YEC without the bible, possible?

Hello Meldinoor,
It may not be appropriate on this thread & I may have to start another for you to answer this. But can I mirror the same question back to you. If there existed a world where everyone was a christian & TOE did not exist, would there be enough textual evidence for you to conclude, from a plain reading of genesis, that God created the world billions of years ago? Would the long ages just jump out of the pages at you? Would you look for evidence of long ages in the text, if it were not for the naturalists/materialists/atheists/OEC claiming they exist?Just something for you to consider, while we are still examining the subtle points of my reply to your original question.

While you didn't ask me, I would say that the answer would be No. You just have to look back at Europe in the Middle ages to answer this. In short, you arrive at a Young earth by reading the Bible and at an old earth when looking at the evidence.

Hello Meldinoor,
I agree, agressive behaviour stifle's debate. I just don't bother answering other posts simply because of their tone. I've learned that it's just not worth it. Some may see this as evading tough questions. No, just evading abuse. Good question. I guess I couldn't decide......if we were to rely on scientific evidence alone. Firstly, science has not yet revealed 'all' knowledge, so both beliefs are based on incomplete knowledge, so there is always the element of doubt. Both could be wrong.Secondly, the information that is known, could be interpreted a number of different ways. Not only is there debate between evolutionists & creationists over evidence, but there is debate amongst evolutionists and debate amongst creationists, over what each piece of evidence could mean.So looking at all this as an impartial non-scientist outsider, I'll stick with my original answer, that I could not discern and probably would not have been convinced either way.There are still a few things we need to discuss about the nature of the scientific method. We are already agreed that our mind can influence what we see. But there is alot more too this. The scientific method is an excellent way of discovering how this world works, but it is limited to this. It should not be presented as the ultimate infallible method to discover all truth.In regards to historical events, which would provide more conclusive evidence, an archaeologist picking through rubble, or a book recording an eye witness account? Sorry, I thought the question was mainly about the differing % between scientist YEC & laymen YEC. I suspect that you are referring to the poll which indicates, that a greater percentage of scientists, than the general population, believe evolution. Is this what you mean?
There is alot in answering this and your following questions, and I may not do justice to it, but will have a go. The poll may not take into account the difference between the different christian factions, and whether they say they are christian because their parents were, or because they were truly saved. I'd be interested to know just what questions were used in the poll, to determine this. There may be more people counted as being christian in the general population, than what there actually were.Is there a breakdown of figures in the poll, showing the total percentage of christian scientist? There could be a sociological reasons for more non christians in the sciences than christian. Too many unanswerable questions about this poll to give definate answers.Perhapps the reason why most educated people accept evolution, is for the same reason why most uneducated people accept it. If they do not accept that there is a God, and believe there can only ever be a natural explanation for our existance, then evolution would appear the most plausible theory. Now matter how highly educated you are, the problem still exists of the prior acceptance that there can only ever be a natural explanation for our existance. You may be aware of the famous quote by Lewontin 'that materialism is an absolute','we are forced by our a priori adherance to material causes'. And also from Dr Scott Todd: 'Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it it not naturalistic.' Many christians do accept evolution, but are still thought of as deluded by most non-christian evolutionist, for clinging to a divine being in spite of the 'overwhelming' evidence in favour of a purely natural explanation. A God who created through an evolutionary process, is indistinguishable from no God at all. Evolution, though originally a biological theory, is now a figurehead term, which includes all disciplines that seek to describe how everything came to be as it is now, buy natural means alone. How can this be combined with a belief that we were created by a supernatural being? I can't see how. Christians who accept evolution are not fooling the non-christian evolutionists. I think many evolutionists respect YEC more than OEC, because they are at least consistent.That's enough for now. I still want to reply to the rest of you post, but just keep running out of time.

quote:

---

I don't see why YEC is a necessary conclusion to reach, even if you just look at scripture.

---

I did not say it was a necessary or a valid conclusion. I don't believe it in the exact way that many do.I believe that God created Adam and Eve (immortal, guiltless, and accountable (i.e, with a soul)) and that they eventually transgressed a law of God, were held accountable and eventually died both spiritually and physically. We can come back to the immortal later if that is desired.I also believe that God organized the Earth from very old material. I have seen what I believe the correct translation of the Hebrew to be organized instead.However, I do believe that the Earth as an entity is young. I have demonstrated elsewhere here that the atmosphere of the Earth is around 13,600 years old. So, I am a young Earth (i.e, a usable entity) organized and not a young earth (a materially existent) creationist.A pleasure always to talk with you.Edited by BobAliceEve, : Changed "young Earth creationist" to "young Earth organized".

