# How many creationists are young earthers



## Four (Apr 6, 2012)

Sometimes here we get into discussions about the orgins of the universe, divine vs. natural etc. BUT

How many here are genuinely young earth creationists, that believe the creation story as straight truth.  

We're talking, people lived over 1,000 years before the flood, it didn't rain before the flood, earth is ~ 6,000 years old, etc.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 6, 2012)

10 views and no responses yet.

I believe in a creator, but not as in 6000 years ago.


----------



## Four (Apr 6, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> 10 views and no responses yet.
> 
> I believe in a creator, but not as in 6000 years ago.



We've sparred enough for me to know your position


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 6, 2012)

Four said:


> We've sparred enough for me to know your position



Yea, I was just trying to get the comments rolling.....


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 6, 2012)

You can put me into the young earth crowd.  I don't see any reason not to be there.  If you take into account the amount of dust on the moon, it points to a young creation. The salinity of the oceans all point to a young creation.  Why not??


----------



## Four (Apr 6, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> You can put me into the young earth crowd.  I don't see any reason not to be there.  If you take into account the amount of dust on the moon, it points to a young creation. The salinity of the oceans all point to a young creation.  Why not??



What about some of the other things mentioned, pre-flood man, etc?

I saw some sermon were a young earth pastor or w.e. said people lived a thousand years before the flood, and before the flood there wasn't rain. That people die because of sin now adays, not old age.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 6, 2012)

At one point in my life I held to the young earth view. That is what I was taught and the teaching was not to be questioned. Now when I read Genesis, all I see for the most part, is a picture of grace and redemption. Not sure if that helps to further the discussion in any way.


----------



## Four (Apr 6, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> At one point in my life I held to the young earth view. That is what I was taught and the teaching was not to be questioned. Now when I read Genesis, all I see for the most part, is a picture of grace and redemption. Not sure if that helps to further the discussion in any way.



Sure, because it seems to me for some people that it's a pillar of there faith, while others, have no problems with it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 6, 2012)

Four said:


> Sure, because it seems to me for some people that it's a pillar of there faith, while others, have no problems with it.



And if that pillar is removed by science, they may find themselves in the camp of the Atheist. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## StriperAddict (Apr 6, 2012)

Four said:


> Sure, because it seems to me for some people that it's a pillar of there faith, while others, have no problems with it.


 
I wouldn't put it as a pillar of faith for myself, but a young erff makes the most sence to me, for the reasons stated, and for what I have picked up from the Institute for Creation Research.

A good article from them: Can Solar 'Belch' Theory Solve Sun Paradox?


----------



## matthewsman (Apr 6, 2012)

*I lean toward "young Earth" also*



StriperAddict said:


> I wouldn't put it as a pillar of faith for myself, but a young erff makes the most sence to me, for the reasons stated, and for what I have picked up from the Institute for Creation Research.
> 
> A good article from them: Can Solar 'Belch' Theory Solve Sun Paradox?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 6, 2012)

Four said:


> What about some of the other things mentioned, pre-flood man, etc?
> 
> I saw some sermon were a young earth pastor or w.e. said people lived a thousand years before the flood, and before the flood there wasn't rain. That people die because of sin now adays, not old age.




I was just taking the young earth question in the first post. 

As for nearly 1000 yr old men, yep.  If you do much of a study of Genesis, you will see the life expectancy decreasing drastically after the flood. As for no rain before the flood, the Bible says the earth was watered by a mist that rose from the ground. A heavy fog maybe?

As for people dying, it was always been sin that kills. Adam and Eve died because of sin, it just took longer because the lived in a perfect world. The world has gone downhill greatly since then. Up until the 20th century, the life expectancy was only in the 40's.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 6, 2012)

Four said:


> What about some of the other things mentioned, pre-flood man, etc?
> 
> I saw some sermon were a young earth pastor or w.e. said people lived a thousand years before the flood, and before the flood there wasn't rain. That people die because of sin now adays, not old age.



I find those things interesting, such as greenhouse effect, pre-flood water canopy, etc. Good reads, but no more so than a Zane Grey western.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 6, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I was just taking the young earth question in the first post.
> 
> As for nearly 1000 yr old men, yep.  If you do much of a study of Genesis, you will see the life expectancy decreasing drastically after the flood. As for no rain before the flood, the Bible says the earth was watered by a mist that rose from the ground. A heavy fog maybe?
> 
> As for people dying, it was always been sin that kills. Adam and Eve died because of sin, it just took longer because the lived in a perfect world. The world has gone downhill greatly since then. Up until the 20th century, the life expectancy was only in the 40's.



