• 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

obvious Child

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Since we seem to have some issues with proving evidence for Young Earth Creationism, let's see if they can disprove another creation myth.

What makes YEC any more viable than the Norse Creation story?
 
obvious Child said:
Since we seem to have some issues with proving evidence for Young Earth Creationism, let's see if they can disprove another creation myth.

What makes YEC any more viable than the Norse Creation story?
Click to expand...

You are not religious yourself. Why do you assume we know the meaning of "YEC" and "Norse Creation" and what they state and stand for?
 
DDD said:
You are not religious yourself. Why do you assume we know the meaning of "YEC" and "Norse Creation" and what they state and stand for?
Click to expand...

If you don't know the meaning of Young Earth Creationism (YEC), then you needn't answer. But a lot of people (most) on both sides of this debate do know. You could also Google it to find out the meaning.
 
Dezaad said:
If you don't know the meaning of Young Earth Creationism (YEC), then you needn't answer. But a lot of people (most) on both sides of this debate do know. You could also Google it to find out the meaning.
Click to expand...

Usually the one to make statements should provide sources if they wish participation. But if that is not the case then I may not participate, no problem.
 
DDD said:
Usually the one to make statements should provide sources if they wish participation. But if that is not the case then I may not participate, no problem.
Click to expand...

you sure are doing a lot if not participating in this thread
 
DDD said:
Usually the one to make statements should provide sources if they wish participation. But if that is not the case then I may not participate, no problem.
Click to expand...

You are asking for explanations of terms, not sourcing of facts or claims of fact. Charm school lesson #435: When someone says something you don't understand, look it up yourself, or simply ask them what it is in a nice way. Recognize they are in no way obligated to explain it to you, however.

In any event, the OP is probably only looking for participation from those who already know what it is. People who are new to it wouldn't have the knowledge to provide the proofs. Err, let me rephrase that. Since there are no proofs or evidence, they wouldn't be able to come up with the pseudo evidence to try to convince any fellow fools.

Hopefully a YEC will show up and explain it all to you. Doing so would be a great platform from which to launch their argument.
 
Dezaad said:
You are asking for explanations of terms, not sourcing of facts or claims of fact. Charm school lesson #435: When someone says something you don't understand, look it up yourself, or simply ask them what it is in a nice way. Recognize they are in no way obligated to explain it to you, however.
Click to expand...

And you are to be asked how I approach issues that concern me when I address Obvious Child?
 
DDD said:
And you are to be asked how I approach issues that concern me when I address Obvious Child?
Click to expand...

It's a free country, and a public forum. I can chime in any time I like. Just trying reduce the nonsense.
 
Dezaad said:
It's a free country, and a public forum. I can chime in any time I like. Just trying reduce the nonsense.
Click to expand...

You chime in as long as you want uninvited, uncalled, and with an issue that has neither has to do with you, nor are you asked about how I should carry out a discussion with another person. No one asked you what may or may not be called as "nonsense" nor do you hold an authority in all that.

BTW, you are ignored.

Now then, Obvious Child, if interested to maintain this communication reply:

[/QUOTE]You are not religious yourself. Why do you assume we know the meaning of "YEC" and "Norse Creation" and what they state and stand for?
Or else just ignore and what the hell...
Click to expand...
 
Now you're talking...this is a good way to show why YEC is screwed up. There's nothing inconsistent about YEC principles, and it's even possible to interpret scientific data to be harmonious with YEC beliefs. But doing so comes with a seriously high cost, and one that YECers wouldn't be willing to pay.
 
I used to be a YEC and I know many Christians who still are.

I think the main driving force in believing in YEC is faith in that a literal interpretation of "days" in Genesis means a 24 hour earth day. They also tend to rely on inconsistencies in evolutionary/bang bang theory and some dating evidence that may suggest the earth is not billions of years old.

As far as disproving another religious creation story YEC does not exist to do that. By science (a more narrow view) YEC believers hold that the earth is thousands of years old, by faith they believe that God created the world literally as depicted in the current English translation of Genesis. The faith aspect is what would state that another religion's take on creation is incorrect.
 
