YEC vs OEC

[gnostic]

I would like some clarification before the real debate start, and do so with some questions.

I know what YEC (Young Earth Creationism), but I am not too certain about the belief and teachings of Old Earth Creationism (OEC)...

Do the OEC accept science that the Earth is over 4.6 billion years old and the universe 13.7 billion years old?

Do OEC accept the theory on the Big Bang cosmology or expanding universe cosmology?

If not, what do they accept regarding to the start of the universe?​

Do OEC accept evolution?

If yes, is OEC the same as - "theistic evolution"?
If no, then what is their stance regarding to evolution?​

And lastly, is being an Old Earth creationist a person choice or the rule of your church?

Once you have sated my curiosity about OEC, then we can debate over why one is better or truer than the other. Or go with "How do OEC differ from YEC"?

Note, that I have polls for "creationists", ONLY.

 

[littlefire]

*gets the popcorn ready*

 

[George-ananda]

I think you need to give us the definition of OE creationist. YEC is a commonly known term but OEC is not in my experience. I voted OEC anyway.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

OEC is a broader category than YEC is, in my experience. Some, like many Catholics, accept billions of years old Earth and evolution (albeit theistic), whereas Jehovah's Witnesses accept billions if years old Earth but a literal creation event and no evolution. I've also seen OEC with special creation for humans but not other animals.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think you need to give us the definition of OE creationist. YEC is a commonly known term but OEC is not in my experience. I voted OEC anyway.

The term is usually defined with a Christian-centric theme because the Creationism movement was specifically Christian. So the use of the term in non-Christian circles is still pretty new. The vast majority of Christians these days subscribe to an OEC model with divinely driven evolution. The only thing that seems to be agreed on by most creationists is a rejection of abiogenesis, or life arising through natural process without divine creation (biogenesis). Though I've met some deists that don't (big brother didn't create the universe for you.)

Long story short, I think OEC can be defined as anything with billion year Earth timeline that is not Naturalism, really.

 

[Deeje]

I believe in Intelligent Design with an old earth and a slow and deliberate crafting of all things by the most gifted scientist in existence. This includes the Universe. I do not believe that the creative "days" were 24 hour periods, but epochs of long duration.

Since the Creator does not go into scientific detail about "how" he created, we only have in our present knowledge "that" he created...."what" he created, and the order in which they were brought into existence.

Tantilizing details await us as our knowledge increases along with our brain capacity. Both future.

 

[George-ananda]

The term is usually defined with a Christian-centric theme because the Creationism movement was specifically Christian. So the use of the term in non-Christian circles is still pretty new. The vast majority of Christians these days subscribe to an OEC model with divinely driven evolution. The only thing that seems to be agreed on by most creationists is a rejection of abiogenesis, or life arising through natural process without divine creation (biogenesis). Though I've met some deists that don't (big brother didn't create the universe for you.)

Long story short, I think OEC can be defined as anything with billion year Earth timeline that is not Naturalism, really.

Thanks, I guess I have to stick with my OEC vote although I am not comfortable with the term. It sounds too earth-centric for such an grand concept as creation.

 

[gnostic]

I think you need to give us the definition of OE creationist. YEC is a commonly known term but OEC is not in my experience.

I don't know myself, because it is rather vague.

 

[Dell]

I'm a resent OEC convert in a church that teaches YEC. After taking the time to study basic Astrophysics, Cosmology, Paleontology, and Geology it was like a light turned on.

As far as evolution, it would also make perfect sense that God could direct it by changing DNA from species to species (forming man from clay). Also the fact all life forms use DNA would seem to suggest that life has a single point of origin. Also the fact that human medicines are developed via animal testing that have DNA closely simular to ours.

When I was a young YEC I had difficulty overlooking obvious facts and couldn't swallow any longer desperate attempts by YEC teachers to explain away some basic things.. light year in relation to the observable universe, element creation, physics, fossil time frames in Geogical Columns, etc.

Something I've noticed even in some real good Christian people that faith can blur reality. Lot of Christians ignore simple facts, assume wrong ideas and believe the impossible. 6 day creation or 6000 year existence of earth is a physical impossibility like 1+1=3. Simply, atoms we are made of can't be created, fused, compounded, and form complicated matter in an instant without annihilating.. E=MC2 .. it had to have been a gradual process.

Multiple doctrines from the same scripture prove that Christians have a problem with interpretation, so facts and obvious evidence has its place in interpretation. YEC dont have proven evidence to support their interpretation like OEC.

 

[viole]

As far as evolution, it would also make perfect sense that God could direct it by changing DNA from species to species (forming man from clay).

And don't forget some tactical mass extinctions, killing asteroids, earthquakes, volcanoes explosions, continental drifts, climate changes, etc. every now and then. And make sure to design animals so that they can defend themselves from the design of other animals. Just keep adding levels of design on each of the contenders so that nobody can prevail....and starve afterwards.

You know. Just in case simple direct DNA manipulation might not produce the expected results.

I mean. Who wants to incarnate as a velociraptor to save them from sin? God forbid! Apes are so much more good looking.

Are you sure God knows what He is doing or what He wants?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dell]

Are you sure God knows what He is doing or what He wants?

Ciao

- viole

I like the reply a lot, made me laugh, reminds me of Lawrence Krauss. Evolving a human would logically be from transformation to transformation, in a specific stream... I wouldn't expect required human components to develope directly from a trilobite or velociraptor or clay. How competitive would it have been if dino's didn't go extinct.. trex would be been fat and happy on human ancestors, probably impacting human probability some..