Man was also given permission to eat meat after the flood.
Eat meat.......decreased life expectancy.  Coincidence?


----------



## Four (Apr 6, 2012)

i assume people quoting posts and giving there hurrahs are also YE creationists?


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 6, 2012)

Four said:


> i assume people quoting posts and giving there hurrahs are also YE creationists?



Don't know if you are referring to me?  I don't believe in the flood or young earth at all.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 6, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> The world has gone downhill greatly since then. Up until the 20th century, the life expectancy was only in the 40's.



Sounds like the world is on an uphill rebound.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 6, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Man was also given permission to eat meat after the flood.





drippin' rock said:


> I don't believe in the flood or young earth at all.


----------



## Four (Apr 6, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Don't know if you are referring to me?  I don't believe in the flood or young earth at all.



ahh, so i assume the previous post was sarcasm


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 6, 2012)

Four said:


> ahh, so i assume the previous post was sarcasm



Yeah, I guess.  Sarcasm sounds mean, but I do not think for one second the Earth is only 6000 years old.  I do not think man of that time had a whole world awareness.  If their valley flooded, it would have seemed like the whole world to them.  And the oral epic begins.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 6, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


>



Don't know what you mean, but ask.  I'll be happy to answer.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 6, 2012)

The earliest written records are about 5,000 years old. Beyond that, I really don't know.

I don't however believe we can conclude that the earth is billions of years old by our modern scientific techniques. It might be, but when folks talk to me about billions of years, I start a whole scientific method conversation with them. They don't usually listen, and they are usually scientists.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 6, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> The earliest written records are about 5,000 years old. Beyond that, I really don't know.
> 
> I don't however believe we can conclude that the earth is billions of years old by our modern scientific techniques. It might be, but when folks talk to me about billions of years, I start a whole scientific method conversation with them. They don't usually listen, and they are usually scientists.



Tell us again about carbon dating.  It's been a while.  I'd like a recap.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 6, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Sounds like the world is on an uphill rebound.



Well, if you mean we have better medications now, yes. If you mean morally, we are far from it. 

It is amazing to me the technology of centuries past. Do you know that we still can't duplicate some of the accomplishments of the ancients. In recent history, we have been able to gather more information than any time in history, but its seems we are falling farther behind in educating our children. 

We really don't know how much information the ancients had, and we don't know how much was lost.  Its pretty amazing when you think of the pyramids and such. Wonder what they knew that we don't.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Tell us again about carbon dating.  It's been a while.  I'd like a recap.



Search for the post Ambush.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 6, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Well, if you mean we have better medications now, yes. If you mean morally, we are far from it.
> 
> It is amazing to me the technology of centuries past. Do you know that we still can't duplicate some of the accomplishments of the ancients. In recent history, we have been able to gather more information than any time in history, but its seems we are falling farther behind in educating our children.
> 
> We really don't know how much information the ancients had, and we don't know how much was lost.  Its pretty amazing when you think of the pyramids and such. Wonder what they knew that we don't.



How long do you think it would take to build a pyramid now?  What 'they' knew was that the sun revolved around the Earth.  Ahh, the good old days.........


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 6, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How long do you think it would take to build a pyramid now?  What 'they' knew was that the sun revolved around the Earth.  Ahh, the good old days.........



hmmm... who "knew" the sun revolved around the earth?  I am not talking about the dark ages, or middle ages. I am talking about the ancients. The ones who built the pyramids and such.


----------



## drippin' rock (Apr 6, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> hmmm... who "knew" the sun revolved around the earth?  I am not talking about the dark ages, or middle ages. I am talking about the ancients. The ones who built the pyramids and such.



I'm guessing this world forgot more than we will ever know.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 6, 2012)

I'm certainly a creationist, but cannot subscribe to completely believing all things of the OP.

Age of the earth:  6,000...... 50,000,000,000 , I can't say for sure.
There's too many possibilities.  I don't have a problem saying 6,000 years.  Carbon dating?  My doctor can't even tell me which I have, a cold or allergies, why should I believe carbon dating can be accurate within 10 billion years?

Man living before the flood:  Yep, I believe it.  I also believe there was a flood that totally covered every land mass of this planet.

No rain before the flood:  Wait, let me get a coin out and flip it..... heads?  Okay, I believe it rained upon the crops and fields before the great flood.  But I really don't know one way or the other.

