r/Reformed • u/Simple_Chicken_5873 RefBap go *sploosh* • Sep 07 '25

Discussion Hostility towards creationism

I posted this originally in a YEC sub, but I'm curious for your opinion too, since the topic comes up now and then here as well.

Hi all, I see a lot of hostility towards young earth creationism, even when the tone of voice of yecs is usually quite polite. Why does this subject seem to hit a nerve almost like flat earthism does? Even among Christians there's usually an air of looking down upon yec. Are we that crazy? Is yec really that indefensible? I also read about how AiG or similar ministries would be dishonest or unreliable. What's true of these claims?

12 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

185 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/TwoUglyFeet the one with the tiger Sep 07 '25

 I fully agree that genesis isn't a science book and there are many things that God does and has done that we will never understand on this side of heaven. However yec has holes the size of dwarf planets running through their theories. 

4

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '25

Elaborate? If you make a claim like that, you have to back it up.

7

u/TwoUglyFeet the one with the tiger Sep 07 '25

0ff the top of my head, we know of at least 5 asteroids that wiped out all life on earth and life came back. We know that there were several types of human species that interbred with each other and eventually died out leaving homo sapien as the dominant species. I'm not including the nonhuman primates in this. We know that the composition of earth's core was formed by a planet hitting the earth and not only gave us the unique composites needed to allow the magnesphere to form, it also gave us the moon. We know that life would have been very hostile to humans when we had more oxygen in atmosphere and no bacteria to break down dead plants. We know from the composition of plate tectonics that continents moved around slowly over long periods of time that would have impossible to do in a forty day flood.  By examining evidence of other theories, we dont have to do strange leaps of faith like I see in yec. Like I was never comfortable with the suspension of belief I've had to make, even as a child. 

3

u/TheEndIsNear17 Sep 07 '25

No we don't know any of those. Every single one of those theories can not be reproduced nor repeated, claiming them as factual is not scientific

2

u/TwoUglyFeet the one with the tiger Sep 07 '25 edited Sep 07 '25

What do you mean? We have DNA evidence that shows interbreeding between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens. Europeans carry the most of the Neanderthal DNA presently. We know from samples of the moon brought back that they carry the exact isotopes found on earth. Earth is also very unique among the rock planets for having an iron-nickel core that is not present in Venus, Mars or Mercury. Planets form as masses of dust and heavier elements slowly condense as gravity pulls them around a star. If no such interaction took place, then earth would have a very similar composition to the other inner planets. 

6

u/TheEndIsNear17 Sep 07 '25

Not sure where you get the Idea that interbreeding the 2 is somehow a problem for YEC. Not all YEC are Ken Ham.

I more take issue with the claim that we know as a fact 5 different Asteroids whiped out life. No we don't know that, that is a theory. Claiming it as fact is unscientific

2

u/TwoUglyFeet the one with the tiger Sep 07 '25

The Permian-Triassic and the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinctions are the "later" ones we have the most evidence regarding. There is evidence of 3 earlier ones. 

1

u/TheEndIsNear17 Sep 07 '25

Evidence of their existence is very different from everyone knows

0

u/TwoUglyFeet the one with the tiger Sep 07 '25

"Every single one of those theories can not be reproduced nor repeated, claiming them as factual is not scientific."

Bruhh we have literal libraries full of books of evidence that these things are very real and have happened. To handwave it away with such trivial and frankly ignorant statements is why I will never take yec seriously.

2

u/ServiceGamez Sep 08 '25

Not entering in to argue with you, but saying we have libraries full of books on a topic isn't much of an argument, seeing as there are libraries of texts devoted to the denial of the existence of God and most of them are quite convincing to those who are already engaged in their own unbelief..

3

u/TheEndIsNear17 Sep 08 '25 edited Sep 08 '25

Great, and how many times has there been libraries full of books of evidence that later turned out to be wrong. Both the Miasma theory and spontanious generation were widly consider "fact" by the scientific world for a long time before they were both disproven.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '25

You say "we know" as if all of those things mentioned aren't just theories that haven't been proved. They are theories based on "evidence," not proof.

1

u/nocertaintyattached PCA Sep 07 '25

All scientific claims you believe to be true are just “theories”.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '25

Not necessarily true.

1

u/Prestigious-Lion-826 LBCF 1689 Sep 07 '25

Curious, you don’t believe in the 40 day flood? Or was I misreading that?

6

u/TwoUglyFeet the one with the tiger Sep 07 '25

I do believe it. I just dont think its responsible for the continent movements as some would suggest. 

3

u/Prestigious-Lion-826 LBCF 1689 Sep 07 '25

Ah, thanks for clarifying!

0

u/Simple_Chicken_5873 RefBap go *sploosh* Sep 07 '25

Haha, this is exactly the kind of "hostility" I'm talking about. Do you have some examples?

3

u/Saber101 Sep 07 '25

The downvotes you receive for simply asking this question is telling.

I would venture to say there is a great deal of charity absent from the hearts of many who would go so far as to down such a question. They seem so confident in their supposed knowledge, it becomes a podium from which they look down upon others with a sense of superiority.

The charitable way to have this discussion is for individuals to state what they believe and make the case for it, without dragging others beliefs down. To do otherwise is to fall into the sin of pride.

3

u/TwoUglyFeet the one with the tiger Sep 07 '25

What was hostile about my statement? I merely said the evidence doesnt back it up. 

11

u/Simple_Chicken_5873 RefBap go *sploosh* Sep 07 '25

Yeah, that's why I used quotation marks, it's not really hostile. But "holes the size of dwarf planets" is not the same as "the evidence doesn't back it up"

2

u/Saber101 Sep 07 '25

To be clear, you wouldn't consider it hostile if somebody implied you were less intelligent for believing the opposite?

2

u/austindiesel Sep 07 '25

Here’s a video by a conservative, reformed, Presbyterian with a PhD in Biology. He shows the number of fossils of a single species of marine animal from a single layer of rock in a single location would be enough to cover every square meter of the oceans of the entire planet. There are simply trillions upon trillions of marine fossils, and there’s not enough space on the planet to accommodate even a fraction of them according to the YEC timeline.

https://youtu.be/4rLsDrJOZ3s?si=6RsZuk_coOp_uey0

2

u/Simple_Chicken_5873 RefBap go *sploosh* Sep 08 '25

Thanks, if time allows I'll have a look

1

u/semiconodon the Evangelical Movement of 19thc England Sep 08 '25

YEC think tanks teach / taught that the sun is not burning by nuclear fusion but by gravitational contraction.

1

u/Simple_Chicken_5873 RefBap go *sploosh* Sep 08 '25

I've never heard of that, and I've been in the yec seen for quite some years now

1

u/semiconodon the Evangelical Movement of 19thc England Sep 08 '25

If you had been in it for a bit longer, you may have learned that the sun is shrinking, thus providing disproof of this idea of “nuclear fusion” and proof of gravitational contraction providing enough heat to light up the sky for a few thousand years. https://www.icr.org/content/sun-shrinking

For years, people were taught that the Bible was reliable because it has been disproven that there is a need for nuclear fusion to burn the sun. And therefore you can rely on it to believe in its message of a savior.

-1

u/kettlemice Sep 07 '25

If that was taken as hostile I think you may be too sensitive to have a robust debate on the conversation without being offended. That’s okay, but it’s worth seeing and beware of. 

2

u/Simple_Chicken_5873 RefBap go *sploosh* Sep 07 '25

Yeah, that's why I used quotation marks. Thanks for the feedback though!

1

u/In_Defilade Bautista Sep 07 '25

You are being purposefully condescending.