Converting to YEC?

[bhukkadakota]

Im interested to know from the current YECs, if there is any out there that used to think the earth was old before becomming a YEC and what evidence led them to believe the earth was in fact young. I know theres alot of former YECs in tweb so im interested to know if theres any the other way around and the story of their conversion to believe in a young earth.

Also is there any non christians that hold on to a young earth belief? Not nessasarily a 6000 yr old earth belief but around that time frame. Since alot of young earth creationalists seemed convinced that the scientific evidence for a young earth is clear for all to see, shouldnt we expect other people to view the evidence and also come up with a young earth? (i asked this question a long time ago on this board but i cant be bothered to dig it up).

That is all.

[bhukkadakota]

Does that mean theres no YECs out there that once held a different belief regarding the age of the earth? So all the YECs are fed this information when they are young and still hold onto that belief throughout their life until they realise its actually wrong.

[A Beautiful Truth]

bhukkadakota,

I know of a man who claims he was an evolutionist before he became YEC. You may hear this from time to time. But the problem with this, the big problem with this is that the reasons for conversion will have been for theological reasons and not scientific.

If a non believer comes to Christ believing they have to take such and such a view of origins in order to be a believer, then oftentimes they will sacrifice everything to be a believer. But, of course, as evidenced by the many Christian evolutionists here, many Christians see this is a false dilemma.

I know of another case where, IIRC, a Russian geologist had issues with an old earth because a particular area of his study yielded data he did not see connected with an old earth. Of course questions arise as to why he would take evidence in only one case in one field of study only he himself found and not weighed it against all the other data, nor submit his work to others in his field for review. But, what do you know, he is now a leader in Europe for, I believe, ICR. (Institute for Creation Research)

Now, you are absolutely right. If the evidence is as the YEC say, we should see scientists pondering the data. We don't see it. So the YEC will just say that all the scientists in the world are blinded, they don't have the right "glasses" on. But this makes a problem, I believe. If a natural man can discern his world and invent and discover and advance in this natural world through technology, etc, why is it that in this one area he cannot see? Has God put some kind of blinder on one particular sort of scientific knowledge? This does not seem right, especially since this particular sort of knowledge is used to bolster a particular interpretation of the Bible. Just seems fishy. Additionally, it makes you wonder why, if a natural man cannot see YEC, why even use it as an evangelistic tool as the YEC try to do? But what they really mean is that a natural man can see YEC, as long as he is not educated in the sciences. So they are not really consistent with themselves here at all.

[grmorton]

Does that mean theres no YECs out there that once held a different belief regarding the age of the earth? So all the YECs are fed this information when they are young and still hold onto that belief throughout their life until they realise its actually wrong.

Before I became a Christian, I was an old earther. I remember the first time I heard a Christian talk about radiometric dating not working. I told that guy in no uncertain terms that the earth was old. But, after I began to get changed by the people I was worshipping with. They told me that God did it, and I beleived it, and I turned into a YEC.

[NeilUnreal]

My experience is pretty similar to Glenn's: I made the round-trip. I was raised by Christian parents who taught me mainstream science. About the time I went to college, I encountered YEC. I believed for a while mainly for fideistic reasons, but also on the promise of the "scientific evidence" that YECs said was so obvious. I later found out there was basically no scientific evidence for YEC (quite the contrary, the evidence falsifies it), and a fideism that requires constant double-think seemed like a poor substitute for mature faith.

-Neil

[Evangelist]

I was raised in a Christian home, and accepted Christ as my Saviour at the tender age of 6. My "Brethren" background fitted me with the "gap" theory, which seemed to answer the questions I had about the story I was being taught in school, not quite lining up with the story in the Bible.

In later years however, (in my mid-thirties some ten years ago), I was asked if I believed in creation by a senior elder in a new brethren assembly we were starting to attend. "Of course" I answered, giving him my standard "gap" explanation for reconciling the "geologic ages" as I then believed them to exist, with the creation account in Genesis.

He countered with the following verse which I could give no reasonable answer to.
"Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

I was given Ian Taylor's book "In the minds of men" to read, found some old ICR tapes where I heard Ken Hamms ministry on the importance of a literal Genesis, and the rest is history. This view was never forced upon me in any way, nor was it made a condition of my fellowship there. I saw the case presented, and I came to my own conclusions on the matter.

