Constructive discussion...YE and OE

[jillian]

So I figure we've got a good sampling of Young Earth and Old Earth creationists here and I was hoping we could have some good discussions about it. Why do you believe the way you believe? If you believe in creation do you believe in macro or micro evolution? Evolution at all? Can we please keep it friendly too :) I really do want everyone's different perspectives.

[UnsinkableKristen]

Can we please keep it friendly too :)

 

 

:lol:

[jillian]

:lol:

It's a hope lol. I know it's kind of a hot topic, but for the most part everyone I've seen post here is eloquent and well spoken so hopefully it won't turn into "well no you are wrong and I'm right na-na-na-neener-neener" ya know?

[deacongirl]

:lurk5::lol:

[Chris in VA]

How long have you been here?

 

(from one who's been here long enough to know better...:D)

[jillian]

How long have you been here?

 

(from one who's been here long enough to know better...:D)

Joined in 2009 but have taken breaks (some longer than others).

[Parrothead]

Okay, I'll bite. Old earth creationist who believes in theistic evolution. Considering the science, it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

Next.

[jillian]

I am old earth creationist who believes in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. I absolutely believe that strong traits are passed on through reproduction but there isn't enough to change species from squirrels to monkeys to people (or however, that's just the first sequence that popped into my mind).

[MSNative]

I believe the moderators just opened a bottle of something. Paterno, McQueary, objecting to Veteran's Day, etc. We are pushin' them over the edge! :)

[Spy Car]

As long as no one mentions shopping carts we ought to be OK :D

 

Bill

[leeannpal]

Okay, I'll bite. Old earth creationist who believes in theistic evolution. Considering the science, it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

Next.

 

:iagree:

[Jen500]

Bill, you are sneaky. You just did mention sho%%ing c@rts.

[Spy Car]

Bill, you are sneaky. You just did mention sho%%ing c@rts.

 

Drat! :D

 

We are doomed :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[LittleIzumi]

Okay, I'll bite. Old earth creationist who believes in theistic evolution. Considering the science, it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

Next.

 

:iagree:

 

*hands out kilts just in case*

[AvasMom]

Theistic evolutionist here. Oh and we take our shoes off in the house. I won't post with people who don't. Just sayin'. :D

[HRAAB]

Old earth creationist. I accept evolution but always expect new discoveries. I do not believe in the evolution of the soul, though.

[Tiberia]

I'm working through this issue myself right now. I'm studying the history of evolutionary thought and some of the science of it. I want to know how evolution and age of the Earth became such hot buttons in science and religion that people (some, not all) on both sides can turn into raging maniacs who call names and insult each other (not here, of course:001_smile:). I'd like to objectively look at the facts and the history, if that's even possible.

 

Evolution doesn't add up for me yet. I believe in micro-evolution- species adapting over time to survive. But I can't yet say I believe in macro-evolution - species turning into other species. As for age of the earth, I think it's somewhere in the middle. (That would make me a Middle Earther?)

 

Whatever happened, I believe God did it. I also believe he set it up to be studied and understood by scientists. I believe all science points to God, but I understand that (some) scientists want to take God out of the equation as far as explaining how things work. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't see that as an assault on my faith.

 

I know that's not really an answer for you, but it's where I'm at on the journey. Like I said, I'm just starting studying all this and trying to shed the rhetoric I've heard from both sides.

[MSNative]

Drat! :D

 

We are doomed :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

 

Bill - is that the London Olympics stripe poster in your avatar? Boy, first shopping carts, now this. ;)

[Wheres Toto]

Old Earth. I believe there may have been some guiding force behind it but don't really speculate on what form that might have taken. I accept the science of evolution with the understanding that we don't know everything and the expectation that new things are being discovered all the time.

[jillian]

I'm working through this issue myself right now. I'm studying the history of evolutionary thought and some of the science of it. I want to know how evolution and age of the Earth became such hot buttons in science and religion that people (some, not all) on both sides can turn into raging maniacs who call names and insult each other (not here, of course:001_smile:). I'd like to objectively look at the facts and the history, if that's even possible.

 

Evolution doesn't add up for me yet. I believe in micro-evolution- species adapting over time to survive. But I can't yet say I believe in macro-evolution - species turning into other species. As for age of the earth, I think it's somewhere in the middle. (That would make me a Middle Earther?)

 

Whatever happened, I believe God did it. I also believe he set it up to be studied and understood by scientists. I believe all science points to God, but I understand that (some) scientists want to take God out of the equation as far as explaining how things work. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't see that as an assault on my faith.