Not a YEC, exactly, and I know very little about Norse creation myths, so I'm not sure what I'm even doing here....


:mrgreen:
 
From a previous thread:

ecofarm said:
Genesis is a pretty good ancient conceptualization of geology and biology.

1:3 Light
1:4 Earth rotation
1:6 Water
1:8 Atmosphere
1:12 Plants before animals
1:20 Animals in water (and air, presumably mistaking birds for quasi fish) before on land
1:26 Humans after animals


I'd put that up against most creation stories when comparing such to modern science.
Click to expand...
 
Dezaad said:
It's a free country, and a public forum. I can chime in any time I like. Just trying reduce the nonsense.
Click to expand...

I like when your posts match your avatar, it's funny.

obvious Child said:
Actually the sun comes after vegetation. That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

I'd need to review and that may be the case; however, but I'm quite certain that my references to Genesis are correctly cited. Unless you wish to counter with evidence that the Norse Creation myth has a similarly accurate depiction of the earth's development and even evolution, I think YEC wins over Norse.
 
obvious Child said:
Genesis has light coming first, but without a source.

Sun, moon and stars come after light. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's perfect. There are other flaws to be found as well. What I am saying is that the citations I presented from Genesis appear in the same order as actual stuff happened (with the possible exception of water). It includes the earth's rotation (surely stabilized by the moon shortly after the earth formed and perhaps preventing tidal lock). The creation of the atmosphere. It includes fish before land animals and those before people.

What do you have from Norse Creation that beats it.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I'm not saying it's perfect. There are other flaws to be found as well. What I am saying is that the citations I presented from Genesis appear in the same order as actual stuff happened (with the possible exception of water). It includes the earth's rotation, surely stabilized by the moon and perhaps preventing tidal lock. The creation of the atmosphere. It includes fish before land animals and those before people.

What do you have from Norse Creation that beats it.
Click to expand...

You do realize you are arguing that Creationism has the timeline (largely) right, but we're talking explicitly about 7 day creationism no?
 
obvious Child said:
You do realize you are arguing that Creationism has the timeline (largely) right, but we're talking explicitly about 7 day creationism no?
Click to expand...

Who cares, much of the timeline is correct geologically and biologically.

What's Norse got?

To clarify, here is your question to which I am responding:

obvious Child said:
What makes YEC any more viable than the Norse Creation story?
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
Who cares
Click to expand...

Um, you do realize that YEC goes around saying that evolution and all other stories of origin are false and that the Earth is only a 6,000 years old no?

You are confusing YEC with old earth Creationism. The thread topic is not old earth creationism that does not argue evolution is wrong.
 
obvious Child said:
Since we seem to have some issues with proving evidence for Young Earth Creationism, let's see if they can disprove another creation myth.

What makes YEC any more viable than the Norse Creation story?
Click to expand...
Some say the end of Ragnarok is the beginning of Creation...
Ragnarok will not be the end of everything, however. The World Tree Yggdrasill will survive, and two humans—Lif and Lifthrasir—and some animals will be sheltered among its branches. New land will rise from the oceans, and a fresh green earth will emerge. Lif and Lifthrasir will repopulate the world. Some of the gods—including Balder*—will also return and rebuild Asgard, ushering in a new golden age. Giants and other evil beings will not reappear but will fade as a distant memory.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Um, you do realize that YEC goes around saying that evolution and all other stories of origin are false and that the Earth is only a 6,000 years old no?

You are confusing YEC with old earth Creationism. The thread topic is not old earth creationism that does not argue evolution is wrong.
Click to expand...

I am responding to a specific question of yours from the OP.

obvious Child said:
What makes YEC any more viable than the Norse Creation story?
Click to expand...


So, again... What's Norse got that compares to an accurate timeline (order of events, not accurate years) of geology and biology. I'm guessing nothing. YEC wins.
 
ecofarm said:
I am responding to a specific question of yours from the OP.
Click to expand...

And what makes you think you are doing that?

So, again... What's Norse got that compares to an accurate timeline (order of events, not accurate years) of geology and biology. I'm guessing nothing. YEC wins.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom