Did you know that you can believe in a Young Earth and still be respectable towards Science?

Question

I submit my step-father for evidence. He firmly and quite adimitly believes in a 6,000 year old Earth. (He is very disappointed in me that I don't follow suit, LoL) Yet my step-father has signed the papers that when he dies he wants his body donated for Science purposes.

He isn't the most brilliant person in the world. But he is a good person. He is a hard worker and loves his family and I look up to him in so many ways. Even though he may still believe in a "Young Earth" he still has the upmost respect for Science.

I just wanted to share this with my R&S folks because I have see a lot of Young Earthers who are "against" Science.

***Please forgive me for not utilizing spell checker.***

I don't think you guys understand what I am saying. Why did you take this as an oppurtunity to attack me or my step father? He respects Science. You can respect Science and not agree with all of its conclusions.

*As I stated earlier, very clearly, I personally am not a young earther.*

Answer 1

awesome. i'm a young earther who is also not against science. thanks for the story!

Answer 2

Science and religion can make for tumultuous bedfellows, but people sometimes make it work I guess!

Many people pick and choose the religious tenants that make sense for them, sometimes allowing them to find a place for science within their worldview. There are plenty of people who would call themselves religious yet still believe in evolution, or respect the achievements and advancements in medicine and technology that science has produced.

-- After reading some of the other comments I actually just wanted to respond to what others said about not being able to pick and choose from science. The whole idea of science is that nothing is ever definitively proven. There can only ever be overwhelming evidence in support of a hypothesis. Unlike religion, science promotes and encourages opposing viewpoints, and many scientists take sides on unresolved questions, effectively choosing which hypothesis to believe. The difference is that the belief is temporary, and once the evidence is collected, scientists are more than willing to change if the other explanation seems better. That said, it's pretty well established within science that the Earth is way more than 6,000 years old. I don't see that view being overturned any time soon. But the beauty of science is that it leaves open the possibility that somewhere down the road we could discover something which does overturn that view.

Answer 3

God didn't use magic to create it all, which is the only way He could do it in 6000 Yrs's. Some proof of the time He took to do it: The light of most of the stars we see (not planets and moons,) are so far away that even moving at 186,000 miles per second, the light takes millenia to reach us. We've seen stars, telescopically, whose lights have taken a million or more years to reach Earth. In fact, we can see light from the first 300,000 years after the creation (called the Big Bang that happened 12- to 15-billion years ago.)
Religion and science for the most part greatly desire for science and religion to mesh. The key is to understand that God has put it all together in a sensible, scientific manner that's becoming easier and easier for science to understand in their own lingo. God was an architect, not a magician -- everybody knows magicians are faking it. God didn't create a tree -- He created the conditions for soil to nurture a seed that took eons to show up.
Beyond that, ours is not the only universe in the infinite cosmos. You have to accept that there may be trillions of civilizations in the cosmos, that have deities that may possibly actually live with them.

It's easy to wrap yourself up in a belief system that ignores all other possibility, but.......if it floats your pew.......and slakes your curiosity, get the most out of it.

Answer 4

I even have a senario/question(s) for you. think of they taught evolution in all faculties......Will they practice that people got here from apes and monkeys?? (even in spite of the undeniable fact that apes and monkeys are nonetheless around at present)...So how might that paintings out?? Wouldnt that mean that they might could desire to tell the youngsters that the monkeys and apes they see at present progressed from people? And by using organic threat, parrots can communicate, caterpillars can advance wings, and ladies can purely get inpregnated by using men. then you definitely'll could desire to describe how a trifling explosion made it so earth is the suitable distance from the sunlight, gets 4 seasons, is purely approximately the only planet with people, animals, trees, drinkable water, grass, etc. WOW!!!!...think of with regard to the questions you would be confronted with!...u understand how infants are...they had possibly ask, "Why didnt the huge explosion (huge Bang) blast the multiple organisms (that later progressed into apes) that in the time of turn progressed into people ( and different creatures) onto different planets additionally, somewhat of purely earth?" "And why didnt that explosion provide Mars rivers and Jupiter rainforests????" i might initiate preparation your instructors now to respond to questions like that....u understand how infants can experience lies. lol

Answer 5

I'm a flat earther, and I am also not anti-science. There are only a few things I disagree with the mainstream on:

optics, gravity, newtonian physics, fluid dynamics, meteorology, angular momentum, impedence mismatch, solar dynamics, and orbital pathways.

These issues are still under dispute and there are many raging arguments going on. All the evidence so far supports flat earth.

Answer 6

"You can respect Science and not agree with all of its conclusions. "

Sorry, but belief in "young earth" rejects far too many scientific conclusions to be respected by me. The only reason to hold to YE dogma is stubborn head-in-the-sand willful ignorance. Don't mock science by pleading otherwise.

Answer 7

Being respectful of science, means all science, not the cherry picked parts you like or fit with your religion.

I'm sorry but you are deluded.

There is ABSOLUTELY no debate among scientist about the approximate age of the earth, and it is not young.

Answer 8

Being a YEC doesn't make one a bad person, just insanely misinformed and incredibly selective of what science they accept (basically whatever suits their beliefs).
YEC's aren't usually outwardly "against" science per se, but their actions and words show otherwise.

Answer 9

sure they can, as long as they ignore most of geology, astronomy, physics, and biology. their idea of science seems to be engineering, medicine, and collecting random facts about nature with no effort at putting together a coherent theoretical structure. it is a medieval conception of science and i don't much care if they respect it, i don't respect it.

Answer 10

What about dinosaurs? Pyramids? Geographical evidence? Plate tectonics? Gyko Commercials? It just doesn't add up to only being 6,000 years old. It's older, no doubt about it.

Answer 11

I credit him for his wishes upon his death, but not for ignoring what we've known for over 150 years: the earth is much older.