That YEC poll some of us are curious about.

[Halcyon]

Here is a paper by Tim Keller that describes what Jean is, I think, speaking of when saying that we take the Biblical texts as the author intended.

 

Caveat: the biologos name is on this link; I have not investigated the overall claims of that organization and I do not mean to promote it. It is simply the host of a work by a man whose words I consider worthy of considering.

 

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

 

 

Thank you for posting this. I've enjoyed Keller's writings in the past, and I will enjoy absorbing this one later this evening. 

[Luanne]

There is proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written.  If that is the case, then it just stands to reason that the rest of the Bible is accurate as well.  I find it humorous that people would rather believe that a bang happened and everything just appeared that way rather than believe that there is a divine Creator.  I think it is easier to want to believe that the Bible is inaccurate than to have to be accountable for how one chooses to live their life.  More and more this society is turning into a "me first and only me" world.  For those that are saddened that children are being taught that the Bible is accurate and that the earth isn't billions of years old... I think it is sad that you don't want them taught the truth.

 

Edited to add: Going to church or living in America does not make one a Christian.  You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and follow what the Bible teaches to truly be a Christian.

[Lady Florida.]

One thing I am curious about (and please pardon if this is too off topic, or too controversial) is that if one believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, then are ALL parts of the Bible interpreted literally? That is to say, if the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days, and one believes that literally happened, then does one believe ALL things describe in the Bible occurred literally and exactly as stated? There are no metaphors? 

 

I think you're right in that it's pretty far off topic, but it's something that I wonder about too. I was never a literal bible believer so it was not a problem for me. But there are a lot of questions I have about literal beliefs and I don't know how to phrase them in a way that doesn't sound confrontational. That link Seasider provided helps, but doesn't address the things I'm thinking of.

[Guest]

I think you're right in that it's pretty far off topic, but it's something that I wonder about too. I was never a literal bible believer so it was not a problem for me. But there are a lot of questions I have about literal beliefs and I don't know how to phrase them in a way that doesn't sound confrontational. That link Seasider provided helps, but doesn't address the things I'm thinking of.

You could start a spinoff and ask? Some of us may be able to help.

[HRAAB]

There is proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written.  If that is the case, then it just stands to reason that the rest of the Bible is accurate as well.  I find it humorous that people would rather believe that a bang happened and everything just appeared that way rather than believe that there is a divine Creator.  I think it is easier to want to believe that the Bible is inaccurate than to have to be accountable for how one chooses to live their life.  More and more this society is turning into a "me first and only me" world.  For those that are saddened that children are being taught that the Bible is accurate and that the earth isn't billions of years old... I think it is sad that you don't want them taught the truth.

 

Edited to add: Going to church or living in America does not make one a Christian.  You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and follow what the Bible teaches to truly be a Christian.

 

I'm rather hesitant to even ask, but here goes: where is this proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written?

[Halcyon]

Albeto brings up an interesting point, which it seems people are intentionally skirting because it is very difficult, as a believer, to answer it. The best as I can figure is this: certain things are taken on faith. As a Christian, we have faith in God and his son Jesus, faith that they really did the things the Bible says they did, and faith that He is with us in our present circumstances. (I hope Christians can generally agree with me on those points--please clarify if I omitted or misrepresented any central tenets.)

 

The question is, how can we have faith in certain things that Jesus did---that he came to save mankind, that he healed the sick, that he raised Lazarus from the dead--yet not believe that our Father created the Earth in 6 days? And do some of us feel, on some deep level, we are not "true Christians" if we don't believe everything that happened in the Bible as literal fact? That we are "picking and choosing"?  I know this argument comes up in other areas--for example, gay rights---and Christians often say "you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow". 

 

But I would argue that you can. I would argue that God provided us with discernment and intelligence, and that God gave us these great minds of ours so that they would be used, used to question, used to learn, used to even unearth truths that He did not explicitly reveal in the Bible. And should we be surprised? Should we be surprised that the beauty of science and evolution is part and parcel of His plan? God constantly surprises us. And most Christians would agree that God knows everything before it even unfolds. So He knows this, and knows evolution, and he is not "testing" us as Christians--He is using the wonderful human brain (through certain individuals far more brilliant than you or I) to expose what he has already known all along, and I imagine him smiling down at us nodding encouragingly, saying "Ah, there you go! You're getting warmer!"

 

:)

[Pen]

 

 

Both YEC and non believers (and everyone in between) agree on pretty much everything happening in the current world - the world in the past 4000 or so years anyway.  They disagree regarding the flood.

 

 

 

 

That's wonderful!

 

Everyone (YEC and nonbelievers and everyone in between, including, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists...) believes that both Mohammad and Jesus ascended into Heaven...  (????)  Everyone believes that Global Warming exists and that fracking is dangerous and that GMO's should be banned and, of course, that homeschooling is best of all forms of schooling. (????)   Good.   Now can we all live together in Peace and Harmony please, since we all believe exactly the same things as to the current world and that of the past 4000 years?  

 

I don't know that you are correct. In fact I suspect you aren't, but for the moment I will savor the possibility that this really is so.   I think with only disagreement left as to the flood and what happened over 4000 years ago, we should be able to solve all the pressing problems of Earth much more easily. This is the best news in any post I have seen for a long time.  Thus uplifted, I will now go and do something practical.

[Halcyon]

There is proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written. 

 

Really? Where? Is it scientific proof??? ;)

[Scarlett]

Models that offer explanations of the observations we make are changed and modified to incorporate new information all the time. That's how science works.

This made LOL.......and giggle.

 

As for the YE question......I don't believe in YE and I am a little fuzzy on why it is so important to some Christians. OTOH, some anti YEers are so self righteous about the 'facts' of science....which of course can change when new information is discovered.

