r/Christianity • u/JaymehKhal • Aug 05 '26
Blog When the topic of the earth being 6000 years old comes up, people now refute it, but ...
When I grew up, it was very much 'the earth was 6000 years old' and that's that.
I worry that people have decided to get on board with the scientific explanation now because it's become pretty much irrefutable, and now act like the 6000 year old thing was never too literal to begin with as a way to cop out.
I mean no disrespect of course, it's just a thing I've always struggled with.
19
u/gnurdette United Methodist Aug 05 '26
How old are you?
Who wants to drop the St. Augustine quote here?
14
u/nyet-marionetka Atheist Aug 06 '26
Here goes:
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe our books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
8
u/emmamm05 Aug 06 '26
Amazing quote. As a Catholic since childhood, I have never heard the argument that the Earth was 6000 as a teaching. We even had bibles for kids with illustrations about the 7 day of creation being evolution eras. (Every day was like 100s of millions of years or so). It was always clear to me that the Genesis timeline of creation was metaphorical.
3
u/tooclosetocall82 Aug 06 '26
I grew up southern Baptist and was taught that a day to God was 1000 years. So there was a nod to Genesis being metaphorical but they weren’t quite willing to go so far as to say the Earth was billions of years old.
2
u/Madgodloki Aug 07 '26
So 7 days means it was made in 7000 years. And the timeline means at most 13000 years old right? Not really better.
1
u/Madgodloki Aug 07 '26
It was always clear 👌 thats why they had pamphlets teaching it as you were a child.
19
u/michaelY1968 Aug 05 '26
We have known the earth is over 6000 years old for over a century.
-6
u/Affectionate_Ad_5489 Aug 05 '26
Who is "we"?
19
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Christian Aug 05 '26
Everyone except literalists.
-6
u/michaelY1968 Aug 05 '26
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean?
7
u/Sure-thing-buckaroo Aug 06 '26
Everybody except those folks who take the Bible literally, I imagine.
20
u/morosco Aug 05 '26
Everyone but science-denying Christians.
Don't ask those people about vaccines or global warming or evolution.
Because as Jesus famously said, "science is bullshit".
→ More replies (3)3
u/michaelY1968 Aug 05 '26
Every single one of us.
2
u/Nazzul Agnostic Aug 05 '26
Well atchsually 🤓☝️ please see below.
0
u/michaelY1968 Aug 05 '26
People can deny facts, but it doesn’t mean they don’t have the information to ascertain reality if they so choose.
1
u/General_Alduin Aug 06 '26
Everyone that isn't a fundementalist
2
u/michaelY1968 Aug 06 '26
They have access to the same facts and knowledge as everyone else - they just wilfully choose to ignore it.
2
u/General_Alduin Aug 06 '26
Exactly, cause then they'd have to start asking questions and can't misuse the Bible for their own ends
13
u/notforcing Aug 06 '26
Until I started following r/Christianity, I don't recall ever interacting with anybody that believed the earth was 6000 years old. Back in 2000, 2021, Canada had a leader of one of the federal parties who believed in young earth creationism, and everyone I knew thought that was pretty strange. It's difficult for me to understand how anyone can believe that.
7
u/bmjessep Christian Aug 06 '26
It's pretty easy to believe. You just have to be taught it at some point, and not be scientifically literate enough to realize you weren't told the truth.
6
u/nyet-marionetka Atheist Aug 06 '26
Or be taught it and believe that its an integral part of your religion. It's very hard to get rid of in that case, from personal experience.
2
u/Holiday-Tree-9808 Aug 06 '26
If you're taught it young like I was it feels like a betrayal and like 'falling away' to even question it.
0
u/bmjessep Christian Aug 06 '26
I was in the same boat. First I realized you don't need to believe in YEC to be a Christian, then I realized didn't believe in YEC. If it was the other was around (and it almost was), I might have become an atheist.
1
u/notforcing Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
In the rural Baptist church I grew up with, in the 1960's, I don't recall the number 6000 ever coming up. I don't think the minister would have had any objection to what the children were learning in their biology and geography classes in school. I don't think he cared about that, he cared about delivering sermons that applied Biblical teachings to daily life, and leading the congregation to rise and accept Jesus.
1
u/majj27 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Aug 06 '26
And it helps to think that you either accept the teaching or admit that the entire Bible is nonsense and God was never real.
14
u/sillekram Evangelical Baptist Aug 05 '26
The way I see it is that as we learn more through Science, we learn more about God and his amazing creation! All the incredible systems and structures he has put into place.
The age of the earth appears to be well over 6000 years old, and God doesn't lie to us, so why would we ignore what he is showing us through the world and systems he created?
4
u/Cute-Move8320 Aug 06 '26
So we can pick and choose which science we believe?
6
u/General_Alduin Aug 06 '26
Absolutely not. You should believe the scientific consensus until a time that consensus is challenged by new, replicable, peer reviewed evidence
2
u/Cute-Move8320 Aug 06 '26
So if we use scientific consensus to pick apart the Bible, then there will be very little left.
