Are Young Earth Creationist stupid?

Post Reply New Topic

Wasn't The Young Earth calculated by Bishop Usher.I can't think of an actual reference to it in The Bible.As for Genesis Ch.1 I wonder what it might read like with the language and scientific thinking available to us today.

No you are not stupid, but you also clearly do not understand both the complexity and amount of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. Sure ideas once held accurate get changed, but this is the nature of discovery. Any scientific theory should be regarded as the best approximation to date. With regard to evolutionary biology, the theory has changed to a point that would astound Darwin and Wallace, yet it has not changed in a regressive fashion. No discoveries have been made which in any way challenge it, instead every single new piece to the puzzle enhances and strengthens it. You talk of discoveries in science as if they just pop into existence, admittedly some great discoveries happen by chance but many happen because prior knowledge predicts they will be found. Challenging evolutionary biology on the basis of spiritual belief may not be stupid but it is foolish.

Sure people have spiritual experiences and we do into fully understand what is going on, but we are getting closer to finding out what is going on in the brains of people who have these vivid experiences.

Until the search for knowledge broke away from the constraints of the supernatural we were in an intellectual quagmire of supposition and spiritual nonsense. I suggest anyone thinking we should resort back to this way of gathering knowledge, should first look at the history of human knowledge from antiquity to the start of the 1600's and then compare this period to the period 1600's to the present day. The major difference was the advent of the Scientific Method.

I can't help it: 4.6 billion years for the Earth's age is far more plausible than 6,000 years.

Evidence of a "spiritual" nature is, inevitably, subjective. I'm not going to blindly dismiss the "spiritual" evidence, even though I haven't "seen it."

I only wish we could actually send a spaceship to a Black hole--and have all survive the encounter.

I don't consider Earth's ~4.6 billion-year age as relevant to much of the Bible. Apart from Genesis, the Bible was written about people. To that extent, we know that human DNA mutates from one "species" to another every ~140,000 years. Knowing this makes it possible to consider more relative periods of Earth time, particularly the Post-Adam period, among the biblical stories. Could it be possible that Adam wasn't the first human, but, rather, the first of the (cognitive) humans from our most recent genetic period? Isaiah describes how God "will [...] gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him." Jesus reiterates this claim by saying that He has flocks "which are not of this fold[.]" Genetic dating might answer a lot about Creation dating.

The Bible doesnt say it explicitly - but anyone counting back the events retold in the Bible arrives at a similiar figure.

According to the Jewish calender this is the year 5800-something (same ballpark as Usher's figure). And the Hebrew calender counts the years from "creation" in Genisis ( as opposed to just starting the count from the birth of Christ as does the common calender today). And the Jews used that calender long before Bishop Usher (who lived in the late 1600's). Gentiles (like Shakespeare) also talked about the earth being "almost 6000 years old" prior to Ussher.

Anyone who just counts back in the Bible comes to around the same date.

But Usher was a great innovator- he was great pioneer in modern scholarship (though not in Geologic science) and deconstructed the chronology of the Bible with the help of extra Biblical sources ( Finding references to Biblical events in the histories of the Hebrews neighbors like the Egyptians and Babylonians). And was more exact with the stuff in the Bible than anyone before. The conclusion: it all started EXACTLY 4000 years before Christ ( God did things pretty cleanly apparently). But since it was already known that the early Church messed up on Christ's B-day, and that Christ was probably actually born around 4 years "before Christ"-that meant the Universe began in....4004 BC!

So Usher can be viewed as a very scientific historian, but not as a very scientific physical scientist. So ironically his work bolsters the anti scientific views of some folks today.

As a matter of fact, I believe in a theistic evolution. I believe there is more than enough evidence that there is an evolutionary process in nature, and that the earth and universe is billions of years old. But I still credit God as the inventor.
In my own mainline Protestant, Lutheran religious tradition, there isn't much of the spiritual or emotional experience, so I concede that's all pretty alien to me. I will say this, though: anyone whose faith rests on a literal interpretation of Genesis, where life popped out of thin air in seven days, and where the the earth is seemingly just a few thousand years old, never had much of a faith to begin with. One's faith should rest on the promise of the empty tomb, not on literal understandings of picture language.

Some how I very much doubt that there is a distinct line between conscious and unconscious life. I also doubt that the first life form capable of some form of thought was as complex as a hominid.

Okay.

I think both the "creationists" and the "evolutionists" are wrong or at least very incomplete, full of half-truths, partial-truths, but no actual full-truths.

The reason I do not trust the reasoning/logic of the creationists is due to an over-reliance on "bible" or "church" sources (many of whose members who make claims that are easily falsifiable using the very bible itself)... amongst various other reasons of "fanatical" behaviours & frequent self-contradictions.

