• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Young Earth Creationists: Prove to me that the Norse Creation Myth is wrong

And what makes you think you are doing that?



Here is where you are failing. You are once again confusing old earth with YEC. The accurate terms of years, geology and biology are key. You are focusing purely on general timeline rather than the arguments YEC actually makes, such as a literal global flood, all organisms living together in one time period, and no evolution.

Why can you not comprehend that I am responding SPECIFICALLY to your question from the OP??

I am not attempting to justify YEC. I'm not even Christian, I'm atheist (since 7-8 years old, I'm 42).


What makes YEC any more viable than the Norse Creation story?

That's: ~"YEC vs. Norse"

I don't need to give a crap about the days instead of eons. You have presented nothing that might argue Norse is more viable.
 
Last edited:
Genesis has light coming first, but without a source.

Sun, moon and stars come after light. That makes no sense.
Sun, moon and stars were made on the 1st day. The Earth once spun much faster than it does now, and the Moon was closer. What you're referring to on day 4, is the establishment of the solar day (24Hrs) and year (~365prEa).

Incidentally, that point alone invalidates YEC, even while other points also further invalidate YEC, as the 24hr literal day didn't exist until "day" 4, meaning that these were not literal days, but marked periods of time with a beginning an end, each of which could be millions of modern years long.
 
Sun, moon and stars were made on the 1st day

Incorrect. That is day 4. You are confusing light with the celestial bodies.

The Earth once spun much faster than it does now, and the Moon was closer. What you're referring to on day 4, is the establishment of the solar day (24Hrs) and year (~365prEa).

Nowhere in the Genesis in day one does God create the Sun, Moon and Stars. Furthermore, that is your interpretation, that day 4 sets the establishment of the solar day.

I do find it funny that YEC defenders have to resort to magic:

"God can, of course, create light without a secondary source. We are told that in the new heavens and Earth there will be no need for sun or moon (Rev 21:23). In Genesis, God even defines a day and a night in terms of light or its absence."

http://creation.com/how-could-the-d...if-the-sun-wasnt-created-until-the-fourth-day

MAGIC!

Incidentally, that point alone invalidates YEC, even while other points also further invalidate YEC, as the 24hr literal day didn't exist until "day" 4, meaning that these were not literal days, but marked periods of time with a beginning an end, each of which could be millions of modern years long.

Honestly, unless you're an idiot, YEC is a fantasy tale.
 
Incorrect. That is day 4. You are confusing light with the celestial bodies.
On the contrary, I have perfect clarity.

Furthermore, that is your interpretation, that day 4 sets the establishment of the solar day.
Thank you but I cannot be credited with forming the Day-Age interpretation of creation.
 
On the contrary, I have perfect clarity.

YEC believers don't seem to agree with you. As they are resorting to magic to deal with the day 1 light, day 4 sun/stars source.

Thank you but I cannot be credited with forming the Day-Age interpretation of creation.

Fair enougr.
 
YEC believers don't seem to agree with you. As they are resorting to magic to deal with the day 1 light, day 4 sun/stars source.
They're actually resorting to a very detailed genealogy from Adam to Noah, once which the Norse tradition doesn't address at all for there to be any conflict.

In fact all conflict between Norse and Christians revolve around land and trade, not ideology. That the two groups have different religions is inconsiderable as no religion is required to war over resources.

You're trying to manufacture conflict where there isn't any, and no one's taking your bait.
 
You're trying to manufacture conflict where there isn't any, and no one's taking your bait.

Actually I'm trying to force them to put their religious views next to another. YEC itself flounders against its main argumentative foil, evolution. Substituting Norse for Evolution forces YEC to come up with its own arguments as it can no longer claim that since evolution is allegedly wrong, it is automatically correct. But considering how Peter Grimm is totally running from defending YEC in other places, this isn't necessary.
 
You do realize you are arguing that Creationism has the timeline (largely) right, but we're talking explicitly about 7 day creationism no?

Also, there's water before light. And contrary to what some creationists like to claim, the word "yom" in Hebrew does not have multiple meanings.

Some say the end of Ragnarok is the beginning of Creation...

The Norse tradition fits neatly into scripture as the Norse gods and giants are "the men of old, the men of renown" discussed at the end of Genesis 6. Simply put, the Norse gods are the Nephilim. Their children are who Adam and Eve encountered after leaving the Garden. The Norse pantheon fits into the broader global Abrahamic story. In effect, the Norse pantheon exists as independent validation of the Abrahamic God and scripture.

This is the very point which took me away from Wicca and into Christianity.

Much of the current versions of Norse myth were written in the 14th century, after the Christian takeover of Nordic lands. Their myths were altered specifically to produce that link that you're referring to. It wasn't a neat coincidence. It was done on purpose to facilitate conversion of the local pagans.

Sun, moon and stars were made on the 1st day. The Earth once spun much faster than it does now, and the Moon was closer. What you're referring to on day 4, is the establishment of the solar day (24Hrs) and year (~365prEa).

Please source this claim.

Incidentally, that point alone invalidates YEC, even while other points also further invalidate YEC, as the 24hr literal day didn't exist until "day" 4, meaning that these were not literal days, but marked periods of time with a beginning an end, each of which could be millions of modern years long.