[Joker]

There is proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written.  If that is the case, then it just stands to reason that the rest of the Bible is accurate as well.  I find it humorous that people would rather believe that a bang happened and everything just appeared that way rather than believe that there is a divine Creator.  I think it is easier to want to believe that the Bible is inaccurate than to have to be accountable for how one chooses to live their life.  More and more this society is turning into a "me first and only me" world.  For those that are saddened that children are being taught that the Bible is accurate and that the earth isn't billions of years old... I think it is sad that you don't want them taught the truth.

 

Edited to add: Going to church or living in America does not make one a Christian.  You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and follow what the Bible teaches to truly be a Christian.

 

I am a Christian and do not believe the Earth to be young. I am truly a Christian whether you believe it or not.

[Halcyon]

That's wonderful!

 

Everyone (YEC and nonbelievers and everyone in between, including, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists...) believes that both Mohammad and Jesus ascended into Heaven...  (????)  Everyone believes that Global Warming exists and that fracking is dangerous and that GMO's should be banned and, of course, that homeschooling is best of all forms of schooling. (????)   Good.   Now can we all live together in Peace and Harmony please, since we all believe exactly the same things as to the current world and that of the past 4000 years?  

 

I don't know that you are correct. In fact I suspect you aren't, but for the moment I will savor the possibility that this really is so.   I think with only disagreement left as to the flood and what happened over 4000 years ago, we should be able to solve all the pressing problems of Earth much more easily. This is the best news in any post I have seen for a long time.  Thus uplifted, I will now go and do something practical.

 

 

 

:smilielol5:

[Lady Florida.]

There is proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written.  

 

This isn't the first time you made that claim. When you made it before you were asked about this proof but never responded. Will you respond this time? What proof are you talking about?

 

You could start a spinoff and ask? Some of us may be able to help.

 

Thanks. I'll consider it, if I can figure out how to phrase my questions. Right now I'm nursing a cold, so I don't want to start a thread of my own if I don't think I can keep up with the responses. Maybe soon though.

[Lady Florida.]

This made LOL.......and giggle.

 

 

 

Why? Why does the model of how science works seem funny?

[creekland]

That's wonderful!

 

Everyone (YEC and nonbelievers and everyone in between, including, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists...) believes that both Mohammad and Jesus ascended into Heaven...  (????)  Everyone believes that Global Warming exists and that fracking is dangerous and that GMO's should be banned and, of course, that homeschooling is best of all forms of schooling. (????)   Good.   Now can we all live together in Peace and Harmony please, since we all believe exactly the same things as to the current world and that of the past 4000 years?  

 

I don't know that you are correct. In fact I suspect you aren't, but for the moment I will savor the possibility that this really is so.   I think with only disagreement left as to the flood and what happened over 4000 years ago, we should be able to solve all the pressing problems of Earth much more easily. This is the best news in any post I have seen for a long time.  Thus uplifted, I will now go and do something practical.

 

So you want it modified to be more clear to say they believe in what is seen (like dinosaur bones or virus mutation or sedimentary rocks or whatever).  Interpretations of what happened or what caused what differ, of course.  They often differ.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.  Sometimes I do think more things are naturally understood than they are.  It's the way human thought process works I suppose.  ;)

 

(Your post did give me a chuckle though.)

[Tanaqui]

There is proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written.

 

That's quite a claim! Not just historically accurate, or even the most historically accurate book by/about that time period, but the MOST historically accurate book EVER written? If I had made a claim like that, I would cite it.

 

 

  If that is the case, then it just stands to reason that the rest of the Bible is accurate as well.

 

That's a really big if.

 

 I find it humorous that people would rather believe that a bang happened and everything just appeared that way rather than believe that there is a divine Creator. 

 

I find it humorous that some people would rather believe that there is a creator out there who somehow didn't need creating.

 

I think it is easier to want to believe that the Bible is inaccurate than to have to be accountable for how one chooses to live their life.

 

I *am* accountable for how I live my life. I am accountable to myself, and to society.

 

  More and more this society is turning into a "me first and only me" world. 

 

Interesting. Can you cite some evidence of this?

 

For those that are saddened that children are being taught that the Bible is accurate and that the earth isn't billions of years old... I think it is sad that you don't want them taught the truth.

 

The Bible isn't accurate. I personally can name half a dozen things that the Bible states as fact that either definitely or probably aren't without even blinking - and I can back that up, too. All the physical evidence we have shows that the Earth is billions of years old. There is no reason not to believe the evidence of our own senses.

 

Edited to add: Going to church or living in America does not make one a Christian.  You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and follow what the Bible teaches to truly be a Christian.

 

All Christians think they have a personal relationship with Jesus and follow what the Bible teaches. But I thought the Bible taught to judge not?

 

Interpretations of what happened or what caused what differ, of course.  They often differ.

 

No, they really don't. You have to be really torturing the evidence to come up with a wildly different interpretation of the fossil record than the norm.

 

 

[Mergath]

There is proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written. If that is the case, then it just stands to reason that the rest of the Bible is accurate as well. I find it humorous that people would rather believe that a bang happened and everything just appeared that way rather than believe that there is a divine Creator. I think it is easier to want to believe that the Bible is inaccurate than to have to be accountable for how one chooses to live their life. More and more this society is turning into a "me first and only me" world. For those that are saddened that children are being taught that the Bible is accurate and that the earth isn't billions of years old... I think it is sad that you don't want them taught the truth.

 

Edited to add: Going to church or living in America does not make one a Christian. You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and follow what the Bible teaches to truly be a Christian.

There is so much wrong with this I wouldn't even know where to start.

