AGC said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

I'm not sure. I know I grew up hearing the earth was millions of years old from going to school. Then one day I decided to read the Bible for learning and understanding and went "Wait a second…"

---

Ok. So why do you assume that the way you read, or the reason you tell stories, or the way you analyze history is how everyone else has done it throughout time immemorial? My point is, every Christian before you and 200 years ago had the same stories and can also do math. Why don't they read it like you? And why is the burden on us to offer proof, rather than you to explain your reason for not reading it like the rest of us?

Edit: You ask for evidence as to why you shouldn't. That's abundant: we know Moses and our spiritual ancestors told stories and shared information for vastly different reasons that simply dating the earth.

---

I never said I made that assumption. I said I didn't know. I also didn't ask anyone for proof but I don't think I would necessarily be the one with the burden of proof more so than someone who believes in old earth; although, since you brought it up, the burden of proof probably is on the old-earther seeing as how they are the ones who go against a plain reading of the text.

So what was the reason for the way the Genesis genealogies were given to us? I don't necessarily think that because they were given for a purpose other than dating the earth means we can't use them for such purpose.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

I'm not sure. I know I grew up hearing the earth was millions of years old from going to school. Then one day I decided to read the Bible for learning and understanding and went "Wait a second…"

---

So my problem is with the science. Do you believe it is all false? Hard for me to do.
And I also wonder what the scientists' motives would be. It is.nut like Covid our other diseases where there are vast amounts ought money to be made off of vaccines and treatments.
Or even global warming where there are political motives. I do not get it.

---

There are scientists that believe in a young earth; not everyone can be correct. Theories are just that, theories; some will turn out to be right and some will turn out to be wrong. Science is constantly changing. There are instances where new scientific discoveries turned out to be wrong and the science reverts back to the original belief.

---

Fair enough. For what it is worth, less than 1% of scientists believe in YEC. And if you are impartial and look at the data it is overwhelming in favor of old earth creation.

As long as this does not become a litmus test one way or the other, I am okay with it.

I have had patients leave my practice because they asked me about YEC and I said I wasn't sure. Which is fine as that is their right. I personally just want a good doc when I hire one.

dermdoc said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

I agree, Genesis is a much bigger problem than old earth Christians make it out to be. If the creation story is just a metaphor, either the jews made it up or God lied to them. And if the 6 days of creation didn't happen, what's to say that Adam and Eve weren't also metaphors as well? And if we apply the same scientific and historical criticisms to the rest of the bible, the worldwide flood, the tower of babel, giants, and even the exodus didn't happen.

This dilemma is one of the biggest reasons people doubt the validity of the bible and Christianity. If the earth is 6000 years old, why did God make it appear to be billions of years old? And if the earth is billions of years old, why did God tell us it was created in a week? In either case, this passage is extremely deceptive. God apparently knew how much doubt this would cause and left it in anyway.

---

I think this is a false dichotomy. It is based on a misunderstanding of the literary and cultural context of Genesis. It forces a reading of Genesis through a post-Enlightenment lens.

It's akin to applying the historical-critical method to the Gettysburg book The Killer Angels. The Killer Angels, although a novel, contains important truths. Like the book of Genesis it was never written as a scientific, historical account of an actual battle, even though it is an amazing account of an actual historic event.

---

That is where I fall. I do not look at the Bible as a scientific book. It is historical, but often in an allegorical way.

---

Exactly. But I am sure you agree that there's also much factual information in Bible. Jesus Christ was a real person. He was born of the Virgin Mary in a real town called Bethlehem in Judea. He performed real miracles. He was crucified and died and rose again from the dead. All of that is true and actually happened and the writings we have that say that were written for the purpose of conveying the historicity of those facts, specifically.

Some more ideas from my AI app about what Genesis is:


The Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is a rich tapestry of literary genres that combine to convey profound truths about God, creation, and humanity. Understanding its literary features is essential for interpreting its messages accurately. Here's an overview of the primary genres and literary styles found in Genesis:

1. **Mythopoeic Language**: Genesis employs a mythopoeic style, particularly in the creation narratives (Genesis 1-11). This does not mean the account is mere myth or fiction, but rather, it uses symbolic and figurative language to convey theological truths about God's relationship with creation.

2. **Narrative/Storytelling**: Genesis is primarily narrative, containing stories that outline the origins of the world, humanity, and the patriarchs. These narratives are foundational, providing an account of God's covenant with humanity and the unfolding of salvation history.

