I'm a young earth creationist, and found this article interesting. I do believe that many in the church who hold an OE view are in fact compromised, how badly, I'm not sure, but it is a big problem in my mind. Even Dawkins thinks so, one of the few times I agree with him. See what you think.

https://creation.com/refuting-atheists-useful-dupes

I think young earth creationism is ridiculous.

Yeah. Although it isn’t the hill to die on like some YEC believers think.

I am ignorant of where in the bible a straightforward ~complete chronology of the world can be found.

Is there a simple case to be made from scripture?

(asked in earnest)

This is why people refer to YEC as more of a religious article of faith than a scientific theory.

What hill are YEC dying on? This hill? Probably not. But OE creationists, like Collins and Lane, are pretty compromised. I know atheists think Genesis is a fairytale, but when famous guys like the 2 mentioned start undermining the history of Genesis, it becomes a pretty big issue for the veracity of the gospel.

It's up there with Flatearfers.

Compromised? I will venture to say that someone`s cognative ability is compromised, that I`m sure of.

Don't know what people you speak of, but the veracity and infallibility of the scriptures is an article of faith in my church. Darwinist, like Dawkins, seem to understand the issue a lot more than Collins and Biologos.

Then I guess the article isn't for you.

As an atheist, the simple answer that the Gospel isn't real, does a pretty solid job of explaining all of the questions and conundrums.

It begins in Genesis 5 with the genealogies of man. Also in 1 Chronicles 1.

You have to ignore alot of fossils and astronomy to believe our planet is 6000 years old.  Yes i believe in a creating force also.

Then the article isn't for you either.

Either you believe that God is omnipotent and could create earth a long time ago and have it age naturally or could create earth relatively recently with the appearance of age, or you are a heretic.  I don't see much practical difference between the first two.

Hasn't been one in awhile

Do you think Satan put dinosaur bones in the ground to deceive us?  Honest question.

Maybe those fossils were laid down by great amounts of water. Maybe, evolutionists are forever looking for those transitions that had to happen by, at least, the millions, but yet are so elusive. But, then, that has nothing to do with the article, at least directly.

Yep. Same type of mix of mental illness and retardation.

"...Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of creationism which holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms were created by supernatural acts of the Abrahamic God between approximately 6,000 and 10,000 years ago..."

What can I say, the article stuck me as interesting. Besides, war, bums me out.

Sort of like the short bus kids debating who is smarter.

No, I think death came into the world through Adam, and many of the dinosaurs were buried very quickly in a massive flood.

YEC is asinine.  It's beyond asinine.  It's like saying the Earth was created two minutes ago with everyone's memories intact.

Well there you go.....dad said....I think your dad got short sheeted on his training, but again that doesn't have much to do with the article.

The linked article assumes that young earth creationism is what the Bible teaches.  In fact, this is a misunderstanding of the Bible.  The Bible was written long before the invention of science.  It was written to people who knew nothing about science (which did not exist), geology, biology or anything of the sort... and the audience cared nothing about these non-existent fields of study.  There is no science in the Bible as a result.  Trying to pull scientific information where it does not exist yields absurdities, like saying the earth must be 6,000 years old or so.

No one who wrote or read the Bible (in the original audiences) cared about this, nor was the Bible written to address these topics.

The Bible as written reflects the worldview of the ancient near east audience, and should be read with this in view to prevent confusion.

For example, the seven days of creation have an weird format.

Day 1 is creation of light.  Three days later is the creation of the sources of light (sun and moon).

Day 2 is the creation of the firmament (division between the water and heavens).  Three days later is the creation of the sea and air creatures (winged animals).

Day 3 is the creation of dry land and plants.... three days later is the creation of land animals and people.

Do you catch this pattern?  The days of Genesis are not in any kind of chronological order, they are a poetic structure...

The creation story is in the form on an ancient poem glorifying God for creating the heavens and the earth, it is not supposed to tell us that light was created before the sun... Young earth creationist torture the bible to try and find science that would have just confused ancient people.