So you are going to disparage the scientific method as "insufficient" and come up with evidence for YEC without the bible.You can have...

​

...magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, faked moon landings, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, a flat or hollow earth, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, crop circles, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, geocentrism, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, televangelists, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.

Without the scientific method that's the kind of nonsense you're left with.Thanks. I'll stick with the scientific method.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Any chance may address any of my points I made in Message 35?You made a number of claims and assertions that you have not backed up at all. Maybe address at least one?From Message 48So if I expect evidence I am being agressive and abusive? People can spout all day long. The true test is providing evidence for assertions. No matter what you claim it is evading the tough questions.Edited by Theodoric, : Added msg 48 comment

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Only the creationist side of the evo/cre debate, and the people they have hoodwinked, say this. Biologists don't. Astronomers and geologists don't. Most uneducated people in the US accept Special Creation. Or did you not type what you meant to say there?

Hello Minority, Let me just tackle the use of the word "belief" here. Evolution is a scientific theory, in that it's based off evidence. True, human imagination is involved in fitting the evidence together, so to a certain extent it might be called a belief as well.Creationism on the other hand is based on a certain interpretation of Genesis. Creationists were opposing evolution even before they (the creationists) started doing science to support their position. Creationism therefore started out 100% as a faith issue.I am reluctant to refer to both collectively as "beliefs" for this reason, but for the sake of argument I will let that point pass.If you are at least familiar with the calculus concept of limits, the following is an analogy I like to use for science:A function may approach a value that is not defined for a given value of x. But as we get closer and closer to that value, the function gets closer and closer to its limit.In a similar sense, science may never give us all the information, but as we gain more and more evidence, it will get closer and closer to the truth. We might not know everything about evolution yet, but we don't have to. Because, for the past 150yrs, new evidence has provided more and more support for the theory, and more and more insights into how it works. One could say we are "approaching" the Theory of Evolution, or some ultimate form thereof.Whether or not you agree with the evidence is the subject of another thread. But do you see what I mean when I say that we don't need all the information to reach a conclusion? If more and more evidence kept pointing toward a young earth, it would be evident that the truth is approximately what YECs are telling us. In regards to a murder-rape trial, which would provide more conclusive evidence, a DNA test + fingerprints + items left by the killer at the scene of trial, or an eye-witness account?To answer your question, an archaeologist picking through rubble, combined with a number of corroborating eyewitness accounts would be nice. I'd go with an archaeologists findings over a poetical description of an event any day. (And historically, eyewitness accounts are almost always embellished) Usually the facts are straightforward. If there's disagreement among non-creationist scientists, it's usually about subtleties, or completely unrelated to the truth of evolution or the age of the earth. It is not presented as the ultimate infallible method to discover all truth by any sane person. Give me a scientist who claims this. Of course we can never know everything! But this whole discussion is related to the physical world!!! Science deals with physical evidence and physical evidence is what leads them to their conclusions. We are not talking about whether the pavement of heaven is pure gold or fool's gold. We're talking about how old rocks are, the age of stars and fossils. The scientific method is more than adequate for answering such questions. Oh dear, you've equated creationism with Christianity again. The poll was not about how many scientists opposed to laymen are Christians, but simply how many believe the earth is 10,000 years old or less. As I've already pointed out, an evangelical born-again Christian can be an "evolutionist". Because only Christians (and Muslims and Jews and 7th day adventists, but they are all minorities in the US) are YECs I think most of the 44% were Christians. Now, if we make the assumption that 50% of Americans are Christian (this poll make it more like 70%, but for reasons you just gave let's just say 50%)Religious identification in the U.S.Now if we say that 50% of Americans are Christians, and American scientists are drawn from the American people, we can make the assumption that about 50% of American scientists are Christians. (This survey of unknown accuracy would put the number much higher, at 70%, but let's just say 50% as our estimate)http://www.godandscience.org/...are_scientists_atheists.htmlSo if 50% of scientists are Christians (and probably more), then only 10% of scientists who are Christians are YECs. I think we have shown that most American scientists do not reject God. Even if the sincerity of their belief can not be measured 100%, we can still assume that a fair share are evangelical Christians. (Note: To make things simpler, I am only discussing American numbers) And most of these are evolutionists. Scientists are trained to be impartial. Most outsiders are not. Except that most (American) scientists do not reject God, and almost all of them accept evolution. With all due respect, the numbers don't fit your explanation. Except, according to the survey, 70% of scientists do not reject God. Some individual scientists, like Dawkins and Lewontin, do reject God, but they do not represent all of science.I will however, in a way, defend Scott Todd's statement. First of all, please notice that Scott Todd is by no means saying that there is evidence for design. He is referring to a hypothetical circumstance. Having said that: Science can only deal with the physical world. For science to continue, they can never simply assume that, just because they can't understand something, it has a supernatural causal agent.Take diseases for instance. Pasteur is often credited for the Germ Theory of Disease. It was very controversial at the time, that small creatures, invisible to the eye, cause diseases. If Pasteur had simply said: "Goddidit" we'd never have understood how diseases work, and we'd never have developed modern medicine. If Newton had ignored gravity and simply said: Goddidit, we'd never have Newtonian physics.If we, when faced with anything we don't understand just say (you guessed it) Goddidit!, we will never make any further progress. Maybe we will one day come to a point when science can not provide an answer, but until we know that we've reached that point, science has to continue looking for answers within the natural realm.That said, most scientists are not necessarily naturalistic in their every day thinking. As I think I've shown you, in the States, most scientists are Christian. But their job requires them to seek explanations within their field.If YEC was true, however, I'd expect these "natural" explanations to be much closer to a 6000yr old earth. From what authority do you take it that non-Christian scientists call Christian evolutionists "deluded"? (Besides Dawkins, but that's because he's a radical atheist, not just a scientist)
I can't recall reading any science textbooks that go off on a sidenote to discuss how deluded Christians are. On the other hand, a lot of creationist literature that I've read likes to call scientists overly biased, naturalists, or ignorant. YECs are far from consistent among each other. Unfortunately, I've gotta be going to work, but I'll try to elaborate on this point when I return.Having said that, evolution does not rule out a supernatural causal agent who sets everything in motion. We don't have the right to decide how God should create. If he prefers to create a wondrous machine (the universe) and life that develops itself, then I am in awe of that. If God has to intervene every ten minutes (sorry, every day) to add things to his creation, then that's fine too, but it doesn't fit the evidence I've seen.Evolution does not have to be distinguishable from a world created by God, because evolution may well be the vehicle used by God to create the amazing diversity we have today. Genesis certainly doesn't tell us how the world was created, it only offers a vague categorizer termed "a day" that could really mean anything. But that's a topic for another thread.Thank you Minority.

That would depend an awful lot on the book, and the evidence to support if 1) it truly was an eyewitness account, and 2) what agendas the eyewitness(es)/authors claiming to be so had when they wrote it. I would think that diaries of the events of, say, World War II, would differ on some major points if one was written by a Brit and another by a German, even if you were certain that both were authentic first-person accounts.And we have nothing at all in any Christianity's holy books even remotely approaching an eyewitness account of anything before, say, 800 BC. Certainly not of "creation."

That Scott Todd reference was a quote-mining job. Somebody tried springing it on me 7 years ago, so I read the original source (Are you listening, Minority Report? That's a practice that you need to adopt.). Here's from the email where I passed that info on to somebody else:

quote:

---

In the "Kurt Wise" thread at 4/29/2002 9:03 PM, EdenNod sent:
---
I found this and wondered if Dawkins would apply the same standard to a
fellow megaevo from Kansas as he did to Kurt. Read Scott Todd’s rejection of
a designer regardless of the evidence.

​

http://www.answersingenesis.org/...rea/tools/quotes/todd.asp

​

---

​

Taking that link, I found this at the Answers in Genesis (AiG) site:

​

---

​

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:

​

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is
excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’

​

Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

​

---

​

Then I did something that no creationist ever seems to think of doing: I went
to the primary source.