3. **Genealogy**: The book includes genealogical lists (e.g., Genesis 5 and 11), which serve to connect the various stories and establish lineages significant to the unfolding story of God's people.

4. **History**: While Genesis is not history in the modern scientific sense, it offers a theological history, focusing on the origins of the Israelites and their covenantal relationship with God. Its historical narratives are theological in nature, seeking to explain the place of the people of Israel in God's plan.

5. **Etiology**: Some passages provide etiological explanations, explaining the origins of certain customs, names, people groups, and even natural phenomena from a theological perspective.

6. **Theological Reflection**: Throughout Genesis, stories serve as a medium for profound theological reflection, whether on the nature of God, sin and redemption, covenant, or human identity and destiny.

Understanding Genesis as a work that uses symbolic, poetic, historical, and narrative elements helps us appreciate its depth and the theological truths it communicates.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Young earther here. I believe there are issues on both sides that are difficult to explain, but no one would ever land on billions of years after a plain reading of Scripture. That's where I start. I believe the flood radically changed the earth and provides explanations for much of what is given as evidence for an old earth.

And since you mentioned dinosaurs, I think the ancient drawings and sculptures that look exactly like dinosaurs as well as all the dragon legends are evidence they lived with man. Additionally, collagen and other soft tissue are being found in dinosaur bones which should not be possible if they died off a hundred million years ago.

If you are really interested in the young earth perspective, there is a lot of good content out there. Institute for Creation Research, Is Genesis History, and Answers and Genesis are good places to start.

---

I am as interested in young earth theory, as much as I am flat earth or hollow earth. My genuine belief is you are a complete idiot if you believe such a thing.

I don't mean that in a rude way I just genuinely don't understand how anyone can come to such a conclusion.

---

I mean, I get you don't agree but to say you don't understand how people come to that conclusion. Read Genesis 1. That's how. I don't mean this to be snarky either, but it's quite simple. God said. That's it really.

---

Well, I don't mean to be snarky either, but God did not write Genesis. Genesis (all of the Bible for the most part) was divinely inspired. God did not literally write it though. Those are not the words of God directly.

The Torah uses historical narratives to reveal its core message, which is primarily theological and legal. It's a manual for a Divine Mission.

Definitely inspired but not written by God. Outside of the 10 Commandments since those were literally given to Moses.

It may have been a little bit difficult to explain the whole beginning of time and space and all of that in a way that somebody could understand from the second millennium BC.

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

I'm not sure. I know I grew up hearing the earth was millions of years old from going to school. Then one day I decided to read the Bible for learning and understanding and went "Wait a second…"

---

So my problem is with the science. Do you believe it is all false? Hard for me to do.
And I also wonder what the scientists' motives would be. It is.nut like Covid our other diseases where there are vast amounts ought money to be made off of vaccines and treatments.
Or even global warming where there are political motives. I do not get it.

---

There are scientists that believe in a young earth; not everyone can be correct. Theories are just that, theories; some will turn out to be right and some will turn out to be wrong. Science is constantly changing. There are instances where new scientific discoveries turned out to be wrong and the science reverts back to the original belief.

---

Fair enough. For what it is worth, less than 1% of scientists believe in YEC. And if you are impartial and look at the data it is overwhelming in favor of old earth creation.

As long as this does not become a litmus test one way or the other, I am okay with it.

I have had patients leave my practice because they asked me about YEC and I said I wasn't sure. Which is fine as that is their right. I personally just want a good doc when I hire one.

---

Well, that seems a bit extreme to me. One's opinion on the age of the earth doesn't matter to me…

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

I'm not sure. I know I grew up hearing the earth was millions of years old from going to school. Then one day I decided to read the Bible for learning and understanding and went "Wait a second…"

---

So my problem is with the science. Do you believe it is all false? Hard for me to do.
And I also wonder what the scientists' motives would be. It is.nut like Covid our other diseases where there are vast amounts ought money to be made off of vaccines and treatments.
Or even global warming where there are political motives. I do not get it.

---

There are scientists that believe in a young earth; not everyone can be correct. Theories are just that, theories; some will turn out to be right and some will turn out to be wrong. Science is constantly changing. There are instances where new scientific discoveries turned out to be wrong and the science reverts back to the original belief.

