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?

This question arose in the context of arguments about extraterrestrial intelligent species. Some Christians, especially among Young Earth Creationists, believe that we can rule out the possibility of ETs on the basis of Scripture. Anyway, my intention here is not to prove or disprove that, but rather on some ideas which have appeared within the discussion. This article by Gary Bates makes many arguments for that conclusion, and I'm wondering about one specific part of the argument, namely the assumption throughout that ETs must have immortal souls, just as we do (I know some schools of thought dispute this; those are outside the scope of the question). They bring up an idea from Michael Heiser that "Just like ‘bunny rabbits’ on the earth, they do not need salvation—even though they will die, they are going to neither heaven nor hell." The respond thus: > And Heiser’s ETs in spaceships require a level of intelligence not found in rabbits. This acutely highlights the injustice of their suffering the effects of the Curse, including death and ultimately extinction when the heavens are ‘rolled up like a scroll’ (Revelation 6:14). It also seems bizarre to assign no moral responsibility for the actions of highly intelligent beings. But this response is somewhat oblique - Heiser's argument isn't that they aren't morally accountable (at least not as presented by Bates), but rather that they don't go to heaven or hell. Bates seems to be a tacit assumption here that an immortal soul is a prerequisite either for intelligence or for moral responsibility. It isn't clear which, but in either case, I'd like to understand the philosophical underpinnings here a little better. **Have some Christian philosophers made the case that moral accountability and/or rational intelligence require an immortal soul?** If so, what reasoning is used to argue for that conclusion?

Here's a debate between Hugh Ross of "Reasons to Believe" and Ken Ham. These men are popular spokesmen for each of Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, respectively. In the hour-long discussion, Ken repeatedly shuts down any use of passages other than Genesis to get information about the details of creation. For example, he didn't want to talk about how Job (9:8) or Psalms (104:2) speak of God "stretching the heavens" Setting aside the whole YEC/OEC debate for the moment, is there a biblical reason to limit creation-detail information to the book of Genesis?

To begin, I do believe in a young earth because that is how I interpret scripture, and I do not see any irrefutable evidence… yet… to dissuade me from my beliefs. When observation conflicts with our Biblical understanding, it is our Biblical understanding that is in error, such as was the case with the Catholic Church’s defense of a geocentric model against Copernicus’, and later Galilei’s, observational evidence of the heliocentric model. The reason that I believe in a young earth, yet a big bang, could most likely be based on an ignorant idea that I hold but do not have the ken (pun intended) to fully understand and my ideas will likely allude to my ignorance. This is why I am posing the question here as I cannot find any evidence to defend or disprove my theory and my understanding of cosmology is juvenile at best. I understand that immediately following the big bang, science believes that there was a rapid expansion period where matter expanded faster than the speed of light for a small fraction of a second. I vaguely understand that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity breaks down at the event horizon of this expansion. My question is this… How do we know how long the period of rapid expansion was, and how do we know how much the universe expanded in that period? Is it possible that when God said “Let there be light” that He unleashed the big bang and the universe expanded to well beyond where the earth was created. Additionally, we know that time is relative to gravity. When the universe was denser, would time not have had the effect of being exponentially faster than on the fringes of the expansion where time would be relatively slower due to lower density of mass? Again, some of the points I have discussed likely allude to my ignorance. There are likely answers to these questions with solid science behind them. I realize that I might not have the background to understand some of these answers but if someone could attempt to explain this in as layman of term that they can, I would greatly appreciate it.

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?

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?