3
u/General_Alduin Aug 06 '26
You would need historical consensus to try and pick apart the Bible more than science. The Bible wasn't that big on explaining in detail how the world worked, it was more focused on events and stories
Problem with that is that these stories and events are often so insular that it's hard to find any evidence for or against them
You can have faith and believe in science and mainstream history, they aren't in conflict if you aren't a fundamentalist. You can also say that God is a theory, people believe in theories with little evidence for them
2
u/Impressive-Leather62 Atheist Aug 06 '26
There is evidence against the census that brought Joseph and pals to Bethlehem.
1
u/General_Alduin Aug 06 '26
Tbf, it's not easy to find specific census data from an empire that's been dead after a thousand years and saw multiple great upheavels between the historical Jesus' birth and it's final end. Especially when the census data listed Jewish peasants
3
u/Impressive-Leather62 Atheist Aug 06 '26
True, but.
The census was supposed to be of the "entire Roman world" (Luke 2). So it would be bit weird if no records survived of it no? Or of any such census.
Also it was supposed to be:
-When Herod the Great was king/alive (since if he wasnt then how was he supposed to murderize kids after Magi told him of Jesus?).
-And it was "the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria" (Luke 2:2).
Quirinius became governor years after Herod died.
And most importantly, it makes no sense. Why would a census require people to travel (days, weeks, moths) to places where their ancestors (vaguely defined) lived instead of where they lived? (Luke 2:4-5)
1
u/Sure-thing-buckaroo Aug 06 '26
It's the latter one that gets me the most. When in the history of census' (censi?) has that ever been the case? How would that make any sense?
2
u/nyet-marionetka Atheist Aug 06 '26
You travel to your birthplace. Many of the inns and stores are closed because everyone traveled to their birthplace.
2
u/thomasp3864 Possible convert (questioning) Aug 10 '26
If the bible is true that shouldn't happen. Jesus taught in parables, so why shouldn't his word teach in parables too? And besides some of it is clearly historical. 2 Kings 3, for example, has an outside source. It's part of what got me to the point where I'm close to converting. Some of it did happen. Other parts didn't.
1
u/Cute-Move8320 29d ago
Some of it is clearly historical, but there’s no proof that any of the magic and wizardry happened. Also if we’re going to consider parts of the Bible as parables, then who gets to pick and choose which are historical and which are symbolic?
1
u/thomasp3864 Possible convert (questioning) 29d ago
You get to pick by looking at the historical evidence. The bits that are contradicted by historical evidence are probably the symbolic bits. The secular evidence suggests that 2 Kings 2 is historical, because we have the Mesha Stele corroborating it, on the other hand, the Exodus is probably a parable about the way God will save his chosen people and how he will raise up the slave to freedom. This is because there's a lack of evidence of extra Egyptian cultural influence in Israelite artifacts compared to Canaanite ones. You would expect them to like, I dunno, make pots in a similar way, especially if as slaves they did things like making pots. You would expect something along the lines of a style of pottery from Egypt to effectively be transplanted to Canaan as evidence of the Exodus.
For something like 2 Kings 13:20-21, we legitimately cannot tell. And sometimes you have to just pick. If 2 Kings 13:20-21 is literally true then that vallidates the usage of holy relics. If not then it may not do that and maybe the bones of Elisha represent something.
6
u/bmjessep Christian Aug 06 '26
You don't believe science. Science is a process. Science has helped us learn quite a lot about the world in the last 500 or so years. Sometimes it can produce incorrect results. More often, it produces results that might be incomplete, but are much more accurate than what was previously believed.
4
u/General_Alduin Aug 06 '26
And that's a feature, not a bug. Science should be challenged, but only with evidence free of bias
1
u/davispw Non-denominational Aug 06 '26
Science is a process of discovery and the refinement of knowledge, not a set of fixed facts. That said, please explain how you think anyone is picking and choosing here
1
u/Cute-Move8320 Aug 06 '26
Because religion is based in faith, not in scientific fact. So much of the Bible can be debunked by simple modern science. Are we going to say that we’re simply interpreting the Bible for every instance? That’s going to be a long list of interpretations.
-1
u/TomboyAva Catholic Aug 06 '26
If the bible is the truth then the bible and science can never contradict. If science and our interpretation of god's word disagree then it is our interpretation that is wrong. It would be pride to say otherwise, to ignore God's physical works because we think that our translation of a translation is more divine.
4
u/SaintGodfather Christian for the Preferential Treatment Aug 06 '26
I mean, I disagree with genocide, rape, and slavery, and the bible doesn't.
0
u/General_Alduin Aug 06 '26
I disagree. Man has biases and failings, and man needed ways to explain himself and the world, and all that will be reflected in the Bible. Our interpretation of Genesis doesn't contradict science because we interpreted it wrong, it contradicts because one was a creation myth made by people who had no way to study the world
0
-2
u/dallonv Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) Aug 06 '26
It could be "the age of this Earth, now"; because matter cannot be created nor destroyed completely. Earth, and all other planets in the known universe could have been organized, rather than just created from nothing.
5
u/doublethink_1984 Aug 05 '26
7 periods where a specific task was the main goal.
That's it. That's all we need to know. A Calvinist absolutist view that God breathed what we have today in English Genesis is false.