[Guest]

The Bible isn't accurate. I personally can name half a dozen things that the Bible states as fact that either definitely or probably aren't without even blinking - and I can back that up, too. All the physical evidence we have shows that the Earth is billions of years old. There is no reason not to believe the evidence of our own senses.

Yes, for example, the Bible mentions unicorns. But only in the KJV. I'm thinking the scholars who interpreted the Bible more recently thought that looked...mmm, possibly a little foolish, so they substituted other animals that we would not question. But AiG has anexplanation for that: we cannot be certain there were no unicorns, thus, it was talking about unicorns.

 

IIRC, and I haven't looked at it recently, but one such verse was in a prophetic verse; i.e., nestled among other verses meant to describe a future event. Something like, "...and the unicorns will come to the valley..." I think that might not be accurate.

[redsquirrel]

There is proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written.  If that is the case, then it just stands to reason that the rest of the Bible is accurate as well.  I find it humorous that people would rather believe that a bang happened and everything just appeared that way rather than believe that there is a divine Creator.  I think it is easier to want to believe that the Bible is inaccurate than to have to be accountable for how one chooses to live their life.  More and more this society is turning into a "me first and only me" world.  For those that are saddened that children are being taught that the Bible is accurate and that the earth isn't billions of years old... I think it is sad that you don't want them taught the truth.

 

Edited to add: Going to church or living in America does not make one a Christian.  You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and follow what the Bible teaches to truly be a Christian.

 

Really? Go on.....

 

Let me get this straight: the bible is The Most Historically Accurate Book Ever Written and also to be a Christian one must ONLY have a "personal relationship' with Jesus.

 

Does the bible tell us what was happening in Australia at the time Jesus was alive? If not, was there anyone living in Australia?  What about China...Africa...North and South America?  It seems to me that in order to be super duper historically accurate it might need to cover a bit more territory.

 

And please tell me, because I honestly don't know what it means to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus which churches do and do not promote that sort of thing. I'd like to update my current list of who is and who is not a christian.

I really think you are doing the Bible a tremendous disservice. The bible is poetry, full of beauty and power, and fundamentalists do insist on making it into a technical manual. You stretch it and you pull it and you force it into shapes for which it was never intended.

[BrookValley.]

There is proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written. If that is the case, then it just stands to reason that the rest of the Bible is accurate as well. I find it humorous that people would rather believe that a bang happened and everything just appeared that way rather than believe that there is a divine Creator. I think it is easier to want to believe that the Bible is inaccurate than to have to be accountable for how one chooses to live their life. More and more this society is turning into a "me first and only me" world. For those that are saddened that children are being taught that the Bible is accurate and that the earth isn't billions of years old... I think it is sad that you don't want them taught the truth.

 

Edited to add: Going to church or living in America does not make one a Christian. You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and follow what the Bible teaches to truly be a Christian.

What does believing the bible is inaccurate have to do with accountability in how I choose to live my life?

 

If the bible's your thing, that's cool. But the implication that one can't be a decent, honest person without a guidebook is patently ridiculous (eta: as is the implication that only a certain kind of Christian is a true Christian).

[Liza Q]

Here is a paper by Tim Keller that describes what Jean is, I think, speaking of when saying that we take the Biblical texts as the author intended.

 

Caveat: the biologos name is on this link; I have not investigated the overall claims of that organization and I do not mean to promote it. It is simply the host of a work by a man whose words I consider worthy of considering.

 

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

 

Thanks so much for posting this.

[Daria]

I am not YEC, and I don't know that I know anyone who is YEC.  So, maybe I'm missing something.  But here's what I don't understand.

 

I know many people, both family members, and friends, who believe wholeheartedly that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, that Jesus died and then rose again, and in the case of my friends who are Catholic, that the bread and wine are physically transformed into the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist.  I don't think any less of them, or or their intellect because they believe these things.  In fact, I think these are beautiful and powerful things to believe.

 

But the difference between the people I know who believe these things, and the YEC's I read about, is that the people I know who believe that Mary was a virgin, or the Jesus rose from the dead, don't try and portray those things as scientific fact.  None of them deny that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the idea that babies are created from an egg from a woman and a sperm from a man.  None of them deny that there is a great deal of scientific evidence that dead people stay dead.   And all of them make choices in their day to day lives that seem based on these assumptions.  Instead of arguing that scientists got it wrong, or trying to redefine science, they simply say that these are mysteries of faith, and that they accept them without fully understanding them.  They then continue to live their day to day lives as if dead people stay dead, and babies have both biological mothers and biological fathers, while also believing that once, just once, it didn't work that way.

 

I don't understand why YEC's don't see it the same way.  The reality, as I see it, is that there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting the idea that the Earth is very very old, that dinosaurs walked on it long before humans came to be, that humans evolved from something that wasn't human, and that things like the Grand Canyon were created over many many eons.  I can accept that someone believes that God created the world in one single act.  I can accept that someone believes that that act happened 6,000 - 10,000 years ago.  But it seems to me beyond any , it seems to me beyond any speck of doubt that if He did create the world suddenly out of nothing, He created a world with dinosaur bones, and light that comes from stars that are million miles away, and evolution, because these things have been demonstrated to be true over and over again.  Why would he do that?  I don't really know, but I think that if I were religious, I could easily accept this as a "mystery" akin to the mystery of the virgin birth, or the resurrection, and accept it as truth.

 

What I can't understand, and what seems to me to be so damaging, is the attempt to warp or bend science to accommodate religious belief. When I read that people make up strange rules and apply them to science (e.g. "If it's a 'theory' it's obviously unproven" or "Science must be reproducible or we'll rename it 'history'"), or cling to outdated ideas that have clearly been disproven, it makes me very worried, because it seems like an incredibly slippery slope from "I don't believe in evolution, because it's just a theory, it can't ever be proven." to "I don't believe in vaccines, because the virus theory of disease is just a theory, it can never be proven." 

