Jump to content

Menu

If you were brought up or consider yourself young earth,


Nestof3
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was raised young earth. I am no longer a Christian. I still use young earth timelines because they are easier. I make Abraham a clear divider. When I hang up a timeline, I place Abraham on a corner. Before the corner I hang conflicting information above and below for discussion. After Abraham, we keep accurate records.

 

I tell my students it doesn't matter. Science does not define or prove faith, and faith does not define or prove science. There is so much important science and History that we do know about--more than we can ever cover--that we don't have time to speculate about what we don't know about. We'll leave that to people with more time, bigger bank accounts, and bigger egos.

 

I'm way too old and tired at this point to deal with secular timelines that all contradict each other. The only timelines that are consistent are young earth ones. It's just too easy to stick to young earth resources and have everything match up. Maybe I'm lazy and negligent, but truly...I do NOT care!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm way too old and tired at this point to deal with secular timelines that all contradict each other. The only timelines that are consistent are young earth ones. It's just too easy to stick to young earth resources and have everything match up. Maybe I'm lazy and negligent, but truly...I do NOT care!

 

Wow, I didn't know they contradicted each other. :001_huh: Obviously, I'm on the beginning end of formal homeschooling, so I haven't come across much history yet. Is it WAY off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Older secular resources contradict newer secular resources. It has something to do with faulty Egypt records I'm told. And even older secular sometimes contradict older, and newer sometimes contradict newer. And the secular always contradict the Christian. And then there are old earth Christians to contradict the new earth Christians. :lol:

 

God bless you young uns that want to play around with all that.

 

The earth was created in 4004 BC is just SO much easier!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know why they contradict each other- No one currently alive knows what really happened back then! Plus timekeeping was rather loose. And you can't believe what people wrote about when things happened, since they had no idea what date it was anyway. Anyway YE is consistent because it's all created by one man's ideas or at least one consortium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science does not define or prove faith, and faith does not define or prove science. There is so much important science and History that we do know about--more than we can ever cover--that we don't have time to speculate about what we don't know about. We'll leave that to people with more time, bigger bank accounts, and bigger egos.

 

Love this Hunter - you add a lot to this board. :)

 

To the OP, I find Job 38 enlightening. I hesitate to say anything else since I just heard of the Lascaux Cave (like, now, LOL). I'm not sure how this one example matters - is there a specific reason for this particular example? (Just curious here. :) )

 

Do the theories from 100 years ago still hold true? Will the ones today still be believed 100 years from now? Just because something is true today, does that mean it has ALWAYS been so? (As in a cataclysmic event occurring in the past.) How many times are the "experts" wrong? (Yeah, I have little faith in ANY expert.)

 

Anyway, it's not a dumb question - it is a very good question. I'd recommend reading the viewpoints on both sides of the YE/OE debate. (I did as a teen but I can't remember the titles anymore.) I remember a video about Mt. Saint Helens that pointed out geologic changes that supposedly take eons if they occur gradually, actually can occur rapidly in a cataclysmic event.

 

I'm interested in others people's viewpoints. :lurk5:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To the OP, I find Job 38 enlightening. I hesitate to say anything else since I just heard of the Lascaux Cave (like, now, LOL). I'm not sure how this one example matters - is there a specific reason for this particular example? (Just curious here. :) )

 

 

We love cave paintings and goddess statues here. We just hang up pictures of all that stuff on the corner before Abraham, along with the dinosaurs. Things don't need to be dated to be studied.

 

Imitation of cave paintings are a good beginner watercolor project.

 

Thanks mtcougar :blushing:

Edited by Hunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do a lot of pointing out to students, the need to adopt an attitude of humility, about demanding to know things. We talk about how myths and rumors start, and even medical procedures like drilling holes into people's heads to let things out. It does no good to try and force understanding of things too big for us to understand.

 

There were so many things early man didn't understand. Some of them wrote myths to explain things and make their world feel smaller and more orderly. We don't want to be as arrogant and silly.