The reason I do not trust the reasoning/logic of the evolutionists is due to an over-reliance on "text-books" that call themselves "science" or "scientific" books/publications (many of whose members who make claims that clearly come out of these books that I cannot personally test for myself out in the real-world [such as the idea that evolution from one creature/species to another takes X time when such a thing has not been personally observed by anybody]). I also find that many of those people who claim to be adherents of science do not even know the genuine & VERY CONTROVERSIAL history of scientific-evolution.

The "evolutionists" also fail to address my issue about "manufactured evidence" and I put into question whether the "structures" of the "bones/skeletons" that were "discovered" were actually re-assembled in the manner to how those creatures' bones actually looked like or if it was just assumed to be that way.

From all of the data/information I have mined/collected/data throughout these years on various subjects, the time-frame for humans to have evolved from apes is far too short of a duration, and that I have far more reason to believe that it takes at least two million years for humans to evolve naturally from apes/monkeys, not that ridiculously short 200K year time-frame, unless greatly accelerated through some kind of genetic-engineering amongst other potential factors.

Both the "God Created Everything" and the "Big Bang Theory" are "Creation" stories.

Now for some "education" behind "science" and its "historic controversies" that have been long-forgotten and the discoveries taken for granted as-if though they never had "taboo" periods of time in history...

Here are a list of "scientists" who did NOT "learn" their "contributions to science" from any school or text-book, and in fact, many of them were scorned and vilified even by other "scientists" of their day, not that I can expect much from those who are products of the American "education" system...:

* Nikola Tesla (but most people "believe in" those CORPORATE-VERSION "Thomas Edison" stories)
* The Wright Brothers
* Galileo Gallilei / Copernicus
* Dr. Royal Raymond Rife
* John Hutchison
* John L. Baird
* Hans Alfven
* Pons & Fleischman (somehow still manages to be "controversial" even to this very day)
* Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
* Chladni
* C.J. Doppler (you've read about the "Doppler-Effect" in your physics/astronomy books but I BET that NONE of the "college-educated" folks even KNOW the actual history behind Doppler being confirmed by W. Huggins)
* Robert L. Folk
* Galvani (colleges do NOT teach the actual history in regards to the "Galvanic Principle")
* William Harvey
* George S. Ohm (did you know that Ohm's Law was a "posthumous" idea 20 years AFTER he passed ?)

f**k the church being the ones doing the inquisitions, that kind of s**t is actually more of a human-behaviour as opposed to a religious or church or government-exclusive phenomenon, but then again we can refer to those people who engage in politician-like behaviour as pseudo-intellectual pseudo-scientists and pseudo-skeptics, and now for a "Purveyor of woo" video by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake... ;O

How easy it is to "scam" people into thinking that what they're reading or learning from you is "science" when you put on a white lab-coat, call yourself a doctor or a scientist, when it's really just part of the "marketing act" for Big-Pharma to sucker you out of more of your money...

Look more closely at the timeline.

human evolution timeline, human evolution timeline with different details

You are arguing a strawman even though I don't think you meant to. The genus Homo (of which we are the only remaining species) really has been around roughly 2 million years. The often cited 200k figure is just for Homo sapiens. But I Homo erectus etc. were certainly not apes.

I think the only things here I might disagree with somewhat:

1) there's more going on of relevance than young-earthers vs. antitheists thus plenty of ways a person could have a spiritual experience and come to a very different conclusion than both of the former.

2) the bible itself has scores of very alternate interpretations from the common stock combination of documentary hypothesis and textual infallibility; interestingly enough the people who seem to be heatedly 'getting it on' over this topic seem to have that set up in the foundation of the debate. It's a horrifically arbitrary state of affairs and I think it even goes to show some lack of awareness on just how many interpretations there are for the stories and parables the bible tells us, as much as there's nearly equal divergence for the stories and parables that quantum physics tells us.

Both the Bishop and the Jews were right. Genetic studies of the Jews show they did not exist before about 6,000 years ago.

The means are in Genesis, "The sons of god looked upon the daughters of man and found they were fair."

Translated around 1900, but not released till after WWII, Sumarian clay tablets had epic stories, which were dated to before Creation. Gilgamesh has one story about a worldwide flood, and the gods telling one man to build a boat for his family and animals. This story, and poetry, Ode to the Hoe, and another about the foolishness of two towns going to war over an irrigation ditch.

These stories were recited to the Black Haired People. They had been created by the gods to work in the fields.

Gilgamesh claims three ancestors, Man, like the Black Haired People, The Gods, and The Wild Man of the North. In the wild man of the north he describes Neanderthal. Recent genetic evidence supports this.