 

Why not just say "Yes, there is overwhelming evidence that women don't get pregnant without men, that dead people stay dead, and that the world is billions of years old.  But I believe that the Bible is literal truth,  and that the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the Creation story as told in Genesis all happened.  Why does science make it appear otherwise?  That's a mystery." 

 

What am I missing?  

[Guest]

There is no money to be made is showing the science behind the virgin birth.

[wapiti]

Perhaps this is a good time to mention Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger)'s 2006 address at the University of Regensburg, "Faith, Reason, and the University".  I could quote from it, but that wouldn't quite do it justice.  (Eta, for those lacking in time or patience, I'd suggest starting with the last two paragraphs and then going back to the others if you have time, as the history described in earlier paragraphs is interesting.)

[Daria]

There is no money to be made is showing the science behind the virgin birth.

 

Why not, though?  Could people sell sex ed textbooks and DVD lessons to homeschoolers that teach that the sperm and egg is just a "theory" and thus up for debate?  And if not, why is evolution different?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Why not, though?  Could people sell sex ed textbooks and DVD lessons to homeschoolers that teach that the sperm and egg is just a "theory" and thus up for debate?  And if not, why is evolution different?

 

We now have people arguing against germ theory and slathering essential oils on their feet for no reason so nothing would surprise me.

[Bluegoat]

Like many others I found it hard to vote.

 

I am a Christian, and while I'm pretty interested in science, i don't think I have an unsophisticated faith in it as a way of knowing.  It bothers me a lot that many people "believe" in science in a way that really misunderstands what it is and does and what it can tell us, that they have a poor understanding of the history of science, and of course all of these people when they defend science science make errors.  Some of those errors are bad because they lead to misunderstandings of science, while others are bad because they lead to misunderstanding that other ways of knowing are also valid. 

 

I also find myself upset with many YEC advocates or groups, not so much because of their views on science, but because of their views on theology - I think that in many cases YEC positions are the result of serious theological errors rather than really scientific errors.

 

In both of these cases, it isn't so much the person's personal beliefs that bother me, though it always does worry me a bit.  It is more that I think they can do harm.  I think for example that YEC presenting itself as the only way to be a Christian is a major reason that many non-religious people in the west simply dismiss Christianity without even learning the most basic thins the Church has historically believed.  And similarly, I think people who insist that science is rational because it is based on emperical facts while other types of thinking, like philosophy, are just made up, do terrible damage to the possibility of people taking it more seriously.

 

 

[Joanne]

.  I think it is easier to want to believe that the Bible is inaccurate than to have to be accountable for how one chooses to live their life.  More and more this society is turning into a "me first and only me" world. 

 

 

Why do you assume that lack of Christianity means lack of standards, rules, personal guidelines, or principles? Or that the lack of Christianity means selfishness?

 

Or, more to one of the main points emerging from this thread, that lack of *conservative* Christianity means the above?

[Bluegoat]

Albeto brings up an interesting point, which it seems people are intentionally skirting because it is very difficult, as a believer, to answer it. The best as I can figure is this: certain things are taken on faith. As a Christian, we have faith in God and his son Jesus, faith that they really did the things the Bible says they did, and faith that He is with us in our present circumstances. (I hope Christians can generally agree with me on those points--please clarify if I omitted or misrepresented any central tenets.)

 

The question is, how can we have faith in certain things that Jesus did---that he came to save mankind, that he healed the sick, that he raised Lazarus from the dead--yet not believe that our Father created the Earth in 6 days? And do some of us feel, on some deep level, we are not "true Christians" if we don't believe everything that happened in the Bible as literal fact? That we are "picking and choosing"?  I know this argument comes up in other areas--for example, gay rights---and Christians often say "you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow". 

 

But I would argue that you can. I would argue that God provided us with discernment and intelligence, and that God gave us these great minds of ours so that they would be used, used to question, used to learn, used to even unearth truths that He did not explicitly reveal in the Bible. And should we be surprised? Should we be surprised that the beauty of science and evolution is part and parcel of His plan? God constantly surprises us. And most Christians would agree that God knows everything before it even unfolds. So He knows this, and knows evolution, and he is not "testing" us as Christians--He is using the wonderful human brain (through certain individuals far more brilliant than you or I) to expose what he has already known all along, and I imagine him smiling down at us nodding encouragingly, saying "Ah, there you go! You're getting warmer!"

 

:)

 

I don't know that I see this as a difficult point.  I don't really see how anyone can argue that we are not meant to discern how Scripture is meant to be understood.  Everyone does this, normally in history its been done as a kind of community endevour.

 

I wonder perhaps if it is because people misunderstand faith that there is confusion?  people think faith is believing things without a reason, but that has never really been one of the classic definitions f faith, and I don't think it is really true of anyone.  People may have different reasons - it seems the most likely thing, they are following the view of people they trust, it seems to make intuitive sense.  these can all be reasons people believe all kinds of things, and most of them can be good reasons too.

 

I think speaking of Jesus specifically, the main item of faith is really the historical claims - the historical witness if you will.  I think it is good, as have many others, but of course it is not something anyone alive today has direct access to, just like any other historical incident.  So as history, I evaluate it the way I would evaluate any other historical claim. 

[Bluegoat]

Why do you assume that lack of Christianity means lack of standards, rules, personal guidelines, or principles? Or that the lack of Christianity means selfishness?

 

Or, more to one of the main points emerging from this thread, that lack of *conservative* Christianity means the above?

 

I don't think you would have to conclude that is what she means, there is no logical link there.