 

Then I feed them and tell them, "There were men who wrote myths, and there were men who went and shared a good meal. Neither knew the truth, but one group went hungry and the other ate. Which group do you want to be like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you reconcile dating something like Lascaux Cave before Hammurabi, for instance?

 

This may seem like a really stupid question.

 

I'm not sure I really understand what you're asking.

 

I believe in the authority of God's word, that the days clearly outlined in Genesis means a 24 hour day, just as we know it now. I believe that is what scripture teaches and I take God's word as truth and not infallible man's science, which we all know has been proved wrong many times throughout the ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I really understand what you're asking.

 

I believe in the authority of God's word, that the days clearly outlined in Genesis means a 24 hour day, just as we know it now. I believe that is what scripture teaches and I take God's word as truth and not infallible man's science, which we all know has been proved wrong many times throughout the ages.

 

Yes, I know that is what young earth Christians believe. I wasn't really asking what you/they believe, it was a question about how scientific dating differs from that. Specifically, I was asking about the Lascaux Cave in France because it is dated at least 8,000 years before the Genesis account of the creation of the world. Archaeologists date Jericho before Catal Huyuk, and Catal Huhuk is dated 5,000 years before the Genesis account of the creation of the world.

 

I don't know enough about archaeology to know why they are dated such, but for man to originate in the fertile crescent and get to France to paint on caves -- I'm guessing that took a while?

 

So, when a young earth Christian teaches, do you do as Hunter and put the information up as before Abraham? How did you incorporate Catal Huyuk and the cave paintings in France?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To the OP, I find Job 38 enlightening. I hesitate to say anything else since I just heard of the Lascaux Cave (like, now, LOL). I'm not sure how this one example matters - is there a specific reason for this particular example? (Just curious here. :) )

 

 

 

I answered this below. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, when a young earth Christian teaches, do you do as Hunter and put the information up as before Abraham? How did you incorporate Catal Huyuk and the cave paintings in France?

 

I'm still not sure exactly what you are asking but I'll take a stab at it. As YE believers we would assume that those two things happened between Genesis 1 and Abraham. I would assume that the cave paintings in France occurred sometime after the Tower of Babel when God forced the nations to scatter. I would also assume that Catal Huyuk occurred at about the same time.

 

I don't put much stock in the scientific dating methods and just don't worry about them ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure exactly what you are asking but I'll take a stab at it. As YE believers we would assume that those two things happened between Genesis 1 and Abraham. I would assume that the cave paintings in France occurred sometime after the Tower of Babel when God forced the nations to scatter. I would also assume that Catal Huyuk occurred at about the same time.

 

I don't put much stock in the scientific dating methods and just don't worry about them ;)

 

You did indeed answer it for you. Your answer makes sense because you explain it as you don't trust scientific dating. So, the cave paintings and Catal Huyuk occur after the flood which was about 3,200 BC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing with carbon dating (that is how they date things) is that it assumes that the half-life has been consistent throughout history and has never been different than what it is currently at. This is flawed. There are many factors that could have affected the half-life. If you study the flood, and what the pre-flood earth was like, it is clear that we are likely way off. For things that occurred before the flood, the half-life was very different, hence the variation from a young-earth timeline.

 

Does that make any sense? I haven't had my coffee :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also looking at the Tower of Babel and its place in history. It was never named such in the Bible, but it seems to me while studying that it was one of many ziggurats built by the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians.

 

But it is accepted that the Tower of Babel is considered the first one built in Sumer (the Biblical name Shinar)? And prior to that, all peoples in those areas spoke a common language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto.

 

And, I'm not really worried, but I was curious how others teach things that supposedly predate the flood. Do you just say, "They happened sometime in history?"

 

If you keep a timeline, where do you put the cave? Do you have a page at the beginning of the timeline for these unknowns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't lose my faith over science. I don't know about the other poster who has lost her faith. I lost my faith from spiritual abuse, and as a symptom of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. I lost my faith because of faith issues.

 

Spirituality and science are two different systems that function independently of each other, and play by different rules.

 

Humans are spiritual beings. The vast majority of us must engage in some type of spirituality to be healthy. I teach my students to find their own path in this area.

