Young Earth Creationists (YEC) and fundamentalist flat earthers continue to look to Genesis 1 for an explanation of cosmogony. Did the Catholic Church ever admit that science triumphed over pre-scientific religious origin stories?

According to Genesis 5:5, Adam lived for 930 years. From a biological standpoint, cell division is a key part of growth and aging. My question is: If Adam’s cells continued to divide over such a long lifespan, does that imply he may have experienced continuous physical growth, possibly resulting in a giant-like stature? I'm especially interested in whether young-Earth creationist or literalist interpretations of Genesis support the idea that Adam was physically much larger than modern humans, particularly in light of ancient environments that may have included large animals (e.g., dinosaurs). Or is it more likely that his size was similar to ours, and the long lifespan simply reflected slower aging without continuous physical growth?

I'm curious about the relationship between those who adhere to young-earth creationism, and those who adhere to Rapture theology (as expressed in the *Left Behind* series, for example, and similar related belief systems most commonly associated with fundamentalism and dispensationalism). Are these, generally, the same people? Or is there a large divergence between these two groups? I know a good many Christians who believe in both. I know a few who reject both. I don't know specifically of anyone who accepts one view, but rejects the other, although they may exist and I just don't know because the discussion topic hasn't come up. And at least superficially, they both appear to have their roots in fundamentalism. But I wonder how substantial this similarity is. To be a bit more specific, 1. Are there any theological foundations on which both views are built? Or does one view depend in any way on the other? (Does Rapture theology depend on an literal Adam, for instance.) 2. What is the cultural relationship between the two theologies? If we were to, for example, draw a Venn diagram of these two theologies, what would it look like? Have any polls or studies been done on this topic?

In [Genesis 5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+5&version=ESV) , a brief account of the lives of Adam's descendants is narrated. All of them had long lives, for instance, Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, etc. But in [Genesis 6:3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6%3A3&version=ESV) , God seems to shorten the lifespan of man to 120 years or at least that's what I understood reading that verse. **Did I understand it right? How is this fact explained by people who consider Genesis to be literal history?**

I am not trying to be argumentative, this is an earnest question, as this question got me in huge trouble when I was growing up attending a southern baptist Christian middle school. This question (and people's reactions to it) is actually one of the things that lead my away from the church as a teenager (which I later came back to). If the speed of light is constant and we can see distant objects (stars, galaxies, etc) that are millions or billions of light years away how can we account for a young age of the universe? - My father, at that time, was convinced that the speed of light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe. Although, I have never seen any credible evidence of this, and it would seem that measurements taken at CERN (and elsewhere) would be seriously affected if the speed of light was not a constant. - My 8th grade science teacher said it was because objects used to be closer than they are now, and have moved away from each other over time. However, if the universe was only 10k years old, and two objects started next to each other and traveled away from each other at nearly the speed of light, the most distant objects in the universe would still only appear to be a little less then 10k light years away. - God creating the universe with photons in flight, making the distant universe (and therefore past events) only *appear* to be taking places (or even existing), is certainly deceptive and I cannot accept it. - Do YEC consider the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth two separate questions? My question isn't 'how old is the universe?', or 'did the big bang happen?', or 'creation vs evolution'. It is simply this: how do Christians, who are YEC, reconcile this? **Edit** Some have asked, why I cannot accept that God created photons in midflight giving the appearance of age? - In the [video series](http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/distant-starlight) @SeanDowney posted below, the presenter speaking against this argument shows a star that is 150k light years away that we observed blowing up. So, if God created photons in midflight then for 8k years God has been showing us a star that never existed and showed us an event (the start being destroyed) that never took place. - This is a specious argument in general, because I can make the same argument that God created the universe 5 minutes ago and all the evidence to the contrary (physical evidence, our memories of the past, etc.) were all put in place to give the appearance of age. In both these cases, God making the universe appear to be billions of years old, instead of 5 minutes old, or the universe appearing to be billions of years old instead of 10k years, involves deception on the part of God that I cannot accept God (or my conception of him) would perpetrate.