 

It could be entirel possible to have principles etc without conservative religion.  But if there were a cultural movement for people to abandon principles etc, you would likely see many abandon conservative religion.  So her explanation could be true without it in any way meaning that the irreligious must by logical necessity be without values.

[redsquirrel]

I am not YEC, and I don't know that I know anyone who is YEC.  So, maybe I'm missing something.  But here's what I don't understand.

 

I know many people, both family members, and friends, who believe wholeheartedly that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, that Jesus died and then rose again, and in the case of my friends who are Catholic, that the bread and wine are physically transformed into the body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist.  I don't think any less of them, or or their intellect because they believe these things.  In fact, I think these are beautiful and powerful things to believe.

 

But the difference between the people I know who believe these things, and the YEC's I read about, is that the people I know who believe that Mary was a virgin, or the Jesus rose from the dead, don't try and portray those things as scientific fact.  None of them deny that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the idea that babies are created from an egg from a woman and a sperm from a man.  None of them deny that there is a great deal of scientific evidence that dead people stay dead.   And all of them make choices in their day to day lives that seem based on these assumptions.  Instead of arguing that scientists got it wrong, or trying to redefine science, they simply say that these are mysteries of faith, and that they accept them without fully understanding them.  They then continue to live their day to day lives as if dead people stay dead, and babies have both biological mothers and biological fathers, while also believing that once, just once, it didn't work that way.

 

I don't understand why YEC's don't see it the same way.  The reality, as I see it, is that there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting the idea that the Earth is very very old, that dinosaurs walked on it long before humans came to be, that humans evolved from something that wasn't human, and that things like the Grand Canyon were created over many many eons.  I can accept that someone believes that God created the world in one single act.  I can accept that someone believes that that act happened 6,000 - 10,000 years ago.  But it seems to me beyond any , it seems to me beyond any speck of doubt that if He did create the world suddenly out of nothing, He created a world with dinosaur bones, and light that comes from stars that are million miles away, and evolution, because these things have been demonstrated to be true over and over again.  Why would he do that?  I don't really know, but I think that if I were religious, I could easily accept this as a "mystery" akin to the mystery of the virgin birth, or the resurrection, and accept it as truth.

 

What I can't understand, and what seems to me to be so damaging, is the attempt to warp or bend science to accommodate religious belief. When I read that people make up strange rules and apply them to science (e.g. "If it's a 'theory' it's obviously unproven" or "Science must be reproducible or we'll rename it 'history'"), or cling to outdated ideas that have clearly been disproven, it makes me very worried, because it seems like an incredibly slippery slope from "I don't believe in evolution, because it's just a theory, it can't ever be proven." to "I don't believe in vaccines, because the virus theory of disease is just a theory, it can never be proven." 

 

Why not just say "Yes, there is overwhelming evidence that women don't get pregnant without men, that dead people stay dead, and that the world is billions of years old.  But I believe that the Bible is literal truth,  and that the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the Creation story as told in Genesis all happened.  Why does science make it appear otherwise?  That's a mystery." 

 

What am I missing?  

 

Follow the money. In the US, if Young Earthers can give this religious belief the patina of "science" then they can force it into publicly funded schools. If it is 'faith' or a 'mystery' then it can't be taught using public money.

 

Until then, there are curriculum to sell, speaking fees, lectures on DVD, books, etc all available for sale.

 

 

[table4five]

I am still amazed this thread continues.

If I were to say...man, I can't stand Obama. It apparently would be pulled.....but this here....this is all ok???

The discussion certainly isn't about YEC anymore, that's for sure.

[albeto.]

I am still amazed this thread continues.

If I were to say...man, I can't stand Obama. It apparently would be pulled.....but this here....this is all ok???

The discussion certainly isn't about YEC anymore, that's for sure.

 

What is amazing about it? This thread, as I see it, is a collection of comments. These comments range from opinions to sharing factual information to personal insight. The comments reflect people taking turns sharing their thoughts, asking questions, challenging assumptions, and defending arguments while most of us read, reflect, follow links, wonder, ponder. This is the Socratic method in applied to 21st century technology. This is learning. This is community. This is cool! 

 

I missed the political era of the WTM forum, but I disagree with your last comment. This is about YEC, or more specifically, it's about what people's immediate thought is upon hearing the idea that the earth is roughly 6000-10,000 years old, and clarifications and expansions relative to those thoughts. This thread is very much on topic, I think. Of course, bunny trails are likely to pop up here and there (and some have started). It's all par for the course. 

[Murphy101]

My church official stance is it doesn't matter when it was created as long as we believe God created it. I'm happy with that.

 

I don't think anyone knows for a fact when things were created.

 

I don't think it matters either way to living life today, christian or otherwise.

[Carol in Cal.]

It's inaccurate to assume that those who hold to YEC are anti-science.

And it is that kind of assumption that is making this board increasingly unpleasant.

[Free]

 

It would effect things like knowing the age of the redwood tree, whose trunk shows some 2000 rings. After all, no one has recorded the lifespan of such a tree from the beginning, and we've yet to reproduce a tree of that age under any scientific criteria (we'd have to wait 2000 years for the results). As extrapolating evidence gained from one thing to another is off limits, this does reduce the boundaries of "science" as a field of study quiet considerably.

 

Are you even serious with this argument?  We study - and can reproduce - tree rings and dating from them all the time.

 

 

 

Now it is my turn to ask are you even serious with this argument?  :laugh:. Do you mean to imply that scientists who study and date rocks, fossils and genes are somehow less scrupulous with their research than those who study tree rings?  All of science has to be reproducible as per the standard definition of reproducibility, which means that different scientists studying the same specimen of tree ring must agree on the age of the tree.

