laws, and which can be observed and from these observations and our God-given rationality, we can deduce true facts about the universe. If God created a universe that had a false appearance, it would imply that we cannot use our rationality in the way that God designed it, and for the purposes that God defined it. We could only make an observation and shrug and say “beats me; God simply made it that way.” That’s more the philosophical stance of the medieval Islamic philosophers, who claimed that the best we can do is look at the world and conclude that God micro-manages the universe.

The question is this: If the world did not begin at t1, and therefore no cosmic evolution took place, is it possible for God to create the world out of nothing, ex nihilo , at time t2 at the state S2?

That’s really not the question. After all, that’s a patently simple question to answer, since it’s really just a re-phrase of the question “is God omnipotent?” (The answer to that question is, of course, “yes!”) That question doesn’t get to the heart of the discussion at hand, however. God’s power isn’t what’s in play…

The question really is, on the other hand, “is God omni-benevolent?” Because if He is, then He doesn’t create a universe designed to trick us.

So, ask yourself, what might be God’s motive for deceiving us in this manner?

Exactly the point. God doesn’t deceive – that is, He has no motive to be something different than what He is: all-good.

But I am here to explain and defend my position, not to disprove or convince you. I have done my job. I will let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

That’s kinda presumptuous, don’t you think? You’re saying that your position is true and holy, and the Holy Spirit will take your arguments and convict us of them?

Hmm… maybe the Holy Spirit will take your job, and convict you of the truth of the contrary position!

That’s the bias you’re bringing. You consider them historical accounts and therefore their accounts are historical. It’s circular.

That’s neither evidence of bias nor circular. Your argument is specious: it’s like saying “you call yourself ‘Dan123’ and therefore, you’re @Dan123 – it’s circular!”

We consider the New Testaments accounts ‘historical’ because that’s the genre in which they’re written – Greco-Roman historical narrative. They’re attested to by other extant authors, and not contradicted by other eyewitness accounts. That’s what makes us conclude that they’re historical accounts!

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

There are books written about many fantastical events and even other gods but I assume you consider them non-historical, and therefore not history.

Different literary genre. The Gospels are greco-roman biographies. On the other hand, no one has ever written an historical biography of Hercules.

 

[Pattylt]

On the other hand, no one has ever written an historical biography of Hercules.

But there are historical biographies of several ancient people and gods that we do have. No historian AFAIK thinks Romulus existed yet there are entire biographies of him and his brother Remus. We have biographies of Caesar that have some historical information as well as obviously fantastical and mythological information.

Every Gospel writer believed that Jesus rose. This is a bias that historians can’t overlook and there are no outside the faith witnesses. I won’t get into the arguments of the Gospel writers except to say the were not witnesses but writers of oral tradition of witnesses. This all causes problems for historians. No other verification of the resurrection except for die hard believers. Any miraculous event is beyond the scope of historical verification and isn’t history. That doesn’t mean it CANT have happened. It means it can not be historically stated.

 

[rom]

Because we believe that the universe is well-ordered and rational. We believe that God created a universe that follows certain laws, and which can be observed and from these observations and our God-given rationality, we can deduce true facts about the universe. If God created a universe that had a false appearance, it would imply that we cannot use our rationality in the way that God designed it, and for the purposes that God defined it.

Before I proceed, let me say that I may not be the best person to speak for YEC because, as I stated from day one, I am not a Young Earth Creationist and, therefore, I do not have all the arguments that the YEC supporters have collected to defend their position. So far I have limited myself into stating and defending the possibility of God creating the world at a later time t2 (which could be 50,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, who knows?) rather than an early time t1 (such as 14 billion years ago). Now, if the world began at time t2, I contend that what you stated (quoted above) would be correct, and our God-given rationality should still permit us to deduce true facts about the universe. However, I suspect that the true defenders of YEC (many of whom also possess a doctorate in their science-related field) would probably question or reject some of the models and dating methods used by many opponents of YEC, so that the “false appearance” that you thought would invalidate the YEC hypothesis would actually be resolved. For example, they would not see the fossils as evidence for animals that never existed, but evidence for animals that perished during the Great Flood. It is true, though, that many of the supporters of YEC are Bible-based Christians, and there is always that strong tendency on our part to view their judgments as biased by their faith. However, I feel that if anyone wants to criticize the YEC hypothesis, then he/she should pick up their published books and criticize their science on their own grounds. Simply saying that the YEC is an “impossible conjecture” is not good enough. The supporters of YEC hypothesis do not see the geological and paleontological data as “tricks” of God almighty, but as evidences supporting their hypothesis.

That’s kinda presumptuous, don’t you think? You’re saying that your position is true and holy, and the Holy Spirit will take your arguments and convict us of them?

I did not say that. My point is that whether a person sees the light or not is really more God’s work than mine. I try to help by explaining and defending the truth as I perceive it, but in the last analysis it is still God’s grace which convinces and converts a person.

 

[rom]

Every Gospel writer believed that Jesus rose.

This is because they all met Him after the resurrection.

This is a bias that historians can’t overlook and there are no outside the faith witnesses.

St. Paul was an “outside the faith” witness. In fact he was a great persecutor of Christians before our Lord appeared to him on his way to Damascus.

I won’t get into the arguments of the Gospel writers except to say the were not witnesses but writers of oral tradition of witnesses.

Two of the Gospel writers – St. Matthew and St. John - were Apostles. They wrote mostly from their own witness of Christ, instead of relying solely on the oral tradition of other witnesses.

This all causes problems for historians. No other verification of the resurrection except for die hard believers.

That is because, just like St. Paul, many of those who weren’t believers also converted and became believers after they saw our Lord alive again after three days.

Any miraculous event is beyond the scope of historical verification and isn’t history. That doesn’t mean it CANT have happened. It means it can not be historically stated.

This is false. Even outside the gospel there are miraculous cases that have been documented, and are considered part of history. For example, the Battle of Lepanto.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You made a positive statement. That evolutionary theories can’t be tested. Show me one.

The positive statement is that evolutionary theories can be tested. “Can’t” is a negative statement, not a positive one.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Actually, if one ascribes to the YEC line of reasoning then there’s no evidence that Jesus ever lived at all. Because if it’s possible that the earth was only created 6000 years ago, then by the same reasoning the earth may have been created only five minutes ago. In which case Christ never actually existed, in the same manner that the dinosaurs never actually existed.

But that’s not YEC theology, because a 6,000 year existence of the earth & universe is based on a literal reading of Genesis 1 & 2, as well as the testimony of Jesus that God created mankind & the first marriage in this same literal 6-day Creation week. There is no Scriptural support for the universe being around for 5 minutes. That is why this argument fails.