Young Earth Creation theory put to rest!

tat tvam asi · Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:18 pm

I'd like to call attention to the foundation stone of the Young Earth Creation (YEC) and Inerrancy movements within Christianity. Is the Bible (any translation) inerrant and does it provide an accurate historical account of how the earth was made, when the earth was made and how old the earth actually is? Let's have a look shall we:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV


	Quote: Genesis 1 The Beginning 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So a literal day occurred. How? There is no sun, moon, or stars at this point in the narrative. What is an "evening and morning" / day and night anyways? Is it when a planet is either facing towards or away from it's star /sun? If yes, then how could a day have occurred literally? Simple answer is that it couldn't have occurred in any literal sense!


	Quote: 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Two "days" have now passed without the existence of the sun or any other star in the sky (heaven).


	Quote: 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Now three days have gone by without the existence of the sun or any other star in the sky. Is that "literally" possible? Of course not.


	Quote: 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Ok, now the sun, moon, and stars are finally in existence according to the narrative. Big problem though! They are made for the purpose of giving light on the earth and marking "seasons, days, and years". Not only were three days going by before the existence of the sun, but here we have a contradiction in the story itself, a major error. The sun is created to mark seasons, days, and years. How were any literal days marked before the existence of the sun? Not so much as one literal day could have existed before the existence of the sun, which according to the same chapter was created (or made) to mark days.


	Quote: 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. Genesis 2 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Well, we have some major problems here starting with the very first "evening and morning" of the first day of creation. What evidence is there to support the idea that the earth existed before the sun? The Bible itself creates an error by having days going by before days can be marked / calculated.

Then there's the deeper issue of the plural "Gods" who come down to create man in "their" image:

So we have an old creation myth that contradicts itself as well as condradicting science and observation which reflects a pre-monotheistic time period where many "Gods", referred to as the "Elohim" or "Sons of El", came down to the earth to create man in "their" own image according to "their" own likeness. This is rather like the many human-like Gods of the Greek Pantheon with a supreme God followed by lower gods. It seems that the trinity concept was later created to try and excuse this early polytheistic Elohim pantheon worship that pre-dates the monotheistic movement.

To make immediate sense of all of this, I simply need to look at how the six days of creation actually correspond to one another in this creation myth:

A) Day 1 Light > Day 4 Sun, Moon, and Stars.

B) Day 2 Sea and Air separation > Day 5 Sea and Air Creatures.

C) Day 3 Dry Land > Day 6 Land Animals / Man.

D) Day 7 Rest

What we have here is a basic mythological oriented pairing of the various environments with inhabitants to exist within the environments that were laid out previously. The whole thing is set to a seven day oriented theme and reflects the ancient observation of seven celestial orbs (sun, moon, and five planets) which became a religious focal point in nearly all religions. Just like the seven chakras and everything else that uses the ancient sacred number 7, so too did the bible writers set out arrange this creation myth to a symbolic seven day format, probably not originally meant to be taken literally to begin with by the original myth makers. None of this myth making tells us how exactly the world was created, when the world was created, or how life came to exist on the planet in any "literal" sense. It's mythology, it isn't designed to be taken "literally" in the first place. This pantheon of "Gods" representing the heavens come down to the mythological Garden to create man in "their" own image on the sixth day of a creation account that isn't talking about "literal" days to begin with.

The way I see it, the Young Earth Creationists have built a house of cards starting from a sand foundation and have since misled many people into believing that they must have "faith" in this story of origins. I don't take very kindly to that! It's deceptive, though often well intended by those promoting YEC theories. The fact is that YEC offers no real way of dating the earth or presenting us with how life came to exist. It's just tribal oriented mythology. All we really have is science and observation to go by in terms of learning how old the earth is or when or how life originated on the earth. It isn't to be answered by religionists, rather scientists! Bottom line.