 

Then I teach them SCIENCE. Basic science that improves the quality of their lives. How not to get electrocuted, and how to grow yeast in bread, and why a lever works.

 

I also think it is VERY sad when people lose their faith over science. That happens sometimes by using the EXACT methods that people think will keep it from happening; It happens from trying to mix two incompatible systems.

 

If your deity made the earth, then he can certainly overcome the laws of nature that he/it created, right? I think it's funny when people try and prove there is a deity with science. That's kind of backwards, even if you are going to try and mix the two incompatible systems. Teaching a student that you have proven a deity using the logic of man, just opens the door for someone to else to prove he doesn't exist by using the logic of man.

 

You can believe in something that makes no sense at all, when defined by the laws of science, if you understand it is a separate system incapable of being defined and explained by that other system.

Edited by Hunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earth was created in 4004 BC is just SO much easier!

Well, yes, but I am not sure that is a very good argument for using this method if you don't believe in it.

 

Dawn, are you wanting to reconcile it for yourself or are you curious about others? I am not sure it can be reconciled. YE people seem to reject the veracity of scientific data and dating, as far as I can tell. I am not YE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yes, but I am not sure that is a very good argument for using this method if you don't believe in it.

 

Dawn, are you wanting to reconcile it for yourself or are you curious about others? I am not sure it can be reconciled. YE people seem to reject the veracity of scientific data and dating, as far as I can tell. I am not YE.

 

No -- it seems everyone thinks I'm having a crisis of faith. :tongue_smilie:

 

I'm just trying to see how others are teaching all this because,for example, I have a book of ancient art with posters, and the first piece of art happens to be the cave paintings. But, of course they have a date on them, and they are in France -- not the Fertile Crescent where I would imagine the first art work would be located.

 

And, I wanted to keep a timeline, but I have no idea where to put these caves. Or Catal Huhuk. I do want my kids to know about them. So, I figured I'd ask others what they do.

 

I've just always been the person who said, "People dwelling in caves?" Where's that in the Bible. Let's just skip the first few chapters of every book. :lol:

 

This really isn't a "convince me the earth is young" thread. :D

 

PS -- I find history fascinating, and I love that I can learn about all these cultures outside of the Hebrew people. The Bible, while being a beneficial spiritual text, is ethnocentric in the same way we would complain about a history textbook being Eurocentric. I realize it's not a history textbook, and so I have to go elsewhere to learn more about these other nations -- many of them huge and very much responsible for what we know today.

Edited by nestof3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yes, but I am not sure that is a very good argument for using this method if you don't believe in it.

 

 

 

I don't believe in any of the systems, the multiple secular ones, or the multiple Christian ones, or anything else that might exist. If I did believe in ONE of the available secular timelines, then I would probably use it. It's just all endless speculation that is constantly changing and being argued over. And when some writers are quoting secular dates, they don't even know they are quoting from different incompatible systems.

 

I teach the Bible as the most important piece of western literature. Also the Bible is the base of our laws, and government. Whether I believe the Bible or not, it is at the core of the western world I live in. It has a timeline that is exact and unquestioned. So I hang up the only UNCHANGING timeline I have, and then tape stuff around it, the best I can, and move on to things like "No, penguins do NOT eat bananas!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW -- I love your quote in yellow. So very true.

 

I don't believe in any of the systems, the multiple secular ones, or the multiple Christian ones, or anything else that might exist. If I did believe in ONE of the available secular timelines, then I would probably use it. It's just all endless speculation that is constantly changing and being argued over. And when some writers are quoting secular dates, they don't even know they are quoting from different incompatible systems.

 

I teach the Bible as the most important piece of western literature. Also the Bible is the base of our laws, and government. Whether I believe the Bible or not, it is at the core of the western world I live in. It has a timeline that is exact and unquestioned. So I hang up the only UNCHANGING timeline I have, and then tape stuff around it, the best I can, and move on to things like "No, penguins do NOT eat bananas!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, i wasn't brought up YE at all, but i am YE now. i teach my kids from a genesis POV, but they are also very aware that other people and other christians believe in a different explanation of the creation story and the timeline would look different for them. they're only 10 and 8, so it doesn't require more than this this. as they get older, we'll tackle it more in depth as needed. as for me though, i don't struggle with the reconciliation of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are spiritual beings. The vast majority of us must engage in some type of spirituality to be healthy. I teach my students to find their own path in this area.

 

Then I teach them SCIENCE. Basic science that improves the quality of their lives. How not to get electrocuted, and how to grow yeast in bread, and why a lever works.

 

I also think it is VERY sad when people lose their faith over science. That happens sometimes by using the EXACT methods that people think will keep it from happening; It happens from trying to mix two incompatible systems.

 

If your deity made the earth, then he can certainly overcome the laws of nature that he/it created, right? I think it's funny when people try and prove there is a deity with science. That's kind of backwards, even if you are going to try and mix the two incompatible systems. Teaching a student that you have proven a deity using the logic of man, just opens the door for someone to else to prove he doesn't exist by using the logic of man.

 

You can believe in something that makes no sense at all, when defined by the laws of science, if you understand it is a separate system incapable of being defined and explained by that other system.

 

You have said what I have been thinking all along. Which of course means that this is brilliant :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People living in caves are found in the Bible in early chapters of Genesis. I don't have it in front of me, but basically Adam and Eve get kicked out of the garden, are wearing animal skins, and have to learn to find food. Throughout the following chapters their children do things like learn to farm and herd animals, make tools, dwell in tents and eventually live in cities. There isn't a verse that says "so and so lived in a cave" but it's a pretty consistent time line with history. I think it's Genesis 3 or 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't had time to read this thread, but I remember reading a YE children's book where there is speculation that after the flood, with the Earth having been through so much turmoil, there could have been a time when people lived in caves (in possibly an Ice Age type way of living), BUT that would have been with the knowledge they had from pre-flood (art, etc.)

 

Don't attack me, anyone, just trying to help Nest out w/ something I remember reading.

 

Also, I do not believe that carbon dating is accurate. Especially on VERY old things because we don't necessarily know how things have changed over time, etc. I think on the Answers in Genesis website there are lots of articles about the inaccuracies of carbon dating.

 

I would classify myself as YE, but as I tell my children, we can't truly tell for sure because no one REALLY knows, and God is bigger than history and natural laws.

Edited by HappyGrace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was raised fundemental/strict YE Christian. Here are some of my fathers responses when asked to explain the conflicts; "God can do anything", "He put that (dinosaur bones, ancient cave art ect.) there to test your faith", "Carbon-dating is a flawed and false science". I didn't believe it when I was eight, but then I was a very bright child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We love cave paintings and goddess statues here. We just hang up pictures of all that stuff on the corner before Abraham, along with the dinosaurs. Things don't need to be dated to be studied.

 

Imitation of cave paintings are a good beginner watercolor project.

 

Thanks mtcougar :blushing:

 

I like that, it is very helpful to me. I used to be hardcore YE but I've really taken a more, "who the heck knows" attitude but when it comes to teaching my children I don't know how to approach it. Make a line at Abraham, we know what happened after this and we don't know we don't know exactly what, or how, things happened before, works for me.

 

I find myself in a real quandary because while I now think the earth might be old, I don't believe in evolution. Find that curriculum.:tongue_smilie:

 

 

I don't put much stock in the scientific dating methods and just don't worry about them ;)

This sums up my thoughts about dating but as I said above I'm not hardcore young earth anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was raised young earth. A frequent answer I have heard is that God must have created some things with the appearance of age. It drives me nuts when these same people argue that scientists are wrong about the age of the earth. If God created something old, why wouldn't scientists correctly observe its apparent old age?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was brought up young earth but we didn't address these things. Either we would simply be given alternate dates that fit in with the young earth time line or dates weren't talked about. I didn't have the best history education anyway, so it wasn't something I found confusing. We were taught in our "science" curriculum a bunch of stuff about how carbon dating was bad science and so on. Our particular curriculum was very distrustful of science in general and gave me a negative view of science and scientists as a child. Then I went to visit my grandfather who I rarely saw. He was a Baptist preacher and we got to talking about what I was learning in school. He got very irate at what I was saying and I heard him talking to my mom on the phone but apparently she didn't welcome her father's opinions and it wasn't brought up to me at home.

