Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Join us now
Guest

Poll Question: Creationism, OEC or YEC?

Poll Question: Creationism, OEC or YEC?  

69 members have voted

  1. 1. Poll Question: Creationism, OEC or YEC?

    • OEC
      23
    • YEC
      34
    • Don't Know
      3
    • Don't Care
      1
    • Doesn't Matter
      9


Recommended Posts

Guest

OEC = old earth creationism

YEC = young earth creationism

 

Which view do you hold: old earth creationism or young earth creationism? This poll is not about evolution. Old earth creationism does not necessarily endorse or even imply evolution. We will save that question for another poll.

 

Tell us what you think and why.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
Old earth creationism does not necessarily endorse or even imply evolution.

 

I am glad you differentiated between these, however, I can't seem to understand how one would come to an Old Earth Creation without opening the door to Darwinian Evolution, or at the least rely on extra-biblical evidence (dating). With respect to your OP, I anxiously await someone to explain this position from Scripture (emphasis).

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

 

I am glad you differentiated between these, however, I can't seem to understand how one would come to an Old Earth Creation without opening the door to Darwinian Evolution or at the least rely on extra-biblical evidence (dating). With respect to your OP, I anxiously await someone to explain this position from Scripture (emphasis).

 

God bless,

William

I really do not like the terms YEC and OEC but those are the ones most often used. I would prefer something like old universe creationism and young universe creationism.

 

I see no reason to think simply because one believes that the universe is very old that necessarily one must also believe in evolution. I don't.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
I see no reason to think simply because one believes that the universe is very old that necessarily one must also believe in evolution. I don't.

 

I can see why that would bother you, and I will refrain from making such an observation. Especially if Old Universe Creationism could be clarified from Scripture. I thought it was rather entertaining when Presidential candidate Ben Carson was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. Ben Carson began to explain his belief in OEC by using the Gap theory. O'Reilly opened the door fully which was introduced by the Gap theory, quickly blazing a path to Darwinian Evolution. Ben Carson looked very annoyed, but didn't have the opportunity to followup with a response.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
atpollard

The Engineer in me sees a lot of evidence for both micro-evolution (not being discussed) and geological time scale phenomenon in my work (with soils and wetlands) that makes me want to lean towards an Earth greater than 6000 years old. Counterbalancing that is the lifetime of personal experience that no one ever came out ahead in the long run by betting against the Bible. I am old enough to remember when school books taught that the Hittites never existed, but look who turned out to be right about an iron using civilization with spoked chariot wheels that pre-dated the Romans. So I am forced to vote "Don't Know".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
The Engineer in me sees a lot of evidence for both micro-evolution (not being discussed) and geological time scale phenomenon in my work (with soils and wetlands) that makes me want to lean towards an Earth greater than 6000 years old. Counterbalancing that is the lifetime of personal experience that no one ever came out ahead in the long run by betting against the Bible. I am old enough to remember when school books taught that the Hittites never existed, but look who turned out to be right about an iron using civilization with spoked chariot wheels that pre-dated the Romans. So I am forced to vote "Don't Know".

 

I don't believe any Young Earth Creationist here is going to argue against Micro Evolution or adaptive variations and environmental adaptations. It is the inference from micro evolution to macro evolution that are argued as assumptions without observation or evidence. In Scripture, "according to their kind" is argued by YEC to be paralleled to species, and not genus. YEC have no problem with cats producing other subspecies, or dogs to dogs and other subspecies. But they will quickly point out that dogs have been bred in every conceivable way and never have produced a cat, an elephant, or any other genus.

 

But Origen has touched upon the age of an old universe. My first thoughts are to do with the appearance of age of the universe. How is age being measured, and if by light or forms of radiation could the beams of light emitted by stars been put in place giving the illusion of age? It may be a complicated suggestion, I understand, that some will quickly point out that God would be deceiving us if He created such an illusion, but I give pause to that suggestion because even the star light we see may be from a long gone star which already has passed.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

 

I can see why that would bother you, and I will refrain from making such an observation. Especially if Old Universe Creationism could be clarified from Scripture. I thought it was rather entertaining when Presidential candidate Ben Carson was being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. Ben Carson began to explain his belief in OEC by using the Gap theory. O'Reilly opened the door fully which was introduced by the Gap theory, quickly blazing a path to Darwinian Evolution. Ben Carson looked very annoyed, but didn't have the opportunity to followup with a response.

