Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?
|!||THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
In other words, if the Bible started with the story of Abraham and never mentioned how the earth was created, would anyone consider the idea that the earth was not millions of years old? Or does a desire to prove the Bible correct form the basis of creation science? Czolgolz 08:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Young earth is a fact that is validated by an unbiased and accurate assesment of the evidence. The bible may have provided the clues but it stands on its own.Rebiu 14:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- No, it's not. If it were, then it would be the scientific consensus regarding the interpretation of the evidence. It isn't, purely for the reason that that is not what the evidence indicates. [[AdamNelson 16:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]
- Let's not forget, Rebiu: The claim isn't only that the earth is 6,000 years old. It's that earth and the universe formed contemporaneously 6000 years ago. If that were true, the most distant stars would be no more than 6000 light years away. However, the most distant stars are over 13 billion light years away. Either the speed of light is much, much faster than we measured--over 2.1 million times faster, in fact--or earth and those galaxies didn't form at the same time. But even if our instruments really were so clumbsy as to err over 2 million fold, the young earth theory would still have to explain how the planet managed to cool from a molten state so quickly. If the answer is that god just zapped it into being, then Cristians don't have to explain any observable data whatever. The only question I would then press is why god gave man the faculty of reason and the curiosity to explore if we needn't look any further than our Bibles. whomever 11:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, because other cultures have creation stories, many of which predate the bible and the rise of Judaism. Australian Aborogines, for example -- one of the oldest civilisations in the world -- have an elaborate creation story that has zero to do with Genesis. MrGrieves 06:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
In the bible, outside of Genesis, God rhetorically inquires of Job if he was present when God laid the foundations of the Earth, and the theological point he is trying to make is that the earth predates man by many years and includes wonders and mysteries that Job could not even begin to imagine. Based on this evidence, it is likely that an old earth doctrine would have been established. Teresita 07:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
No, because if it isn't in the Bible it isn't true. --Cranky Joe 23:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
Darn it, Joe, there goes my belief in the toothfairy! And what about Santa Claus...Meep!
200, 300 years ago, yes (although still considerably older than what YEC says). The evidence is everywhere that the earth cannot possibly be that young. Radiometric dating, looking at the age of planets, crust, rocks, life, etc, shows that it simply cannot be that young. Valuables 11:41, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
The questions seem to contradict eachother, so I'll post here. If there was no creation story, then the literal biblists wouldn't immediately throw out all the scientific evidence of evolution. Most likely they'd accept it and go on with their lives. But since the story does exist, they feel it necessary to accept this as the literal truth and refuse to believe anything contrary to what they read. Jrssr5 09:16, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but not anymore
I think that prior to ways of interpreting the evidence that led to the understanding of a very old earth, most cultures would not have thought the earth was much older than their oldest records or legends - they would have no reason to do so. With modern scientific interpretations and more evidence of an old earth, a literal interpretation of the Creation in Genesis becomes more difficult to hold, and if it were not there (the Creation story), even fundamental literalists would have no reason not to accept that God made the earth a lot longer ago then previously thought. Human 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't believe in Young Earth Creationists
It must be a joke. No one is that bonkers.
Today is: 17 Av 5767
That is 5,767 years since the first man, Adam, first walked the earth. Not everyone holds the non-theistic religious belief of the earth being millions of years old. With modern scientific evidence increasingly supporting the factuality of a young earth, Gods Word is becoming more relevant in todays world. Every year something is found that scientifically proves the validity and accuracy of His word. Archeology continues to find evidence that backs up events written about in the Bible. Yet the world has rejected God as well as those He has chosen to be His people. It isn't dificult to see how tenaciously the world clings to a failed belief system that requires its adherents to believe in the evolutionary time table of millions of years. Simple reverse psychology applies perfectly here. If Genesis had described evolution then we would all be learning the young earth theory in every public schools and colleges. The unatural hatred towards Israel and Christian America proves how the natural man has gone in every direction except towards his own Creator God.--Roopilots6 20:23, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
You sound so sure that I'm convinced so long as your evidence doesn't come from a random webpage, wiki article, and is scientifically provable. Also, I'm sure you will be listing out your evidence and providing startling examples real soon. Right? --Xenuite