 

I am old earth now though I don't spend a lot of time on evolution with my kids, I do direct them to various sections in their science encyclopedias when they ask for more information. I'm bad at explaining evolution and natural selection and such because my own education was so hostile to these ideas. I tell my children that there need not be a conflict between science and God (I agree with Justamouse). And if evolution is true, then that's how God created the universe.

 

As far as dates matching up or being unclear, I tell my kids that people make their best guesses and are always finding out new information and correcting old assumptions. My children have no problem accepting this. But I teach my kids not to make a god of human intellect. Science can give us information but it isn't the ultimate source of information because things change and our knowledge is limited. And human interpretation of scripture can be flawed as well (obviously I have a different opinion about Genesis than many other Christians). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing with carbon dating (that is how they date things) is that it assumes that the half-life has been consistent throughout history and has never been different than what it is currently at. This is flawed. There are many factors that could have affected the half-life. If you study the flood, and what the pre-flood earth was like, it is clear that we are likely way off. For things that occurred before the flood, the half-life was very different, hence the variation from a young-earth timeline.

 

Does that make any sense? I haven't had my coffee :)

 

Well, carbon dating is only one way of dating things, and it is only good for dating certain things. There are lots of other ways of dating things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't specifically answer your qu., but I think this article by John Holtzman (formerly of Sonlight) is a great resource: http://www.sonlight.com/young_or_old_earth.html. My husband is a a near PhD in biblical studies and we teach that we can't know the age of the earth and that's fine. Our friend is a retired PhD physics professor (evangelical Christian) and he believes the research is inconclusive (would say old earth if pinned down because that's where most of the research has been, but if more was done for young earth could be that, too). Neither contradict the bible, I believe. Just my .02:) Gina

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Measuring time isn't so different than measuring temperature. The mercury goes up the tube of the thermometer. The mercury it self doesn't really mean anything, until we say what it means.

 

Carbon dating was matched up to some Egyptian records that no one believes are accurate anymore. People keep changing the "degrees" and what they mean.

 

If I want to teach the student the CONCEPT of time, it's very difficult to do that with conflicting resources. Imagine trying to cook with a stove that doesn't match the cookbooks. The worst cookbook would be the cookbook that just quoted all the other conflicting cookbooks without knowing it.

 

Then imagine someone was offering a stove and a 200 cookbook set that was "wrong" but compatible. Every time you baked a cake it came out right. All the recipes worked flawlessly with the oven. The only problem is that the oven seems to run about 50 degrees hotter than the oven at the famous cooking schools. If you aren't planning on attending the famous cooking schools it's not a problem, and even if you are, just know you will need to turn the heat up about 50 degrees when you get there. But at least you learned to COOK, instead of constantly having to guess what system the cookbook author used and having to TRY to adapt it to your oven.

 

I spent 2 years messing with timelines back in the 90's and never getting around to teaching timelines at all, until I could do it "right". Then I was introduced to the Amish/Mennonite way of teaching science and timekeeping and I've never looked back.

 

If you are using a YE timeline, and want to introduce the oooooold earth idea, use a looooooong piece of string to show how much older the secular scientists think the world is. Then tape the wound up string to the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read through all of the posts. OP I will do my best to try and answer your question. (As a note, so I don't get hate mail:lol:, this is what I personally believe, in no way am I saying this is what all Christians believe. These are just my personal thoughts on the topic.) In Genesis were it talks about the creation of the earth it only says day 1, day 2, etc. No where that I can find does it mention that the days lasted 24 hr. When you study Physics you learn that time is completely relative. So here is the big question. Was it one day in God's time or earth's time, are they the same thing?! The length of a day for him could be a lot longer than 24 hrs. I don't know how long the creation took, and I don't know how long a "day" lasted. I am just pointing that out (again that is just a personal opinion/observation). Another note is that we don't know exactly how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. It could have been days it could have been years. That being said I guess I would probably qualify as someone who is YE (even though I am still not completely positive I understand the difference between YE and OE). I believe that the fall of Adam happened around 4000 b.c. so I believe that would qualify me as YE.