PS After over 20 pages of Stahrwe playing semantic games here and refusing to accept defeat, I started a new thread from a newer and fresher starting point which curbs his dishonest apologetics based on trying to butcher the context of the creation narrative by claiming that the sun was created in Genesis 1:1, instead of on the fourth day of creation where the narrative firmly places it. Here's a link if you'd like to skip the over 20 pages of semantic games on this thread and proceed to the final nail in the coffin of his apology: post67417.html#p67417

stahrwe · Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:24 pm

RESPONSE TO PS ABOVE
5-17-10
A significant number of the pages in this discussion result from tat tvam asi's repetition of the same argument though it was already, fully dealt with. In fact, if you remove the repetition, there are only a few pages in this discussion.

tat tvam asi wrote:

I'd like to call attention to the foundation stone of the Young Earth and Inerrancy movements of Christianity. Is the Bible inerrant and does it provide and accurate account of how the earth was made, when it was made, or how old it is? Let's have a look shall we:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV


	Quote: Genesis 1 The Beginning 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

So a literal day occurred. How? There is no sun, moon, or stars. What is an "evening and morning" / day and night? Is it when a planet is either facing towards or away from it's star / sun? If yes, then how could a day have occurred literally?


	Quote: 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Two "days" have now passed without the existence of a sun or any star in the sky.


	Quote: 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Now three days have gone by without the existence of the sun or any other star in the sky. Is that "literally" possible? Of course not.


	Quote: 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Ok, now the sun, moon, and stars exist. Big problem! They are for the purpose of giving light on the earth and marking "seasons, days, and years". Not only were days going by before the existence of the sun, but here we have a contradiction in the story itself, a major error. The sun is created to mark seasons, days, and years. How were days marked before the existence of the sun? Not so much as one literal day could have existed before the existence of the sun, which according to the same chapter was created to mark days.


	Quote: 20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. 24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. Genesis 2 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Well, we have some major problems here starting with the very first "evening and morning" of the first day. What evidence is there to support the idea that the earth existed before the sun? The Bible itself creates an error by having days going by before days can be marked / calculated.

Then there's the "Gods" who come down to create man in "their" image:

So we have an old creation myth that contradicts itself as well as science and observation which reflects a pre-monotheistic time period where many "Gods", referred to as the "Elohim", or "Sons of El", came down to the earth to create man in "their" own image according to "their" own likeness. This is rather like the many human-like Gods of the Greek Pantheon with a supreme God followed by lower gods.

To make immediate sense of all of this, we simply need to look how the six days correspond to one another in this creation myth:

A) Day 1 Light > Day 4 Sun, Moon, and Stars.

B) Day 2 Sea and Air separation > Day 5 Sea and Air Creatures.

C) Day 3 Dry Land > Day 6 Land Animals / Man.

D) Day 7 Rest

What we have here is a basic mythological oriented pairing of environments with things to exist in the environments which is set to a seven day theme and reflects the ancient observation of seven celestial orbs (sun, moon, and five planets). Just like the seven chakras and everything else that uses the ancient sacred number 7. None of this tells us how the world was made, when the world was made, or how life came to exist on the planet in any "literal" sense. It's mythology, it isn't designed to be taken "literally" in the first place. The "Gods" come down to the mythological Garden to create man in "their" own image on the sixth day of a creation account that isn't talking about "literal" days to begin with.

The way I see it, the Creationists have built a house of cards from a sand foundation and have misled people into believing that they must have "faith" in this story of origins. I don't take very kindly to that! It's deceptive, though often well intended by those promoting Creationism. The fact is that Creationism offers no real way of dating the earth or presenting us with how life came to exist. It's just mythology. All we have is science and observation to go by in terms of learning how old the earth is or when or how life originated on the earth. It's illusory for Creationists to act as if there's two options on the table when creationism isn't actually an option in the first place.

Since you obviously have the capability of searching the internet, I suggest you google the issue and explore some apologetics websites. This is not a groundbreaking issue and there is plenty to mine in cyber space which addresses each of your allegations.

johnson1010 · Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:28 pm

A valient effort, and thanks.

Of course you are not going to impress the extremely entrenched minds of people like Star, but i understand the impulse. You gotta call shenanigans when you see it.

