Young Earth Creationism

[SouthernMormon]

Unlike many I am a young-earth creationist. I do not believe in Darwinian evolution, or theistic evolution or old-earth creationism. I believe in a literal 7 day creation. I believe the earth is less than 10, 000 years old. There is plenty of evidence to support this - provided you start with the right assumptions. I highly recommend reading the book "The Genius of Ancient Man" by Don Landis.

http://geniusofancientman.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/ ... nightmare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also believe that evolutionary and naturalistic thought is one of the greatest weapons of Satan and of the Secret combinations, which wish to deny that we are made in the image of God.

[mes5464]

I'm with you SM. I believe the 6 days of creation were 1000 years long, each. And that they earth is basically around 13000 years old. Depends on how you define the start of the earth (first day or last day). I do not believe in Darwinian evolution, theistic evolution, or old-earth creationism.

Thanks for your post.

[BroJones]

SM and Mes-- Creationism is often taken to mean "creation ex nihilo" -- that is, creation OUT OF NOTHING. Many Christian sects believe in this; do you?

[SouthernMormon]

No; I mean the earth is organized by God, not by naturalism. That humans were given bodies by God - they were not the result of adaptation to changing environments by non-human primates.

[durangout]

I believe in a literal 7 day creation. I believe the earth is less than 10, 000 years old.

How did you come to that conclusion?

[SmallFarm]

We as humans are too stuck on linear time. Seven-thousand years, seven-million years, seven days, seven seconds, in my opinion, all the same before God. We can move back and forth through space, but can only move one direction through time; do you think that God is limited in this way?

[MsEva]

We as humans are too stuck on linear time. Seven-thousand years, seven-million years, seven days, seven seconds, in my opinion, all the same before God. We can move back and forth through space, but can only move one direction through time; do you think that God is limited in this way?

Great point! I know the scriptures give a "time period" for each stage of creation and of course the earth was formed Spiritually first.

[Claymore]

I don't know about timelines because time is such a relative thing. I personally believe that when God created the Earth He was following a plan or blueprint. Day 1 = Stage or Step 1. I get that from the endowment..."and we shall call our efforts the first day" or something along those lines. :p Each day could have taken more or less "time" depending upon how involved the step, process, or "day" was. But then again who am I to say how quickly God's work happens. It could have been instantaneous.

Claymore

[embryopocket]

I do not doubt that the Lord COULD have organized the elements into our Earth in such a short period of time, however I am not sure if he DID it this way.

[mes5464]

SM and Mes-- Creationism is often taken to mean "creation ex nihilo" -- that is, creation OUT OF NOTHING. Many Christian sects believe in this; do you?

I do not. "Behold, yonder is matter unorganized..."

[mes5464]

We as humans are too stuck on linear time. Seven-thousand years, seven-million years, seven days, seven seconds, in my opinion, all the same before God. We can move back and forth through space, but can only move one direction through time; do you think that God is limited in this way?

I do not believe that God is limited by our laws or times (v 41), but I do know that we are limited by laws and times that he has imposed on us.

36 All kingdoms have a law given;

37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.

40 For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.

42 And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons;

43 And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets.

44 And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years—all these are one year with God, but not with man.

[BroJones]

Thanks for reply, SM and Mes. I agree -- the earth was NOT created ex nihilo. Joseph also explained this in the King Follett discourse very plainly. See also D&C 93.

My concern is - that if we espouse being a "creationist" using that term or "creationism" -- MANY people will understand that you mean the earth WAS CREATED EX NIHILO (I.E., OUT OF NOTHING). So we must be careful to explain, and careful with using the term.
SM wrote:

Unlike many I am a young-earth creationist. I do not believe in Darwinian evolution, or theistic evolution or old-earth creationism. I believe in a literal 7 day creation. I believe the earth is less than 10, 000 years old.

Now, what makes you think "the earth is less than 10, 000 years old"?

[brlenox]

Unlike many I am a young-earth creationist. I do not believe in Darwinian evolution, or theistic evolution or old-earth creationism. I believe in a literal 7 day creation. I believe the earth is less than 10, 000 years old. There is plenty of evidence to support this - provided you start with the right assumptions. I highly recommend reading the book "The Genius of Ancient Man" by Don Landis.

http://geniusofancientman.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/ ... nightmare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also believe that evolutionary and naturalistic thought is one of the greatest weapons of Satan and of the Secret combinations, which wish to deny that we are made in the image of God.

Do you hold this perspective as a result of having studied all that the prophets have said on the subject? Or is this simply the general interpretation that you have felt the most comfortable with in spite of all of the commentary on the subject by various general authorities. Just for my perspective, I do not hold to Darwinism as well. For my mind it was the opposition in all things balance to the gospel. The gospel had the greatest potential to save mankind by bringing him back to dwell in the presence of God and the Theory of Evolution was Satan's legitimate claimed law of opposition that had the equal propensity to deny mankind the opportunity to dwell in God's presence. The Church organized in 1830, Darwinism official 30 years later in 1859 or so is interesting timing in my view of things.