---

Fair enough. For what it is worth, less than 1% of scientists believe in YEC. And if you are impartial and look at the data it is overwhelming in favor of old earth creation.

As long as this does not become a litmus test one way or the other, I am okay with it.

I have had patients leave my practice because they asked me about YEC and I said I wasn't sure. Which is fine as that is their right. I personally just want a good doc when I hire one.

---

Well, that seems a bit extreme to me. Ones opinion on the age of the earth doesn't matter to me…

---

And that is why I respect you.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Well, I don't mean to be snarky either, but God did not write Genesis. Genesis (all of the Bible for the most part) was divinely inspired. God did not literally write it though. Those are not the words of God directly.

---

Probably not the thread for this but I don't see how your beloved fathers would endorse what you said.

Clement of Rome
"Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit."
1 Clement 45:2

Irenaeus of Lyons
"The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit."
Against Heresies 2.28.2

Origen
"The sacred books are not the compositions of men, but have been written and have come to us from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the will of the Father of all through Jesus Christ."
De Principiis 4.9

Augustine of Hippo
"Whatever they [the biblical writers] wrote, they wrote as He [God] revealed it to them."
City of God 17.6

John Chrysostom
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Therefore, let us not hear these words as if they were spoken by men, but as if God Himself had sent them down from heaven."
Homilies on 2 Timothy 3:16

10andBOUNCE said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Well, I don't mean to be snarky either, but God did not write Genesis. Genesis (all of the Bible for the most part) was divinely inspired. God did not literally write it though. Those are not the words of God directly.

---

Probably not the thread for this but I don't see how your beloved fathers would endorse what you said.

Clement of Rome
"Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit."
1 Clement 45:2

Irenaeus of Lyons
"The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit."
Against Heresies 2.28.2

Origen
"The sacred books are not the compositions of men, but have been written and have come to us from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the will of the Father of all through Jesus Christ."
De Principiis 4.9

Augustine of Hippo
"Whatever they [the biblical writers] wrote, they wrote as He [God] revealed it to them."
City of God 17.6

John Chrysostom
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Therefore, let us not hear these words as if they were spoken by men, but as if God Himself had sent them down from heaven."
Homilies on 2 Timothy 3:16

---

They all are saying inspired. I think you're getting confused about what inspired and literally written by God means.

You told me that Genesis was literally written by God and was therefore the word of God, and it should not be questioned.

The Church Fathers are beloved. What would you have against them?

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Young earther here. I believe there are issues on both sides that are difficult to explain, but no one would ever land on billions of years after a plain reading of Scripture. That's where I start. I believe the flood radically changed the earth and provides explanations for much of what is given as evidence for an old earth.

And since you mentioned dinosaurs, I think the ancient drawings and sculptures that look exactly like dinosaurs as well as all the dragon legends are evidence they lived with man. Additionally, collagen and other soft tissue are being found in dinosaur bones which should not be possible if they died off a hundred million years ago.

If you are really interested in the young earth perspective, there is a lot of good content out there. Institute for Creation Research, Is Genesis History, and Answers and Genesis are good places to start.

---

I am as interested in young earth theory, as much as I am flat earth or hollow earth. My genuine belief is you are a complete idiot if you believe such a thing.

I don't mean that in a rude way I just genuinely don't understand how anyone can come to such a conclusion.

---

I appreciate you not meaning it in a rude way.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Young earther here. I believe there are issues on both sides that are difficult to explain, but no one would ever land on billions of years after a plain reading of Scripture. That's where I start. I believe the flood radically changed the earth and provides explanations for much of what is given as evidence for an old earth.

And since you mentioned dinosaurs, I think the ancient drawings and sculptures that look exactly like dinosaurs as well as all the dragon legends are evidence they lived with man. Additionally, collagen and other soft tissue are being found in dinosaur bones which should not be possible if they died off a hundred million years ago.

If you are really interested in the young earth perspective, there is a lot of good content out there. Institute for Creation Research, Is Genesis History, and Answers and Genesis are good places to start.

---

I am as interested in young earth theory, as much as I am flat earth or hollow earth. My genuine belief is you are a complete idiot if you believe such a thing.

I don't mean that in a rude way I just genuinely don't understand how anyone can come to such a conclusion.

---

I appreciate you not meaning it in a rude way.

---

I apologize that was rude but my beliefs about people who believe this type of thing are quite set.