People don't seem to believe in the firmament as a literal barrier of water up in the sky that collapsed at Noah's flood. I want to say they don't believe in the firmament *anymore*, but I am doubtful most creationists did. Why? Is it because it is too fantastical? The problem is that such a notion seems to correlate with Genesis and seems to make a lot of other considerations more swallowable, such as the feasibility of centuries old lifespan, adequate conditions to sustain large animal life (dinosaurs, etc), and adequate water for a sudden flood. The only "scientific" model I've heard, coming from Dr Carl Baugh, asserts that waters from the deep under the earth came up and cracked open the firmament; his model is the only creation model that solves so many fundamental problems for creationism I am literally, truly perplexed as to how his model has been seemingly abandoned by the creationist community. I know of no direct arguments against this sort of firmament, except only alternative interpretations of its mention in Genesis. What am I missing? -- It is the "canopy theory", I believe, that I had in mind in posting the question. My own only exposure to this was from a presentation by Dr Carl Baugh and by reading his old book, Panorama of Creation. I have had difficulty finding *anyone* endorsing his model, and his model is the only one that answers several questions. My frustration comes out of watching modern depictions via illustrations, 3D graphics, and simulated film artwork, attempting to use fine detail to tell what Genesis earth was like but not filling in these gaps. Blue skies, clouds, rainbows, all post-Noah, all completely against Baugh's model. Does it matter? In an age when modern illustrations like Hollywood are referenced in dialogue with apologetics and truth seekers, yes, I believe so.

I was looking for information on whether, according to the LDS Church, the "days" in Genesis chapter 1 are literal 24-hour days or something else. I found this article at lds.org (aimed at a younger readership though) which states that > The Creation took six days and was done by Jesus Christ under the > direction of Heavenly Father. That seems to indicate that Mormons view those days as being 24-hour days. 1. Do Mormons view the creation days in Genesis chapter 1 as literal 24-hour days? 2. Or are they viewed as representing some other length of time?

There are several ways that Christians have tried to reconcile evolution with the Biblical narrative of creation. Theistic evolution is one option. Another is C.S. Lewis's way of how while the bodies undergo evolution, there was one historic couple Adam and Eve to whom God breathed "a new kind of consciousness" making the couple to be the one truly made in the "image of God" and that we all biologically descended from that couple thus sharing in their Fall consequences (see [this article](https://www.cslewis.org/journal/cs-lewis-on-intelligent-design/3/) referencing *The Problem of Pain*). Regardless, evolution over hundreds of thousands of years **necessitated many deaths** before the first species (or before 2 special members of a humanoid species) whom God stamped his image, and from whom we descended biologically, which young earth proponents adduce as one of the KEY theological obstacles if we take seriously Gen 1 where God pronounced his pre-Fall creation as "good". One Young Earth proponent said: > God can make use of death, but for it to be one of his primary creative tools paints the character of God in a very different light. with these as Biblical support: 1. Death itself is described as "enemy" (1 Cor 15:26): > The last enemy to be abolished is death. so how could God use death as a means of creation? 2. In the restoration (presumably to the condition before the Fall), there is no death per Isa 11:6-9: > The wolf will dwell with the lamb,and the leopard will lie down with the goat. ... An infant will play beside the cobra’s pit, and a toddler will put his hand into a snake’s den. ... **They will not harm or destroy each other on my entire holy mountain,** ... 3. In Rom 8:19-23 we read > ... For the creation was subjected to futility -- not willingly, but because of him who subjected it -- in the hope that the creation itself will also **be set free from the bondage to decay** into the glorious freedom of God's children. ... But groaning, suffering and decay is usually seen by YECs as referring to the consequences of the fall wrought by God's curse ("because of him who subjected it", see [answer to the question "Who subjected the creation to futility in Rom 8:20-21"](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/159/3849)) . If death is part of the creative process then it's not decay. Thus, my question is: **How do Christians holding some role of evolution defend against Young Earth proponents' charge that the many deaths required by evolution is adding blemish to God's character, or is counter to God's pronouncing creation as "good"?**

In Gen 1, the "wildlife of the earth" were created on the 6th day (Gen 1:24-25) *after* the vegetations (3rd day) and the "first couple" last. But in Gen 2, Adam was created in v. 7 *before* the "wild animal" (v. 19-20) while Adam named them, before Eve was created. Those who use the [Framework view](https://biologos.org/series/science-and-the-bible/articles/the-framework-view-history-and-beliefs) to interpret Gen 1 doesn't have a problem because they see Gen 2:4-25 as *another* creation story that is functionally different (more in terms of man's and woman's role in creation as caretaker of Earth [symbolized as the Garden of Eden in its pre-Fall state](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/104562/10672)) . But how would strict 6 day Creationists (especially those who interpret Genesis 1-12 historically) interpret the 2nd creation account where there seems to be a contradiction in the sequence of events?

Young Earth Creationists believe in a young earth, followed by a literal global flood based on the belief that Scripture is written as history. Often, in comments, discussion forums, and discussions in general, they will refer to "overwhelming physical evidence" that backs up their theological belief. What phsyical evidence do they teach or believe can be interpreted as consistent with the idea of a global flood?