Sometimes we creationist believe things that we don't know.  Know what I mean?  We answer questions that probably shouldn't even be contemplated.
We're just too inquisitive.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 6, 2012)

NE GA Pappy;684909
 As for no rain before the flood said:
			
		

> That would help explain why there were no rainbows before the flood, except what about waterfall mist? Maybe there were know natural prisms either like quartz either.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 6, 2012)

Creationist here, but don't know if a day is a thousand years or not. Don't care, really. I'd say the earth, like any other planet could be billions of years old, just not sure when it became habitable for man or beast. It's nothing that effects my salvation, though...so I can't stress about it.
I don't know if and when it needed to rain. Perhaps another perfect earth(garden of eden) was destroyed by a flood. Maybe before the flood, water, land, oceans, lakes, glaciers were different so that they watered the earth...I don't know, like an irrigation system like ancient Egypt had.

Obviously if the earth poofed into existance, then water could poof into existance to water the earth or we wouldn't be here now...somehow it was watered.


----------



## Four (Apr 7, 2012)

Carbon dating is fairly acurate.. but not for that far away in history. So farther than 55-60k years it doesnt work... 

That's just because it has a reletivly short half life, the longer the half life of the element, the longer in the past we can date something.

However, Rubidium-strontium for example, has a half life of 50 billion years! vs. carbon-13's 5,000 or so years. But its  not as accurate, so with Rubidium-strontium, we can tell if something is billions of years old, but we cant place the date perfectly, there is a 30million or so year margin of error.

Hope this helps clear some stuff up, try not to talk about carbon dating when talking about finding the age of something old, use a term like half life dating, or radiometric dating!


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 7, 2012)

Four said:


> Carbon dating is fairly acurate.. but not for that far away in history. So farther than 55-60k years it doesnt work...
> 
> That's just because it has a reletivly short half life, the longer the half life of the element, the longer in the past we can date something.
> 
> ...



Takes a lot of faith to believe that sort of stuff.
Honestly, I'm more comfortable believing Bible things.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 7, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Takes a lot of faith to believe that sort of stuff.
> Honestly, I'm more comfortable believing Bible things.



Wow.  Do you believe in combustion?  How about magnetism?  If you wanted to you could find out about how any of this stuff works.  It's not that complicated.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 7, 2012)

When I read a statement like:   "Rubidium-strontium for example, has a half life of 50 billion years" I have the same reaction as I do when I watch a little of the tv show where the folks are out at night looking for big foot.  It just sounds far-fetched to me.

I see it as having the possibility of being totally accurate.
But I also see it as possibly being the biggest laugh of mankind!
It's pretty much based upon nothing, in my opinion.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 7, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Wow.  Do you believe in combustion?  How about magnetism?  If you wanted to you could find out about how any of this stuff works.  It's not that complicated.



What I want to know is how it all poofed itself into existance, to make a perfect well rounded earth that everything works together to make things happen.....just so happens, eh?

It takes a million things for us to exist on this earth and they all poofed themselves accurately in position to make everything tick as it should?....I'm with Ronnie, i'd just as soon believe the Bible as to try and prove how everything works perfectly together. I've got other important things to do with my time.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 7, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> When I read a statement like:   "Rubidium-strontium for example, has a half life of 50 billion years" I have the same reaction as I do when I watch a little of the tv show where the folks are out at night looking for big foot.  It just sounds far-fetched to me.
> 
> I see it as having the possibility of being totally accurate.
> But I also see it as possibly being the biggest laugh of mankind!
> It's pretty much based upon nothing, in my opinion.



You could do a little, I mean a little bit of research and see how they determine those things.  It makes perfect sense and it's not that hard to understand.  

Is it that you don't believe that the instruments that they use to measure those things work right or that you don't believe that the things they measure happen like they do?

You believe that your bathroom scale works don't you;  that it measures what it is supposed to?  Do you believe that thermometers work?

I could give you a lay persons description of how that stuff works, I'm a lay person.  Ted could probably explain it better than I.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 7, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You could do a little, I mean a little bit of research and see how they determine those things.  It makes perfect sense and it's not that hard to understand.
> 
> Is it that you don't believe that the instruments that they use to measure those things work right or that you don't believe that the things they measure happen like they do?
> 
> ...



The problem with all the dating systems are the assumptions that are made upfront. In all the systems, assumptions are made about the different amounts of the isotopes and how they react within the environment they are placed. Assumptions are made that no isotopes where added, and none taken away. There is no way that you get samples that are not contaminated in some fashion, so assumptions are made about the amount of contamination levels.