That said, is there not intelligent design... by us. Intelligent design is as much a fact as evolution is. We will be god ourselves in the near future when it comes to biology, nanotech, and AI. How much suffering of animal life will we have to cause to get to what we want in our DNA? We already are causing one hell of an extinction event in the last 100 years of large mammals for technologies sake. We ourselves are also proverbally riding a tigers back.

There may be more to being created in God's image than we have realized. Knowlege of Good and Evil. He (man) has become as one of us. Just a thought ..

God or ancient super intelligence is not inconceivable. I think man has greedly used the name of God in history to social advantage... religion has left a bad mark on human history.

 

[Dell]

Btw I did fail to say Viole did make a very logical point. It would not make any sense for a God like being to evolve anything in the manor of what the fossel record witnesses on this earth. Only an ancient intelligence that is incapable of greater than light travel like us would.

 

[gnostic]

I mean. Who wants to incarnate as a velociraptor to save them from sin? God forbid! Apes are so much more good looking.

Not if I was to look like this:

 

[gnostic]

Intelligent design is as much a fact as evolution is.

No, ID is not fact.

For it to be "fact", you would need actual evidences for the physical manifestation of the Designer that he exist.

There are none.

All you have are adherents for ID saying life is so complex that it require a Designer. That's merely an assertion without evidences. Anyone can say such baseless things.

For instance, I could say humans and every animals were made by the Dollmaker.

Without evidences to support my claim about the Dollmaker, such as the evidences of the Dollmaker making living humans from dolls, then that's not fact.

No ID believers have been able to produce a single evidence for Designer, other than empty assertions.

Every now and then, one of these creationists will bring up the Watchmaker analogy, regarding to the design of watches required a designer of watches. I don't know the history of this analogy, but I think it originated in the 19th century, if not the 18th century, to compare the analogy with creationism. In the 21st century, Intelligent Designer advocates recycled this analogy for ID.

It is true that watchmaker make watches, but the analogy is still very flawed, since a real watchmaker is actually a living person, who has family and friends. He learned his trade by being an apprentice to a master watchmaker. And he got paid for his works, when he sell his watches or repair. He was born, lived and died; and that mean he would work, eat, drink, sleep, and do it all again the next day. And lastly, you could observe watchmaker do his work, and you can pick and as a customer you could choose what timepiece you want to buy.

A real watchmaker is not some invisible and immortal spiritual being. And a real watchmaker don't have any magical power, he isn't all-powerful, isn't all-knowing and cannot be everywhere at the same time.

The watchmaker analogy is poor analogy, and unrealistic to compare god or Designer to human watchmaker, because they are nothing alike.

The watchmaker analogy is not evidences for Intelligent Design, it is merely an allegory.

 

[LukeS]

I am an H-D truth pluralist. Like x-aletheism. (x is a variable, aletheism relates to truth). AKA sitting on the fence.

So there is a hyperspace of metaphycical realities: Evolution, YEC and OEC are all possible, and each one valid under certain interpretive rubrics but unprovable absolutely.



There may be absolute truth (?) but our access is limited, and stands on the shoulders of any one of a number of giants (Descartes' demon, Neo's Matrix etc) , but only one at a time.



Like someone hinted, "What if I am resurrected? Most people would say 'aha God exists after all'

...but it could just be a computer program we're in."

See:

 

[Sapiens]

No, ID is not fact.

For it to be "fact", you would need actual evidences for the physical manifestation of the Designer that he exist.

There are none.

All you have are adherents for ID saying life is so complex that it require a Designer. That's merely an assertion without evidences. Anyone can say such baseless things.

For instance, I could say humans and every animals were made by the Dollmaker.

Without evidences to support my claim about the Dollmaker, such as the evidences of the Dollmaker making living humans from dolls, then that's not fact.

No ID believers have been able to produce a single evidence for Designer, other than empty assertions.

Every now and then, one of these creationists will bring up the Watchmaker analogy, regarding to the design of watches required a designer of watches. I don't know the history of this analogy, but I think it originated in the 19th century, if not the 18th century, to compare the analogy with creationism. In the 21st century, Intelligent Designer advocates recycled this analogy for ID.

It is true that watchmaker make watches, but the analogy is still very flawed, since a real watchmaker is actually a living person, who has family and friends. He learned his trade by being an apprentice to a master watchmaker. And he got paid for his works, when he sell his watches or repair. He was born, lived and died; and that mean he would work, eat, drink, sleep, and do it all again the next day. And lastly, you could observe watchmaker do his work, and you can pick and as a customer you could choose what timepiece you want to buy.

A real watchmaker is not some invisible and immortal spiritual being. And a real watchmaker don't have any magical power, he isn't all-powerful, isn't all-knowing and cannot be everywhere at the same time.

The watchmaker analogy is poor analogy, and unrealistic to compare god or Designer to human watchmaker, because they are nothing alike.

The watchmaker analogy is not evidences for Intelligent Design, it is merely an allegory.

The watchmaker analogy is flawed because watches are not living, self-repairing and self-replicating organisms.

 

[gnostic]

The watchmaker analogy is flawed because watches are not living, self-repairing and self-replicating organisms.

Yes, and there is that too.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, and there is that too.

In addition there is a point that many do not consider. Simplicity is symptomatic of design, complexity is symptomatic of evolved system due to the need for kluges. I've never understood the use of just complexity as an argument for creation.

 

[Dell]

No, ID is not fact.

For it to be "fact", you would need actual evidences for the physical manifestation of the Designer that he exist.

There are none.

No, intelligent design is a fact.. we are doing it now and so much more in the future when we edit and improve our own DNA. Bio engineering.

No, we are not the creator, but we are intelligently designing on life and will change it..

My point is that intelligence to design could have predated us in 13b years.

 

[Dell]

BTW in 3017 we might be referred to as ancient DNA designers. And if we create synthetic life, then what is our title?