(Note that this is the same Question as https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104555 , but asking for a different group's views.) Hereditary diseases include color blindness, Down's syndrome, hemophilia, sickle cell disease, and albinism. Sexually transmitted diseases includes chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, HIV/AIDS, and syphilis, at least some of which can also be transmitted from parent to child. All of these diseases require that another person — either a parent or sexual partner — has previously had the condition. If all of humanity starts from Adam and Eve, this implies that Adam and Eve must have carried all of these diseases in order for them to be passed on to their offspring. Did God created Adam and Eve loaded with all those diseases? How do Christians which deny Common Descent and believe that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve some few thousand years ago explain this situation?

Genesis 1:21-22 > So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing > with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to > their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw > that it was good > > God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and > fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." Genesis 1:24 > And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to > their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, > and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. For example :
A. God create a bunch of elephants, cows, doves, eagles, penguins, dolphins, dogs, ants, snakes, etc etc ... here and there across the earth - male and female. B. God create 2 elephants, 2 cows, 2 doves, 2 eagles, 2 penguins, 2 dolphins, 2 ants, 2 snakes, etc etc ... male and female for each type and they are all in one place ---> Something like when on the 6th day we go to a zoo or to an African Safari, many types of animal are there - but there are only two for each type, male and female. C. Almost like B, but the two elephants on the most North of the earth, the two doves somewhere on other part of the earth, the two penguins on the most South of the earth, **the two snakes exactly in the Eden Garden**, etc etc. In other words, the size of the "African Safari" is as big as the earth size :). So, according to the YEC - is it A or B or C ? Thank you.

There are a several prominent Christian denominations which include young earth creationism as official dogma, such as the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod which I grew up in. Many other denominations do not have any official stance on creationism, such as the far more liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. And, of course, lots of Christians are not young earth creationists, including lots of people I know personally, as well as famous figures such as Pope Francis and William Lane Craig. **I am wondering whether there is any Christian denomination which, as an organization, officially opposes young earth creationism.** I was unable to find any examples by a quick Google search, or by consulting ChatGPT. The closest example that I can find is the Catholic Church, whose Canon 337 says: > God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day. On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God." This, and some of the other canons, plainly *lean* towards a non-YEC interpretation of Genesis 1, but does not strictly require it. The word *symbolically* in the second sentence is only expressly applied to God "working" and "resting", and in any case there is no reason why "symbolic" and "literal" meanings cannot coexist. See this article on Catholic Answers for a good summary of the Catholic teaching regarding creation and evolution. In short, Catholic dogma lends itself to theistic evolution (which is the view of the three most recent popes), but does not require it. So, my question is: **Is there any Christian denomination which goes a step beyond this and certifies a non-YEC position as official doctrine?**

Young-Earth Creationists, as far as I understand it, believe that Proto-Indo-European was one of the languages spoken immediately after the Tower of Babel, that is, around 2200 BC. Obviously, you need to reject glottochronology for that, as glottochronology dates Proto-Celtic to 3200 BC, and Proto-Indo-European is therefore dated way earlier, but not every linguist accepts glottochronology (which is based on the assumption that words on the Swadesh List are replaced at a constant rate). However, as far as I understand it, all historical linguists agree that Proto-Afro-Asiatic was spoken way earlier than Proto-Indo-European. According to mainstream linguistics, Proto-Afro-Asiatic was spoken somewhere between 16'000 BC and 10'000 BC. The earliest attested Afro-Asiatic languages (Egyptian and Akkadian) were attested very early and they were not closely related. One of the earliest Egyptian writings is the Narmer Palette, dated, by the mainstream history, to around 3'100 BC. And the earliest Akkadian inscriptions are dated to 2'400 BC. And they were not closely related languages. Proto-Afro-Asiatic had to be spoken thousands of years before that. Now, Young-Earth Creationists dispute such early datings of the inscriptions. Young-Earth Creationists believe that the Narmer Palette dates to around 2'000 BC. I don't know what they think about the earliest Akkadian inscriptions. But, either way, since Akkadian and Egyptian were obviously not closely related languages, Proto-Afro-Asiatic had to be spoken thousands of years before those earliest inscriptions. So, do the Young-Earth-Creationists believe that Proto-Afro-Asiatic language existed? And if so, when?

Does Young Earth Creationism teach that Adam and Eve only had a concept of morality after the fall, once they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? If so, would they have been unaccountable for their actions before the fall?

What is Young-Earth Creationism, and the Biblical basis for it?

I’m aware that modern scientific theories propose an ice bridge which allowed for travelers to reach the Americas and that this fact accounts for the existence of Native Americans (and South American tribes, etc.). However, it would seem to be problematic on YEC to propose a similar idea given that the ice bridge is dated much earlier than 6000 or 4200 years ago (4200 being when answers in genesis dates the Tower of Babel). So what is the explanation for the human population in America, especially at the scale which it was presumably at?