 

But according to your own personal definition of reproducibility, dendochronology is not reproducible. You cannot go back in time to see a tree grow. You cannot know for certain that this tree grew one ring every year or if it grew more than one. You cannot know if it was born with an appearance of age - tree rings and all.

 

Scientists can tell you a whole lot about the past just by looking at the growth patterns. They can for example tell which years in the past there was drought and which years the conditions were good. They can then corroborate this with historical records and by studying tree ring patterns in the same and different regions.

 

Most of science is this way. Astronomers can reconstruct the positions of the stars in the past based on the changes in the present. Geologists can study rates of sedimentation in the present to predict the expected sediment layers both in the past and in the future. Geneticists can study rates of mutation to date divergence of species. And in fields such as climate science, modern physics, etc. models are created to make predictions.

 

So yes, you can use the term "reproducibility" arbitrarily to fit your personal biases against the evolutionary theory. I will not grudge you your ways of dealing with your cognitive dissonance.

[Free]

It's inaccurate to assume that those who hold to YEC are anti-science.

And it is that kind of assumption that is making this board increasingly unpleasant.

 

There seems to be an expectation that young earth creationism must be held to different standards than other psuedoscientific beliefs such as astrology, alchemy, geo-centrism, etc. How would it sound if we rephrase your statement by saying "It's inaccurate to assume that those who hold to the flat-earth theory are anti-science"?

 

For sure it is disturbing for those who believe in YEC to be called anti-science, but all said and done, YEC is a form of quackery and I don't see why anyone should treat it with any form of deference.

[Carol in Cal.]

There seems to be an expectation that young earth creationism must be held to different standards than other psuedoscientific beliefs such as astrology, alchemy, geo-centrism, etc. How would it sound if we rephrase your statement by saying "It's inaccurate to assume that those who hold to the flat-earth theory are anti-science"?

 

For sure it is disturbing for those who believe in YEC to be called anti-science, but all said and done, YEC is a form of quackery and I don't see why anyone should treat it with any form of deference.

This does not address my point.

However, I have had my say and don't find it necessary to discuss it further.

[creekland]

What is amazing about it? This thread, as I see it, is a collection of comments. These comments range from opinions to sharing factual information to personal insight. The comments reflect people taking turns sharing their thoughts, asking questions, challenging assumptions, and defending arguments while most of us read, reflect, follow links, wonder, ponder. This is the Socratic method in applied to 21st century technology. This is learning. This is community. This is cool! 

 

I missed the political era of the WTM forum, but I disagree with your last comment. This is about YEC, or more specifically, it's about what people's immediate thought is upon hearing the idea that the earth is roughly 6000-10,000 years old, and clarifications and expansions relative to those thoughts. This thread is very much on topic, I think. Of course, bunny trails are likely to pop up here and there (and some have started). It's all par for the course. 

 

Hey... another time you and I agree on something!  I'm pretty pleased (overall) with this thread and how it has stayed on topic with folks getting to voice their thoughts somewhat.  It's been an interesting read - and seeing the poll results.

 

My church official stance is it doesn't matter when it was created as long as we believe God created it. I'm happy with that.

 

I don't think anyone knows for a fact when things were created.

 

I don't think it matters either way to living life today, christian or otherwise.

 

Come to think of it, I've no idea what official stance (if any) our church has.  I know there are many different beliefs within the church on the issue, but it's never come up as any sermon topic while we've been there.

 

Now it is my turn to ask are you even serious with this argument?  :laugh:. Do you mean to imply that scientists who study and date rocks, fossils and genes are somehow less scrupulous with their research than those who study tree rings?  All of science has to be reproducible as per the standard definition of reproducibility, which means that different scientists studying the same specimen of tree ring must agree on the age of the tree.

 

But according to your own personal definition of reproducibility, dendochronology is not reproducible. You cannot go back in time to see a tree grow. You cannot know for certain that this tree grew one ring every year or if it grew more than one. You cannot know if it was born with an appearance of age - tree rings and all.

 

Scientists can tell you a whole lot about the past just by looking at the growth patterns. They can for example tell which years in the past there was drought and which years the conditions were good. They can then corroborate this with historical records and by studying tree ring patterns in the same and different regions.

 

Most of science is this way. Astronomers can reconstruct the positions of the stars in the past based on the changes in the present. Geologists can study rates of sedimentation in the present to predict the expected sediment layers both in the past and in the future. Geneticists can study rates of mutation to date divergence of species. And in fields such as climate science, modern physics, etc. models are created to make predictions.

 

 

You lost me at the underlined.  That might be your definition of reproduciblity, but it's not mine.  I agree with the paragraph following that one though.

 

When you get to geologists, a bit will depend upon whether one takes a uniformitarian view or not.  Far more is done in any storm than in everyday life.  This is why my engineering hubby has to design things (legally) with a 100 year flood in mind.  Interestingly enough, we've had more than one 100 year flood in my lifetime where we live and the powers that be have been redoing their calcs to reflect this (giving hubby more work, so beneficial for our personal economy, but not so much for others).  There is a bit unknown about weather and what it does to our planet.  We are learning more as we go on, but considering that in the same way as tree ring dating is stretching it a bit.

 

With genetics, there's a whole field still being studied (esp if one adds in epigenetics - a fascinating field to me).  Stress on a population can do wonders in a short period of time (good or bad wonders).  We know what happens normally and we know what can happen with stress, but getting specific with fossils (no DNA in fossils) is also stretching it.

 

I agree with the models and astronomy projections, etc.

 

Someone else had posted about essential oils and anti-vacc stuff.  Many of those I know in that camp aren't YEC.  They're more of the green hippie type.  I don't claim to know all involved with it though.  I'm quite green planet-wise, but not buying into the whole package.  My kids have all their vaccs.  I keep some of mine updated too.  I only learned about essential oils on a recent thread and haven't been furiously investigating or buying.

