Which either would make all atoms fall apart; or was a pointless, deceptive miracle.
1 Like
I’ve been reading my Bible for 37 years and I’ve never read anything about Pangea in it. Can you point me to what you are referring to?
2 Likes
I would think that anyone who subscribes to this viewpoint would by necessity be a geocentrist. The Bible is very clear that the sun moves, not the earth. Until the 18th century the (Roman Catholic) church declared it a heresy to believe otherwise. Although we know without a doubt that it is the earth that moves, not the sun, this fact very clearly contradicts the Bible. To be true to their own position on the inerrancy of the Bible in all matters without exception, I cannot see how a YEC could not be a geocentrist. Any YECs here care to comment?
2 Likes
For the simple reason that creation of a mature universe which contains visible history of events that didn’t actually happen makes God into a deceptive God. Which I find hard to accept.
3 Likes
Let us compare YEC with geocentrism. Even in the early days of Christianity, there were those who differed from a literal six days of creation - for example, Augustine. Yet I don’t think that there werany doubts about geocentrism until - well, Copernicus.
I have long assumed that both the earth and the sun move. Both are hurling through the universe. So I am a little perplexed by this statement.
So geocentrism is wrong any way you look at it.
From Previous Thread:
- You don’t have to be a YEC to believe the earth is flat, and you don’t have to believe the earth is flat to be a YEC, but if you believe what the Bible says, you have to believe the earth is flat and Young Earth Creationism, or you’re interpreting the Bible incorrectly.
2 Likes
While you are technically correct that both the sun and earth are moving, that’s not really the issue I am asking about. I’m addressing the movements of the two bodies relative to each other. Earth-bound observers see the sun moving relative to their position. The authors of the relevant Bible passages understandably took their observations at face value and concluded that the sun is moving and the earth is stationary. In reality the earth is moving (spinning) and the sun’s position relative to the earth 8s stationary.
3 Likes
I’m going to parse this by attempting to look at each one of the numbered posts and coming up with as good an answer, as I can.
- If we consider The Garden to be within the actual reference frame of Earth, then you are right, eventually it would have run out of space. If “The Garden” was a “Special Realm” that was connected to Earth, then it would be of an incalculable size, and technically not run out. Another point; if you believe in God being omniscient and omnipresent, then He would have known about The Fall in advance, and thus know everything would be outside of the “Special Realm” and have an entire planet to inhabit.
- That can’t really be answered because although YEC says that the entire needed genome was within the Kind, and brought to The Ark. It mentions nothing about “learned behaviors”.
- Depending on who you ask, light from the entire universe (92 billion LY) was either sent through a warped space portal using Einstein’s theories, or our measurement of the speed of light is either wrong, variable to some degree, or God, inexplicably, sped things up so that the light would hit Earth at the moment of Creation. There are severe problems with that, if you believe that, the measurement NOW is correct.
- Again, according to YEC, the continents were all smushed together, so you could cover the entire globe without getting your feet wet. Again that is somewhat problematic because that would also mean that the continents rapidly separated at some point after the animals left. (see “Heat Problem”.
Hopefully I’ve helped you.
2 Likes
According to modern science, motion of something is meaningful only by reference to another body. We are speaking informally when we say that it is the Earth that moves, rather than the Sun. Strictly speaking, geocentrism is the idea that the Earth is in a privileged place, in the center of all things; and heliocentrism is that the Sun is at the center.
The be strictly accurate, one would have to use complicated language. So one is asking for some leeway in speaking that heliocentrism means simply that the old idea was mistaken: the Earth is not fixed, not rotating (daily) nor revolving (yearly around the Sun). The Earth is a planet in the Solar System, as such, like Mars and other planets.
I suggest taking a look at the site RationalWiki.org, entry on Geocentrism. It is not perfect, but it has some things to say which are worth reading.
2 Likes
“Even in”? Where does the Bible mention a supercontinent?
When did gravity become a biological entity?
Not in the least – science has an explanation form why there are different animals on different continents; YEC has none.
For that matter, YEC has no explanation for why there are different continents!
YEC version of ice ages violate physics – the speed at which things would have had to happen would have resulted in enough heat to boil away any glaciers.