 

I know that's not really an answer for you, but it's where I'm at on the journey. Like I said, I'm just starting studying all this and trying to shed the rhetoric I've heard from both sides.

This is very much me. I believe God created the order of the world and universe. Everything points to Him. And I totally giggled at the Middle Earther comment

[Tiberia]

This is very much me. I believe God created the order of the world and universe. Everything points to Him. And I totally giggled at the Middle Earther comment

 

Wow, and while I was quietly crafting my reply, this thread has gone to kilts and sh#$%ing carts. Lord have mercy. Moderators, get ready for a fun day!

[justamouse]

Okay, I'll bite. Old earth creationist who believes in theistic evolution. Considering the science, it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

Next.

 

That's us, too.

 

Why? The book The Language of God . Caveat, I never bought creationisim in its entirety, but I do believe that God used the big bang and evolution. I don't believe the bible was written to be a science text.

 

Anyone purchase a crock pot recently? :001_smile: We take our shoes off in the house. Shopping carts get put back and anything can be solved by Colin Firth in a kilt.

Edited November 10, 2011 by justamouse

[Cassy]

I have total and complete faith in science. Are there really people who don't believe in evolution? :tongue_smilie: in cheek.

 

(Love the stripes, Bill)

[garddwr]

I'm on the old earth side. I think it takes a lot of manipulation/picking and choosing of facts to make science equate with young earth. Also, I don't believe that the Bible was meant to be a science text book. I believe in God. I believe in the Bible. But I also believe that the message of the Bible is a message of God's love and watchcare over the human family, and of redemption and faith. Not that I think the creation story in Genesis is irrelevant or pure myth--God wants us to know that the earth, and the creatures and people on it, did not come about by chance. That it has a purpose, and that he has been shaping and guiding from the beginning. But I think we put God in a box when we assume that when the bible says "x was done on the first day" it must mean one 24 hour period. I think the universe has been around for a long, long time, and that God has been working within the universe for a long, long time as well.

 

As for evolution, I suppose I am an evolutionary agnostic--I just don't know. I do not believe that I evolved by random chance/natural selection from anything, nor that I exist only as a collection of cells. Again, I believe in God's controlling/guiding will. But it seems God could decide to create, say, cats, by a process of gradual evolution and change. I don't waste too much time worrying about it--I am confident in my relationship to God and I figure that some day we will have all the answers--revealed/spiritual and scientific--and it will all make sense. In the meantime it doesn't seem to me that God wants us to spend our lives agonizing over such things. He wants us to live and work and love and serve and pray and hope and believe.

 

I studied many years of biology, microbiology, and anthropology. I've wrestled with the questions at different times, but I always find peace with the answer of "wait, it isn't urgent to understand all this." I have enough to worry about and take care of, KWIM?

 

--Sarah

[Bluegoat]

I think that God is the origin of everything that exists; I think that all things derive their existence from his existence, I think he is the logos or patern or law that runs through all things and makes them what they are. I think if he stopped sustaining creation it would pop out of existence.

 

I also think the universe is probably very old and evolution is a very strong theory. There is lots of good evidence for both of these things.

[Bluegoat]

Evolution doesn't add up for me yet. I believe in micro-evolution- species adapting over time to survive. But I can't yet say I believe in macro-evolution - species turning into other species. As for age of the earth, I think it's somewhere in the middle. (That would make me a Middle Earther?)

 

I suppose the question you need to answer is, what is a species.

 

Most of the time (not always) one of the major characteristics of differing species is an inability to breed - either no off-spring are possible, or sterile one.

 

So if you imagine that micro-evolution goes on and it means a change that results in an inability for one group to breed with another, all of a sudden you have "macro-evolution. That is, macro-evoolution is micro-evolution.

 

There is a sense in which our definition of species can be arbitrary.

[Avila]

Bill - is that the London Olympics stripe poster in your avatar? Boy, first shopping carts, now this. ;)

 

I think it is, and it is the poster I like too. :001_smile:

 

I will pass out a few Mike's, the kilts are taken care of, so I think we are good here as long as no one asks about Asian math.

 

FTR, I am OE creationist. I don't have all the details on the hows. But I trust the Bible for the whys. And I don't find any conflicts between science and my faith.

[Forget-Me-Not]

Okay, I'll bite. Old earth creationist who believes in theistic evolution. Considering the science, it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

Next.