This is an attempt at an on-topic and useful version of [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/37198/is-creationism-falsifiable) - any edits or feedback to ensure that it meets both of those aims are welcome. To clarify the key term in use: > Falsifiability is the ability of a theory—a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena—to be disproved by an experiment or observation. - Rationalwiki In my opinion, an ideal answer will be structured as an overview of different forms of Creationism with brief descriptions of any relevant theories including references.

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennial_Day_Theory) states that Young Earth Creationists are among [premillennialists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism) , as well as several early church fathers, who believe that > human history will continue for 6,000 years and then will enjoy Sabbath for 1,000 years (the millennial kingdom) thus all of human history will have a total of 7,000 years prior to the [new creation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_to_Come) . **Question**: What have been the year(s) suggested by post-2000 YEC / premillennialists to be the year 6000 since the creation of earth? **Optional question**: If they still use the [Ussher Chronology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology) (see also an article on [suggestions for correction](https://answersresearchjournal.org/comments-usshers-date-of-creation/)) , how do they correct the calculation, since by straightforward addition year 6000 should have occurred in 1996 AD ? ----------- Related question: [Quotations from the early church fathers who support the Jewish year 6000 as significant to eschatology](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84736/10672)

Young Earth Creationists often argue that denying a young age for the Earth amounts to adopting the naturalist/materialist perspective prevalent in secular science. They suggest that this denial disregards a straightforward reading of Genesis, which they argue is the most natural interpretation of the text, thus denying the reliability of God's Word and essentially portraying God as untruthful. However, since God cannot lie, proponents of YEC maintain that it logically follows that God cannot be deceptive in Genesis, leading to the conclusion that the Earth must indeed be young, that is, if we concede that a plain reading of Genesis is arguably the most natural and rational way of approaching the text. In response, how do Christians who hold differing views on the age of the Earth address this argument? --- The following [article](https://answersingenesis.org/answers/feedback/let-god-be-true-and-every-man-a-liar/) , published on *Answers in Genesis*, should serve as a good illustration of what I'm talking about: > ## “Let God Be True and Every Man a Liar.” > > “Many Christians believe in evolution because they figure the vast majority of scientists can't be wrong, or that they wouldn't lie -- I was one of those.” > >> I just read your article online, “A Young Earth—It’s Not the Issue!”. > The thrust of Ham’s argument in this article reflects my own > experience with the evolution/creation debate. Many Christians believe > in evolution because they figure the vast majority of scientists can’t > be wrong, or that they wouldn’t lie -- I was one of those. This forced > me to conclude that the creation account in the bible was symbolic, > which then led me to question many other passages -- the collapse of > the walls of Jericho,the parting of the Red Sea, and whether Lazarus > was really dead. “is this real? or merely symbolic? If it’s only > symbolic, what does it mean?” >> >> Many christians have rejected a former belief in evolution by the > efforts of creation science organizations which expose the scientific > flaws in evolutionary theory. They come to question the science of > evolution, then declare a belief in the word. >> >> My path was different. I was firmly persuaded of the scientific > evidence. The problem was that what I believed contradicted the > plaintext of bible, and I had to choose one or the other. For me, the > decision to believe the word came first, and the validation of the > word by scientific evidence came later. >> >> In light of the irreconcilable conflict between evolution and the > word, I decided simply to accept the Genesis creation account as true, > and review all I had previously believed about evolution in that > light. In other words, I had to reject what I believed, accept what I > had firmly rejected, and reframe and restructure my understanding of > the word and of science. >> >> Why? What prompted me to do this? Consider the vast amounts of > information in the world -- from encyclopedias to construction > diagrams to the Internet -- and now consider just how little, how very > few words are contained in the bible. And yet, in this extremely > concise record of the history of God’s interaction with his people, > one of the things he chose to tell us was how he made the world. He > must have considered it very important. And here I was, rejecting that > account as untrue because I believed men rather that God. The same > people who deny the creation account on scientific grounds also deny > the resurrection of Christ, and yet I had chosen to believe that. >> >> So I simply rejected the word of men, without waiting for supposedly > logical or scientific reasons to do so. “Let God be true and every man > a liar.” [Romans 3:4] >> >> It was extremely unsettling, but over several weeks, through prayer, > research, and faith that God would lead me, I found my faith affirmed. > Moreover, accepting God’s word as being factually correct has opened > doors for my faith that I had never known were there. >> >> Can God save Christians who reject his account of the creation? I’m > sure he can. But they deny themselves the riches of fully trusting > God, and knowing their faith pleases him, as did Abraham’s. >> >> And most critically, those Christians overlook the harm done to the > next generation of Christians who are taught not to take God’s word > too seriously. It’s tragic, and they should know better. >> >> – Manuel Edwards, USA --- See also: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101322/61679