Why I'm still a Young Earth Creationist

[mattrose]

Oh Steve, I think your pushing semantics with this functionality spin. I'm not positive on the issue yet, so help me and explain the functionality of created ROCK? You know an ordinary ROCK?

The point Steve was making is that, in YECism (at least), many things were created with maturity so that they could function right away. Adam & Eve were created as mature adults, as were likewise many plants and animals. Rocks, of course, were created as rocks...which quite helpfully gave Adam something to stand on.

My point was, God didn't make things look older than they were. God made some things functionally mature. And the worldwide flood made other things look deluged and destroyed (Which is interpreted as old looking by old earthers).

[robbyyoung]

My point was, God didn't make things look older than they were.

Yes, I know. Therefore, a rock was created as OLD. It appeared to be OLD because it was OLD. Time was created out of nothing, in an instant. If a geologist would have studied that created rock on day 1, he would have seen age and been baffled how this could be.

Also, God created the trees. Don't you think that trees had rings? The rings denote age.

God made some things functionally mature.

This term doesn't erase the evidence of age in creation. Am I missing something here?

Furthermore, this is why I believe the science disciplines, concerning material things, will never come close to scratching the surface of origins, why? Because there is no such thing as "the last piece". Discovery continues for eternity! Material was created out of eternity and can only vanish back into eternity, whatever that means - LOL!

But seriously guys, I'm trying to follow you but can you answer my questions?

Thanks and God Bless!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Robby Young
U.S. Army Retired

[mattrose]

Yes, I know. Therefore, a rock was created as OLD. It appeared to be OLD because it was OLD.Time was created out of nothing, in an instant. If a geologist would have studied that created rock on day 1, he would have seen age and been baffled how this could be.

I guess I'm just confused by what you mean by a rock appearing to be old. What would the scientist have observed about the rock that would have made him say 'man, that's an old rock!' And how can something truly be old if it just came into existence 10 seconds earlier?

Also, God created the trees. Don't you think that trees had rings? The rings denote age.

I have no idea if they had rings. I am sure God created mature/functional trees. But I doubt God needed to retrofit rings just to make sure original trees matched future trees.

Am I missing something here?

I don't know. It seems I don't really get your point and you don't get mine. I'm not too concerned about it, however

[steve]

Robby,

I know your question was addressed to me as well as to Matt, but I was having dinner while Matt was giving you answers very much like the ones I would have given.

I think rocks are functional for many purposes—for use as foundations and building materials probably foremost among them. The Bible usually mentions rocks as refuges from severe weather. Whether there would or would not have been severe weather without the fall, I cannot say, but the rocks were there beforehand, waiting for man to discover uses for them.

I doubt that the original trees had (or needed) tree rings. However, if the rings of modern trees, in any sense, serve the tree in any way, I suppose God would have included them in the mature trees at the time of creation. I don't know much about trees, and real arborist may know very well that tree rings do something or do nothing toward strengthening a tree as it gets older, larger, heavier, and in greater need of structural strength. If a big tree is made more resistant to toppling by the accumulation of rings in its younger years, then the rings are functional, and should have been present from the beginning.

There are created features of living (and non-living) things, no doubt, whose functions man has yet to discover. My point is, whatever function they serve in the modern organism would probably have been present the moment of their creation as well.

[TheEditor]

Hi back at ya,

Are you asking how I come to the conclusion that Jesus was a young earth creationist? I think that his statements most readily lead me to believe that Genesis 1-11 were genuine history, not myth.

I do believe that Jesus seemed to put his imprimatur, as it were, on the account of the fall. But I can't find anywhere in his references to the Genesis narrative lending to the notion he was a YEC.

Jesus as well as Peter also used Sodom as an example of destruction parallel to the final Judgement. Sodom was decidedly a "local" phenomena.

No, I think I could make a solid biblical case that Sodom is used as an example of judgment moreso than worldwide judgment. I think Noah's flood is used as an example of worldwide judgment. And certainly it reads like a worldwide judgment. But I am going off of a gut feeling. I have not taken the time to pursue your suggestion.

I'll have to disagree with you here. Jesus used both accounts one after the other to underscore the same point, that being that people took "no note" up until the moment they were "swept away":

Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. But on the day that Lot came out of Sodom it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all. The same way it will be on that day when the Son of man is to be revealed. (Luke 17:26-30)

I just think it makes better sense of Scripture to say that all death and violence come as a consequence to sin.

I understand. I have wrestled with my own views on this over the years, and can't say I firmly stand convinced one way or another as of yet. If one were to take Pelagianism as a "1" and Augustinianism/Calvinism as a "10", right now I would be a 3.5 on this subject.

But if God was just going to zap some human like creature with the 'image of God' characteristics after millions of years... what was the point of those millions of years? If the millions of years didn't bring about what God purposed, why use that system? Seems like a terribly inefficient delivery system... it takes millions of years and doesn't produce what was intended with a supernatural act anyways!

Yes, it is perplexing for us, isn't it? I don't pretend to have all of the answers. Although I think that your point might be more of an argument against theistic evolution than Old Earth Creationism. But, I also think, who knows? Maybe God allowed the angels some degree of freedom to take part in creation. He seemed amenable to having suggestions given by angels on how to proceed in certain matters, at least in one account in the Old Testament. It may just be that we have a concept of God as a micro-manager that, since He can do all things perfectly, He acts like some sort of autocratic djinn and "poof" there's the best way. Seems like it might get a bit boring for the angelic host. But what do I know.

Regards, Brenden.

