Difference between revisions of "Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?"

Revision as of 18:44, April 6, 2007

!

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)

YES!

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!

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)

Comments

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)