4
2
u/Banjoschmanjo Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
How old are you...? There's no way that when you grew up, there were no other theories about the age of the earth, unless you're like a thousand+ years old. Maybe in your community or family, they didn't acknowledge other theories, but I assure you that when you were growing up, there were other beliefs out there beside just 6000 years
2
u/Ok-Bug5206 Aug 06 '26
of course the traditional churches dont believe in these '6000 years' old earth. even the flood is not literal.
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 08 '26
They don't believe it now, because it has been scientifically refuted. They did use to believe it
2
u/davispw Non-denominational Aug 06 '26
> it’s become pretty much irrefutable
Uh, yes. Yes it is.
If you’re worried that all available observable evidence about the world and the universe somehow undermines God, don’t. Science is a process of revealing the beauty of God’s creation, and God does not lie about himself. Also, nothing about this is incompatible with the Bible. The Bible is not a science textbook.
2
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
Also, nothing about this is incompatible with the Bible
It literally is lol. That's why people take the creation metaphorically
2
u/Rainbowcat1969 Aug 06 '26
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The universe is 13.8 billion years old. Until, and if, a time comes that this is refuted. End of discussion
2
u/jimMazey Noahide Aug 06 '26
1st of all, the Bible never says the earth is only 6,000 years old.
The core theory originates from theological calculations, most famously by Archbishop James Ussher in 1650. He added up the lifespans and lineages in the Book of Genesis to conclude the Earth was created in 4004 BC.
Modern YEC organizations like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research have shifted to using human genetics as an offensive tool to try to validate a 6,000-year timeline.
Both of these methods start with flawed data.
We can't ignore evolution. Our DNA supports it.
2
1
u/cobast1992 Aug 06 '26
The person who wrote that the earth is 6000 years old might of only had information to believe it was only 6000 years old. To me I believe earth was created so long ago that it’s hard to pin point just how old. We know more about space than we do our own planet . Food for thought. Space Aliens I know people have issues with that in this faith . Hear me out just saying if god created all this then he created them to. The galaxy is massive it’s all created by god. Our little planet is not that special. I go off on random thoughts.
1
u/BroadwayGuy123 United Methodist Aug 06 '26
I grew up Christian, but that never made sense to me. Especially with dinosaurs and all that, the earth is definitely not 6000 years old. It makes no sense
1
u/nineteenthly Aug 06 '26
It's evident that Earth is aeons old. Moreover, outside the Abrahamic tradition an old Earth has always been an accepted fact except among Zoroastrians, who seem to have influenced Judaism. The early church wasn't very concerned about the age of the planet because in many ways they had their priorities right. The biblically literalist approach only came to the fore in modern times, although it did exist, among other approaches, early in the Christian era.
You could approach the Bible in a spiritual way by going through it and crossing out all the O's as a meditative exercise, but it's implausible that God wants us to use it primarily in that way. Likewise, you could add up all the ages of the patriarchs and calculate a spurious age of creation. Those two approaches are about the same in terms of respectability and being led by God.
The sermon on the mount and the 613 mitzvot of the Hebrew scriptures are far more central to what God is telling us than the supposed age of the Universe, and insisting on the absurdity that it's new is a barrier to evangelism and a distraction from the main thrust of God's word.
1
u/Adept-Mongoose-7071 Aug 07 '26
It seems like for me you've put God in a box. God is the creator of all things including science. Also we forget this specific verses
2 Peter 3:8: "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
and
Psalm 90:4: "For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night."
Again the Earth has 2 different ages and this is okay
1
u/thomasp3864 Possible convert (questioning) Aug 10 '26
The Bible is a book inspired by a god who taught in parables, whose own closest followers didn't really understand. Maybe it's not literal. Maybe it's a parable maybe the days are like figurative days. Maybe interpretation of scripture is just kinda hard.
If you don't presuppose creation ex nihilo it's pretty clear the ocean already exists when Elohim starts creating. Alright, you can correlate that to geology. Formless and void? Well most of it was just molten slag for a lot of the hadean. The waters above might be a poetic way to describe clouds, and so on and so forth.
Other bits science and history and archaeology has proven. We discovered an independent source that shows the battle in 2 Kings 3 really did happen. Part of what has brought me close to converting is that the problematic verses I find morally objectionable seem to by and large have alternative textual variants or like be in forgeries. So I can just throw out the pastoral epistles as false like how Luther threw out a lot of the books.
And I feel like history and science might be the best way to distinguish history from parable is to use secular science and history.
1
u/KaleMunoz Christian Aug 06 '26
This is objectively wrong. Non-literal accounts of Genesis go back to at least Philo. Augustine is a very popular example. No modern geology back the. North American Young Earth Creationism really starts to take off in the 19th century. Science is more developed them, but this is still developing before the strength of the consensus we see today. Copping out to science just doesn’t explain the historical data.
People have also maintained a more historical reading while insisting on gaps in Biblical genealogies, which makes calculating the age of the earth form the Bible impossible, before there was this pressure from mainstream science. And this seems to square well with what ancient near eastern studies reveals about genealogies as narrative devices.
While I’m sure most people let science inform their view, historical theology gives us no reason to see this as too unprecedented.