 

Maybe that's a problem with us middle of the road folks.  We're totally unable to commit? 

[Vera]

I think it is easier to want to believe that the Bible is inaccurate than to have to be accountable for how one chooses to live their life.

I am accountable to ME for how I live my life.

[Guest]

There is proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written. If that is the case, then it just stands to reason that the rest of the Bible is accurate as well. I find it humorous that people would rather believe that a bang happened and everything just appeared that way rather than believe that there is a divine Creator. I think it is easier to want to believe that the Bible is inaccurate than to have to be accountable for how one chooses to live their life. More and more this society is turning into a "me first and only me" world. For those that are saddened that children are being taught that the Bible is accurate and that the earth isn't billions of years old... I think it is sad that you don't want them taught the truth.

 

Edited to add: Going to church or living in America does not make one a Christian. You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and follow what the Bible teaches to truly be a Christian.

I'm not sure how any book could be "the most historically accurate"?? Please explain.

[sunflowerlady]

There is proof that the Bible is the most historically accurate book every written.  If that is the case, then it just stands to reason that the rest of the Bible is accurate as well.  I find it humorous that people would rather believe that a bang happened and everything just appeared that way rather than believe that there is a divine Creator.  I think it is easier to want to believe that the Bible is inaccurate than to have to be accountable for how one chooses to live their life.  More and more this society is turning into a "me first and only me" world.  For those that are saddened that children are being taught that the Bible is accurate and that the earth isn't billions of years old... I think it is sad that you don't want them taught the truth.

 

Edited to add: Going to church or living in America does not make one a Christian.  You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and follow what the Bible teaches to truly be a Christian.

 

Really? I am just catching up on the thread, so others may have asked already. What is this proof and where can I find it? I am totally serious. As a person who has been struggling with faith, this is something I would like to see. There are many of us here on TWTM who are struggling and would likely want to see this also.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's inaccurate to assume that those who hold to YEC are anti-science.

And it is that kind of assumption that is making this board increasingly unpleasant.

 

But it is true.  YECers take an entire field of study and blithely dismiss it because it does not fit their religious beliefs.  When you attempt to refer to a religious text as a science text, then yes, you are anti-science. 

[Saddlemomma]

I hear a lot about "taking the Bible literally" and I always answer that I do take the Bible literally, but in its proper context, remembering that I'm seeing that world through the lens of the authors of that time and the culture of that time period.  I also believe the primary eye-witness accounts written in the Bible by people who were there, under the threat of a horrendous death for testifying to those events during the time they were writing about them.  Yet how do we know Jesus and these "characters of the Bible"  and events were real?

 

Most of ancient history is gleaned from testimony of contemporaries who wrote about them during their times.  Yet, we don't suspect their testimonies, just the Bible.  For example, think about Socrates.  We have no coins minted with his image/name, nor any other epigraphy testifying to his existence;  we have no primary source documents; we only have a very few secondary source documents written by 3 other philosophers. Sounds almost like what we have with the Gospels.  Yet we all have faith that Socrates was a real person.  We teach about him; we study his philosophy; we name discussions after him

 

In my opinion, the Bible can be taken literally where it is meant to be taken literally.  It is also rife with allegory, metaphors, similes, and symbolism.  To demonstrate what I mean, here is a fabulous newsletter (from a site I subscribe to and get monthly) explaining why the Bible can be taken literally in context.  Because the newsletter is a PDF, you will have to access the following link, and then scroll to the end of the page and click on the link in yellow after the words: Publication File. http://www.str.org/publications/do-you-take-the-bible-literally#.VQ7bzeEYPqo

 

Another great resource from this site is the video explaining about the Creation account.  I used to be an avid YEC, however, over the past several years, through re-reading Genesis, listening to proponents from both sides; and doing some reading (not the book Greg Koukl mentions in this video), I'm of the belief now that we can never really know the true age of the earth.  From a scientific standpoint, the professed age changes ever few years as we learn more with new techniques and technology, and radiometric dating is not an exact science.  It has some problems; not that it isn't a good benchmark however.  Here is the video I'm talking about. It sums up exactly how I feel about the debate: http://www.str.org/videos/understanding-the-creation-account-in-genesis#.VQ7PE-EYPqo

 

Yet another video sums up the real debate between Christianity and science.  It's not actually science vs. Christianity.  It's philosophical science vs. Christianity, and the video explains why.  However, you must watch the whole video to get to the meat of the answer.  Don't stop part way through!  I almost did because it seemed like Alan wasn't really answering the question, but he does in the last minute, so please, if you're going to watch it, stick with it until the end. It's only 11 minutes.  http://www.str.org/videos/does-science-offer-an-evidence-based-creation-story-unlike-the-biblical-account#.VQ7Q5eEYPqp

 

Yes, there is a degree of faith Christianity, just as there is in any religion or non religion.  I have to have faith that that 400 year old account of Alexander the Great was accurate and that he wasn't just a figurehead propped up by someone else. I have to have faith that the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs that we use to get information and build timelines about their culture report accurate information rather than embellish accounts, or purge undesirable events (as they were known to do). I have to have faith that I won't get cancer and die during menopause.  I have to have faith in things every.single.day.  Atheists also have to have faith - that their naturalistic version of events is true.  They have to have faith that there is absolutely no supernatural elements in the world.  They have to have faith that everything we see and know about the world came about spontaneously through random chance and mutations.  So, we all exercise faith every day in many, many things.

 

These are my views and reflect my beliefs. Other Christians may not agree with me, and secular people certainly won't agree.  That's okay.  I definitely don't mean any disrespect to anyone.