Yes of course YEC is wrong. Of course the bible is riddled with errors. Only a truly willfully ignorant person could ignore the glaring, blatant, laughable garbage that comprises the bible.

tat tvam asi · Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:52 pm

I've created an arena for this show down Stahrwe. So please, by all means, let's start with the first day. How do you propose that an "evening and morning" literally took place with no sun, moon, or stars? And in edition, how did the earth exist before the sun? Let's establish whether or not this can be taken "literally" before we go any further.

I've never in my life heard an acceptable explanation for the above. In fact no one has ever bothered to address it from the Creationist camp as many times as I've asked it of them on various forums.

tat tvam asi · Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:59 pm


	johnson1010 wrote: A valient effort, and thanks. Of course you are not going to impress the extremely entrenched minds of people like Star, but i understand the impulse. You gotta call shenanigans when you see it. Yes of course YEC is wrong. Of course the bible is riddled with errors. Only a truly willfully ignorant person could ignore the glaring, blatant, laughable garbage that comprises the bible.

Thanks johnson1010, actually it was Stahrwe trying to use your signature on evolution as a way of defending the historical Jesus that got this started. Interbane and I had a good laugh. He didn't want to address Genesis in the other thread so I created this one to demonstrate that Creationism has no basis in reality and offers no real alternative to evolution.

johnson1010 · Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:39 pm

Yeah?

i would like to get a look at that thread.

Can you point me there?

tat tvam asi · Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:56 pm

the-christ-myth-anthology-by-d-m-murdock-t7660-90.html

Now I'm looking for Stahr to explain how Genesis can be taken literally - how a day can occur without the existence of the sun. To get to a young earth theory one has to back track through the bible calculating the lives of the people from Jesus back to Adam, a man created on the 6th day of a creation account that isn't literal in the first place and therefore can't be used as a starting point for the literal age of the earth nor the first human being for that matter.

stahrwe · Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:59 pm


	tat tvam asi wrote: http://www.booktalk.org/the-christ-myth-anthology-by-d-m-murdock-t7660-90.html Now I'm looking for Stahr to explain how Genesis can be taken literally - how a day can occur without the existence of the sun. To get to a young earth theory one has to back track through the bible calculating the lives of the people from Jesus back to Adam, a man created on the 6th day of a creation account that isn't literal in the first place and therefore can't be used as a starting point for the literal age of the earth nor the first human being for that matter.

I suggest that you jump over to the Bible Book discussion forum on Genesis where I will be more than happy to discuss this and any other questions you have about Genesis.

tat tvam asi · Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:15 pm

No, I insist that we discuss it right here in the R&P section, starting from the very beginning where I just started. I took a glance at your Genesis thread and you jumped the starting gun right from the very beginning. We have to start out with first establishing what the first "day" means and then move forward. Is it a "literal" day or not?

This is a fresh thread with a fresh perspective. Let's just go with that. If you have the answer elsewhere then just paste it here please, so that I can go over this whole thing from the beginning and one step at a time.

stahrwe · Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:17 am


	tat tvam asi wrote: No, I insist that we discuss it right here in the R&P section, starting from the very beginning where I just started. I took a glance at your Genesis thread and you jumped the starting gun right from the very beginning. We have to start out with first establishing what the first "day" means and then move forward. Is it a "literal" day or not? This is a fresh thread with a fresh perspective. Let's just go with that. If you have the answer elsewhere then just paste it here please, so that I can go over this whole thing from the beginning and one step at a time.

You insist, really?
Perhaps you should hold your breath too.

I will address it in the Genesis discussion. If you are interested come on over.

tat tvam asi · Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:33 am

Then there we have it. I've just put YEC to rest here on this thread. Unless some one can prove otherwise of course. So far no one has been able to shake it.

There are those who believe that the world was created 4004 BC and in six days literally. That makes the world six thousand years and provides an insight into the millenium of Revelation as making for a 7 thousand year old earth - six thousand years followed by a thousand years of peace for a Sabbath rest before the Lake of Fire and so on...

