Young earth

[firedragon]

Do you believe in the YEC concept hugely motivated recently in England and the USA? By the way, when I say recently I did that purposefully to refer to the 20th century movement that is theorised to have sprung up harshly due to the Darwinian uprising.

Some people call it pseudoscientific so called creation science. This defies scientific consensus that the earth is much older. Probably billions of years old. But it seems like an apologetic against the notion of an old earth that defies the biblical understanding of a number of thousands, based on the chronological age calculation in descending order from modern times, Jesus, to Adam. Everyone knows this.

It has been found that even in the modern day and age some 40% of the Americans believe in a young earth. I could be wrong with that percentage, but its somewhere there.

I don't know how many in this forum follows the YEC pattern of thought, but I would like to hear from you if possible. If you do believe in the YEC thought process, what are the reasonings for that stance?

Thank you.

 

[an anarchist]

Do you believe in the YEC concept hugely motivated recently in England and the USA? By the way, when I say recently I did that purposefully to refer to the 20th century movement that is theorised to have sprung up harshly due to the Darwinian uprising.

Some people call it pseudoscientific so called creation science. This defies scientific consensus that the earth is much older. Probably billions of years old. But it seems like an apologetic against the notion of an old earth that defies the biblical understanding of a number of thousands, based on the chronological age calculation in descending order from modern times, Jesus, to Adam. Everyone knows this.

It has been found that even in the modern day and age some 40% of the Americans believe in a young earth. I could be wrong with that percentage, but its somewhere there.

I don't know how many in this forum follows the YEC pattern of thought, but I would like to hear from you if possible. If you do believe in the YEC thought process, what are the reasonings for that stance?

Thank you.

I was a young earther as a theist (not any more though).
Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia
this is how I reasoned my young earth beliefs with science. Believed God simply created an aged universe some 6000 years ago. That’s why there is evidence for an old universe, though it be young. God made man fully evolved already, no need for billions of years of evolution.
Of course, that’s what I thought as a theist, i no longer a young earther.

 

[firedragon]

I was a young earther as a theist (not any more though).
Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia
this is how I reasoned my young earth beliefs with science. Believed God simply created an aged universe some 6000 years ago. That’s why there is evidence for an old universe, though it be young. God made man fully evolved already, no need for billions of years of evolution.
Of course, that’s what I thought as a theist, i no longer a young earther.

I see. In my understanding that is a very recent hypothesis. And I have seen that argument here in this forum as well. Thanks very much.

I dont know if this is relevant to you but what made you leave the YEC thought process?

 

[an anarchist]

I see. In my understanding that is a very recent hypothesis. And I have seen that argument here in this forum as well. Thanks very much.

I dont know if this is relevant to you but what made you leave the YEC thought process?

Simply decided I wasn’t going to take the Bible literally or be a Christian for that matter. Without the Bible telling me the world is only a few thousand years old, I find myself believing I am a product of billions of years of evolution.

 

[Windwalker]

Some people call it pseudoscientific so called creation science. This defies scientific consensus that the earth is much older. Probably billions of years old. But it seems like an apologetic against the notion of an old earth that defies the biblical understanding of a number of thousands, based on the chronological age calculation in descending order from modern times, Jesus, to Adam. Everyone knows this.

It is pseudoscience. It does not follow the rules of science, and offers no actual scientific information whatsoever. This statement from the Botanical Society of America on Evolution puts it quite well. (emphasis mine):

What would the creationist paradigm have done? No telling. Perhaps nothing, because observing three wheat species specially created to feed humans would not have generated any questions that needed answering. No predictions are made, so there is no reason or direction for seeking further knowledge. This demonstrates the scientific uselessness of creationism. While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, “that’s the way it was created.” No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified.

Is it fair or good science education to teach about an unsuccessful, scientifically useless explanation just because it pleases people with a particular religious belief? Is it unfair to ignore scientifically useless explanations, particularly if they have played no role in the development of modern scientific concepts? Science education is about teaching valid concepts and those that led to the development of new explanations.​

Full statement found here: Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution.

It has been found that even in the modern day and age some 40% of the Americans believe in a young earth. I could be wrong with that percentage, but its somewhere there.

I don't know how many in this forum follows the YEC pattern of thought, but I would like to hear from you if possible. If you do believe in the YEC thought process, what are the reasonings for that stance?

Thank you.