 

I don't know exactly who made the cave paintings or when exactly they were made. Scientists have taken their best guess at when they were made, but it is just that a guess. They really don't know exactly when they were painted. In fact their guesses usually sound something like "between 20,000 B.C. and 10,000 B.C." Of course that is a completely made up example. But the point is there is a gap of thousands of years between those two estimated dates. We have to remember at one point "scientists" also thought that the sun revolved around the earth. They are guessing. And they are often proven wrong (or at least have to alter their guess) years down the road because new technology and knowledge comes to light. I am not bashing scientists, as my husband would probably qualify as one or at least he works in the field of science. That is just my long winded way of saying I agree with some of the other posters in the fact that I don't put much stock in their guesses, I take them for what they are, guesses or theories, not fact. It reminds me of a star trek voyager. One of the crew members, the doctor, wakes up from a hibernation that lasted thousands of years to find out that his crew members and ship voyager have been destroyed. The ship was pieced back together in a museum. That civilizations scientists and historians did their best to understand the history and nature of Voyager and its crew. They interpreted them to be warlike, when in reality they were exactly the opposite. The Doctor was horrified to see his friends portrayed as these vicious animals, he had to move heavenand earth to change their mind about they thought was their true history. Awesome Episode. I wonder how many details in history and science we have interpreted wrong because we only have a few pieces to work with and we can't see the rest of the puzzle. Just a random thought I had.:tongue_smilie:

 

I love that you brought up the cave paintings I have been thinking about those a lot lately (I love art history!) I would love to know who painted them and when they were really painted. A lot of scientists give credit to "cave men" for painting them. When I say cave men I mean the hunched over hairy men you often see in museums, not people who just happened to live in caves. Here is something that many people don't consider, how do we know that they weren't normal looking enlightened men who, like many other artists throughout time, figured out a way to express their creativity. We don't know?! I personally believe that men were created by an intelligent creator, and as such were also intelligent beings (not hunched over hairy men ;)). But I also believe that throughout time there were some (like Cain) who became wicked and lost that light and knowledge they had. So I have always wondered what group of people painted those cave paintings, those who were righteous or those who were wicked. But just because they were drawn like stick figures doesn't mean they weren't created by intelligent beings (art tends to take on certain styles at different periods of time whether pleasing to look at or not).

 

Anyways, now that I have written a book. OP the way I teach my kids is something like this... Some people believe that this and this happened at such and such time (Like cave paintings thousands and thousands of years ago). But they are just guessing. No one really knows when they happened. and I may add something like ....We know that God created the earth. There are some questions we will never know because it is not necessary for us to know at this time. But some day we can ask our Heavenly Father all of these things.

 

And yes I would just place those things on the timeline as question marks, because in reality they really are question marks, NO ONE really knows when all of those things happened. I hope that helped a little, probably not but I tried.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I know that is what young earth Christians believe. I wasn't really asking what you/they believe, it was a question about how scientific dating differs from that. Specifically, I was asking about the Lascaux Cave in France because it is dated at least 8,000 years before the Genesis account of the creation of the world. Archaeologists date Jericho before Catal Huyuk, and Catal Huhuk is dated 5,000 years before the Genesis account of the creation of the world.

 

I don't know enough about archaeology to know why they are dated such, but for man to originate in the fertile crescent and get to France to paint on caves -- I'm guessing that took a while?

 

So, when a young earth Christian teaches, do you do as Hunter and put the information up as before Abraham? How did you incorporate Catal Huyuk and the cave paintings in France?