 

God bless,

William

Please don't stop of account of me William. I promise you it does not bother me. I can take it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
I am forced to vote "Don't Know".
I thought about voting that way myself. I went with OEC because I lean that way, but to tell the truth any of the above choices would be fine with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Cornelius

One could look at the time it takes light from distant galaxies to get here and conclude the universe is maybe billions of years old. But, have you noticed that no one is lining up galaxies by distance to show the evolution of galaxies, as we peer billions of years back in time? You can guess why. Anyway, the trouble I have with an old Earth is that while you're trying to be rational about light vs. distance, you're extrapolating into irrational nonsense, a universe expanding under literally overwhelming gravitational attraction, and ultimately to a singularity that defies every thing we know about science.

 

I find it interesting that Genesis says daylight was created before the light source. This isn't because of any primitive ignorance about the source of daylight. If you want to have faith in impossible physics to accept the Big Bang, why not have faith in an act of God to create young Earth with very distant stars, which the Bible says were made for man, being visible. Besides, if the Earth is the center of the universe, gravitational time dilation explains stellar red-shift and how light from billions of years away could have arrived to Earth in thousands of years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest theophilus
I would prefer some like old universe creationism and young universe creationism.

This is something entirely different from YEC and OEC. I believe in YEC but I also believe in old universe creationism. The Bible says that on the fourth day God placed lights in the sky but it doesn't say he created the bodies that produced these light at that time. There is a post in my blog in which I explain by beliefs in more detail:

 

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/young-earth-old-universe/

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This is something entirely different from YEC and OEC. I believe in YEC but I also believe in old universe creationism.
I understand that the views of others can run the spectrum and some people will emphasize one point over another. As I point out above, I went with OEC because I lean that way, but to tell the truth any of the above choices would be fine with me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
~JM~

I voted "doesn't matter." I'm YEC but really, honestly, it doesn't matter to me. It's more important to know who created the world than argue over how long it took based on scant material.

 

Yours in the Lord,

 

jm

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
I voted "doesn't matter." I'm YEC but really, honestly, it doesn't matter to me. It's more important to know who created the world than argue over how long it took based on scant material.

 

Yours in the Lord,

 

jm

 

I agree with your point JM, but the problem I experience is when a person shifts from "who" to "how". Those millions of years need filling, and Darwin's Evolution seemingly plugs the gap though often conflicting Scripture. While I respect your answer, and can see merit in it, I think sometimes it is best not to press someone. At the same time, I ask, is it really a good idea not to press someone and make them choose between Scripture and Darwinian Evolution? I met a guy once in another Christian forum that believes in OEC, Darwinian evolution, as well as an Intelligent Designer. One day, I observed some members kept pressing him hard on the issue, he finally came out and said, if I must choose, there is no way I can reject evolution because of evidence. Never seen him again, and he was a regular in discussions. Needlessly said, I couldn't see how the YEC party could claim victory.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
~JM~

 

I agree with your point JM, but the problem I experience is when a person shifts from "who" to "how". Those millions of years need filling, and Darwin's Evolution seemingly plugs the gap though often conflicting Scripture. While I respect your answer, and can see merit in it, I think sometimes it is best not to press someone. At the same time, I ask, is it really a good idea not to press someone and make them choose between Scripture and Darwinian Evolution? I met a guy once in another Christian forum that believes in OEC, Darwinian evolution, as well as an Intelligent Designer. One day, I observed some members kept pressing him hard on the issue, he finally came out and said, if I must choose, there is no way I can reject evolution because of evidence. Never seen him again, and he was a regular in discussions. Needlessly said, I couldn't see how the YEC party could claim victory.

 

God bless,

William

 

Thanks William. I guess it hasn't been my experience that people jump to evilution if grounded in the word. If not anything could happen and it does. Thank God for His saving grace!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

Please vote and comment if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
AGustOfWind

There is far too much scientific evidence that the earth is far more than a mere 6000 years old, emphasis on "far too much".

 

As such, I must say that i am inclined to say that I believe in an Old Earth/Old universe, it just makes more scientific sense. Plus, there's nothing about a belief in OEC or OUC that "contradicts" scripture.

 

Science on its own= Half of the knowledge of the universe and everything in it

The bible on its own= The other half

 

Therefore, Science+ the bible= Knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest theophilus
There is far too much scientific evidence that the earth is far more than a mere 6000 years old, emphasis on "far too much".

All of the "evidence" that tells us the earth is old is based on the assumption that the earth is the product of the natural processes we see going on today and ignores the possibility that the earth was created by God. Imagine someone travelling back in time and seeing Adam and Eve just a few days after their creation. If he didn't know God had created them but assumed they had been born just as other people are his estimate of their age would be much too high. Scientists who try to estimate the age of the earth but don't take God into consideration are making the same mistake.