The reason why people deny science in this regard is to protect their misguided interpretations of the Bible, reading Genesis as if it were written to answer a scientific question, which it was not. Fear that if their idea of what Genesis says doesn't match their ideas of God, that they will lose faith in God. In short, it threatens their faith. So the answer is to why, is because their faith is on unsteady ground. Faith is able to adapt. Stubborn beliefs are not.

 

[firedragon]

Simply decided I wasn’t going to take the Bible literally or be a Christian for that matter. Without the Bible telling me the world is only a few thousand years old, I find myself believing I am a product of billions of years of evolution.

Hmm. Thanks for your explanation brother.

 

[F1fan]

Do you believe in the YEC concept hugely motivated recently in England and the USA? By the way, when I say recently I did that purposefully to refer to the 20th century movement that is theorised to have sprung up harshly due to the Darwinian uprising.

The Darwinian uprising: experts in science publishing results of experiments.

 

[Psalm23]

I don't really have an opinion either way about the age of the earth at this moment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some people call it pseudoscientific so called creation science. This defies scientific consensus that the earth is much older. Probably billions of years old. But it seems like an apologetic against the notion of an old earth that defies the biblical understanding of a number of thousands, based on the chronological age calculation in descending order from modern times, Jesus, to Adam. Everyone knows this.

The claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is refuted by much more than just the methods we commonly use to measure the age of the Earth.

Heck - we even have a continuous year-by-year dating based on tree rings going back for about 12,600 years (and with no global flood anywhere in that period). Even that's enough to refute most YEC claims.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you believe in the YEC concept hugely motivated recently in England and the USA? By the way, when I say recently I did that purposefully to refer to the 20th century movement that is theorised to have sprung up harshly due to the Darwinian uprising.

Some people call it pseudoscientific so called creation science. This defies scientific consensus that the earth is much older. Probably billions of years old. But it seems like an apologetic against the notion of an old earth that defies the biblical understanding of a number of thousands, based on the chronological age calculation in descending order from modern times, Jesus, to Adam. Everyone knows this.

It has been found that even in the modern day and age some 40% of the Americans believe in a young earth. I could be wrong with that percentage, but its somewhere there.

I don't know how many in this forum follows the YEC pattern of thought, but I would like to hear from you if possible. If you do believe in the YEC thought process, what are the reasonings for that stance?

Thank you.

YECs are completely not dwelling in the realm of reality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I used to, when I was a Christian. Back then I simply didn't know any better or know anything else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One good thing about Young Earth beliefs is that most people now see them as being almost identical to Flat Earth beliefs.

 

[danieldemol]

One good thing about Young Earth beliefs is that most people now see them as being almost identical to Flat Earth beliefs.

Rejecting the Theory of Evolution will likely be seen the same way as flat earth beliefs in the future too.

In my opinion.

 

[Kenny]

Do you believe in the YEC concept hugely motivated recently in England and the USA? By the way, when I say recently I did that purposefully to refer to the 20th century movement that is theorised to have sprung up harshly due to the Darwinian uprising.

Some people call it pseudoscientific so called creation science. This defies scientific consensus that the earth is much older. Probably billions of years old. But it seems like an apologetic against the notion of an old earth that defies the biblical understanding of a number of thousands, based on the chronological age calculation in descending order from modern times, Jesus, to Adam. Everyone knows this.

It has been found that even in the modern day and age some 40% of the Americans believe in a young earth. I could be wrong with that percentage, but its somewhere there.

I don't know how many in this forum follows the YEC pattern of thought, but I would like to hear from you if possible. If you do believe in the YEC thought process, what are the reasonings for that stance?

Thank you.

Barring God from doing what He pleases, the Bible that I read doesn't really specify. I go with an older earth but I don't care if I am wrong.

 

[1213]

... If you do believe in the YEC thought process, what are the reasonings for that stance?

I believe in relatively young earth because I think there is not good evidence for very old earth.

 

[Windwalker]

I believe in relatively young earth because I think there is not good evidence for very old earth.

What tools of science did you use to help you conclude that the scientific consensus on this matter is wrong? Have you presented your data to the scientific community, and what do your peers in the scientific community say about your findings?

 

[firedragon]

I believe in relatively young earth because I think there is not good evidence for very old earth.

Thats interesting. When you say relatively young relative to what? Old earth or Young earth?

Do you have a period? And why do you believe so?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe in relatively young earth because I think there is not good evidence for very old earth.

I too would like to know. I have as of yet to meet a YEC that properly understands the concept of evidence.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Do you have a period? And why do you believe so?

I guess not - he's male.

 

[firedragon]

I guess not - he's male.

Great. Thanks.