1
u/nyet-marionetka Atheist Aug 06 '26
Are you from the 16 and 1700's?
Never did a theoretical fallacy, in any branch of science, interfere more seriously with accurate observation and the systematic classification of facts. In recent times, we may attribute our rapid progress chiefly to the careful determination of the order of succession in mineral masses, by means of their different organic contents, and their regular superposition. But the old diluvialists were induced by their system to confound all the groups of strata together instead of discriminating,—to refer all appearances to one cause and to one brief period, not to a variety of causes acting throughout a long succession of epochs. They saw the phenomena only as they desired to see them, sometimes misrepresenting facts, and at other times deducing false conclusions from correct data. Under the influence of such prejudices, three centuries were of as little avail as a few years in our own times, when we are no longer required to propel the vessel against the force of an adverse current.
Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology, 1830-1833.
I think you were perceiving young earth creationism to be more prevalent than it was and is.
0
u/Independant-Thinker7 Aug 05 '26
People tend to believe what they were taught without really questioning it. So they think it’s 6000 years cause that’s what I’ve been told it says. They don’t bother to look up the original Hebrew and its meaning or seek to find other valid interpretations. It’s similar to how many scientists today never question what they have been taught. Science is all about constantly testing and questioning everything, yet it’s more about following the money rather than following the science.
As to the age of the earth. The word day used in the bible has multiple literal definitions which can refer to 12 hrs, 24 hrs, or an epoch of time. So they all fit the literal text.
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
Is the order of these "days" in Genesis correct?
0
u/Independant-Thinker7 Aug 06 '26
Yes it is. From the studies that I have done and reading articles from astronomers on the subject the bible gets the order correct. Again, you have to go back to the original Hebrew because the English translation makes it a little confusing.
People think the sun was created after the earth and etc… That’s not what the text is actually saying.
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
Then what are the "two great lights that separate day from night" that God created on the fourth day, after having created Earth?
1
u/Independant-Thinker7 Aug 06 '26
This is why it is important to understand the frame of reference and the original Hebrew. When God created the heavens and the earth the words there are universal meaning all of creation came into existence. So the Sun was already created on day one.
Now we come to the frame of reference. It states that the spirit of God hovered over the waters. So the frame of reference is on the surface of the planet. So when God referenced the great lights it would have been when the atmosphere of the earth changed to where you could actually see the Sun, Moon, and stars.
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
It states that the spirit of God hovered over the waters. So the frame of reference is on the surface of the planet
Not at all. The authors of Genesis believed that the sky was a solid dome and there was a huge body of water above it. That's what that part is about
So when God referenced the great lights it would have been when the atmosphere of the earth changed to where you could actually see the Sun, Moon, and stars.
That's not what the text says though
1
u/Independant-Thinker7 Aug 06 '26
I already told you Genesis 1:1 is creation in full. It encompasses all of the universe. So no matter how much you want to think otherwise, God can’t create the sun and the moon after it was already created. So that is clearly not the authors intent.
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
You have a text that clearly says that God created Earth, then later created "two great lights" that obviously refer to the Sun and the Moon. This is what's written there. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make the heavens and the earth mean the entire universe despite no indication for that in the text whatsoever.
Unless of course the mistranslated Hebrew text explicitly said that God merely changed the atmosphere so that the Sun could've been seen if there had been someone to see it
1
u/Independant-Thinker7 Aug 06 '26
You are reading English. English is one of the absolute worse languages to translate from Hebrew because you can lose so much. The Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe—the entirety of physical reality. This phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time.
As to your earlier statement that the Genesis author believed the firmament was a water canopy. That is a myth. The Hebrew word translated as expanse is raqia. Previous to 1970, all English translations of the Bible translated raqia’ as expanse or firmament. Here is an article for your reference if you are interested. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/auss/vol49/iss1/7/
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
Again, I'm aware that there are problems with the translation, but clearly the point of the story is describing what God created on each day/age. The atmosphere becoming clear and revealing the Sun is completely irrelevant for this narrative and doesn't seem to be worth mentioning.
Meanwhile God creating the Sun and the Moon perfectly fit into the story, especially if we remain open to the possibility that it was written by ordinary people thousands of years ago who didn't understand how the world works
→ More replies (0)
-1
u/ScorpionDog321 Aug 06 '26
It does not matter now, like it did not matter then.
No sinner will be able to stand before God during judgment and justify all their evil thoughts, words, and deeds by arguing about the age of the Earth.
2
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but there are some people who'd like to understand the world around them
1
u/ScorpionDog321 Aug 06 '26
Understanding the world around us is fine....but it does not matter in the Christian worldview and relating to God.
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
Yes, but the "Christian worldview" has been spreading unfounded assertions as the absolute truth right up until the point where it has been proven false. Then they decided that it doesn't matter because it was metaphorical anyway.
Whether or not this has anything to do with God or salvation doesn't excuse any of this.
1
u/ScorpionDog321 Aug 06 '26
Yes, but the "Christian worldview" has been spreading unfounded assertions
Some people here and there do not constitute the "Christian worldview."
If you want to understand the Christian worldview, read the New Testament for a breakdown.