I saw just enough evidence that convinced me that I like so many others in my generation, had been victimized by a massive deliberate fraud. I was incensed to say the least. After learning that one of my heroes at the time, the late great John Nelson Darby had himself fallen away to the sway of science in the early 1800's, setting the stage for all who fell after him; I determined to find out for myself what were the real roots of this "spirit of science", that had so befuddled him.

Taylor's book allowed me to zero in on Sir Francis Bacon as the real salesman behind the movement towards faith in science, and away from faith in God in the Bible. I found my answers as to what science was really on about in the writings of Bacon. I read most of what Bacon had to say on the matter.

My conclusions are briefly summed up in this article.http://www.blackmores-watch-and-cloc...ver_Matter.php

My continued stance as a Biblical literalist (YEC if you like) will never be affected by the arguments of Glen Morton or anyone else for the following reason. In the final analysis it becomes simply a matter of who can really be trusted, and not a matter of who can put up the best "dog and pony show" with the click of a mouse.

At the end of the day somebody is not telling the truth, because science and the Bible tell two very different stories!

If it were God who was doing the lying (and of course it could never be) then the Bible cannot be trusted at all, and one man's opinion is just as good as the next. I have seen however the deceit and the lies woven throughout the history of science, and therefore I reject it out of hand. It is an anti-biblical, anti-God, belief system right from its very inception, and I prove this in my article.

The YEC evidence is by no means exhaustive (nor could it ever be given the imbalance of resources it has with which to compete), but it's evidence is so very very damming to the story of "evolution" and the lie of an "old earth". God bless Ken Hamm and all the other YEC leaders and teachers for their excellent work! Amen.

Regards

Paul M. Blackmore

[Darth Executor]

You can be a hyperliteralist(like me) and cough up macroevoultion out of Genesis 1...

[Jorge]

Im interested to know from the current YECs, if there is any out there that used to think the earth was old before becomming a YEC and what evidence led them to believe the earth was in fact young. I know theres alot of former YECs in tweb so im interested to know if theres any the other way around and the story of their conversion to believe in a young earth.

ESP, maybe? Given the amount of sheer ignorance that I've observed here regarding YEC, I was actually
(no kidding!) going to start a thread very similar to this one. I decided against it (for now) because of time limitations. However, available time certainly allows me to answer your question ... here goes :

Not only did I think the Earth was old, while in high school there was a debate of creation versus evolution and guess who was Captain of the evolution side? Yup, t'was me. (I'm embarrassed to this day about that).

What evidence led to the change (a very important question, I might add)? Simply and concisely stated, it was going back to basics. I had to decide where my foundation was going to be - in natural science founded primarily on materialism or in God's Word, the Bible.

That question being answered in favor of God's Word (what else?), I then re-examined the so-called evidence for an old Earth. Guess what? It was all suspect - the 'evidence' was as solid as a rotted sieve. What a fool I had been, I thought to myself, placing my faith in the (faulty) conclusions of natural science rather than in the Word that God gave us.

Since then (many years) I've searched - I truly have - for something, anything, that would cause me to reconsider my 'conversion' to YEC. With a fairly decent education in science, math and philosophy I was able to explore just about any area I cared to.

Conclusion : I haven't found one thing - not one - that I would consider a compelling reason to abandon YEC. Converting to OEC would be extremely easy - that's where the bandwagon is. But following God was never meant to be easy (on this point He is perfectly clear).

It's not - as the opposition constantly parrots - that I (we) ignore the 'evidence' and run contrary to it. Quite the opposite, it's that we follow what evidence there is to its logical conclusion never losing sight of our Foundation. I am not a YEC in spite of the evidence but because of the evidence (again, when examined from the proper perspective).

Yes there are questions ... yes there are mysteries ... yes there are apparent discrepancies and unexplainable things under YEC. But, guess what? An honest Naturalist would have to say exactly the same thing about a multi-giga year-old universe/Earth where life "miraculously" emerged. (If any Naturalist out there claims to have all the answers and have no apparent discrepancies in the Naturalistic world view you may call me collect any time).

So, in a nutshell, it's really quite simple: I'm going to trust in what God plainly says in the Bible unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. If that happened then I would be forced to examine my faulty interpretation of Scripture (the fault is mine, not God's Word).

I will NOT abandon YEC because of hypotheses, notions, theories, speculations or on the fact that there are unanswered questions (there will always be plenty of those). I would have to see irrefutable evidence that prohibits a YEC world view from being rationally supported. To this day I have found nothing that even comes close to meeting these standards.

That's all.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Now, you are absolutely right. If the evidence is as the YEC say, we should see scientists pondering the data. We don't see it. So the YEC will just say that all the scientists in the world are blinded, they don't have the right "glasses" on. But this makes a problem, I believe. If a natural man can discern his world and invent and discover and advance in this natural world through technology, etc, why is it that in this one area he cannot see? Has God put some kind of blinder on one particular sort of scientific knowledge?

Great questions ... lengthy answers! Rest assured, there are answers. Maybe some other time.

P.S. Nothing "fishy" about it.

Jorge

[GreenPenInc]

*snip*

If it were God who was doing the lying (and of course it could never be) then the Bible cannot be trusted at all, and one man's opinion is just as good as the next. I have seen however the deceit and the lies woven throughout the history of science, and therefore I reject it out of hand. It is an anti-biblical, anti-God, belief system right from its very inception, and I prove this in my article.

The YEC evidence is by no means exhaustive (nor could it ever be given the imbalance of resources it has with which to compete), but it's evidence is so very very damming to the story of "evolution" and the lie of an "old earth". God bless Ken Hamm and all the other YEC leaders and teachers for their excellent work! Amen.

Regards

Paul M. Blackmore

Hi Paul,

If evolution's truth would falsify the Christian faith as you claim, why is it that the two biggest Christian denominations simply have no conflict with the theory, and never have? Furthermore, it should be noted that God would also be a liar if evolution were false, as He has communicated to us also through His creation and left overwhelming evidence for us to discover.

On the issue of the resource imbalance, don't you think the "small" amount of resources available to YECs could be better spent doing actual science to support their position, instead of an admittedly excellent public relations campaign? Doesn't it strike you as just a little bit sneaky to sneak their science in through the back door, instead of through the "front door" of research that is open to all? If YEC is a science (as its proponents claim) then its proponents would do well to do actual scientific research. And if not -- well, then, why all the pretense?

[Barry Desborough]

I was raised in a Christian home, and accepted Christ as my Saviour at the tender age of 6. My "Brethren" background fitted me with the "gap" theory, which seemed to answer the questions I had about the story I was being taught in school, not quite lining up with the story in the Bible.

In later years however, (in my mid-thirties some ten years ago), I was asked if I believed in creation by a senior elder in a new brethren assembly we were starting to attend. "Of course" I answered, giving him my standard "gap" explanation for reconciling the "geologic ages" as I then believed them to exist, with the creation account in Genesis.

He countered with the following verse which I could give no reasonable answer to.
"Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

I was given Ian Taylor's book "In the minds of men" to read, found some old ICR tapes where I heard Ken Hamms ministry on the importance of a literal Genesis, and the rest is history. This view was never forced upon me in any way, nor was it made a condition of my fellowship there. I saw the case presented, and I came to my own conclusions on the matter.

I saw just enough evidence that convinced me that I like so many others in my generation, had been victimized by a massive deliberate fraud. I was incensed to say the least. After learning that one of my heroes at the time, the late great John Nelson Darby had himself fallen away to the sway of science in the early 1800's, setting the stage for all who fell after him; I determined to find out for myself what were the real roots of this "spirit of science", that had so befuddled him.

Taylor's book allowed me to zero in on Sir Francis Bacon as the real salesman behind the movement towards faith in science, and away from faith in God in the Bible. I found my answers as to what science was really on about in the writings of Bacon. I read most of what Bacon had to say on the matter.

My conclusions are briefly summed up in this article.http://www.blackmores-watch-and-cloc...ver_Matter.php

My continued stance as a Biblical literalist (YEC if you like) will never be affected by the arguments of Glen Morton or anyone else for the following reason. In the final analysis it becomes simply a matter of who can really be trusted, and not a matter of who can put up the best "dog and pony show" with the click of a mouse.

At the end of the day somebody is not telling the truth, because science and the Bible tell two very different stories!

If it were God who was doing the lying (and of course it could never be) then the Bible cannot be trusted at all, and one man's opinion is just as good as the next. I have seen however the deceit and the lies woven throughout the history of science, and therefore I reject it out of hand. It is an anti-biblical, anti-God, belief system right from its very inception, and I prove this in my article.

The YEC evidence is by no means exhaustive (nor could it ever be given the imbalance of resources it has with which to compete), but it's evidence is so very very damming to the story of "evolution" and the lie of an "old earth". God bless Ken Hamm and all the other YEC leaders and teachers for their excellent work! Amen.

Regards

Paul M. Blackmore

From your article:

"We must accept the Bible because we need to know things about life, death and destiny, which cannot be learned by just observing nature."

I see this from YEC/Fundies all the time. "You must start from Scripture". That is the fundamental point at which your world view and materialistic naturalism diverge. From that point on, people are talking past each other. From 'my' side of the question, everything a YEC says about scientific questions is suspect, because you take 'Scripture' to be the trumping authority presuppositionally. You may pretend to engage in scientific debate. Who knows, you may believe you are engaging in science, but it always comes back to the fact that you have to Believe first.

If I can be permitted to use your terminology, from my point of view it looks like idolatry, where the idol is a book (the Book). Nobody has given me a coherent reason for this Book worship.

[Barry Desborough]

If I can be permitted to use your terminology, from my point of view it looks like idolatry, where the idol is a book (the Book). Nobody has given me a coherent reason for this Book worship.

Lest I offend sane Christians reading that last post of mine, I want to make it clear that by 'book worship', I was really referring to full, literal interpretation.

[Constantine]

At the end of the day somebody is not telling the truth, because science and the Bible tell two very different stories!

Could it be that it is the YEC interpretation of Scripture that is wrong?

Just a thought.

My personal story on this....

Going through elementary and middle school I was really into science and so I accpeted what you could probably call OEC at the time. Then when I got into 9th or 10th grade I had a YEC biology teacher. Because all I heard was her one-sided presentation of the issue I thought that surely YEC was obivous. Then I debated with people online and did some of my own research and eventually found my way to theistic evolution about a year ago. I'm a senoir (12th grade) now and I have had a more balanced education since that biology class. My "conversion" to TE is discussed in another thread if you're really interested.

A question to the YEC's in this thread:

It seems to be a common thread in your reasoning that it is God's Word, the Bible, or mainstream science. You have the Bible as your foundation (which is good, I just think your reading it wrong), but if you reject extra-Biblical evidence that conflicts with your interpretation....then what reasons to you have for accepting the Bible as Inspired?

I have many reasons for my faith, but they require evidence from outside the Bible. How do you go about proving Inspiration if all non-Biblical evidence is immediately suspect?

Just curious.

[Evangelist]

Excellent posts. I will answer your questions later this evening DV.

Blessings

Paul M. Blackmore

[Jorge]

Could it be that it is the YEC interpretation of Scripture that is wrong?

Just a thought.

Or how about this thought: could it be that the TE/OEC interpretation of Scripture is wrong? Or this: could it be that mainstream science supports an ideological agenda, that being materialistic Naturalism?

A question to the YEC's in this thread:

It seems to be a common thread in your reasoning that it is God's Word, the Bible, or mainstream science.

Wrong! It's not one or the other - the issue is far more complex than that. I have long stated that one must examine the core issue, namely, the fact that this is not a scientific battle but rather an ideological one.

You have the Bible as your foundation (which is good, I just think your reading it wrong), but if you reject extra-Biblical evidence that conflicts with your interpretation....then what reasons to you have for accepting the Bible as Inspired?

Wrong again! No informed YEC that I know is rejecting any extra-Biblical evidence (re-read my previous post). What we are rejecting (as I believe we absolutely must) is (1) interpretations of that evidence (said interpretations being founded squarely on materialistic Naturalism) and, (2) unorthodox (sometimes heretical) interpretations/distortions/additions of Scripture made primarily so that Scripture conforms to the edicts of Naturalistic (pseudo)science (uh, tell me again who has ultimate authority here ... what's the starting point?).

I have many reasons for my faith, but they require evidence from outside the Bible. How do you go about proving Inspiration if all non-Biblical evidence is immediately suspect?

All non-Biblical evidence is NOT "immediately suspect". I'll remind you that I led the evolutionist side in a
week-long C-E debate long ago (while in high school). I simply didn't know what I was doing.

Jorge