I know that people who believe in a young earth and that dinosaurs are a trick of the devil, etc., are an incredible hindrance to Christianity.

I don't want anything so idiotic associated to Christianity.

It is literally the flat earth equivalent, and it is difficult for anybody to take you serious and therefore does more harm than good.

You could just keep this opinion to yourself or choose to not make an issue of it as it has little to no value for one's salvation. It certainly has no value to other people salvation, and probably prevents many people from taking you or Christianity seriously.

I have to talk to people pretty consistently that are new to the Church or Christianity. A lot of people believe that Christianity is for stupid people because of people like you believing what you believe.

"Inspired" is a lame word to describe the holy word of God. God spoke it and his chosen scribes wrote it.

We always need to ask why certain words were given to us in written form. There are no empty words or phrases uttered by God.

So, why were the words given to us as they were in Genesis? When you equate someone who takes scripture as literal, like a young earth believer, the same as a flat earth goon, I can't take you seriously anymore.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

"Inspired" is a lame word to describe the holy word of God. God spoke it and his chosen scribes wrote it.

We always need to ask why certain words were given to us in written form. There are no empty words or phrases uttered by God.

So, why were the words given to us as they were in Genesis? When you equate someone who takes scripture as literal, like a young earth believer, the same as a flat earth goon, I can't take you seriously anymore.

---

That's OK. You are perfectly allowed to think whatever you want to think.

Young earth goons are the same thing as flat earth goons, and are just as bad as hollow earth goons.

It is all 100% equally idiotic.

I can give you undeniable proof, literally people writing when they were there, and these goobers would still believe what they believe. That's the reason for comparing them to flat earthers as there's pretty much nothing you can do to convince them otherwise.

I'm pretty tired of this conversation so I'm not going to come back to it as I'm not really up for young earth conversation conversations

I'm also not up for breaking down the difference between divinely dictated and inspired.

Basically no Christian for the first millennia and a half believed that the Bible is divinely dictated.

Most still don't today.

Good night.

Do you believe the Genesis account of creation is a literal, linear time-line to be taken at face value?

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Young earther here. I believe there are issues on both sides that are difficult to explain, but no one would ever land on billions of years after a plain reading of Scripture. That's where I start. I believe the flood radically changed the earth and provides explanations for much of what is given as evidence for an old earth.

And since you mentioned dinosaurs, I think the ancient drawings and sculptures that look exactly like dinosaurs as well as all the dragon legends are evidence they lived with man. Additionally, collagen and other soft tissue are being found in dinosaur bones which should not be possible if they died off a hundred million years ago.

If you are really interested in the young earth perspective, there is a lot of good content out there. Institute for Creation Research, Is Genesis History, and Answers and Genesis are good places to start.

---

I am as interested in young earth theory, as much as I am flat earth or hollow earth. My genuine belief is you are a complete idiot if you believe such a thing.

I don't mean that in a rude way I just genuinely don't understand how anyone can come to such a conclusion.

---

I appreciate you not meaning it in a rude way.

---

I apologize that was rude but my beliefs about people who believe this type of thing are quite set.

I know that people who believe in a young earth and that dinosaurs are a trick of the devil, etc., are an incredible hindrance to Christianity.

I don't want anything so idiotic associated to Christianity.

It is literally the flat earth equivalent, and it is difficult for anybody to take you serious and therefore does more harm than good.

You could just keep this opinion to yourself or choose to not make an issue of it as it has little to no value for one's salvation. It certainly has no value to other people salvation, and probably prevents many people from taking you or Christianity seriously.

I have to talk to people pretty consistently that are new to the Church or Christianity. A lot of people believe that Christianity is for stupid people because of people like you believing what you believe.

---

I've never known a YEC who thinks dinosaurs are a work of the devil but I have known an unbeliever who thought they were a government conspiracy.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

There are scientists that believe in a young earth; not everyone can be correct. Theories are just that, theories; some will turn out to be right and some will turn out to be wrong. Science is constantly changing. There are instances where new scientific discoveries turned out to be wrong and the science reverts back to the original belief.

---

I think that sometimes there is confusion between the correct statement that science is constantly changing and refining and the incorrect implication that this means that all scientific (or psuedo-scientific) theories should be given equal legitimacy.