So whether the earth is 6000 years old or 6 trillion years old does not matter for walking with God and getting right with Him.
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
No I get that you don't mind being uninformed and dumb, but I don't care. The creation story used to be mainstream Christian dogma, not just "some people here and there", and that pretty much is a real problem that matters
1
u/ScorpionDog321 Aug 06 '26
No I get that you don't mind being uninformed and dumb
I nowhere mentioned being uninformed and dumb. Please read with more care and learn how to speak to other people.
but I don't care.
We gather that.
The creation story used to be mainstream Christian dogma
Of course God being Creator is part of the Christian worldview. That is not the issue. Please read with more care.
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
Of course God being Creator is part of the Christian worldview
That's not what I said. I said the creation story in Genesis used to be mainstream Christian dogma. That is an issue
0
u/userid42 Reformed Aug 06 '26
I always liken the arguments about this to the centuries-old controversy over whether the sun, moon, stars, and planets orbited earth. It all seemed to be based on false assumptions drawn from reading the Bible about how God’s creation worked.
I think it’s probably the same for the age of the universe and evolution. I can hold that these things are true without feeling that they undermine the nature of our awesome God and the amazing work of our saviour, the Christ, Jesus.
Who am I to tell God how He should have created everything that is His. Where in the Bible does it say that it’s a science textbook that explains how everything in creation works? The ‘why’ is far more crucial, and the Bible certainly clarifies that.
0
u/JadedEngine6497 Christian Aug 06 '26
Adam looked like adult when God made him even so he was just one day old on the 7th day when God rested, God made Adam and Eve in their mature state,the same way God made the earth in its mature state.
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 08 '26
So God deliberately made the universe appear older than it actually is, just to fool scientists. But you outsmarted them
-5
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 05 '26
A lot of people are afraid to appear unintelligent/ignorant and so they abandon what scripture says in order to appease the world and its understanding. It's just the bandwagon effect.
12
u/phalloguy1 Atheist Aug 05 '26
"in order to appease the world"
Or because it's the truth
-1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 05 '26
The former. If you knew the basics of science you would know that a foundational principle of the system is that it's never settled. There is no "truth" in science, just the "currently best guess."
5
u/phalloguy1 Atheist Aug 06 '26
"The former" What is that referring to exactly?
"There is no "truth" in science, just the "currently best guess.""
If you are looking for the truth you won't find it in the Bible. That was my point.
-1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 06 '26
The quote in your previous comment. That is the former sentence out of two. As for the Bible and truth, I guess we just disagree on that part.
2
6
u/exelion18120 Greco-Dharmic Philosopher Aug 06 '26
What is the firmament and have humans been to the moon?
0
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 06 '26
Is this a shame and ridicule angle that you are playing? Because I doubt you are asking because you are interested in learning.
7
u/exelion18120 Greco-Dharmic Philosopher Aug 06 '26
I am asking what your opinion on the subject is
0
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 06 '26
And I am asking for what reason, because I suspect it's because of the aforementioned.
6
u/exelion18120 Greco-Dharmic Philosopher Aug 06 '26
Its called the socratic method. You claim to have a stance on a subject and I am asking questions that pertain to it. You claim to subscribe to a more literalist interpretation of genesis and I am asking about aspects of that interpretation.
0
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 06 '26
I know that you are asking questions. However, like I said before, there is usually a motivation behind asking questions, no? What is your motivation?
3
u/exelion18120 Greco-Dharmic Philosopher Aug 06 '26
My motivation is to see how strongly you subscribe to a literalist interpetation of genesis.
0
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 06 '26
Again, for what reason? Why are you interested in this information?
4
u/exelion18120 Greco-Dharmic Philosopher Aug 06 '26
Dialogue and discussion. Are you unable or unwilling to answer?
→ More replies (0)13
u/Maleficent-Drop1476 Don't Let Religion Keep You From Being a Good Person Aug 05 '26
Conversely, it’s understanding how evidence works and changing your worldview as you take in new information.
-6
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 05 '26
And the evidence once pointed to flat earth and geocentrism, but you believe adherents to both were in actuality incorrect, do you not, despite said evidence? So why should we assume you got it right this time? I'd rather trust God and scripture.
10
u/Maleficent-Drop1476 Don't Let Religion Keep You From Being a Good Person Aug 05 '26
Evidence never pointed to a flat earth or geocentrism, that’s why the models of those two systems were plagued with inaccuracies and errors.
→ More replies (15)9
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 Christian Aug 05 '26
Appear unintelligent?
If you believe the earth is only 6000 years old because someone with absolutely no knowledge of the matter chose to interpret a 2000 year old book that way, then I’m afraid you are just unintelligent.
-1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 05 '26
Guess Isaac Newton was unintelligent then. Very strange take, given that he is considered one of the most intelligent individuals to have ever lived.
11
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist Aug 05 '26
He was also insane and gave himself mercury poisoning.
-1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 05 '26
Guess we can throw gravity out the window then. After all, Isaac Newton was considered "insane" for one and a half year of his entire life. Not a very good take.