If we had a perfect sample, and perfect test procedures and control of the sample from the time it was created until it was tested, the results would be correct.  We all know that never happens, so the test results are suspect at best.

We know bathroom scales work because we have a perfect sample to compare the results. We have certified weights to test the scale. We also have instruments to test the accuracy of thermometers. We do not have a perfect sample of any isotope to compare.  What if for the first 3000 years of an isotopes existence it decomposed at a rate 10,000 times faster than we now observe? Can anyone prove that is not plausible?  No one was around then to make the observation then and report on it now. 

Perhaps we should listen to the One who was there when it was all created and tells us when it was done?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 7, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Perhaps we should listen to the One who was there when it was all created and tells us when it was done?



So you are all for Hinduism? Zoroastrianism ?
http://afgen.com/hinduism.html


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 7, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So you are all for Hinduism? Zoroastrianism ?
> http://afgen.com/hinduism.html



not hardly.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 7, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> not hardly.



Oh, when you referred to listening to the ONE who was there in the beginning and tells us about it I figured you meant the ONE that was first written about by humans. I see you are talking about the One from a few thousand years later.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 7, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> The problem with all the dating systems are the assumptions that are made upfront. In all the systems, assumptions are made about the different amounts of the isotopes and how they react within the environment they are placed. Assumptions are made that no isotopes where added, and none taken away. There is no way that you get samples that are not contaminated in some fashion, so assumptions are made about the amount of contamination levels.
> 
> If we had a perfect sample, and perfect test procedures and control of the sample from the time it was created until it was tested, the results would be correct.  We all know that never happens, so the test results are suspect at best.
> 
> ...



And that's my point.

I  believe the accuracy of a coroner's report when it says a person has been dead for 9 hours.  I believe it because tests have been conducted, from beginning to end.  

I can also seriously consider research that might date something 2 or three thousand years ago.
But millions and billions is beyond logic for me.

Don't you believe we live in a split world?  On one side are the chemists who are formulating and manufacturing chemicals and products for our good, that ultimately are killing us and our children with diseases and defects.
On the other side are the scientists who are working feverishly trying to find the causes and ways to prevent them.

I suspect there are many people who've been educated beyond their intelligence.  Or anyone elses intelligence.  

I suspect some find that odd coming from a person who believes in the resurrection of Jesus.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 7, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> The problem with all the dating systems are the assumptions that are made upfront. In all the systems, assumptions are made about the different amounts of the isotopes and how they react within the environment they are placed. Assumptions are made that no isotopes where added, and none taken away. There is no way that you get samples that are not contaminated in some fashion, so assumptions are made about the amount of contamination levels.
> 
> If we had a perfect sample, and perfect test procedures and control of the sample from the time it was created until it was tested, the results would be correct.  We all know that never happens, so the test results are suspect at best.
> 
> ...



It's a numbers game: Most of the time, 'this' happens.  There's enough evidence to be able to say that.



Ronnie T said:


> And that's my point.
> 
> I  believe the accuracy of a coroner's report when it says a person has been dead for 9 hours.  I believe it because tests have been conducted, from beginning to end.
> 
> ...



It's not 'beyond' logic.  It's just something that you don't understand right now.  You might be able to if you try.  

Can you explain this idea of being 'educated beyond one's intelligence'?  If someone is too stupid to understand what they are being taught then they have not been educated.  They may know the words but if they don't understand the concept then they didn't learn anything.  I agree with you that people are capable of different levels of cognitive ability but these concepts that we are talking about are pretty simple.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 7, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It's a numbers game: Most of the time, 'this' happens.  There's enough evidence to be able to say that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This statement is applicable to many post I've seen lately.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 8, 2012)

I didn't for a mement mean that some people are stupid.
Here's an example of what I meant.

There have been times that I have seen biblical issues come to life based upon things that simply don't exist.  We often see people say they know 'for a fact' things about the garden of eden that simply aren't available for anyone to know.  We all do it in one subject or another.
People become so certain of things they cannot know, that they develop entirely new understands of an issue that most likely doesn't exist.
I don't have time to get more detailed this morning.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I didn't for a mement mean that some people are stupid.
> Here's an example of what I meant.
> 
> There have been times that I have seen biblical issues come to life based upon things that simply don't exist.  We often see people say they know 'for a fact' things about the garden of eden that simply aren't available for anyone to know.  We all do it in one subject or another.
> ...



Excellent observations!!