Nonetheless, I think no one will grasp above basic elements of the creation when they limit themselves to a standard that is stated by Alma 40:8 as "time only is measured unto men." Thus the conditions and the way God thinks and operates and is outside of the constraints of time. If we consider our pondering in the limitations of mans time we can not even hope to approach how God would view the process.

[SouthernMormon]

Evolutionary thought had always been around, but it really came into it's own with the Lunar Society in the late 18th century. Darwin's grandfather Erasmus was also a believer in evolution. Charles Darwin actually had written about his theories privately well before 1859 (in the 1830s), but did not publish them until 1859, when Alfred Russell Wallace also published his. What distinguished Darwin's 1859 theories from earlier ideas of the 18th century and Lamarck's theories was his mechanism - natural selection and sexual selection. Interestingly, in evolutionary circles some of Lamarck's ideas are making comebacks, to some degree at least, particularly in the field of epigenetics.

[SouthernMormon]

Darwin's theory was also largely based on uniformitarian (slow, gradual change) ideas of geology of Charles Lyell and James Hutton. The creationists of the time largely favored (as I do) catastrophist ideas in geology, which were lead by George Cuvier - who was strongly opposed to evolutionary theories of his time. Interestingly, after uniformitarianism dominated the thinking of the 20th century, catastrophism has been making a comeback in the last twenty years or so. Obviously, most literal readings of the Bible will lead to a catastrophist understanding of geology, given the flood and other events. It seems to me, despite the efforts of some like Stephen Jay Gould to prove otherwise, that catastrophism must go hand in hand with creationism and uniformitarianism with naturalistic evolution.

[SouthernMormon]

I am using the term "creationist" in opposition to "naturalist". There are numerous differences of opinion amongst "creationists", but all of them reject the idea of Creator-less creatures. That, I think, is the key difference between "creationism" and "naturalism".

[brlenox]

Evolutionary thought had always been around, but it really came into it's own with the Lunar Society in the late 18th century. Darwin's grandfather Erasmus was also a believer in evolution. Charles Darwin actually had written about his theories privately well before 1859 (in the 1830s), but did not publish them until 1859, when Alfred Russell Wallace also published his. What distinguished Darwin's 1859 theories from earlier ideas of the 18th century and Lamarck's theories was his mechanism - natural selection and sexual selection. Interestingly, in evolutionary circles some of Lamarck's ideas are making comebacks, to some degree at least, particularly in the field of epigenetics.

Yes it must always be understood that before a concept becomes recognized it has been germinating in the minds of men for sometime. I only chose the date as that was the official publication date that produced a text for society to then begin the process of accepting or rejecting the efforts. I have long realized some elements of truth in Lamarckian theory. Ever since I started having children and realized how brilliant they were... ;)

[brlenox]

Darwin's theory was also largely based on uniformitarian (slow, gradual change) ideas of geology of Charles Lyell and James Hutton. The creationists of the time largely favored (as I do) catastrophist ideas in geology, which were lead by George Cuvier - who was strongly opposed to evolutionary theories of his time. Interestingly, after uniformitarianism dominated the thinking of the 20th century, catastrophism has been making a comeback in the last twenty years or so. Obviously, most literal readings of the Bible will lead to a catastrophist understanding of geology, given the flood and other events. It seems to me, despite the efforts of some like Stephen Jay Gould to prove otherwise, that catastrophism must go hand in hand with creationism and uniformitarianism with naturalistic evolution.

Still you have not addressed the burden of trying to script all of your conclusions into a paradigm that is truly limited to man's purview. I'm going to guess that the inference of my post was so foreign that in reading it some simply glazed over it not perceiving any significance. If you were God and had an entirely different time paradigm than man, would your creative efforts be bound to the restrictive contemplations of mortality or would they embrace and fulfil the measure of the parameters of the sphere in which you reside as a God?

The challenge as I see it is that mortality enforces a paradigm of thought that naturally attempts to subject it's conclusions to a time element be it the time element of the scientists in billions of years or your paradigm of 6000 years. If Godhood does not truly subject time, then Godhood is subject to time. The brilliance of Doctrine and Covenants 19 is how it attempts to allow us to shift our perceptions of time as a factor which constrains our thinking into a possibility of something of an entirely different paradigm.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

Most even as they read this remain in a temporal default even as God is trying to educate them to a spiritual based perspective. We read the terms eternal and endless and continue on auto-pilot only seeing the implications of time and its passage. Most simply say something to the effect that, "okay so it doesn't necessarily mean without end when God talks about eternal and endless", using a temporal constraint to define what God is stating. However what is truly occurring here is that God is embracing time as an element of his status of being. He is not subject to definitions of time as he, by his very essence, is not subject to the dictates of time based interpretations. To really grasp this requires an entire shift in paradigm towards an eternal perspective as opposed to a temporal one.

