Your question, "What do YEC's makeof the fine tuning of the universe?" is spot on!. It was when I discovered the fine tuning of the universe that I immediately changed my views to an Old Universe. The reason is that it underscored the truth of Romans 1:18-20 by which we are told that the universe contains sufficient evidence to condemn men for their unbelief. Cosmological ID is a confirmation of this scripture. There is no young earth position that can apply the Romans passage to all mankind.

In other words, Genesis 1 is not the only Scripture that is at stake in this discussion.

Don
Don Curtis | Homepage | 07.01.05 - 2:49 pm | #

Mrowr. Another YEC vs OEC catfight. Count me out.
Gumpngreen | 07.01.05 - 9:31 pm | #

Genesis 1
...
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

How many eons represent the day. And then how many eons represent the night.

Again, you put science (mans very limited knowledge of things, so far, above simple words of God's omnipotent creating ability.

You simply do not know the infinite power of God. Even when explained in the simplest terms "and the evening and morning were the first day."
RG | 07.02.05 - 1:48 am | #

Christian songs that praise Jesus Christ don't have to be stodgy. GIVING MY REGARDS TO JESUS is living proof. Hear it at http://www.deanberryministries.o...org/ index4.html.
DEAN BERRY -- REAL AMERICAN | 07.03.05 - 12:18 pm | #

Hey David,
Thanks for the interesting post. I will probably say more a bit later as I am about to head off for the day.

Just to clarify, I in no way think your salvation is in jepordy and If my manner is blunt sometimes, it is not out of spite, but just the way I communicate (Ask anyone who knows me well and they will confirm this).

You have raised some interesting points and I hope I can further the discussion soon.

Cheers
Alan Grey | Homepage | 07.04.05 - 2:37 am | #

Well said. I can never understand why YECers feel they must prove that creation was a literal 6 days. There is nothing Biblically, let alone scientifically that would suggest that a young earth is the case. A literal interpretation is just as much an interpretation as a figurative one. Unfortunately for the YECers, the figurative "time frame" (while still a literal creation) has both solid exegetical AND scientific support.
Matt Jones | Homepage | 07.05.05 - 8:06 pm | #

Does God really need scientific support to test His works? If God meant something more than a DAY in Genesis, why didn't DAY come out to be a larger frame of time when Moses was inspired by God to record Genesis?

People were not stupid back then. They knew time frames beyond a day. And yes, there is scientific support for young earth, too, even though Genesis spells out the time frame.
Elvis | 07.24.05 - 11:23 pm | #

Except that figurative language is used throughout the Bible, why should you exclude that possibility from Genesis just because you think the Earth should be young?
Matt Jones | Homepage | 07.25.05 - 7:47 pm | #

Why should you exclude the possibility that the earth is young as described in Genesis because you think it should be old?
Elvis | 07.25.05 - 9:45 pm | #

Hmm, I'm wrestling with YEC vs OEC. I lean toward OEC, but Kenneth Gentry's apologia for a literal six day creation episode is very good, and the exegesis appears sound to me on a first pass. Other than the gross discomfort of dealing with the paradox of a six day creation and (apparent) evidence of a much older universe, could someone recommend an exegetic study of the creation account from an OEC viewpoint?
malm | 08.11.05 - 4:15 pm | #