The gods did not have black hair. They had lived above the Wall of Heaven for as long as it takes the Pole Star to make a circle and return to the same place. They had finished their first time around, the Black Haired People were just starting their first.

8,000 years ago there was some type of thermal event, the Earth warmed, the Sahara which had long been grasslands, trees, lakes, rivers, dried up and became the desert we know.

Irrigated land around lakes failed when the lakes dried up, and the gods moved from above the Wall of Heaven to the rivers on the plain below. As sea level was about sixty foot lower 6,000 years ago, they settled in what is now the Persian Gulf.

They are all called the gods, but Gilgamesh points out that Man and Neanderthal became one people long before the gods came. The Egyptians say the gods came from the west 15,500 years ago, where genetics says sapien and Neanderthal merged for the third time 36,000 years ago, and Archaeology says the Neanderthal had died out before the gods came. After the gods come, cities made of mud brick, and irrigated fields appear.

Sumarians left a record of the people they encountered, They do not know, of time, crops, tools, clothing, shelter, all kill all, they do not know peace, and when they die there they lay unburied.

Paleolithic humans were not noble savages. They were also pests who stole the gods crops, tried to kill them, and pest control was in order. The Sons of God did not have much trouble killing them, and some young girls were captured as pets, and to everyone's surprise, got pregnant and gave birth. They were considered animals.

The wild ones were hopeless, but pen raised domestics were not as violent, and could learn a few words. To keep them from learning bad habits from each other, they were raised in isolation, made to obey and trained from a young age.

It did not always work, Cain and Able, and the other children of Adam and Eve were bred to more docile lines.

Stories about how life in the garden was perfect are lies. Their life in nature was short and violent.

Some of the Black Haired People took to being clean, wearing clothes, living in houses with families, bread, beer, onions, cucumbers, and some killed with the hoe, and ran off into the wild.

They had failed to breed the ape out of them, but did manage to make a smarter killer ape.

This is the origin of the Black Haired People, both those who worked for their bread, and those who remained killers.

It had it's ups and downs, but the Sumarians did manage to keep most of the Black Haired People working grain and olives until 1543BC. Mount Thera blows up, covers the olives in ash, the tidal wave destroys all coastal settlement, stones floated on the sea, pumice.

Three times the better Black Haired People rose up and killed the few gods managing the plantations, twice the gods came back, the third time they sent chariots with iron weapons.

The Bible is a good record of the creation of the Black Haired People, six to seven thousand years fits with genetics, the climate history of the heat spike and drying, the written history of the Sumarians.

1543BC dates the end of the age, the huge explosion of Mt Theara, and it is the ..Pillar of smoke by day, and fire by night mentioned in the rapid departure from Egypt. That Pharo's tomb and body has been found, records of the time translated, and they do not mention the death of all the first born, rivers running of blood, and other sand people curses. Pharo was the Office of God King, Mosie was the family name.

The Bible fits the genetics, a Paleolithic people came in contact with a very high culture, were sometimes domesticated, could learn, but used knowledge to be better killer apes.

1543 also starts the Age of Mars, before that there were no defend places, no burned ruins, but since then it has been constant.

As is said around here, "If I knew it was going to be that much trouble, I would have picked my own cotton."

I think its the opposite. Evolution advocates are extremely narrow in their thinking. Some Scientists are seeking alternative theories. The more you study evolution, the less sense it makes. I studied it in high school and then I found out it just doesn't wash. And I am a Christian, but I know Christians who believe in Evolution. I believe the Biblical account makes a lot more sense. And it can be verified through archeological research and tools.

OK I will play. How does it not make sense. I am presuming that when you say that you have studied it you have genuinely spent many hours trying to understand the theory. And therefore you are genuinely confused rather than simply dismissing it due to religious doctrine.

@nerdygirl. Evolution has nothing to do with origin of life, and secondly it is about adaptation to environment and has no set direction.

For me, the question is one of who or what created the universe. For this question, I don't care about the estimated age of the universe, or its development from something which pre-existed it, or whether humans were created or evolved. Before we can even consider these details, don't we first need to answer how the physical universe got rolling, pre-Big Bang? In other words, how did it spring into existence from non-existence?

And if it is a projected hologram like NASA researchers are beginning to believe, who or what create the projection?

Several kinds of self contradictory nonsense.

Its like telling your kid "dont get a job until have work experience", or "don't start grade school until you have a medical degree", or saying "Lindberg should have landed on Mars before trying a crazy stunt like flying across the Atlantic".

You're asking science to run before it can walk. We can only discover what we can when we can.