My point is that when we encounter terminologies in the scriptures that make references that we automatically interpret as predicated upon time constraints we should take a moment and really ponder and consider if they are events or conditions bounded by time or conditions that supersede the boundaries of time as part of understanding their fuller more complete implications. For instance if you take this perspective and apply it to the term firstborn in scriptures, you will find that, while sometimes it is genuinely a term of chronological expectations, at other times it embraces time superseding it's chronological expectations and is a reference to a spiritual status of being something much more than a chronological limitation can comprehend.

If we as mortals, whose entire existence is subscribed in a view that marks life’s boundaries in terms of the passage of events, birth, death, age of 21, marriage etc, are to contemplate the things of God would it not behoove us to attempt to look beyond our evaluations in terms of time to something far more Godlike in perspective? Doing so allows you to contemplate creative processes in terms more compatible with a status of being a God as opposed to the limited conditions of this mortal sphere and it's time based priority and paradigm. Hope that makes sense.

[AGStacker]

I think He sang it into "existence".

[SmallFarm]

I think He sang it into "existence".

Reminds me of the creation story in The Silmarillion.

[Franktalk]

I have spent years on this topic. At one time I was the poster child for science, then young earth, and many flavors in between. I evolved as I came to understand the scriptures. But that is all ancient history. I will comment about what I feel has happened in the past.

Before I do so I must talk about 2Peter. A small little letter that for me has unlocked many mysteries. Take this section:

2 Peter 3

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Here Peter is talking about the flood. Notice he said the world perished. Also note he says the earth is now kept is store. These are keys. Now we know from scripture that the world before the flood and after the flood was pretty much the same. Many things came through unchanged. Like Noah and his family, the animals. mountains, the seas. Even the olive tree survived off the ark. Some things were changed like rainbows and rain. I am sure that many structures on the ground that were not ground to dust in the flood survived. Even the bones of ancient creatures laid where they were before the flood. So we must ask ourselves why did Peter say the earth perished? Was he referring to something spiritual or maybe he was telling us that what was important perished. In this case the Nephilim perished and the evil that they brought with them. That was wiped out. The path of the world was heading in the wrong direction. That perished.

Now we have this other comment. The heavens and the earth are now kept in store. This is saying that after the flood the earth and what we call nature pretty much has not changed. So since the flood every day is just like all other days. But before the flood that was not true. Peter is contrasting a changing earth with a static earth. Now we don't know what exactly what that looks like but it is a data point.

So right now the earth and the heavens are being held (reserved) until it is changed by fire. So the earth is not free from God's hand. It is an unchanging hand. Of course this unchanging "nature" has been interpreted by science as part of nature, in fact a key part of nature. A part of nature that allows them to deny miracles.

Much more later.

[Franktalk]

So with 2 peter in mind we should go back and examine Genesis.

In my mind it is easy to see a refashion of existing matter in the creation week. I also see a refashion of the earth from some prior dispensation into a form for the one we are in. I don't think the changes were that dramatic. What is dramatic is the stage is set for the plan of salvation to start. Almost all of the descriptions in the creation week can refer to many things besides a refashion of matter. I think we are trained to see what others have told us to see. I do not take away from the Creator because the Creator has done the Fathers work for some time.

There are scriptures which tell us about the end of the earth and how many things will be different. But the earth is still here, it is just reshaped into the next stage. For the next part of God's plan. So in my mind the earth is young because it was reshaped for this dispensation. But old because many of the parts from prior dispensations passed through from one dispensation to another.

I see the creation in terms of a baptism. A person goes into the water and a new person comes out. But from a scientific viewpoint the same person came out. It is the perspective of God that is important. Using what may be God's perspective Genesis reads so much different than what most people see.

[MasterOfNone]

I found this very interesting. It's an audio of a presentation by Dr Ronald Rollins on the evidence for a young earth...

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/do ... ecordings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[drjme]

While I certainly believe God is capable of creating the earth in 6 days, there are many complications with a literal 6 day young earth creation if we follow the chronology of the genesis, one glaringly obvious on for me is that the sun moon and stars were created after the earth was created.

We know for a fact that we are seeing stars that are hundreds of thousands + of light years away, meaning we are only now seeing them in the state they were hundreds of thousand of years ago, obviously showing that they were in existence for more than a hundred thousand years. If we are going to take a literal fixed 6 day young earth creation position from the bible, then one would need to follow the fixed chronology of it too wouldn't they?

Now people will justify that the universe was already in existance and it was only the earth that was created in this instance, but then one would be deviating from the creation account, and if one could deviate on one instance, then why not several others?

IMO Gods first creation of this realm was time, and so everything created in this realm is subject to that.

[log]

We know for a fact that we are seeing stars that are hundreds of thousands + of light years away, meaning we are only now seeing them in the state they were hundreds of thousand of years ago, obviously showing that they were in existence for more than a hundred thousand years.

Do we actually know that by direct experience, or is that claim to knowledge in reality merely a logical inference based on data interpreted by means of philosophical assumptions which themselves cannot be proven?