 

I assume the secular dating of these things is incorrect. It often changes anyway. Curriculum like Mystery of History might be a good resource for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

PS -- I find history fascinating, and I love that I can learn about all these cultures outside of the Hebrew people. The Bible, while being a beneficial spiritual text, is ethnocentric in the same way we would complain about a history textbook being Eurocentric. I realize it's not a history textbook, and so I have to go elsewhere to learn more about these other nations -- many of them huge and very much responsible for what we know today.

 

I encourage my students to carve themselves out a little corner of the world and rest there. Yes, we study lots of geography, but it's grounding and comforting to be just a little ethnocentric. Sometimes we do more harm than good when students have no home.

 

Many of my students and myself have ended up cultureless, with no set of myths and heroes to call our own. Those that are Christians or very African or Goddess worship based, have their heroes and default worldview. Having no default world view is EXHAUSTING. It might be polite and useful to others, but exhausting for oneself.

 

Radical Eurocentricity is rude and naive, but having a home culture is necessary to mental health and productivity. I try to balance a bit of humble ethnocentricity with a giant serving of the Declaration of Human Rights, and then get back to the 3R's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe in any of the systems, the multiple secular ones, or the multiple Christian ones, or anything else that might exist. If I did believe in ONE of the available secular timelines, then I would probably use it. It's just all endless speculation that is constantly changing and being argued over. And when some writers are quoting secular dates, they don't even know they are quoting from different incompatible systems.

 

I teach the Bible as the most important piece of western literature. Also the Bible is the base of our laws, and government. Whether I believe the Bible or not, it is at the core of the western world I live in. It has a timeline that is exact and unquestioned. So I hang up the only UNCHANGING timeline I have, and then tape stuff around it, the best I can, and move on to things like "No, penguins do NOT eat bananas!"

 

 

I think that the fact that the secular timelines change is important to understanding how science works. It is an example of science changing to adapt to new data. This is the big distinction between science and faith. If you just pick one secular timeline to believe in, and then keep teaching that, regardless of any new evidence, you are not teaching a scientific worldview. You are acting on faith. This is a legitimate philosophical choice to make, but you must know what you are doing.

 

I get that you are not interested in the debate, and want to keep things as practical as possible. This seems like a reasonable, pragmatic approach. I just wanted to point out that a secular approach is not necessarily the same as a scientific one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the fact that the secular timelines change is important to understanding how science works.

 

So true, but so annoying to IMPLEMENT during timeline drawing :lol:

 

I just got called to task for teaching a student about non-living vs living, without including metabolism, despite this student still struggling with whether rocks are alive or not. I don't think teaching about metabolism would have helped HER, even if that is the right way to teach the lesson. The "right" ways exhaust me, unfortunately. I'm still harping on, "The rocks do not grow, or need food, water or air to SURVIVE."

 

Thanks for the reminder about how science works. Next time I put up a timeline I might make a little sign up about that, and hang it with the conflicting stuff. Because I am so NOT teaching YE, despite using YE timelines.

Edited by Hunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't know enough about archaeology to know why they are dated such, but for man to originate in the fertile crescent and get to France to paint on caves -- I'm guessing that took a while?

 

But man didn't originate in the Fertile Crescent. Civilization (defined as having a surplus of food, a distribution of labor and established cities) originated in the Fertile Crescent (Sumer being the oldest known to date around 8-10,000 years ago). Man most likely originated in Africa. Ardipithecus Ramidus, which is the earliest known human like biped dates to about 4.5 million years ago. Of course this is if you believe in evolution, which I do. In that case, it's not such a stretch from Africa to Lascaux over the course of millions of years.

 

What I don't understand about YE (and OP, I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now, so thanks for the thread), is how they explain dinosaurs and other fossils. I'll be honest, it simply doesn't make sense to me. That's not to say I don't think people should believe what they want, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Edited by Mom in High Heels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is how I dealt with a similar issue with my nearly 5 year old daughter today: I told her I didn't know. That some people believe that the earth is millions of years old and other people believe it is not that old and that actually none of us know for sure either way and the only one who does know is God cause He knows everything and He made the Earth. She was quite happy with this.