 

:iagree:

 

and a RECIPE for good measure

[RegGuheert]

I'll bite, too.

 

I believe in the instantaneous creation of the Earth about 6000 years ago.

 

- Since the entropy of the universe is always increasing, it seems clear that the universe had a beginning. Since the law of cause-and-effect states that all effects require a cause, then it is clear that the universe has a creator.

- Since all of our scientific observation shows that all complex coded information always comes from intelligent sources, we know that all of the information found in life on Earth is from an intelligent creator.

- The vast majority of scientific chronometers which would date the age of things indicate that the earth is young. One of my favorites is that from radioactive decay. Most people focus on the heavy decay products, but the other product of decay is alpha particles, which are the nuclei of helium atoms. The simple fact is that if the decay had occurred over billions of years, the helium would have leaked out of the rocks long, long ago, making the concentration of helium in our atmosphere much higher than it is. However, the helium is still locked up inside the rocks. As such, it seems likely that the decay rates may not have been constant in the past, as is currently the popular belief.

- Life: All naturalistic explanations for the origin of life (DNA-first, protein-first or RNA-world) fall way short for the same basic reason: The probabilistic resources of the entire universe for the entire supposed 20-billion-year age is 10^36 too small to be able to produce even a small protein of 150 amino acids, let alone an entire self-replicating system containing many much larger proteins. (And postulates of infinite universes existing are even far less likely.)

- Granite: It appears that the many-mile-thick granite crust of the earth was created instantaneously since it contains radiohalos of the decay of Polonium 214, which has a half-life of 164 microseconds. No scientist has ever been able to create a piece of granite such as that found in the crust of the Earth. I suspect the Polonium halos were thrown in there as a form of proof.

 

I believe that there is such a thing as microevolution in which the DNA is *damaged* by various methods. This damage to the information in DNA CAN lead to a functional advantage for the organism. This has been observed in credible experiments.

 

I do not believe that large changes in organisms can occur because, again, there are not sufficient probabilistic resources available to allow for the changes. Studies of very large populations of organisms show that only very small changes occur even after 50,000 generations have passed. That is equivalent to about 1 million years of humans, who supposedly have had a tiny population during most of the last million years. In other words, it is unreasonable that any changes have occurred over that time or before.

 

I also find big bang cosmology to be not credible since it violates so many natural laws, including the law of cause and effect. Just because a model can be made to fit some data (not nearly all) does not make it a correct model.

Edited November 10, 2011 by RegGuheert
grammar

[Spy Car]

Bill - is that the London Olympics stripe poster in your avatar? Boy, first shopping carts, now this. ;)

 

Bingo! London, 2012, the excitement builds! :D

 

Bill

[Avila]

That's us, too.

 

Why? The book The Language of God . Caveat, I never bought creationisim in its entirety, but I do believe that God used the big bang and evolution. I don't believe the bible was written to be a science text.

 

Anyone purchase a crock pot recently? :001_smile: We take our shoes off in the house. Shopping carts get put back and anything can be solved by Colin Firth in a kilt.

 

Love Colin Firth, kilt or no. But where, pray tell, is the picture?

 

Oh, and I agree with you otherwise too. Even down to the book, which I bought after somebody here recommended it.

[mommaduck]

As long as no one mentions shopping carts we ought to be OK :D

 

Bill

or crockpots...

[Avila]

or crockpots...

 

Ack. The point of no return! :D

[MSNative]

Love Colin Firth, kilt or no. But where, pray tell, is the picture?

 

Oh, and I agree with you otherwise too. Even down to the book, which I bought after somebody here recommended it.

 

How 'bout Lucius Malfoy in a kilt? http://people.tribe.net/wenchofthewarlock/blog/3fbb9e6f-aa53-40a6-b200-4f31743ae186

 

Back to the actual topic at hand, at our house we study OE, YE, evolution and creationism. If you search the forums, you will find some great book recs. We try to learn about all the sides and tease out some truths. We also look for logical leaps and fallacies which are rampant on all sides. It makes for a pretty fun study. Hopefully, my kids learn that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

[Ewe Mama]

OK, I missed the shopping cart thread. Link, please?

[MSNative]

Bingo! London, 2012, the excitement builds! :D

 

Bill

 

Hmmm, might have to look for a crockpot in a shopping cart for my avatar.

[acurtis75]

I'll bite, too.

 

I believe in the instantaneous creation of the Earth about 6000 years ago.