 

As such, I must say that i am inclined to say that I believe in an Old Earth/Old universe, it just makes more scientific sense. Plus, there's nothing about a belief in OEC or OUC that "contradicts" scripture.

There is nothing in OUC that contradicts scripture. The six day creation in Genesis 1 is only of the earth. On the fourth day God placed lights in the sky but it doesn't say he created the bodies that are the source of those lights at that time. It is possible that the stars already existed but the condition of the earth's atmosphere kept them from being seen from earth. On the other hand the earth was created is six literal days. That is shown by the fact that each days consisted of an evening and a morning. The belief that the earth is billions of years old clearly contradicts the Bible.

 

Science on its own= Half of the knowledge of the universe and everything in it

The bible on its own= The other half

 

Therefore, Science+ the bible= Knowledge.

What we know by science is much less that half of the knowledge of the universe. Since it is the result of human efforts it is likely that a lot of it is wrong. And a lot of so called science is really history. Any attempt to determine what happened in the past is unreliable because there are questions that can't be answered by scientific methods, such as whether or not God intervened in past events. In fact much scientific research today fulfills the prophecy made by Peter:

 

Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

(2 Peter 3:3-6 ESV)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

Come on people. I know there are a lot more people here than just 10. Vote!

Share this post


Link to post
Cornelius
All of the "evidence" that tells us the earth is old is based on the assumption that the earth is the product of the natural processes we see going on today and ignores the possibility that the earth was created by God.

 

Old Earthers would like to assume that natural processes we see going on today accounts for everything. But, the natural processes as we understand them today can't account for what we see. And, there's still the problem of how those natural processes started.

 

Take Evolution (Darwinism), natural processes do not increase the complexity of life over time. The rare examples of observed "beneficial mutations" are usually changes that simplify an organism but offer some benefit in the process (in a very narrow niche), meanwhile non-beneficial mutations continue to pile up in every species (then there's extinction). And, where did the first organism come from for Evolution to work upon?

 

Nature doesn't move in the direction of Evolution. And, Evolution, even if accepted, gives us no starting position.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Deidre

I think that there is too much evidence to deny Darwin's theory of evolution, but there is still some incomplete information within it. There are still gaps in the theory, so I'm of the opinion that one can believe in his theory, but also believe that there is a Designer or Creator behind it all. I tend to look at the origin of man as discussed in Genesis, to be somewhat allegorical.

Share this post


Link to post
Amadeus

I voted a very definite, "don't know", but I really do believe that God is able to put together all of this [the earth, universe and physical life forms, etc.) so as to raise questions in the minds of people who ask questions. The reality is the "substance of things hoped for" in Hebrews 11:1. All of these other things are simply what God gave men as an alternative (or alternatives) with a basis to build arguments for something else other than reality. My other alternative in the poll was "Doesn't matter". Ultimately, perhaps it does not.

 

​What I see is a fiction that man calls reality. The fiction was born when man sinned for the first time. At that time his clearest view of reality was blocked. He died and became blind to reality... at least most of it. The fiction is what men are searching within when God is not seriously considered or when man works it out only by his own logic and/or the scientific method. The scientific method could be good if it not always have to start with certain underlying assumptions.

 

Reality is according to God's plan visible only to those who really have the "eyes to see" and the "ears to hear" of which scripture speaks. Those perceptions are not as per the natural five senses and the reasoning abilities of men, but as allowed or given when a person moves in the right direction... which is toward God. Thus we have the Holy Spirit, which will lead us in the right direction if we have the Holy Spirit available and we do not quench said Spirit.

 

So then we concern ourselves with time for planet Earth (and the Universe?). Is it 6,000 years according to what men usually call years today,m or is it ever so much longer, or perhaps with God in His reality it is... ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
I think that there is too much evidence to deny Darwin's theory of evolution, but there is still some incomplete information within it.

 

Do you mean like an actual scientific process? Origins are not observable, repeatable or testable. Having said this, Darwinian Evolutionist turn to the narration of stick figures. Same evidence seen by creationist and evolutionist but quite contrary in narration. Without being observable, repeatable, or even testable, I am inclined to reject Darwinian Evolution and actually believe the testimony of someone that was there. Our Father, as communicated through the Son and Holy Spirit. The Son, I say, because Jesus quoted from Genesis saying, have you not read? When answering questions on divorce he turned there, treating Genesis as a historical record. So, it doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what Jesus believed. And that's good enough for me.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Deidre

 

Do you mean like an actual scientific process? Origins are not observable, repeatable or testable. Having said this, Darwinian Evolutionist turn to the narration of stick figures. Same evidence seen by creationist and evolutionist but quite contrary in narration. Without being observable, repeatable, or even testable, I am inclined to reject Darwinian Evolution and actually believe the testimony of someone that was there. Our Father, as communicated through the Son and Holy Spirit. The Son, I say, because Jesus quoted from Genesis saying, have you not read? When answering questions on divorce he turned there, treating Genesis as a historical record. So, it doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what Jesus believed. And that's good enough for me.