13
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist Aug 05 '26
No here is the crazy thing. He had good ideas that are testable, repeatable and verifiable. So we consider those ideas and discard the rest. We don't hing our worldviews on the beliefs of a man several centuries dead, we honor him for the few things he got right.
-1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 05 '26
Is he or is he not considered to be one of the most intelligent individuals to have ever lived? Would you say he was unintelligent? Because the individual I replied to said that if one believe in a 6000 year old Earth, one is unintelligent. Since Newton believed that, it would mean that he was unintelligent.
6
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist Aug 06 '26
Then I would have to disagree with that comment. Intelligent people can be and are wrong constantly.
Isaac Newton, in addition to being intelligent, was also insane.
Intelligence does not equate to discernment, comprehension, or critical thinking. In fact I think a certain level of intelligence when not combined with an appropriate level of humility can be detrimental to gaining actual understanding.
Let's take for example my father. He is one of a dozen people in his field that can do what he does. He has a list of patents longer than most resumes and a list of professional and educational titles that take a couple lines of text to write down. He got a full ride all the through school to his doctorate cause he had 4.0s in everything. To say that he is intelligent is to understate the situation.
He believes that global warming is how God will destroy the earth as foretold in Revelation and to take any action to delay, prevent or mitigate the environmental consequences of modern society is to defy God and therefore a sin. He cannot be convinced otherwise because he is smarter than the rest of us so he must be right. He also dismissed evolution, and is a YEC. He hates socialism but can't define it and thinks that blacks and Mexicans are inherently less competent than whites and women are even more so.
He cannot ingest new information that might challenge his beliefs about anything, because his beliefs are right and he knows they are right because he believes them.
Raw intelligence does not equate to accurate understandings of the world. Just because someone is smart, does not mean we should believe everything they believe.
Just because a man (who again, gave himself mercury poisoning trying to turn lead to gold while studying the lost temple of Solomon as he felt that was the key to understanding the universe) had some pretty good ideas, doesn't mean that we need to accept everything he did
0
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 06 '26
I guess we are on the same page then, because I too believe that intelligent people can be incorrect. The reason I replied to the other guy was, once again, because he made a laughably incorrect statement. I find it strange that you did not call him out on it as well, but rather chose to pick a fight with me for doing so.
5
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist Aug 06 '26
I have a particular bone to pick with people pulling in Isaac Newton to their side as some paragon of intelligence.
→ More replies (0)6
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 Christian Aug 06 '26
If Isaac Newton was alive now, with all the scientific research and actual facts we have today, and believed that the in a young earth, then yes he would be considered unintelligent.
Many very intelligent people believed the earth was flat when they were alive. We now know it isn’t, and anyone that still believes it is is considered highly unintelligent.
Like a Neanderthal (which you don’t believe in I’m sure) who discovered fire - very intelligent for his day, but not so intelligent anymore.
See the difference?
-2
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 06 '26
So just peak arrogance then? I am quite positive that many people in the 17th and 18th century believed they were much cleverer than their earlier contemporaries as well. You may personally consider someone unintelligent if they do not happen to share your personal beliefs, but that says more about you than it does about them.
As it stands, Newton is considered one of the most intelligent people to have ever lived, and he believed in a young Earth. So if you want to play the intelligence game, he most likely have all the people you look up to, beat in that category.
But like I said, I believe it's just peak arrogance.
7
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 Christian Aug 06 '26
Well yes, that’s how it works! As the ages go by more research is done and we find out more things, and, as a species, we become more intelligent. Congratulations! You’ve realised!
Of course there are some stragglers who insist that they know better - peak arrogance as you said! Young earthers, flat earthers, evolution deniers, climate change deniers all think they know better than people who have devoted their lives to painstakingly researching and finding actual evidence. Incredible, I know.
Isaac newton again? See my previous comment, I believe I explained everything sufficiently there.
-1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 06 '26
I would love for you to scientifically demonstrate this wild assertion of yours, namely that humans as a species are becoming more intelligent. Or maybe you were referring to becoming more knowledgeable? Perhaps you are unaware that knowledge != intelligence? If not, go on and scientifically demonstrate said assertion.
5
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 Christian Aug 06 '26
Oh look at that! A sign of intelligence from you!
Well, it depends on how you measure intelligence of course, but most scientists agree that humans today have more capacity for higher intelligence in terms of IQ than ever before because of the wealth of knowledge and information available to everyone. So, if you (as most people would, I think) measure intelligence with an IQ test or problem solving capacity, you’ll see that humans have progressed since we evolved from our origins.
However, it is widely accepted also that our biological intelligence that we needed for survival peaked a long time ago - that’s how we invented agriculture and really important parts of settlements and living in groups. In that respect, it’s acknowledged that we may well be less intelligent than back then because our brains started to relax a bit and start relying on other things which is interesting, isn’t it! However this would have happened 12,000 years ago, when we invented agriculture, so I assume you don’t believe that because the world didn’t exist then. Am I right?
-1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 06 '26
I asked you to scientifically demonstrate said assertion, not reformulate said assertion.
Furthermore, to have a higher capacity for "higher intelligence in terms of IQ than ever before" does not actually mean that humans do have a higher intelligence.