If you are interested in learning to read Genesis, and understand it like the original audience did (well, at least as much as we can) there is a really good book that covers this topic, A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture by Carol A. Hill.

I would like to add that I do not think that creationists are stupid, or anything of the sort.  It is a very easy mistake to make when reading the Bible... modern men, who practice and care about science read the Bible and try and work their worldview into it... is natural to us, but would be utterly alien to the original audience of the Bible.

If you accept yec as Truth then you have to reject most of human knowledge.

Most lines of science, archaeology, legends and even history of other cultures.

Your analogy is flawed, but moving on.

Dawkins doesn't understand the Bible any more than he understands theology.  Of course he misunderstands what it is teaching horribly.

God inspired the words Moses wrote, He was there, and you weren't.

No, it's not flawed.  YEC teaches that God created the universe 6-10,000 years ago and made it so we can see the light from stars hundreds of thousands of light-years away even though they wouldn't have had time to reach us yet.  That's creation with the appearance of age.  If you go down that path, yes, you might as well say we were created two minutes ago with our memories in place and everything appearing to be older.

Lol.

Cognitive.

Nope, the first western scientists were pretty much YEC.

People got tired of waiting on god to come back and take us up to the heavens like he promised, so we took it upon ourselves to go there on our own. And now we are driving around and flying helicopters on Mars... Flying. helicopters. Mars.... On fucking Mars!

No, they weren't.

Are you saying God couldn't do that if He wanted to?

Dawkins understands the words and propositions in the bible, he just doesn't believe they're true. The question is, does Collins and Lane, claiming to be Christians, understand the bible correctly or have they compromised their faith by interpreting the world/universe through the lens of secular science, thus, secular science is the ultimate authority not God's word.

Yes that is correct.  And science didn't exist then either.  Geology, biology and so on... no one cared.  God did not try and explain these topics to the ancient Hebrews, any more than you would try and explain nuclear physics to a toddler.  Instead, God gave them a poem explaining that he created the universe, and not explaining how he did so.

So all of academia is wrong?  Every scientist on earth that studies archeology, geology, anthropology, physics,etc is wrong?  The Hubble telescope is wrong?  The James Webb telescope is wrong?  All the experimentation that independent labs replicate daily are wrong?  And your old book is right.  That's what you expect us to believe?  You've sure got your work cut out for yourself to actually demonstrate your claims to be true.

You forgot, we're raping and murdering each other too. History is REALLY messy.

Yes, they were.

https://creation.com/scientists-of-the-past-who-believed-in-a-creator

The thing is, YEC attempt to understand Genesis through the lens of science... they try and come up with a geological age of the earth using the Bible.  They try and come up with a theory of hydrology using the flood story.  They try and come up with different theories of biology (tiger and house cats descended from an ancestral cat on the ark, for example).  I understand why they do this... they love science, and so they try and apply it to things that have no scientific content...

If you are interested in this topic, I can't do better to explain it than the book by Carol Hill.

Ok do you want to reread what you shared or do you want to stick with what you posted?

How do you know that some for of science didn't exist? They understood how pro-creation worked, they understood and had a pretty good idea of how to build things and survive. They moved from the stone age to the bronze age and so forth. "Science" means knowledge, they had some, maybe more than we think.

Right you are, I may have mis-spelled it, but at least I haz it.

Both are absurd but the whole “young earth” thing is laughably idiotic.

-Doesn't believe in evolution because it's not in the Bible

-Believes in a pre-Trib Rapture that's not in the Bible

Evolution is a sacramental belief of the Church of atheism.

Genesis is a Foundational belief required for Christianity. You can not reconcile evolution nor theistic evolution and be a Christian.

You may try, but it will fail. Evolution is a demonic idea to subvert belief in Christ.

It's Satan's attempt to be a "creator".

Most scientists & Christians were YEC. It takes more faith to believe in evolution with all the holes in the theory, than a Super natural creator who made it all on His timeline.

I didn't always feel this way. But, within the last 5yrs, I've come to realize this.

God didn't lie.