Young Earth Creationism Amongst Protestants.

[East_Anglican]

If you study gravity and it’s effects on time we know that time travels faster with less gravity. So in the outermost parts of the universe where gravity is virtually non-existent GOD would have created let’s say all these stars you are referencing. To the stars themselves the passage of time would be billions of years. But as you draw closer to the earth where time slows down dramatically it’s no longer billions of years to someone on the face of the earth. It may only be thousands.

How do you define time?

 

[East_Anglican]

Perhaps you assume that everything was as you expect it ought to be. But perhaps you’ll discover a new field of science with new physics.

The laws of physics do not change. They are written in stone by the god who wrote them.

They are canstant as the one who made them is constant.

They are to precise to be accidental.

 

[Thing]

How many people have you heard of who have developed a belief in Santa Claus in adulthood?

Or the tooth fairy?

To an atheist all imaginary beings are equal. Equally imaginary. So I feel you can replace the imaginary being ‘God’ with the imaginary being ‘santa claus’. What I don’t understand is why atheists don’t get upset when they hear stories about the Tooth Fairy.

 

[iKnighty]

Perhaps you assume that everything was as you expect it ought to be. But perhaps you’ll discover a new field of science with new physics.

I’m sorry but I didn’t get what you wrote.

 

[JonNC]

It’s probably fringe denominations and groups that are more susceptable to it. Groups that haven’t looked at Church History and worked out Galileo was right.

Well, here’s what my LCMS says (talk about hedging).

Q. What is the LCMS position regarding the age of the earth? Must we accept literally the creation account that points in the direction of a relatively young earth, given the amount of scientific evidence that concludes the earth’s age to be in the billions of years?
A. The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod does not have an official position on the precise “age of the earth,” since the Bible itself does not tell us how old the earth is. Nor is it the Synod’s position that everything in the Bible is to be understood “literally.” There is much in the Bible that clearly purports not to be understood literally–but this must be determined by the Bible itself, not by science or human reason. There is nothing in the Bible itself to suggest that the creation account is not meant to be taken literally.

The Synod has affirmed the belief, therefore, based on Scripture’s account of creation in the book of Genesis and other clear passages of Scripture, that “God by the almighty power of His Word created all things in six days by a series of creative acts,” that “Adam and Eve were real, historical human beings, the first two people in the world,” and that “we must confess what St. Paul says in Romans 5:12” about the origin of sin through Adam as described in Genesis 3 (1967 Synodical Resolution 2-31). The Synod has also, therefore, stated that it rejects “all those world views, philosophical theories, exegetical interpretations and other hypotheses which pervert these biblical teachings and thus obscure the Gospel” (1967 Synodical Resolution 2-31).

At the same time, the Synod firmly believes that there can be no actual contradiction between genuine scientific truth and the Bible. When it comes to the issue of the age of the earth, several possibilities exist for “harmonizing” Biblical teachings with scientific studies (e.g., God created the world in an already “mature” state, so that scientific “data” leads one to the conclusion that it is older than it actually is, etc.)

Numerous books are available that discuss these issues in more detail. One of these is “Studies in Creation” by John Klotz (1985), available by calling Concordia Publishing House (1-800-325-3040), and asking for stock no. 12-3004.
/QUOTE]

Jon

 

[East_Anglican]

To an atheist all imaginary beings are equal. Equally imaginary. So I feel you can replace the imaginary being ‘God’ with the imaginary being ‘santa claus’. What I don’t understand is why atheists don’t get upset when they hear stories about the Tooth Fairy.

 

[iKnighty]

To an atheist all imaginary beings are equal. Equally imaginary. So I feel you can replace the imaginary being ‘God’ with the imaginary being ‘santa claus’. What I don’t understand is why atheists don’t get upset when they hear stories about the Tooth Fairy.

Maybe because the tooth fairy doesn’t tell you how to live your live?
That appears, to me, what some atheists have against Christianity, they don’t agree with what they see as a tyrant, when he [God] actually isn’t a tyrant or they’d be all dead or brainwashed by now.

 

[Thing]

The laws of physics do not change. They are written in stone by the god who wrote them.

They are canstant as the one who made them is constant.

They are to precise to be accidental.

Our understanding of everything may not be complete yet, though creation is indeed perfect, we are not, nor is science.

What are the laws of physics exactly. Will Newtonian physics explain the world of quantum physics; are the laws of Quantum physics 100% accurate, perhaps theres a tiny bit of uncertainty there, which in the future will be answered fully in a whole New Grand Universal Law of Physics, something which might explain to me what the heck gravity is anyway, and such like things.

By the way, what is a constant, an imaginary made-up number which is used to make the sums work?

 

[East_Anglican]

Well, here’s what my LCMS says (talk about hedging).

Q. What is the LCMS position regarding the age of the earth? Must we accept literally the creation account that points in the direction of a relatively young earth, given the amount of scientific evidence that concludes the earth’s age to be in the billions of years?

 

[JonNC]

Think of the bandwidth saved if they did.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It’s probably fringe denominations and groups that are more susceptable to it. Groups that haven’t looked at Church History and worked out Galileo was right.

It seems that YEC’ers are most always fundamentalists in their personal theology. I was literally floored when I came here and found that there were RC’s who were YEC’ers. But then, I find that many RC converts are from fundamentalist type Protestant denominations, and apparently have carried this with them. The fact that the Vatican so far has been lest than forthcoming with a definitive statement gives such folks the license they need to continue believing the unbelievable. This has been my experience in any case. No doubt there are extreme orthodox who sometimes hold on to this as well.

 

[cerad]

cerad;5081452,

I know that as an Athiest you are trying to mock YEC’s but I can’t resist replying seriously to your post because some people zactually come out with such nonsense…

On the contrary, I respect the typical YEC more than I do your basic God of the Gapper. For example, the YECer will insist that God poofed Adam and Eve into existence. None of this evolution stuff for her. Just a definitive statement of faith even if it makes no sense at all.

Contrast this with your more enlightened Catholic. “I accept evolution” they proudly state. Why? Because the pope says they can. Wow the pope. Now the previous pope was highly skilled in many areas. I mean no one could debark from a plane and kiss the tarmac as well as he could. Years of training and education no doubt. But does that really make the pope a trusted source for science? I don’t think so.

And here is the kicker. Adam and Eve have to be an exception. Whats up with that? Either accept science or reject it but don’t waffle around with woo factors.

But the universe still exploded into being at exactly the right speed.

Again the universe did not explode. It expanded. Think balloon not dynamite.

Except he said “Let light be” and it was.

So this rules out creating light in transit? Must be a translation thing.

A test of what exactly? God wasn’t sure if it would work?

A test of faith of course. God says one thing but the universe says another. Who you going to believe?

Theologically heretical. Satan is the destroyer and not the creator.

Well, Satan could have taken the light God created and sped it up until it got here then slowed it back down. Tricky sort of entity is Satan.

 

[GrammyX4]

I am certainly neither a scientist or a theologian, but here is my take on this matter: God can do anything anyway He wants! When Jesus changed the water into wine during the wedding feast in Cana, the wine had all the attributes of actual wine. Anyone who was drinking it would certainly think that it had been fermenting (or whatever the grapes do to make wine) for some time. So was it a lie for Jesus to make something seem old that He had literally just created? When God created man (assuming you take the creation account literally) He created a person who appeared to be many years old (an adult), but this person had literally just been formed. So, let’s assume for moment that the young earth creationists are correct: Couldn’t God, when He placed the stars in the sky, have immediately caused their light to reach the earth? Of course He could have, He is God! I don’t see this as a “lie” from God, God cannot and does not lie. It was a miracle. Perhaps God performed this miracle as a way for man (Adam) to immediately be able to enjoy the beauty of the created universe.

Of course, we can never know why God does something. It is probably none of our business! But I think we can be assured that He had his own reason and it had nothing to do with telling a lie.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Everyone looks silly to someone. Atheists spend millions writing books making documentaries etc. explaining why they do not believe in -]Santa Claus /-]God.

And yet they can`t answer the most simple question…how did anything originate from nothing?

 

[iKnighty]

And yet they can`t answer the most simple question…how did anything originate from nothing?

Just because you can answer it doesn’t mean in your answer is right… They prefer to act intelligently and not assume anything until the necessary evidence is gathered.

Hasn’t energy and matter existed since before the Big Bang, since before there was even time and before our laws of physics applied?
Why should we apply our ‘law’ of ‘only nothing can come from nothing’ to it?

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Just because you can answer it doesn’t mean in your answer is right… They prefer to act intelligently and not assume anything until the necessary evidence is gathered.

Hasn’t energy and matter existed since before the Big Bang, since before there was even time and before our laws of physics applied?
Why should we apply our ‘law’ of ‘only nothing can come from nothing’ to it?

Where did energy and matter come from? And I`m not saying I know my answer is right, its just the most logical one. This is why we have no excuse for not believing in God. God is the only answer to fill in the gaps.

You see, the laws of gravity is also just a theory, we can`t see it, feel it, nor taste it, but there is no other better explanation for it. So if you disbelif in this theory and try to jump out of a 1 first floor balcony you can´t say nobody warned you.

 

[kalt]

On the contrary, I respect the typical YEC more than I do your basic God of the Gapper. For example, the YECer will insist that God poofed Adam and Eve into existence. None of this evolution stuff for her. Just a definitive statement of faith even if it makes no sense at all.