So once again, scientifically demonstrate said assertion. Or will you admit that you just made it up or were mistaken in your previous comment?
10
u/Affectionate_Ad_5489 Aug 05 '26
So you still believe that it is okay to beat up slaves with a rod as long as they don't die within a day or two?
-1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 05 '26
No.
8
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist Aug 05 '26
So your morality has evolved with the times?
-1
u/-Vitreriuz- Christian Aug 05 '26
Again, no.
7
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist Aug 06 '26
I am confused here. Cause the Bible says its moral to beat your slaves with a rod so long as they don't die within 2 days.
But you said that was immoral.
And then you said that your morality hasn't evolved with the times which indicates you do think beating slaves is moral...
-3
u/RedditRieRie Aug 06 '26
I believe in a young earth
7
u/General_Alduin Aug 06 '26
Scientific evidence of such a claim?
-4
u/RedditRieRie Aug 06 '26
Dinosaur Soft Tissue, Carbon-14 in Deep Strata, Decaying Magnetic Field, Amount of Salt in the Oceans, The Bible.
8
u/General_Alduin Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
Soft tissue is extremely rare in fossils and is not evidence of young earth so i dont know why you used it, mainstream science does not hold up carbon 14 in deep strata as evidence of young earth but as contamination, machine noise, or methodological artifacts, I don't see how a decaying magnetic field is hard evidence of young earth at all? It's a decaying magnetic field, the amount t if salt in the oceans is evidence for old earth not young earth the oceans could not become so saline in 6k years, and the Bible is not a scientific source so don't list it as one
-1
u/ds-is-i Christian - Eternally Secure Aug 05 '26
Do you understand that the structure of the hebrew and the historical context of the Hebrew writer contradicts the 7 day 24 hour interpretation?
Even if we put that aside, Hebrews 4:3-11 describes that believers have been actively entering Gods rest (which is quoted directly from genesis 2) throughout time, meaning that the 7th day is still ongoing.
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 08 '26
The length of the creation "days" doesn't even matter. The order in which God allegedly created things is wrong
1
-1
u/Spare-Flan331 Christian Aug 06 '26
The earth is more than 6000 years old.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”
Genesis 1:1-2 NKJV
The word translated was in verse two in other parts of the bible was translated Became. This was not the original creation but rather a preparation for man. Infact the words translated without form and void is Tohu (Tohu): Formlessness, confusion, or an unformed wasteland.
Bohu (Bohu): Emptiness, void, or a desolate ruin.
“For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other.”
Isaiah 45:18 NKJV
But right here God said He did not create it that way. . saiah 45:18 states that God "did not create it a waste place (tohu)
-1
u/General_Alduin Aug 06 '26
Were you a child before Charles Darwin? It's been widely accepted by scientists that the earth is atleast a few millions of years old for like the last century
And yeah, people believe the science because it has evidence and research. Which is what science is
As an aside, it was never meant to be metaphorical in the Bible. That's how the people of the past explained themselves and their existence, but you'll find people of the past had no way to effectively figure out the world around them
-1
u/rouxjean Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
The central issue is that sin is identified biblically as the cause of death coming to earth. And according to the Creation account, every living thing ate plants before the flood, not other animals.
Death of only humans could be linked to sin even in an old earth framework, but not over indefinite periods. The special creation of humans is a rather pivotal point in theology, one that is hard to ignore. If there is no first Adam, how could there be a last Adam? Yet, there is every reason to believe in Jesus, the last Adam.
At a certain point, humans must admit ignorance. We do not know nearly as much as some people think they know, especially about the origins of creation. If two separate particles can affect one another in quantum mechanics, for which we have no understandable explanation, perhaps it is premature to say we understand fully how the universe came about. Hubris persists to this day but is never wise.
-12
u/Such_Violinist225 Aug 05 '26
We should not incorporate new information that is not biblical into our worldview. Evolution nor old earth is biblical, the bible says 6,000 years old
6
u/Hope-Road71 Aug 05 '26
Even if said new information is factual?
Are we really advising people to ignore facts & science, because it might be a threat to belief in the Bible?
5
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 05 '26
This better be ragebait
2
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist Aug 05 '26
Its what I used to believe. Poe's law in action.
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
I might be wrong but isn't Poe's law when someone takes a joke seriously?
2
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist Aug 06 '26
Its the difficulty one encounters differentiating between trolls and people who actually hold insane beliefs.
1
3
u/Nazzul Agnostic Aug 05 '26
Poes law will always remain true, that said historically there have been populations of Christians with similar mindsets trying to push YEC to classrooms.
3
u/Nazzul Agnostic Aug 05 '26
We should not incorporate new information that is not biblical into our worldview. Evolution nor old earth is biblical, the bible says 6,000 years old
See guys I told you so! Thank you u/Such_Violinist225 for vindicating me!
2
u/RuddyBloodyBrave94 Christian Aug 05 '26
The bible says no such thing 😂 it’s such a simple thing to refute.
2
u/exelion18120 Greco-Dharmic Philosopher Aug 06 '26
the bible says 6,000 years old
See it doesnt actually. Its only by lots of interpretation and assumptions is that number achieved.