----------



## gordon 2 (Apr 8, 2012)

StriperAddict said:


> I wouldn't put it as a pillar of faith for myself, but a young erff makes the most sence to me, for the reasons stated, and for what I have picked up from the Institute for Creation Research.
> 
> A good article from them: Can Solar 'Belch' Theory Solve Sun Paradox?





I hope they take into account that the earth was spinning geometically faster than now. ( Like 4 to six times faster at least if not more.)

I question the article. The reason the earth does not scorch now is because of 12 hour days and 12 hour nights minus the earth's wabble. Slow the rotation just a little and people will be wanting floods in some areas because of all the heat!

I am not certain of the affect of the turns of a rotiserie  on meat say turning at such and such a minute or an hour and opposed to turning the roast manualy twice an hour, more and less... Which absorbs more heat? And we should not forget that life is not absent in the very cold places and hot places on earth--today.

The earth is a top turning.  [Copied][[[The rotational speed of the Earth at the equator is about 1,038 miles per hour. The atmosphere at the equator is also slightly thicker due to rotation, and you weigh slightly less. At mid-latitudes, the speed of the Earth's rotation decreases to 700 to 900 miles per hour. ]]]]

So the fat part of the top is near Florida and is used as a slingshot by Nasa to launch space ships--to catapolt them into space!

The centrifugal force due to rotation, pulls at the equator and account for earthquakes and earth plates as the earth slows down.

 As a christian when I think of creation I think of big floods, earthquates and massive eruptions and big trophy reptiles and changes in the gravitational force and especially when man appears to it all--simply because when I was a boy tops were a great toy and my mom had seven babies after me--and  the Buddhist.  

Something for Myth Busters perhaps...


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 8, 2012)

gordon 2 said:


> tops were a great toy



And for me as well. I spent a lot of time trying to make it do something other than what it was designed for. I did however get pretty good in making it spin from one fingernail to the next.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Apr 8, 2012)

gordon 2 said:


> I hope they take into account that the earth was spinning geometically faster than now. ( Like 4 to six times faster at least if not more.)
> 
> I question the article. The reason the earth does not scorch now is because of 12 hour days and 12 hour nights minus the earth's wabble. Slow the rotation just a little and people will be wanting floods in some areas because of all the heat!
> 
> ...



Perhaps not.  I doubt they'd want to waste time on such.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Apr 8, 2012)

Hey, here's a woolly mammoth that was cut open by humans about 10,000 years ago.


----------



## Four (Apr 9, 2012)

I'm getting reminded of this gem.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I didn't for a mement mean that some people are stupid.
> Here's an example of what I meant.
> 
> There have been times that I have seen biblical issues come to life based upon things that simply don't exist.  We often see people say they know 'for a fact' things about the garden of eden that simply aren't available for anyone to know.  We all do it in one subject or another.
> ...




.....Or that they 'know for a fact' things about god in general.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> .....Or that they 'know for a fact' things about god in general.



Or that they 'know for a fact' things about anything in general.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 9, 2012)

Four said:


> I'm getting reminded of this gem.




Possibly (I don't know) it takes more books and more reading to prove the untrue than it does the true.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Or that they 'know for a fact' things about anything in general.





Ronnie T said:


> Possibly (I don't know) it takes more books and more reading to prove the untrue than it does the true.



No.  

What you need to prove something true is alot of evidence:  things that most everybody can experience, plausibility, testability, something everyone can quantify, count, observe, repeat, describe.  I don't think that's an unfair standard, do you?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 9, 2012)

That is exactly why I don't believe in evolution. It can't be tested or repeated.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> That is exactly why I don't believe in evolution. It can't be tested or repeated.



Oh, Pappy........





I think it may be too late for you.  You just keep on keeping on.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Oh, Pappy........



I know, I know... asking for evidence. Ridiculous ain't it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I know, I know... asking for evidence. Ridiculous ain't it.



It's a Google away.  At least read it before you dismiss it.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Oh, when you referred to listening to the ONE who was there in the beginning and tells us about it I figured you meant the ONE that was first written about by humans. I see you are talking about the One from a few thousand years later.



I am talking about the One who made everything, without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him is life, and life is the light of the world, but the dark does not understand.

Sound familiar?


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Apr 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It's a Google away.  At least read it before you dismiss it.



Are you talking about micro evolution or macro evolution?

I have read, many many books, articles and such. Thats why I can't believe it.  

Even Darwin said to think that an eye could evolve was absurd.
If an eye can't evolve, how can a complete functioning animal evolve?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 9, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I am talking about the One who made everything, without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him is life, and life is the light of the world, but the dark does not understand.
> 
> Sound familiar?



Bill Gates?


----------

