Creationists Take Children to a museum.
- Thread starter SaikoDragon
- Start date
OverdrivePrime
Member
I just don't get it. Most of science beyond the functional stuff like gravity, friction and basic mechanical physics requires an understanding of a framework that vastly exceeds a tiny splinter of time like 6,000 years.
It's the young earth creationists who say they believe in science who confuse me most. There are just so many scientific devotions which simply do not work in that small of a time frame. Linguistics and anthropology become very stunted fields, biology becomes more of a study of "what" than "why" or "how", archeology becomes entirely silly, geology loses all relevance, plate tectonics is reduced to trying to predict earthquakes and ignores any accumulation of trends, astronomy becomes a snapshot and you have to exclude any phenomena more than 6,000 light years away... the list goes on and on, and it bothers me to the core.
A couple guys I work with are young earth creationists, and they're pretty smart guys. For them to get around the problem, they strongly separate their faith from the science. They live in two theoretical worlds - one in which God brought the world into being 6,000 years ago, and then for doing any scientific understanding they have a theoretical construct of "What if the universe is about 14 billion years old." I don't really get it, but it works for them, and that's how I'd imagine that other science-minded creationists would have to go about it.
It's the young earth creationists who say they believe in science who confuse me most. There are just so many scientific devotions which simply do not work in that small of a time frame. Linguistics and anthropology become very stunted fields, biology becomes more of a study of "what" than "why" or "how", archeology becomes entirely silly, geology loses all relevance, plate tectonics is reduced to trying to predict earthquakes and ignores any accumulation of trends, astronomy becomes a snapshot and you have to exclude any phenomena more than 6,000 light years away... the list goes on and on, and it bothers me to the core.
A couple guys I work with are young earth creationists, and they're pretty smart guys. For them to get around the problem, they strongly separate their faith from the science. They live in two theoretical worlds - one in which God brought the world into being 6,000 years ago, and then for doing any scientific understanding they have a theoretical construct of "What if the universe is about 14 billion years old." I don't really get it, but it works for them, and that's how I'd imagine that other science-minded creationists would have to go about it.
Keith Justice
New Member
What I want to know is... why is 6000 important? In the grand scheme of God and his existence.. what does it change if the universe and Earth are as proven to be, billions of years old?
It doesn't change anything really about God existing or not, other than now the universe makes more sense and we pay attention to the evidence God allowed us to find.
I kinda believe that God created the universe too. But what's wrong with the linking of science and God?
It doesn't change anything really about God existing or not, other than now the universe makes more sense and we pay attention to the evidence God allowed us to find.
I kinda believe that God created the universe too. But what's wrong with the linking of science and God?
Similar threads