 

Albeto brings up an interesting point, which it seems people are intentionally skirting because it is very difficult, as a believer, to answer it. The best as I can figure is this: certain things are taken on faith. As a Christian, we have faith in God and his son Jesus, faith that they really did the things the Bible says they did, and faith that He is with us in our present circumstances. (I hope Christians can generally agree with me on those points--please clarify if I omitted or misrepresented any central tenets.)

 

The question is, how can we have faith in certain things that Jesus did---that he came to save mankind, that he healed the sick, that he raised Lazarus from the dead--yet not believe that our Father created the Earth in 6 days? And do some of us feel, on some deep level, we are not "true Christians" if we don't believe everything that happened in the Bible as literal fact? That we are "picking and choosing"?  I know this argument comes up in other areas--for example, gay rights---and Christians often say "you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow". 

 

But I would argue that you can. I would argue that God provided us with discernment and intelligence, and that God gave us these great minds of ours so that they would be used, used to question, used to learn, used to even unearth truths that He did not explicitly reveal in the Bible. And should we be surprised? Should we be surprised that the beauty of science and evolution is part and parcel of His plan? God constantly surprises us. And most Christians would agree that God knows everything before it even unfolds. So He knows this, and knows evolution, and he is not "testing" us as Christians--He is using the wonderful human brain (through certain individuals far more brilliant than you or I) to expose what he has already known all along, and I imagine him smiling down at us nodding encouragingly, saying "Ah, there you go! You're getting warmer!"

 

:)

 

[Professormom]

Really? I am just catching up on the thread, so others may have asked already. What is this proof and where can I find it? I am totally serious. As a person who has been struggling with faith, this is something I would like to see. There are many of us here on TWTM who are struggling and would likely want to see this also.

I am only popping in to speak to this specifically. Faith isn't easy. It can be the most trying and the most rewarding thing because it is such a dichotomy, at once simple and complex, refreshing and challenging, producing both joy and sorrow. I hear you on the struggle and if you want to have a "talk" or ask a specific question via pm, I am here for ya, girl :grouphug: I am not an expert in apologetics and I don't profess to have all of the answers, but I do know that seeking them can be messy and if I can use my struggle to help clarify a little, I am available (off-board, for now:-)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Except we aren't expected to accept everything Socrates said as fact, aren't asked to base laws/societies around what he taught, and frankly there are no extraordinary claims about him.  Accepting the accounts of other philosophers about someone who influenced them is very different than what YECers are asking others to believe.

 

Regarding what you said later in your post, there is a significant difference between now knowing the true age of the earth as dating techniques change and being off by a few billion years while claiming that T-Rex used to chill out with Adam eating watermelons.

[Tanaqui]

Yet we all have faith that Socrates was a real person.  We teach about him; we study his philosophy; we name discussions after him

 

The difference between Socrates and Jesus - one of many differences - is that his own students wrote about him, and Aristophanes mocked him. None of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about him, or if they did, those writings have long since been lost. The first writings we have about Jesus were written well after his death by people who never met him in the flesh. That's much less convincing.

 

I have to have faith that that 400 year old account of Alexander the Great was accurate and that he wasn't just a figurehead propped up by someone else. I have to have faith that the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs that we use to get information and build timelines about their culture report accurate information rather than embellish accounts, or purge undesirable events (as they were known to do).

 

That's why historians look at multiple sources, and are always prepared to revise their ideas when new information comes in. It's like science, really - you don't go on faith, you follow the evidence.

 

Atheists also have to have faith - that their naturalistic version of events is true.  They have to have faith that there is absolutely no supernatural elements in the world.

 

That's like you having faith that there isn't an invisible yeti in your backyard, or having faith that you're not the only person in the universe, or having faith that Santa isn't real. It's a bizarre definition of the word that's only used to make a false equivalence between atheists and theists.

 

They have to have faith that everything we see and know about the world came about spontaneously through random chance and mutations.

 

You know, I don't like that word "random". Evolution is many things, but its main driver, natural selection, is not random.

 

 

You lost me at the underlined.  That might be your definition of reproduciblity, but it's not mine.  I agree with the paragraph following that one though.

 

Look, if you want to have your own personal definition of "reproducibility", whatever, but in the real world that carries as much weight as you claiming that, to you, "leg" means any appendage, so a dog has five of 'em.

 

[Spryte]

I am accountable to ME for how I live my life.

 

Yes.   :)  And have you noticed that perhaps we (the general you and I, the ones who hold ourselves accountable) do not have a convenient out, in the form of forgiveness?  There is something to be said for living with the consequences of our actions without a sense of being "forgiven" for our transgressions.  It makes me more determined to live a good, ethical life - for myself, for my family and friends, for the community I live in, and for the planet itself.

 

ETA to clarify that when I said "more determined" I am speaking for myself.  More determined than I was when I was a christian.  

[.Michelle.]

The difference between Socrates and Jesus - one of many differences - is that his own students wrote about him, and Aristophanes mocked him. None of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about him, or if they did, those writings have long since been lost. The first writings we have about Jesus were written well after his death by people who never met him in the flesh. That's much less convincing.

 

 

None of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about him?  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

None of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about him?  

 

No. The accounts written about Jesus were well after his death by those who never met him.

[Tanaqui]

None of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about him?  

 

To my knowledge, if anybody who personally knew Jesus wrote about him, we no longer have those documents.

 

It's certainly possible that we will one day uncover another library of documents, some of which were written during his lifetime and mention him. Should that happen, I will revise my opinion that historical-Jesus was most likely a composite figure.

 

I mean, the closest we get is Paul, and his experience of Jesus is after his death. That's another difference between Socrates and Jesus - we're only expected to believe that Socrates probably existed, not to have an opinion on whether or not he performed miracles or spoke to people after dying.