1 Like
To be picky, both are moving about their barycenter. Of course Earth is tiny enough that the barycenter tends to be within the fusion zone, so it’s not much different.
2 Likes
I’d heard that Noah could fit al of those animals on the Ark because he took representatives of “kinds” (also called “baramins”), which are something like taxonomic families. I know that this is pointless, but I wondered about how many families there have been - I am counting how many families of Amniotes (that is, vertebrates which are not fishes, etc. nor amphibians), and I asked on Chatpgt (not the most reliable source, I know, but do you have a better estimate?) and I got an answer of something like 580 families - extinct and extant.
And, by the way, since birds were taken by sevens (or is that seven pairs?) - the number of families of birds was something like 250. So Noah’s Ark caried 1160 + 5x250 individuals.
Not counting all those terrestrial invertebrates which were not dismissed as not worth mentioning - spiders and scorpions, bees and butterflies, snails and worms.
I just had to …, sorry.
1 Like
No Richard,
Your claim is they are wrong…but that is simoly because you refuse to study other scientific research and results other than that which aligns with your world view.
It is bull that science is independant of our preferences…this is an example of that.
The Bible does not say that Adam was created fully formed and grown with the ability to walk and talk. It says that Adam was created by God, but not details on how. Eastern Orthodoxy has generally thought of Adam and Eve as being more childlike, for example. Naming the animals does imply at least a post-infant level of capacity. But Genesis 2 has the naming of the animals coming between creation of Adam and creation of Eve, whereas Genesis 1 has male and female humans both on day 6. It takes more than one day to name the animals, especially when “naming” reflects the nature of what is named, as in ancient Hebrew culture, rather than just “umm,.dog hog frog”. The young-earth interpretation cannot be applied consistently to the Bible; it takes selected verses out of context and tries to force others to fit.
Not only is it important to distinguish between the average follower of YEC, who is simply believing the claims they have been told, and those who are spreading false claims while professing to be reliable, but also there is much variation among those who are making up the false claims. Setterfield has tried to dodge one of the many problems with his claims about changing speed of light by saying that E=mc^2 wasn’t a problem with his claimed high values of c in the recent past, because mass was increasing in proportion to the decrease in c^2. In other words, he’s denying that gravity worked like it does today before late medieval times. This is idiotic; people did not have problems with floating off into space in Old Testament times. But it still sells. Ridiculous claims about gravity are not common in young-earth sources, but nor are efforts to correct wrong claims and call out those who just make stuff up.
Not only is the YEC timescale for the most recent ice age in violation of physics, it also does not match the geological data at all. It is a case of “everybody knows that there was an ice age, so we have to shove it in somewhere”. There is no effort to honor God by doing good work. YEC must be honest and reject bad arguments in order to have any hope of becoming compatible with the Bible.
3 Likes
What i find naive about this post…it intentionally doee not wuote any sources for its claims.
Why dont you do the right thing and at least quote references about the YEC position here…at least show you are not simply being a redneck voicing wives tales?
There are articles on the science of the number of animals if the ark…its neither fanciful nor outrageous…the boat was plenty big enough.
One has to propose the question… which is more unrealistic, that you evolved from a pea soup or that we were created fully grown if a mature universe by an intelligent and powerful God ?
Also, im.trying to think of a human invention, that doesnt work, that has survived the ages? (With any luck at least some here are smart enough to see the relevance and correlation of this dilemma to the O.P)
EDIT (now i am going offtopic but i cant help but add this one in here)
Chainsaws (the hand crank type) were used to aid in problematic child birth)
Bull…of course it does. Ours is the exact same scientific reasons you adhere to…they are no different except for how long it has taken.
Answers in Genesis, as just one sample YEC group, publish plenty of statements there but you in your “horse blinkered” endeavour, make blanket statements that are not supported by the published work from the group you earbash.
Stop citing redneck nonsense and do some reading first.
I made no such claim *for myself which you might understand if you read the whole thing and not just a sentence out of context
I do wish that you would notice when I am defending you and not attacking you.
I assume that is correct?
Richard
Some individuals selectively choose whwt to read and ignore the actual statements of others…
There is a difference between ignoring and coming to different scientific conclusions.
What is obvious here though is your ignorance of that fundamental.