But, it all rests on the literalism of the creation account in Genesis. If day one is not a literal day, well then Genesis is not literally true. This is established at the very beginning of the Bible. The whole house of cards built on a sand foundation (literalism) comes immediately crashing down! And Babylon has just fallen as far as I'm concerned.

There are also others, old earth creationists, who accept that the earth is old as science shows and like to say "a day is like a thousand years" to God. The idea is that Genesis is symbolic for thousands or even millions of literal years of the earth existing. The foundation is likewise built on sand. The ability to calculate both "days and years" comes on the fourth day of creation. So there couldn't have been so much as one literal day nor one literal year before the fourth day of creation and each day can not possibly be symbolic for any number of literal years at, bringing that house of cards down to the ground as well. It isn't science, it's mythology!

Interbane · Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:47 am

We can calculate the days in hindsight. You see, a day is simply the rotation of the Earth. As long as the Earth is rotating, the words hold true. There doesn't need to be a sun for there to be a day. Everything in the YEC worldview can be rationalized. First, the axiomatic underpinnings need a sprinkle of magic!

stahrwe · Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:11 pm


	tat tvam asi wrote: Then there we have it. I've just put YEC to rest here on this thread. Unless some one can prove otherwise of course. So far no one has been able to shake it. There are those who believe that the world was created 4004 BC and in six days literally. That makes the world six thousand years and provides an insight into the millenium of Revelation as making for a 7 thousand year old earth - six thousand years followed by a thousand years of peace for a Sabbath rest before the Lake of Fire and so on... But, it all rests on the literalism of the creation account in Genesis. If day one is not a day, well then Genesis is not literally true. This is established at the very beginning of the Bible. The whole house of cards built on a sand foundation (literalism) comes immediately crashing down. Babylon has just fallen as far as I'm concerned. There are also others, old earth creationists, who accept that the earth is old as science shows and like to say "a day is like a thousand years" to God. The idea is that Genesis is symbolic for thousands or even millions of literal years of the earth existing. The foundation is likewise built on sand. The ability to calculate both "days and years" comes on the fourth day of creation. So there couldn't have been so much as one literal day nor one literal year before the fourth day of creation and each day can not possibly be symolic for any number of literal years, bring that house of cards down to the ground as well.

The explanation is a simple one and is not the one Interbane proposes. If you care to stop by the Genesis forum I will post it soon. Meanwhile, it would be productive if you did a careful reading of Genesis Chapter 1.

I am surprised that no one else has explained it before.

tat tvam asi · Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:20 pm


	Interbane wrote: We can calculate the days in hindsight. You see, a day is simply the rotation of the Earth. As long as the Earth is rotating, the words hold true. There doesn't need to be a sun for there to be a day. Everything in the YEC worldview can be rationalized. First, the axiomatic underpinnings need a sprinkle of magic!

The problem here is that the bible says that the sun was created on the fourth day for the purpose marking a day and a year. The first day has no way of being marked, or calculated until the fourth day when the sun is made to calculate time. The "evening and morning" of the first day has no point of reference to mark either a literal "evening or morning" without the existence of the sun which was created to do just that on the fourth day.

I suspect that the real answer is that this a creation myth arranged symbolically to provide three environments of existence paired with things to inhabit these environments of existence (1-4, 2-5, 3-6, and 7). Not literal days, not literal years of any type, not a literal explanation for either the origin of the earth nor the origin of life on the earth. I wonder if this can really be rationalized away in the end, the bitter end.

tat tvam asi · Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:25 pm

Stahrwe, I just hit a Roman Catholic with it recently, in person, and he immediately confessed that it isn't to be taken that literally. He just leaves the creation of the world as the mystery that it actually is in reality. We have no absolute answer at present because it's a work in progress. Why not be honest everyone about it Stahrwe? Don't you fancy sticking to the "truth" in life? I sure like to try to. The truth is that neither you or any other person has absolute knowledge of origins. Any one suggesting they do is lying and are therefore working in terms of "darkness", "deceit", and "error". Do mean to suggest that you have absolute knowledge of origins Stahrwe? That's a red flag for sure.

Forum rules

Young Earth Creation theory put to rest! Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!