Starlight age is a prime example. We can measure how fast light travels, distance to other stars, and conclude that light left those stars much more than 6,000 years ago. Arguments against the natural scientific conclusion here invent things like speed of light decay or relativity loopholes - none of which has any scientific or empirical backing whatsoever. These theories are created by starting with a conclusion and inventing an unsupported scientific mechanism to explain.


The only YEC solution to this problem that I would give credit to, funny enough, is that God created the light in transit. Mostly Peaceful, above, mentioned that they use Genesis as their starting point - as opposed to (I assume) starting with science. Even if I think the idea of a young earth is crazy, I think that this is at least an honest and consistent position on their part. After all, if we are supposing the existence of an all powerful, timeless, spaceless, causeless, Creator of existence - then science has left the building. . . . . At least at the macroscopic level. Maybe naturalism can still explain the way things work at our level. But, if you've got supernatural explanations for creation, then why do you need to shoehorn in pseudo-scientific support?

I appreciate your civility in this discussion. The speed of light is probably the most difficult thing for me to account for in my worldview. I don't believe God created light in transit, however. The anisotropic synchrony convention is one theory that at least seems plausible to me, but I readily admit that distant starlight certainly appears to point to an old earth.

But as I said in my original post, I think both sides have their own challenges. Collagen in dinosaur bones is difficult to explain from an old earth perspective. As are polystrate fossils and the decay rate of earth's magnetic field.

As you intimated, I believe God created this universe and everything in it, and so I have no expectation that I should be able to explain or understand everything about how He did so.

dermdoc said:

---

And to me, this is the crux of the issue. I believe God created everything. Whether it took 6 24 hour days or days are symbolic for a longer term is really inconsequential to me.
Praise the Lord!

---

Amen brother.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And to me, this is the crux of the issue. I believe God created everything. Whether it took 6 24 hour days or days are symbolic for a longer term is really inconsequential to me.
Praise the Lord!

---

Amen brother.

---

I can toast to that

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And to me, this is the crux of the issue. I believe God created everything. Whether it took 6 24 hour days or days are symbolic for a longer term is really inconsequential to me.
Praise the Lord!

---

Amen brother.

---

I can toast to that

---

Would love to toast with you!

One of these days I need to head down for a baseball game if the offer still stands

10andBOUNCE said:

---

One of these days I need to head down for a baseball game if the offer still stands

---

Yes sir. Give me advance notice so I can get you a ticket. Drinks are on me.

I'm just thankful no one has tried to use 2 Peter 3:8 to support their belief.

God is creator of all. This I know. How it all works, I can't begin to comprehend. I happen to think He did it in 6 twenty-four hour days and am happy to have a civil discussion with folks about this, but this is not something I would ever claim to fully understand nor use to judge someone's heart. (Don't twist my words here and derail this thread, you all know what I mean!)

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I appreciate your civility in this discussion. The speed of light is probably the most difficult thing for me to account for in my worldview. I don't believe God created light in transit, however. The anisotropic synchrony convention is one theory that at least seems plausible to me, but I readily admit that distant starlight certainly appears to point to an old earth.

But as I said in my original post, I think both sides have their own challenges. Collagen in dinosaur bones is difficult to explain from an old earth perspective. As are polystrate fossils and the decay rate of earth's magnetic field.

As you intimated, I believe God created this universe and everything in it, and so I have no expectation that I should be able to explain or understand everything about how He did so.

---

Collagen isn't difficult to explain. It's just another case of our understanding growing as we find things that we didn't expect.

https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-chemists-explain-why-dinosaur-collagen-survived-millions-years-0904

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

I don't believe the Bible is a science textbook. To me, it's the story of salvation history--it's not obligated to tell us facts about the natural world. However, it can work hand-in-hand with the science. This leads me to believe in a symbolic view of the creation account.

Though I think it's important to point out that if God wanted to create by way of the 6 day period, he absolutely could have. Ultimately, I don't think this really should be something Christians argue over. The precise facts of the way everything was created isn't important but is just more so interesting. What's actually important is knowing that God created everything.

---

I agree with you but it's relevant to Christian discourse because the same method of reading scripture that causes someone to believe in a literal 6 day creation and a talking snake and a God with no corporeal being walking in the garden leads them to have other distorted readings of scripture and voila, you have rupture in the body of Christ which scripture clearly and unambiguously states is not what the Second Person of the Trinity incarnate desires.

Very good point. I wasn't thinking of the further implications of differences in interpretation. I agree with you 100%