Evidence for a Young Earth (page 4)

snowbird

Tee hee hee.

Y'all are something else!

Sylvia

Perry

I'm not sure if the Watchtower ever held a Young-Earth view.... at least not as young as the plain reading of Genesis.

My earliest recollection of the WT teaching on this subject was the 7 x 7000 years theory for a total of 49,000 years. The theory was that each creative day was 7000 years long. I'm not sure where that came from. But, I remember that being abandoned in the late 70's to early 80's. That's when the "millions of Years" were quietly adopted. I remember others more "advanced" than I in the organization explaining that we didn't know how long each creative day was. They adopted the concept that a 'day' could have been just a figure of speech, and not literal. However, that never really seemed like a fair description of the plain-reading of Genesis to me.

The Gap Theory is a Christian taught theory that allows for millions of years, prior to the creation of man. It pre-dates Darwin:

The Young Earth Creationists would raise these problems with the Gap Theorists though.

Some things look old. But, many things look young and are just simply out of place and don't fit in the standard naturalistic paradigm being sold to the public.

Village Idiot

500 pages of finely printed oversize pages of information covering all of the Creationist’s points. Well worth the price.

LisaRose

I know you mean well Perry, but you are looking at things with your religious blinders on and simply choosing what doesn't challenge your beliefs and ignoring the rest. You cannot cherry pick your facts that way and arrive at anything close to the truth. To make matters worse you don't even understand what you post. You simply cult and paste, because if you understood it you would be able to put it in your own words. Just because something exists in the internet does not give it any validity whatsoever.

These things you post have been debunked a hundred times over. Scientists, real scientists, not the fringe crackpots whose nonsense you post, have dated the earth using a number of methods that all agree. Insisting on a young earth is equivalent to insisting on a flat earth. Do you really think you know better that thousands of scientists who have devoted years of study in their relevant fields? Many of them believe in God, they are not trying to disprove his existence, but they know that they have to follow scientific method, and go where the facts take them, not force the facts to fit their religious beliefs.

You are no better that the religious leaders of centuries ago who persecuted Copernicus for daring to say the earth revolved around the sun. Please stop, you are just making yourself look silly.

Anders Andersen

@LisaRose,

This. Yes.

Giles Gray

Perry

The 49,000 years of creation was last promoted in the literature as late as 1987 I believe.

I don't think today they specify an allotted time for each day. They just say that each period was a long period of time.

When they have got more specific, like in the publication 'The Origin Of Life', they have used the estimates of science, although they don't specify they believe such estimation as true.

However you look at it, be it six literal days or six long periods of time, none of it stacks up to what science has discovered. The bible's account is incorrect, plain and simple.

prologos

GG: "The bible's account is incorrect, plain and simple. Mainly because the bible promotes the Old Earth theory, our planet as old as the universe, and the seven day sequence, out of order.

Perry

Many scientists are skeptical of evolution and a number publicly believe in a literal 6-Day Creation. Many more likely do dissent from the standard Materialistic paradigm, but suppress it due to job discrimination.

I would be surprised if the Watchtower promoted the 49K theory as late as 1987. But, that might be the case. I remember it being jettisoned before then, at least verbally. By late 80's, I think "millions of years" was pretty entrenched in the witness community.

I wonder if the Watchtower ever taught a literal 6 day creation?

Had that book for years V. I. Do you think it adequately addresses these issues?

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Many scientists are skeptical of evolution and a number publicly believe in a literal 6-Day Creation. Many more likely do dissent from the standard Materialistic paradigm, but suppress it due to job discrimination."

All scientists are sceptical of everything, not just evolution; that is what makes a scientist successful and is what ensures any nonsense is quickly filtered out. That is, in essence, the scientific method. Anyone trained in a field of science understands this well due to the learning that has taken place on the road to their qualification i.e. you don't just learn about a subject.

What a scientist believes is irrelevant. They are free to believe what they like but the work they do (science) is based on the scientific method and therefore is removed from personal beliefs (something a trained persons knows...).

Therefore we can see that assertions of job discrimination due to personal beliefs are nonsense because if someone is working as a scientist and working correctly as per the scientific method then their personal beliefs are completely removed from their work. If they want to test those beliefs using the scientific method then, again, there will be no issue. Problems arise when people what to ignore the scientific method and have their beliefs accepted as scientific truths without the usual hassle of actually having to work to show how you arrive at those conclusions.

DJS

WhatshallIcallmyself,

Ditto. I see Todd Starnes, I mean Perry, is up to his old tricks. ”Many scientists”? Really Todd?

From Wiki: The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". That is 0.14% Perry. In other words, 99.86% of the scientists from the 1987 estimate do not believe in either creationism or a young earth biblical teaching. It is likely even fewer in 2016.

A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. That’s called an appeal to authority Perry, where a scientist makes statements or conducts ‘research’ outside of their subject matter expertise in order to push their personal beliefs or agenda. As others have noted, these ‘studies’ are considered junk science by the scientific community and these ‘studies’ are rarely if ever published in scientific journals or presented for peer review. I wonder why?

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science.

Todd, I mean Perry, enough please?

Evidence for a Young Earth

Share this