 

- Since the entropy of the universe is always increasing, it seems clear that the universe had a beginning. Since the law of cause-and-effect states that all effects require a cause, then it is clear that the universe has a creator.

- Since all of our scientific observation shows that all complex coded information always comes from intelligent sources, we know that all of the information found in life on Earth is from an intelligent creator.

- The vast majority of scientific chronometers which would date the age of things indicate that the earth is young. One of my favorites is that from radioactive decay. Most people focus on the heavy decay products, but the other product of decay is alpha particles, which are the nuclei of helium atoms. The simple fact is that if the decay had occurred over billions of years, the helium would have leaked out of the rocks long, long ago, making the concentration of helium in our atmosphere much higher than it is. However, the helium is still locked up inside the rocks. As such, it seems likely that the decay rates may not have been constant in the past, as is currently the popular belief.

- Life: All naturalistic explanations for the origin of life (DNA-first, protein-first or RNA-world) fall way short for the same basic reason: The probabilistic resources of the entire universe for the entire supposed 20-billion-year age is 10^36 too small to be able to produce even a small protein of 150 amino acids, let alone an entire self-replicating system containing many much larger proteins. (And postulates of infinite universes existing are even far less likely.)

- Granite: It appears that the many-mile-thick granite crust of the earth was created instantaneously since it contains radiohalos of the decay of Polonium 214, which has a half-life of 164 microseconds. No scientist has ever been able to create a piece of granite such as that found in the crust of the Earth. I suspect the Polonium halos were thrown in there as a form of proof.

 

I believe that there is such a thing as microevolution in which the DNA is *damaged* by various methods. This damage to the information in DNA CAN lead to a functional advantage for the organism. This has been observed in credible experiments.

 

I do not believe that large changes in organisms can occur because, again, there are not sufficient probabilistic resources available to allow for the changes. Studies of very large populations of organisms show that only very small changes occur even after 50,000 generations have passed. That is equivalent to about 1 million years of humans, who supposedly have had a tiny population during most of the last million years. In other words, it is unreasonable that any changes have occurred over that time or before.

 

I also find big bang cosmology to be not credible since it violates so many natural laws, including the law of cause and effect. Just because a model can be made to fit some data (not nearly all) does not make it a correct model.

 

:iagree: If I had more time and patience I could have typed that. I will add that I don't think your stance on this issue is necessary for salvation. I think sometimes we get so focused on arguing about this and insisting that we are right that we forget what's most important. I hate it when this discussion is set up as God vs. science which I think is not the actual conversation that we should be having. The idea that scientists are somehow totally neutral and have no pre-existing suppositions is laughable to me.

[Little Nyssa]

Hi Jillian, I will answer you seriously, but I find that I am pretty agnostic about the YE/OE question. I don't have a deeply held viewpoint, but I do have some principles:

1. God created the world.

2. Genesis talks about it happening over a period of time and in stages. I don't know how long those time periods are.

3. Creation out of nothing.

4. Science has discovered some amazing things.

5. Science is a work in progress.

6. I think that it was St Augustine who said that you should not pin your theology to the latest scientific discovery, because you will be left looking like a fool when science progresses further and you're left in the dust.

7. Genesis uses poetical language.

8. Creation and evolution may be reconcilable.

9. Someone else may hold a different opinion without me getting upset.

HTH!

[Georgiana Daniels]

That's us, too.

 

Anyone purchase a crock pot recently? :001_smile: We take our shoes off in the house. Shopping carts get put back and anything can be solved by Colin Firth in a kilt.

 

Only if he jumps in a lake! :lol:

 

FTR, I am a YE believer who has a few OE leanings.

[J-rap]

I am old earth creationist who believes in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. I absolutely believe that strong traits are passed on through reproduction but there isn't enough to change species from squirrels to monkeys to people.

 

This. However, I'm also open to finding out that I'm wrong, someday. (That is, maybe I'll find that macro-evolution is possible, or that the YE theory is true afterall.)

[Meriwether]

I'll bite, too.

 

I believe in the instantaneous creation of the Earth about 6000 years ago.

 

- Since the entropy of the universe is always increasing, it seems clear that the universe had a beginning. Since the law of cause-and-effect states that all effects require a cause, then it is clear that the universe has a creator.

- Since all of our scientific observation shows that all complex coded information always comes from intelligent sources, we know that all of the information found in life on Earth is from an intelligent creator.