​

Dr. Todd's letter to the editor was regarding the then-recent events in
Kansas regarding the teaching of evolution. He told of having witnessed a
debate in which neither side understood what the other side was saying.
After examining and comparing where the two sides agreed and differed, he
concluded:

​

"The lesson to be learned from the events in Kansas is that science educators
everywhere must do a better job of teaching evolution. It must be made clear
that the evidence supporting the mechanism of evolution is empirical and
proven, but that speciation and natural history are derived from the
admittedly weaker evidence of observation. The fact that one cannot
reproduce the experiment does not diminish the validity of macro-evolution,
but the observed phenomena supporting the theory must be presented more
clearly.
"Additionally, one must question the interpretation of the observed phenomena
and discuss the weaknesses of the model. Honest scientists are far more
inspiring than defensive ones who scoff arrogantly at the masses and fear
that discussing the problems of macro-evolutionary theory will weaken general
acceptance of it. On the contrary, free debate is more likely to encourage
the curious to seek solutions. Most important, it should be made clear in
the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's
existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably).
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is
excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the
scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends
naturalism."

​

You can see how AiG had misquoted Dr. Todd by lifting him out of context.

---

Now, I wonder what Lewontin had actually said.

You did not ask me either but I would like to expand the question:Would old earth or young earth be the perceived duration by:
- Adam and Eve post exit from the Garden of Eden
- Noah at the flood
- Moses while receiving Genesis by revelation
- Jesus at the end of the Old Testament timeThe even better question is always, would these people tell you that Adam and Eve were created by God. The age of the earth does not matter if the creation happened.

Four of the five people mentioned were mere mortals. There is no way to answer this question, and neither do we have reason to believe that they knew any better than we do (except Jesus, who may have been omniscient). In the hypothetical situation where YEC is correct, Adam and Eve may have known, but since evidence suggests that Adam and Eve evolved, I'd venture a guess that they wouldn't have known the subtleties of their own creation.What's the point of the question anyway?

Thanks for your input, dwise Glad you're following this thread. I started a new thread per our earlier discussion here. It's titled: "Are creationists shooting themselves in the foot?" and can be found here: http://EvC Forum: Are Creationists shooting themselves in the foot? -->EvC Forum: Are Creationists shooting themselves in the foot?It sounds like you might have some knowledge and possibly examples for that thread. Feel free to join in if you have the time.

Interesting question, Minority, and fair enough since it is basically what I asked of you. If I did not know of the evidence for evolution, I doubt if I'd ponder the meaning of the days in Genesis. I do find it remarkable that many early theologians questioned the idea of 24-hour creation days even before there was any conclusive evidence for the age of the earth.I believe Genesis is not meant to be read as a science textbook. Clearly, it was not the intention of the writers, or of God, that we should learn of the exact processes of our origins from the Bible. Genesis is supposed to tell us of how God was ultimately responsible for all that came to be.Likewise, God is omniscient, therefore he could have told us about germs, he could have taught us to build computers, air planes, lunar landers, but he didn't. It is something very much akin to free will that we are left to explore the countless, often surprising mysteries of our universe.I think the Bible tells us the basics of what we need to know. It tells us the tenets of our faith, it describes God and his involvement with humanity throughout history. But other than that, it leaves a lot to be explored by us.So, I think if there was evidence for a young earth, I'd interpret Genesis as an account of a recent creation, since Genesis doesn't give us that piece of the puzzle. Since evidence has convinced me of an ancient world, I interpret Genesis to mean an ancient creation. By no means do I discern between the two possibilities by using Genesis.Does that answer your question?

I do not define "myth" as "false". I tend to follow the definition as I imperfectly understand Joseph Campbell (aye, laddie, ye actually heard a member of Clan Donald accepting the word of a member of Clan Campbell, that den of treachery against Scots): the role of myth is to explore our most fundamental questions of who we are and how we are related to the world around us (I did mention "imperfect", didn't I?)The first chapters of Genesis do just that. Now the question is whether those first chapters would need to be literally true. Because if they had to be literally true, then they couldn't really contain the greater truth that being myth would require of them.As an example, let's consider a modern myth: where babies come from. When parents try to describe this to their small children, how scientifically accurate are those descriptions? And how much sense would a scientific explanation make to a small child? Instead, we have storks and cabbage patches and who knows what else. But the true myth (yes, myths are very true, just so long as you don't insist that they be taken literally) of where babies come from is this: "Your mommy and I loved each other so much, that we needed somebody else to share our love with, so we made you."That is basically saying what Genesis says. So why can't Genesis be read as a proper myth (which it is) instead of being forced to be taken literally?Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.