Contrast this with your more enlightened Catholic. “I accept evolution” they proudly state. Why? Because the pope says they can. Wow the pope. Now the previous pope was highly skilled in many areas. I mean no one could debark from a plane and kiss the tarmac as well as he could. Years of training and education no doubt. But does that really make the pope a trusted source for science? I don’t think so.

And here is the kicker. Adam and Eve have to be an exception. Whats up with that? Either accept science or reject it but don’t waffle around with woo factors.

Catholics view Adam and Eve as an exception to evolution? Which Catholic have you been talking to?

Catholics “accepted” evolution long before PJPII was elected.

I don’t know anyone who accepted evolution because PJPII accepted it. In fact, I think he only said that it’s a theory worthy of study–or something like that.

Those who didn’t accept it before, didn’t accept it after his statement.

Well, that’s my rl experience with Catholics.

Where did you run into Catholics who accept evolution fact because PJPII said it’s worthy of study? Did they say this, or are you assuming that that’s their reasoning. Did you talk to them before the statement and then again after?

Again the universe did not explode. It expanded. Think balloon not dynamite.

So this rules out creating light in transit? Must be a translation thing.

A test of faith of course. God says one thing but the universe says another. Who you going to believe?

Actually, only those who read Genesis literally think that God says one thing and the universe says another. Catholics don’t interpret Gensis literally.

Well, Satan could have taken the light God created and sped it up until it got here then slowed it back down. Tricky sort of entity is Satan.

 

[iKnighty]

Where did energy and matter come from? And I`m not saying I know my answer is right, its just the most logical one. This is why we have no excuse for not believing in God. God is the only answer to fill in the gaps.

You see, the laws of gravity is also just a theory, we can`t see it, feel it, nor taste it, but there is no other better explanation for it. So if you disbelif in this theory and try to jump out of a 1 first floor balcony you can´t say nobody warned you.

God of the gaps fallacy, you’re committing it.

Also, God isn’t the best explanation. The best explanation would be a Deist god who doesn’t intervene as much as the Abrahamic god does.

You’re saying the existence of God is theoretical in the same way gravity is? You’re wrong. Gravity is supported by emperical evidence, a god as the first cause is only supported by a philosophical proof that doesn’t take into account the fact that we can’t apply our experiences to when the laws of this universe break down (the pre-Big Bang ‘existence’).

 

[kalt]

Where did energy and matter come from? And I`m not saying I know my answer is right, its just the most logical one. This is why we have no excuse for not believing in God. God is the only answer to fill in the gaps.

You see, the laws of gravity is also just a theory, we can`t see it, feel it, nor taste it, but there is no other better explanation for it. So if you disbelif in this theory and try to jump out of a 1 first floor balcony you can´t say nobody warned you.

I think this is where so many amateur scientists get tripped up. They try their darndest to sound like the big guns in science, by saying “I don’t know.”, as if that is the ultimate in scientific honesty.

What they don’t seem as comfortable saying, probably because they don’t have he expertise they wish others to believe they have, is “I think”.

Without a working theory, you can’t learn.

You can’t be restricted by the theory, but you need it to build on. If you don’t think in terms of A, you can’t get to B. To ask a good question, you have to “think” something. And you have to have good, scientific reason to “think” it, or the question is no good.

So, “I think the Earth is 6,000 years old.” may be your personal thought, but unless your “theory” is based on good science, your questions won’t yeild good answers.

The same for our pseudo-scientists who try so hard to sound informed by saying “I don’t know.” If you know nothing, you can’t ask anything. If you have no theory, you are working on nothing.

All of us can read the work of others and admit “I don’t know.”

 

[Benjamin8o8]

God of the gaps fallacy, you’re committing it.

Also, God isn’t the best explanation. The best explanation would be a Deist god who doesn’t intervene as much as the Abrahamic god does.

You’re saying the existence of God is theoretical in the same way gravity is? You’re wrong. Gravity is supported by emperical evidence, a god as the first cause is only supported by a philosophical proof that doesn’t take into account the fact that we can’t apply our experiences to when the laws of this universe break down (the pre-Big Bang ‘existence’).

God is beyond all laws, so its not like a bunch of scientist can actually perform experience to see if He truly exists. God is beyond that. It`s just logic that God is the Author of everything that exists. If you know just a little bit of math, the propability that everything evoloved by chance is technically impossible.

The God of Abaham intervened through His prophters that revealed His words to us. Its our choice wether to accept them or not. But if you do hard research, I don´t know anybody why they wouldn`t.

“The God of Isreal is One, love your God with all of your heart, all of strenth, and with all of your soul”

This is what we Chrstians tend to do. We know we can´t see God, or test His existence, but we feel His love towards us and its only right to return the favor. Because that is basically the only thing He askes of us. Just like a father dosen´t much of his younger son/daugther besides their love.

God Bless.