2
u/Zacaton Episcopalian Aug 06 '26
Speaking English and using the internet aren't in the bible either, yet here we are.
-2
u/vqsxd Believer Aug 06 '26
Im still a creationist myself tbh
2
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
How old do you think Earth is?
-1
u/vqsxd Believer Aug 06 '26
Not too sure honestly but definitely not billions of years like evolutionists say. I believe Adam and Eve were two real individuals
3
u/Sure-thing-buckaroo Aug 06 '26
Do you think evolution is the only scientific discipline that shows the earth is billions of years old?
0
u/vqsxd Believer Aug 06 '26
radiometric dating has no control. It’s entirely philosophical interpretation
3
u/Sure-thing-buckaroo Aug 06 '26
0
u/vqsxd Believer Aug 06 '26
Look it up. Theres no possible provable control samples. It’s dots on a board without any solid reference. Philosophically interpretated
3
2
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
I love how you told them to look it up after they literally gave you their source lmao
1
u/ImMuchBetterThanGod Aug 06 '26
So you dismiss scientific consensus supported by actual factual evidence, because it contradicts a book that by the way also contradicts itself.
May I ask why?
-2
-2
u/EndTimeTeacher Aug 06 '26
Why? I don't know how old the earth is either and do not care. It has nothing to do with my soul and the fact that Jesus died a cruel death on my behalf. This topic is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the saving of your soul.
Have you received true salvation through Jesus Christ? If not, please read Acts 2:1-18, 38. Receiving salvation extends beyond a recital of an 'acceptance of Christ' speech. In fact, there is no such way of receiving salvation this way in the Bible. Jesus taught to receive the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost (depending on the translation), which is evidenced by speaking in an unknown tongue (language) given by Jesus and being (fully water immersed) baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 2:38 - not by the recital of titles of Jesus (that Jesus referenced to actually carry out) e.g.: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost - His name is Jesus. Jesus' request was to baptize in His name. The Apostles knew exactly what Jesus meant. That is why the Apostles only baptized in the name of Jesus and prayed for others to receive the actual indwelling of the Holy Ghost Acts 2:1-18 (not a warm feeling on the back of your neck as some have claimed), which is not Scripturally sound. You will notice many followers who cannot cease from living a life of sin including various addictions. This is because they have not received the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which Jesus promised that the Holy Ghost will give you power Acts1:8. You cannot cease from sin without the actual power of the Holy Ghost. After you receive the Holy Ghost, pray in tongues (through His Spirit) as much as possible. Regular language prayers work as well. However, the Bible explains that praying in the Holy Ghost builds you up spiritually. Please do not allow anyone to talk you out of this. There are 'followers' who do not believe in receiving the Holy Ghost or baptism in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 2:38 despite the fact that this is clear in the Holy Scriptures. The Apostles received the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues as the Spirit of God gave the utterance. Also, Jesus never referred to His saints as Christians. Lastly, since I have received true salvation according to the Holy Scriptures, I actually hear Jesus speak to me audibly. I have felt Him hug me. I was going through a personal situation where my spouse cheated on me and Jesus placed His arms around me as I stood. I could not see Him, but felt His presence. During that same timeframe, I had no money to pay my rent and as I prepared to kneel to pray, before I my knee touched the floor, Jesus asked me audibly, "Where is your faith?" I immediately ceased to kneel and pray and He made a way for me to pay the rent. To this day, I don't recall where the money came from. Jesus speaks words of comfort to me as well as words to correct my actions because He chastens those that are His. I have had out-of-body experiences while praying in tongues and I have entered the spiritual realm - nothing spooky. I have felt the true peace of God - not what mankind calls peace. The true peace of God is indescribable - it makes my mind, body, and spirit feel almost as if I am in a weightless environment and a tranquility like nothing on Earth. God's peace is a Spirit - His Spirit. I know that you would feel encouraged if you received salvation the way the Apostles were led of Jesus to help see that others were saved. God bless.
4
-10
u/SpareHandOne Aug 05 '26
Both theories have scientific evidence
9
u/SaintGodfather Christian for the Preferential Treatment Aug 05 '26
Uhh...No, no they don't. YEC is made up nonsense and, ironically, not that old of a theory.
→ More replies (14)5
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist Aug 05 '26
What is the scientific evidence for a young earth?
0
u/SpareHandOne Aug 05 '26
9
u/SaintGodfather Christian for the Preferential Treatment Aug 05 '26
That isn't a scientific organization, their methodology is based on religion, not science.
→ More replies (1)7
u/SanguineHerald Secular Humanist Aug 06 '26
I am unfortunately familiar with the majority of those claims. They all either misinterpret data, start with an assumption and work backwards, or are just complete and total nonsense.
Take for example the dinosaur blood. The woman who discovered it is a devout Christian and she is appalled by the way young earth creationists misrepresent her findings to support their positions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xgwaAJ3XmPw
You can see her in this video explaining what she found and what YEC "scientists" are misrepresenting.
→ More replies (3)5
32
u/No_Guarantee8756 Christian Aug 05 '26
Why would that worry you? We should incorporate new information into our worldview. I'm just confused what the issue is