[willowtree]

robbyyoung said (from page 1)

All the plant... life was created with age

The way I read this, the most natural way for earth to bring forth grass, is for it to grow from seed in the ground to plant above the ground. This command was given by God to the earth, not to the plants. I do not read God saying "Let there be trees", and there were mature trees.

Where, in scripture, are we told that the vegetation simply appeared as fully grown?

Graeme

[TK]

I never liked the "appearance of age" theory because to me it makes God seem deceitful which of course would be contrary to his character.

I do believe he created Adam and Eve as adults, obviously, but that they did not have any signs of "wear and tear" that a typical 20 year old might have.

I am with Steve that trees would not have had tree rings (unless the the tree won't stand without them).

But to say that God created already-eroded mountains (like the Appalachians) and elsewhere create un-eroded mountains (Rockies, Himalayas) is something that I don't see Him doing.

Part of the reason is that I figure he knew that some day mankind would be smart enough to do scientific things and I don't think he would throw them off track from discovering the wonders of creation by laying out false clues all over the place.

TK

[steve7150]

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb [that] yields seed, [and] the fruit tree [that] yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed [is] in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb [that] yields seed according to its kind, and the tree [that] yields fruit, whose seed [is] in itself according to its kind. And God saw that [it was] good. (NKJV)

The way I read this, the most natural way for earth to bring forth grass, is for it to grow from seed in the ground to plant above the ground. This command was given by God to the earth, not to the plants. I do not read God saying "Let there be trees", and there were mature trees.






Yes i agree and it seems unlikely Adam named all the animals in 24 hours, even minimalizing the number downward it's still a huge amount. I think to be a YEC you have to assume that the physical laws and characteristics of the earth and universe vary a whole lot.

The question to me is, should that be a default position?

It seems to me there are inconsistencies the way some folks look at scripture. We generally don't accept Word of Faith teachings about speaking healing into our lives because we observe this to be false. Yet although Old Earth appears to be true based on observation, in this case YECs are willing to follow assumptions that physical observation and testing must be incorrect and assume a Young Earth based on theories which are untestable.

[robbyyoung]

Robby,

I know your question was addressed to me as well as to Matt, but I was having dinner while Matt was giving you answers very much like the ones I would have given.

No worries, Brother. I hope you enjoyed your meal.

think rocks are functional for many purposes—for use as foundations and building materials probably foremost among them. The Bible usually mentions rocks as refuges from severe weather. Whether there would or would not have been severe weather without the fall, I cannot say, but the rocks were there beforehand, waiting for man to discover uses for them.

Ok, thanks for clearing up what you mean by functionality. My line of thinking was more geared to rocks, and all material matter, is a product produced by time. Steve, do you reject any indication of a "Time Stamp" during Gods creative work? Sticking with the rock example, we know how rocks are formed, by time and pressure. My understanding is that a geologist can measure this process. By God speaking these things into being, which obviously included time and pressure, amongst other things, wouldn't it have excelerated the process - leaving the time stamp?

If not, then how would you explain The Light from distance galaxies many light years away being seen in an INSTANT on the day of creation? Again, this can be measured. If a scientist on "The Day" the stars were created could have measured this, he/she would ascertain them to be millions of light years away, they would have been baffled, not able to answer the impossible. Because time and age would have coincided with His creative work.

Lastly, and I really do appreciate your time Bro. I gave examples of Yeshua's creative work by multiplying the fish and bread. Of course, bread takes time to make. That bread was instantly produced and baked, on par with the same amount of time it took to make the original loaf, let's say 1 hour. Well, that hour was produced instantaneously, and the time stamp with its process was evident as well. For example, the browning of the cooked bread.

God Bless.

[steve]

If a geologist says that it takes so-and-so much time to produce the density of a rock from some pre-rock predecessor, he is assuming only the presence of natural processes by which it can be imagined that a rock could be thus compressed (I don't suppose anyone has lived long enough to observe the process for confirmation). The question for the student of origins is whether there were supernatural forces involved.

The Bible rather plainly teaches a supernatural creation—meaning that natural processes were not all that was involved (and may not have been involved at all) in the original creation. If a rock, to be structurally sound and functional in the manner that God intended it, had to have a certain degree of compression, it is irrelevant how much time it would take for nature to produce such results. If the Bible is true (both the Old and the New Testaments) these things appeared supernaturally, at a Word from God (Genesis 1; Psalm 33:6, 9; John 1:1-3; Heb.11:3).

By the way, on the starlight issue, a friend of mine who is all into this stuff mentioned to me that we have no way of measuring the speed of light in "deep space" where there is absolutely nothing. We know how fast light travels through our atmosphere—and that it travels even slower through a body of water, like a fish tank in the room. I don't know these things to be true, because I have done no experiments with light, and do not understand the technical jargon of scientific articles on the subject. However, if light moves faster through air than through water, how fast might it move through empty space, where there is nothing to obstruct it? I am told by my friend (who is a scientist) that we do not know. Since most of the distance between a star and earth is empty space, is it conceivable that light travels that distance in thousands, rather than billions of years? I hardly think our ignorance of such data qualifies as a counter to the authority of God's word on the subject.

What some people call the "appearance of age" (especially when coupled with the complaint that this would make God deceptive) presupposes that God wanted people to reach their conclusions in the absence of what He has revealed on the subject. God leaves man no reason to be deceived about how long it took for the first rocks, plants or arriving light from the stars to come to be. That is all written down in the revelation He gave on the subject—right down to days, and (in the genealogies) the years when this occurred. If someone wishes to reject God's revelation and to trust some other source (whether anti-supernaturalistic scientific theories, intuitions or superstitions)—and thereby reaches wrong conclusions—how in the world can God, who told the truth from the beginning, be charged as a deceiver?