See the previous issue about the word "day". The Hebrew text very clearly refers to a 24 hour period. Any speaker of Hebrew can tell you this.

They're actually resorting to a very detailed genealogy from Adam to Noah, once which the Norse tradition doesn't address at all for there to be any conflict.

A list of names is hardly compelling evidence of... well... anything. Especially not when a lot of those people are claimed to live for centuries.
 
Actually I'm trying to force them to put their religious views next to another. YEC itself flounders against its main argumentative foil, evolution. Substituting Norse for Evolution forces YEC to come up with its own arguments as it can no longer claim that since evolution is allegedly wrong, it is automatically correct. But considering how Peter Grimm is totally running from defending YEC in other places, this isn't necessary.

Thor is pleased with you. Passage to Valhalla should be easy for you.
 
Please source this claim.
You seriously need a source that primordial earth spun faster than is does today? Ok, let me Google that for you. It is the Day-Age interpretation that day-4 was the establishment of the modern solar day of 24hrs.

See the previous issue about the word "day". The Hebrew text very clearly refers to a 24 hour period.
Well, no it doesn't.

A list of names is hardly compelling evidence of... well... anything. Especially not when a lot of those people are claimed to live for centuries.
My claim was that there's a detailed genealogy in Genesis. You need a source to prove that there is a genealogy in Genesis? Oooookay...Genesis 5 NIV - From Adam to Noah - This is the written - Bible Gateway

I made no claim on the genealogy being true or valid, I merely said it was there and that it's a cornerstone of YEC.
 
Last edited:
Actually I'm trying to force them to put their religious views next to another. YEC itself flounders against its main argumentative foil, evolution. Substituting Norse for Evolution forces YEC to come up with its own arguments as it can no longer claim that since evolution is allegedly wrong, it is automatically correct. But considering how Peter Grimm is totally running from defending YEC in other places, this isn't necessary.
YEC would just dismiss everything Odinism has to say as a lie from Satan. Good luck forcing anything.
 
You seriously need a source that primordial earth spun faster than is does today? Ok, let me Google that for you. It is the Day-Age interpretation that day-4 was the establishment of the modern solar day of 24hrs.

I actually did not know this. Still, how would the Earth spinning faster in the past suggest that days were longer? The article says that a complete rotation would have taken only 2.5 hours. That sounds like it would defy an interpretation about long days, not support it.

Well, no it doesn't.

Your armchair command of the Hebrew language is impressive. Please, find an instance, in any Hebrew text (especially elsewhere in the Torah), where the word "yom" explicitly refers a length of time other than the time between a sunset to a sunset.

My claim was that there's a detailed genealogy in Genesis. You need a source to prove that there is a genealogy in Genesis? Oooookay...Genesis 5 NIV - From Adam to Noah - This is the written - Bible Gateway

I made no claim on the genealogy being true or valid, I merely said it was there and that it's a cornerstone of YEC.

So then what IS your point?
 
Still, how would the Earth spinning faster in the past suggest that days were longer?
I was referring to the Hebrew word "yom" with YEC interpret to mean a literal 24hrs, more accurately means any length of time with a beginning and an end, and so could be millions of years, not merely 24hrs.

Day-4 describes the Earth slowing into it's current 24hr day. Day-4 does not describe the creation of the sun.

Your armchair command of the Hebrew language is impressive. Please, find an instance, in any Hebrew text (especially elsewhere in the Torah), where the word "yom" explicitly refers a length of time other than the time between a sunset to a sunset.
Is this thread about Day-Age creationism or YEC?

So then what IS your point?
That YEC and Odinism don't really have conflicts.
 
Why focus on YEC when you could just focus on any creation story? You could do the same with deities. Why are Zeus and Athena less valid than Elohim, Allah, or God?
 
Why focus on YEC when you could just focus on any creation story? You could do the same with deities. Why are Zeus and Athena less valid than Elohim, Allah, or God?

Because virtually no one actually thinks those are literally real. I have yet to meet someone who believed that Zeus slew upon his father's belly to save his God Siblings actually happened.
 
Because virtually no one actually thinks those are literally real. I have yet to meet someone who believed that Zeus slew upon his father's belly to save his God Siblings actually happened.

The people of ancient Rome believed it was real, and AFAIK there are a lot of Pagans out there who worship old world deities to this day. Though I guess monotheism has a better ring to it than all of the discordant stories about the origins of different pantheons of Gods.

Noneless, stories are stories, so I'm wondering why one version deserves to be upheld while another is just mythological. It seems arbitrary.
 
The people of ancient Rome believed it was real, and AFAIK there are a lot of Pagans out there who worship old world deities to this day. I guess monotheism has a better ring to it than all of the discordant stories about the origins of different pantheons of Gods.

Noneless, stories are stories, so I'm wondering why one version deserves to be upheld while another is just mythological. It seem arbitrary.

True, ANCIENT ROME and ATHENS.

Not today.

Like I said, I have yet to meet someone who believed that Zeus slew upon his father's belly to save his God Siblings actually happened. I do meet people who think a literal global flood happened and Noah saved 2 of every organism on his boat. And that light existed before the Sun.

Even modern day Animists (except maybe for Intelligent Designers) don't even believe in the literal stories of their past.
 
Back
Top Bottom