 

This issue has never influenced my relationship with God - I believe he created the earth - when he did so does not have any effect on my spiritual beliefs. Nor does it affect my scientific understandings - I know that many things in science are proved and disproved and that scientific understanding changes all the time, but that many scientific "facts" are based on other people's previous "facts" which means disproving something can mean that you have to upset a very large apple cart because of all the other things that are based on that.

 

History for me is about what these things teach us about today - what can we learn from the past that will influence how we live today? Whether the caves were formed before or after the flood will not change how I or my children live in the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to the Genesis account of man.

 

But man didn't originate in the Fertile Crescent. Civilization (defined as having a surplus of food, a distribution of labor and established cities) originated in the Fertile Crescent (Sumer being the oldest known to date around 8-10,000 years ago). Man most likely originated in Africa. Ardipithecus Ramidus, which is the earliest known human like biped dates to about 4.5 million years ago. Of course this is if you believe in evolution, which I do. In that case, it's not such a stretch from Africa to Lascaux over the course of millions of years.

 

What I don't understand about YE (and OP, I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now, so thanks for the thread), is how they explain dinosaurs and other fossils. I'll be honest, it simply doesn't make sense to me. That's not to say I don't think people should believe what they want, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like a strange person -- like I'm one of the only people wondering how to sort out my timeline. It must be my OCD.

 

Don't feel strange! Do what you believe in. If you believe in YE, figure out where you think these things should be based on your beliefs (like the Lascaux caves-BTW). If you're not YE, then put them where they are based on what dates they are considered to be scientifically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't feel strange! Do what you believe in. If you believe in YE, figure out where you think these things should be based on your beliefs (like the Lascaux caves-BTW). If you're not YE, then put them where they are based on what dates they are considered to be scientifically.

 

How? Since there is no consensus, and since science changes every day, our timelines are supposed to change everyday to be "right". After watching the news, are we supposed to make the child rip up all their work and start afresh?

 

How do you make a scientifically based timeline? Especially for those of us who are OCD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in God, but I do not believe in young earth. I also believe in evolution/natural selection, rather than creationism. The way I see it is this...

 

I believe that the Bible was written by humans, interpreting the word of God. I believe that God is SO much more than we will ever be able to understand, and when he was telling humans about the creation of the earth, he put it into terms that humans at the time could understand. Perhaps back then, humans couldn't understand the concept of millions of years, so God simplified it by using an analogy of a day, something they could understand. That doesn't mean that it really all happened in a 24 hour period, but that is the only way he could get the humans to understand.

Edited by somo_chickenlady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How? Since there is no consensus, and since science changes every day, our timelines are supposed to change everyday to be "right". After watching the news, are we supposed to make the child rip up all their work and start afresh?

 

How do you make a scientifically based timeline? Especially for those of us who are OCD?

 

Well, you have to use what information you have available. Sumer is widely believed to be about 10,000ish years ago. The odds of someone coming out tomorrow and saying "Oops, we think Sumer was really 20,000 years ago" are pretty slim. The Lascaux caves are generally considered to be about 17,000 years old. They're probably not going to change that any time soon either as that's been the general consensus for around 70 years.

As no one will ever have a definitive answer to the question of when things happened in time, you have use what you have. Of course you're not going to make your kids tear up their work and start over. Even should something change, which seems unlikely, just make a different notation. If something does change tomorrow, and it's already on your timeline, make a note under the entry that as of 2012, the date has been moved to XX years ago.The timeline will never be perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like a strange person -- like I'm one of the only people wondering how to sort out my timeline. It must be my OCD.

 

Not necessarily. I did look up a date for Sargon in four different locations. (One source had him in such a wildly different date, I have to wonder if it was typo.) So I do the best I can. But I won't obsess over how exact it is.

 

It's funny that you bring this up now because I am trying to find some time line figures and everyone seems to use the Homeschool in the Woods ones which (nice as they seem) place creation at 5000 BC along with dinosaurs. :p I know I could move them around to different dates but part of the reason I want to buy time line figures is so that I have to do less leg work and having to look up new dates for each thing seems to defeat the purpose. In light of that, if anyone has recommendations for me, I would greatly appreciate it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...