Most of you are probably aware of the idea that whoever defines the terms of the debate wins the debate. Well, I think we should get in the habit of calling ourselves Biblical Creationists rather than Young Earth Creationists. 

Here's my rationale. If we call ourselves Biblical Creationists, then by default Old Earth Creationists are not Biblical. For the record, I have nothing against the term Young Earth Creationist and I'm happy to be one.

What say you?

Views: 2159

Replies to This Discussion

All of these dating methods rely on the theory that nothing has changed and all systems are "closed systems" from the beginning of earth's creation (decay rates have never changed, erosion rates have never changed, no mineral ever leaches into another). We know none of these can ever be proven because no man was there. Also this is using science to prove the bible. When we should be using the bible to prove science. However, we do have an ancient document that records the creation process and other ancient documents that can be used to calculate the approximate age of the earth and the galaxies.

Dear ZUMA,

This is very detailed information. I printed it out. We just had a discussion last weekend , when we had a hike to a vulcano here in Germany. The evolutionist talked something about nuclear half-time Berylium timeclock or chronology , because we didnt´t believed in Radio carbon 14 method because of nuclear tests of US , France, Russian military capitalist countries in the last decades , which also caused high levels of emission of much C14 . 

It is very funny , that in the year of my birth these military countries made a nuclear test in the Sahara desert. How nice is this ? In Germany they measured a young living tree at a street over millions of years because of exhausted fumes emissions of cars . This is also very funny. Thank you John W. Coons for your statement !

Yours Matze from good old Germany

Attachments:

It is my understanding that labs that measure C14 in living or once living things will not give an age over 3,000 years because of errors in the measure system and C14 variables. Also, there are no closed systems. C14 in the atmosphere may have been much different before the flood than after. C14 can only be measured in living or dead material. It cannot be used on rock or soil.

Years ago I took a tour thru the Mammoth caves. The guide told us that it took millions of years for the stallagmites and stallagtites to grow together. I asked him how old was the concrete walkway. He said just a few years old. I then asked him how did those stalagemites and stallagtites grow on the walkway? Naturally he had no answer because he was just following a pre-arranged monologue. (please excuse my mis-spelling)

Dear ZUMA,

very good information ! Your question is also very good.

I am wondering about, that C14 halflife time may be an evidence for date of God´s creation of the earth and universe ( approx 5700 years ). That sounds exciting !

Here in Germany in Heidelberg area we have much pressure against Bible believers .

(Read newspaper articles also in English )

Matze from Germany

Attachments:

The topic of this thread is the choice of self-identification we use: whether we should call ourselves "Young Earth Creationists" or not. Or whether we should use the term "Biblical Creationist" or some other language.

Zuma is making some excellent points but I fear they are lost on many of the participants of Creation Conversations. Perhaps Zuma would consider opening a thread on "Dating Methods" in a more suitable location, such as the "Forum Discussions" Page: http://www.creationconversations.com/forum

This information is interesting. However, it is irrelavent for computing the age of the earth. It ASSUMES that all radio-isotopes began at the same time and at a PREDETERMINED rate. That is like walking into a room and seeing a burning candle and try to guess how long it was when it started to burn. Too many assumptions. James Ussher in "Annuls of the World, 1658 AD" calculated that the earth was created in 4004 BC. That is close enough for me.

We have a Creation Museum just North of us. It has upset local atheists since it was built. They are also starting an Ark theme part close to the Museum. Local atheists also have tried to keep them from purchasing the needed land. God won out because they got the land anyway. GOD is GREAT!!

Need to be careful with term biblical literalist for to reasons 

1 not all the bible is literal (eg some is poetic many of the psalms

some is allegory such as trees clapping their hands etc

We know that the bible teaches a literal 6 24 hour day creation but some buy in to the gap theory and other variants of old eath thought which brings me to point 2

2 some say the bible teaches a gap between gen 1:1 and 1:2

they to will say they are bible literalists and make claims that they believe in a literal 6 day creation but that there is a gap early on that is taught in scripture and will pull other various verses out of context to back this view up. 

The real kicker is the entire bib le is literal it is just that in some places it's literalness is poetic or allegorical.

Take the trees clapping their hands. While trees do not have hands and arms etc in heavy winds quakes etc their limbs will slap together much like hands clapping. During the tribulation period we hear that the rocks will cry out. And they will do just that in cracking creaking and  groaning sounds. I think to come up with a single simple title for our selves is a hard thing. Many words terms etc have been highjacked by every one from atheists to well meaning compromising Christians.

One decent title for our selves that avoids some confusion is Biblical young earth creationist. Though i have seen some gap theory people use this tern to apply to them self. They really did not have much of a leg to stand on in using it. But they still tried. Ill start a new thread to just post your/our ideas for a more descriptive title for what we believe. 

Peter Bilmer said:

Very good point.
I wanted to ask this question, too. :D
Here some of my suggestions:

1. Biblical literalist

2. Evolution skeptic ( sorry skeptics, WE are the skeptics )

3. Skeptic/doubter of the theory of evolution

There are as much terms as one can find.
Important thing:
Don't let disciples of the theory of evolution label or tag you.
Don't let them determine things.
I'd like to see some rhetoric and dialectic courses for Christians.
Most important thing:
Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you.

I am a biblical creationist. I am not Young Earth.

The Bible teaches that the Earth and the Universe is Old. The Bible teaches that the whole creation is about 6000 years old. It is a case of bowing to the definition of terms and the language of the God-deniers to identify the relative age of the universe by way of comparison to the ludicrous time from invented by the fantasy of Evolution. We are not "young." We are biblical. And the Bible says that the earth and the heavens are old. 6000 years is old. 6000 years is reality.

13.6 billion years and 4 billions years are not reality but fantasy.

"Young Earth" is simply not biblical.

And in addition, it leaves open the question of the relative age of the universe - Young Biological Earth, ANCIENT Universe and Solar System and ancient cosmic earth - is this acceptable? Not according to Genesis 1:31-2:4 with Exodus 20:11.



Allen J Dunckley said:

I whole heartedly agree. This could be applied to what is true Christianity -- that is Biblical Christianity.

All of these titles are good. However, I just want to call myself a Creationist. This opens lots of possibilities for a question and answer dialog. Which may open conversation to talk about Jesus and His saving blood. I believe all discussions about creation or the bible should bve aimed at moving a person closer to The Lord.   my 2 cents

Nice to see you again John Coons! I am still here, same guy, as the James (Jim) Brenneman above.

Regardless of who it might offend, our correct identification is "Biblical Creationists" -

Young Earth is adequate, but not accurate. We not only believe that the Earth is relatively Young, but indeed the whole UNIVERSE is young. We are more properly "Young EVERYTHING Creationists"

But the problem with allowing the word "young" to be applied to the time of Creation is that it allows the RIDICULOUS MYTHOLOGY of 13.76 billion years to define the debate.

And as I pointed out above, the Bible describes the creation as "ancient" and says that it is "of old" - AND in the Bible that is how 6000 years is described - "ancient" and "of old."

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service