- The vast majority of scientific chronometers which would date the age of things indicate that the earth is young. One of my favorites is that from radioactive decay. Most people focus on the heavy decay products, but the other product of decay is alpha particles, which are the nuclei of helium atoms. The simple fact is that if the decay had occurred over billions of years, the helium would have leaked out of the rocks long, long ago, making the concentration of helium in our atmosphere much higher than it is. However, the helium is still locked up inside the rocks. As such, it seems likely that the decay rates may not have been constant in the past, as is currently the popular belief.

- Life: All naturalistic explanations for the origin of life (DNA-first, protein-first or RNA-world) fall way short for the same basic reason: The probabilistic resources of the entire universe for the entire supposed 20-billion-year age is 10^36 too small to be able to produce even a small protein of 150 amino acids, let alone an entire self-replicating system containing many much larger proteins. (And postulates of infinite universes existing are even far less likely.)

- Granite: It appears that the many-mile-thick granite crust of the earth was created instantaneously since it contains radiohalos of the decay of Polonium 214, which has a half-life of 164 microseconds. No scientist has ever been able to create a piece of granite such as that found in the crust of the Earth. I suspect the Polonium halos were thrown in there as a form of proof.

 

I believe that there is such a thing as microevolution in which the DNA is *damaged* by various methods. This damage to the information in DNA CAN lead to a functional advantage for the organism. This has been observed in credible experiments.

 

I do not believe that large changes in organisms can occur because, again, there are not sufficient probabilistic resources available to allow for the changes. Studies of very large populations of organisms show that only very small changes occur even after 50,000 generations have passed. That is equivalent to about 1 million years of humans, who supposedly have had a tiny population during most of the last million years. In other words, it is unreasonable that any changes have occurred over that time or before.

 

I also find big bang cosmology to be not credible since it violates so many natural laws, including the law of cause and effect. Just because a model can be made to fit some data (not nearly all) does not make it a correct model.

:iagree:

[Parker Martin]

Okay, I'll bite. Old earth creationist who believes in theistic evolution. Considering the science, it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

Next.

 

Same.

 

Whew, glad that's over. Let's talk about something less controversial now like the 2012 election or gay marriage. :p

[RegGuheert]

Whew, glad that's over. Let's talk about something less controversial now like the 2012 election or gay marriage. :p

:lol::lol: It's really hard to tell around here. As Bill has implied, returning shopping carts (did I just write that out loud?) would seem to be a somewhat benign topic. Whoda thunk what transpired could have really happened in the real internet?

[MeaganS]

Old earth creationist. It doesn't contradict my beliefs at all to believe that God would use evolution as a tool for creating the earth. That said, it really isn't an important part of my religion. I believe God created the earth. Past that it doesn't really matter how or when. OE just makes more sense to me.

[LMD]

I'm not a scientifically minded person, so I tend to look at these questions more theologically than scientifically. I lean more YE, because I believe it makes sense theologically. And I won't do a knock-down drag-out over it ;)

[dirty ethel rackham]

Old Earth Creationist. I believe God did it (theistic evolution.) Science can tell us a lot about how. God would have to be a deceiver to have put the oodles of scientific evidence to point to an old Earth but have created the Earth so recently. Of all the names for God in the Bible, "deceiver" isn't one of them.

[Mrs Mungo]

Old Earth Creationist. I believe God did it (theistic evolution.) Science can tell us a lot about how. God would have to be a deceiver to have put the oodles of scientific evidence to point to an old Earth but have created the Earth so recently. Of all the names for God in the Bible, "deceiver" isn't one of them.

 

:iagree:

[Aquinas Academy]

Okay, I'll bite. Old earth creationist who believes in theistic evolution. Considering the science, it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

Next.

:iagree:

[RegGuheert]

 

God would have to be a deceiver to have put the oodles of scientific evidence to point to an old Earth but have created the Earth so recently.

The evidence is what it is. But it is not God who interprets the evidence, but man.

Of all the names for God in the Bible, "deceiver" isn't one of them.

Agreed that God is not a deceiver regardless of how man interprets his creation.

[Caitilin]

I will pass out a few Mike's, the kilts are taken care of, so I think we are good here as long as no one asks about Asian math. :lol::lol::lol:

 

FTR, I am OE creationist. I don't have all the details on the hows. But I trust the Bible for the whys. And I don't find any conflicts between science and my faith.

 

This is my perspective too; I believe that science and religious belief need not contradict one another. They are ways of answering different questions, IMO. Truth is truth, wherever we find it. :001_smile: