Young Earth Frustration

[_just me]

The only thing your quote confirms to me is that you view time as linear. Eternity, presumably, is not linear. Sometimes people speak of eternity as everything being in the present. I used to think that's what Joseph Smith was talking about when he used his famous "one eternal round" ring analogy. Cut the ring in half, and you have a beginning and an end. But there is no end to a ring or circle.

In my Mormon days, I imagined Eternity as a great, expanding circle, with God at the center. He could see everything from His position, and it was all present. For us, we might simply occupy a ray in that expanding circle, and thus time appears linear.

I haven't thought about this stuff in quite a while. But suffice it to say, eternity doesn't make sense only if you conceive of time as having a beginning and end.

What I'[m saying, Runtu, and it appears the snippet from the article is saying to me anyway, is if there is a beginning to a series of events, like creation, then there must be something before that begining. It just must be so.

No. That isn't what that snippet said. It is saying that something that has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, the Earth is not eternal because it had a beginning (according to Genesis). Nothing that has a beginning can be said to be eternal. That is why Joseph Smith said our intelligences were co-eternal with God. Because if they were not they will have an end. Well, that says a lot about our bodies-mortal or immortal. If they have a beginning they cannot be eternal.

My point with the article is that there are two usages of the term eternal. It talks about both. Both are valid uses. It is obvious that I don't know what your issues are with the concept of eternity being outside of time. Runtu is probably doing a way better job of conversing on this topic than I am. Yay, Runtu!

[_Tarski]

What I'm saying, Runtu, and it appears the snippet from the article is saying to me anyway, is if there is a beginning to a series of events, like creation, then there must be something before that begining. It just must be so.

It must be so only if time is always linear.

Alma 40:8 explains that time is a condition of mortality:

8Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

Religiously speaking, eternity exists outside of time, so it's more proper to speak of something outside the beginning, not before the beginning.

In the end, it's difficult for humans to conceive of eternity or an infinite universe because we see things in terms of our finite understanding. If the universe, for example, has an outer boundary, we wonder what is on the other side of that boundary. But what if the universe goes on infinitely or turns in on itself or is simply constructed in a way that we can't comprehend? It's the same with the notion that there must always be a "before."

Intuition leads us to feel that it is necessary--as a matter of logic or something-- that there must have been a before (before the Big Bang). But this has already been shown to false: It is not a logical necessity and this is attested to by the existence of several self-consistent models of spacetime that feature universes with finite past.
By analogy, some primitive societies may have thought it necessary that for every plot of land there must be another plot south of the first one. Of course, the south pole shows this is not either necessary or true.

[_Some Schmo]

What's interesting here is that no personal insults were made, and yet you acted just as offended as if they had been.

What are you so afraid of?

I suspect that Hoops knows his position is ridiculous, and when he hears the mere mentioning of the fact that he holds that position, he mentally converts it to an insult. And rightfully so... I know I'd be insulted if someone suggested I was a YEC.

I love that he keeps claiming that people are insulting him in lieu of an argument, hoping that nobody will notice that he keeps claiming it in lieu of an argument.

[_stemelbow]

I was asking Hoops questions about what it means to have no time before a series of events, creation. What Tarski, Just me and perhaps Runtu seem to suggest is that its possible to eternity to be outside of time, which is all fine, but quite different from what i'm suggesting. If there was nothing before the Big Bang, cool. But that's far from my point. If something began the Big Bang, then there had to be a before the Big Bang, no? These are two separate issues. If there was something that caused creation, then there must have been a before creation.

I am not concerned about whether there are two ways to discuss eternity, or if eternal, being outside of time can be. That's just not the issue, but oh well.

[_Buffalo]

What's interesting here is that no personal insults were made, and yet you acted just as offended as if they had been.

What are you so afraid of?

I suspect that Hoops knows his position is ridiculous, and when he hears the mere mentioning of the fact that he holds that position, he mentally converts it to an insult. And rightfully so... I know I'd be insulted if someone suggested I was a YEC.

I love that he keeps claiming that people are insulting him in lieu of an argument, hoping that nobody will notice that he keeps claiming it in lieu of an argument.

QFT

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think it’s worth mentioning that most people who adhere to Young Earth views don’t come to that belief by some kind of ‘scientific’ evidence alone, but came to that conclusion after being persuaded about the inerrancy of the Bible and then convinced Genesis should be read in a way that lends itself to a YEC view.

[_Runtu]

I think it’s worth mentioning that most people who adhere to Young Earth views don’t come to that belief by some kind of ‘scientific’ evidence alone, but came to that conclusion after being persuaded about the inerrancy of the Bible and then convinced Genesis should be read in a way that lends itself to a YEC view.

I'm reminded of this quote from Chico Marx: "Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

We can see all the evidence that points conclusively toward an old earth, but a literalist reading of a book written thousands of years ago says God created the earth in six days some 6,000 years ago. We can choose to believe the evidence, or choose a literalist reading. To me, the choice is pretty obvious.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey people,

A few thoughts:

Considering that most of the members on this board are X-LDS, atheist, or agnostic, I am not at all surprised by the replies/responses/rejections of the YEC's position.

What I am a little surprised about (considering the OP seemed to be asking what the YEC's position/beliefs/perspectives are), is how this thread has evolved (No pun intended) :)

for what it's worth (perhaps very little?), when things like age of the earth, literal 24 hour days of creation in Genesis, etc, are at the roots of discussion among believers, the results are often very, very interesting on many levels.

(by the way: the discussion/debate concerning Genesis/Creation- a day being a literal 24 hour day is not only entirely fascinating and hotly debated, but it is also a multi-layered and very complex topic all by itself. in my opinion)

Anyhoo, to suggest that the YEC's position/belief should be super-glued with the label of entire and complete ignorance is, in my opinion, a place where a stapler might be a better choice to apply these labels (Just in case you ever decide/need/choose/consider removing it)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Runtu]

Anyhoo, to suggest that the YEC's position/belief should be super-glued with the label of entire and complete ignorance is, in my opinion, a place where a stapler might be a better choice to apply these labels (Just in case you ever decide/need/choose/consider removing it)

Peace,
Ceeboo

I am not labeling you as ignorant, but I honestly can't see how a YEC works in light of all the multiple overlapping and corroborating evidence in favor of a rather old world and universe. As far as I can tell, the only reason people assert a young earth is a literal reading of Genesis. To me, that's not a good reason.

[_Scottie]

Ceeboo,

I think we have all asked, in good faith, for the reasons and evidence why a YEC is a valid theory. We have laid out multiple evidences that support old earth.

Thus far, I have seen nothing but anecdotal "I know a guy who is really smart and he believe in YEC!" types of responses.

In fact, Hoops flat out said he would NOT provide evidence to support his case.

How are we supposed to respond? Should we not challenge them? Since it is a belief derived from scripture, does it make it above criticism (which, as always, is re-labeled an attack)?

If the only reason someone believes something is because they have faith that it is true, even in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary, then yes, this should be subject for ridicule. Time to grow up and see the world for what it is. You can't keep believing in Santa Claus forever, no matter how much you really, really want him to exist.