 

God bless,

William

 

The Bible isn't a history or science book, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William

 

The Bible isn't a history or science book, though.

 

Genesis is a historical record. And I think, much of archaeology would agree with Scripture. Again, they may question the narrative, but the places and events are often proven indisputable. Though I agree with you that the Bible isn't a Science book, I think it agrees wonderfully with correct Science. Outside of Science, however, Science is unable to attest to supernatural claims. Thus, they are then outside the domain or jurisdiction of Science, but this is no different then that of issues concerning morality and/or virtue.

 

The example I am using was from Matthew 19:4, "He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female," This comes across as referring to Genesis as a historical record. Take for example another Scripture, Genesis 1:24, "And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so." According to their kinds would be comparable to our understanding of species. Darwinian Evolution however, disagrees with this statement claiming that a Genus can produce another Genus. Another words, an elephant can produce a cat, a cat a dog etc. This has never been observed, repeated or tested. Therefore it is not Scientific.

 

Back to what you stated, Science can be considered as our interpretation of nature, and Theology the interpretation of Scripture. Science should never disagree with nature, and Theology should never disagree with Scripture. However, sometimes Science and Theology disagree, but I am inclined to believe Theology proper, especially after considering any given past paradigm rejected for another. Though my point is that both are fallible means of interpreting because both are in the hands of man. For example, the Newtonian universe explained 200 years ago the motion of the planets, but there was an exception, with the discovery of Mercury. Mercury's orbit could not be predicted. It was always slightly off. Newton's theory was wrong, though it was perfectly adequate at the time, but it was rejected by Einstein for the Theory of Relativity. Perhaps one day, Einstein's Theory will be rejected too. Time will tell, but this reminds me of my reason for also preferring dead theologians, because their writings have survived the test of time.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Deidre

 

Genesis is a historical record. And I think, much of archaeology would agree with Scripture. Again, they may question the narrative, but the places and events are often proven indisputable. Though I agree with you that the Bible isn't a Science book, I think it agrees wonderfully with correct Science. Outside of Science, however, Science is unable to attest to supernatural claims. Thus, they are then outside the domain or jurisdiction of Science, but this is no different then that of issues concerning morality and/or virtue.

 

The example I am using was from Matthew 19:4, "He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female," This comes across as referring to Genesis as a historical record. Take for example another Scripture, Genesis 1:24, "And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so." According to their kinds would be comparable to our understanding of species. Darwinian Evolution however, disagrees with this statement claiming that a Genus can produce another Genus. Another words, an elephant can produce a cat, a cat a dog etc. This has never been observed, repeated or tested. Therefore it is not Scientific.

 

Back to what you stated, Science can be considered as our interpretation of nature, and Theology the interpretation of Scripture. Science should never disagree with nature, and Theology should never disagree with Scripture. However, sometimes Science and Theology disagree, but I am inclined to believe Theology proper, especially after considering any given past paradigm rejected for another. Though my point is that both are fallible means of interpreting because both are in the hands of man. For example, the Newtonian universe explained 200 years ago the motion of the planets, but there was an exception, with the discovery of Mercury. Mercury's orbit could not be predicted. It was always slightly off. Newton's theory was wrong, though it was perfectly adequate at the time, but it was rejected by Einstein for the Theory of Relativity. Perhaps one day, Einstein's Theory will be rejected too. Time will tell, but this reminds me of my reason for also preferring dead theologians, because their writings have survived the test of time.

 

God bless,

William

 

 

I agree with you, in that my faith is enough for me. More than enough for me. But, this doesn't mean that I can't also accept discoveries that come our way, as we live in this world, but we are not 'of' this world. Having said that, I don't believe that man discovers or unravels any scientific theories that God has not intended for him to 'find.' I often wonder why people who are unbelievers feel that science and religion cannot somehow...coexist. I believe they can. God is the Creator...man merely discovers and ''makes sense'' of His creation. This is how I've come to see it, and have come to accept the theory of evolution as being potentially valid. In as much as the 'evidence' has presented itself. I'm just careful to call the Bible a history or science book, because it is faith that brings me to Jesus, not evidence. If evidence was all that was required, it would cease to be 'faith,' do you agree?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...
Articles - News