Young-earth creationism: It’s all improv, too, it’s just not as funny

whose line meme

“Welcome to the young-earth creationism version of ‘Whose Line Is It Anyway,’ where everything’s made up and what the Bible actually says doesn’t matter.” For more information on what the Bible actually does say, see here, here, here, here, here and here.

This meme was based on an idea by one of our readers, who submits his work pseudonymously as “Bryce Johansen.”

Creative Commons License
This work by godofevolution.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

  • Paul Braterman

    A bit off-topic, but you quote the relevant verse, andI have long wondered how believers interpret it: “on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed” What can it possibly mean to say that God was refreshed?

  • dangjin1

    john 5:45 to the end

    please post 1 verse where both God and Jesus give permission for their followers to follow after secular science, secular people and secular ideas.

    • john 5:45 to the end

      There appears to be a tendency on the part of young-earthers to reference a Bible verse that seems to support their views…you know, if you completely ignore the context of the passage. Which is a great way to “respect the authority of scripture,” by the way.

      Read in context, John 5:45-47 obviously and explicitly is about the Old Testament’s references to Jesus the Messiah and Savior. It says nothing about the Genesis creation accounts, a young earth, or a six-day creation.

      please post 1 verse where both God and Jesus give permission for their followers to follow after secular science, secular people and secular ideas.

      Secularism is not a concept the Bible addresses. I could just as easily ask you to provide a verse where “both God and Jesus forbid their followers to follow after secular science, secular people and secular ideas.”

      Fact is, the study of the created order — which we now call science — has been a part of Christian tradition for hundreds of years. Romans 1 says God’s eternal power and divine nature can be discerned by studying that which has been made (science), Job 12:8 exhorts us to “speak to the earth, and it will teach you” (geology), and Psalm 19 exults in the knowledge and speech that the heavens reveal (astronomy).

      • dangjin1

        Tap dance all you want, all you show is your dishonesty and that you willingly want to be deceived.

        • What a biblically and intellectually engaging response! I’ve seen the light. Way to put me in my place, brother.

          • dangjin1

            First, You are not my brother. Second, I wasn’t trying to be ‘engaging’ or ‘put you in your place’. I read your post and saw that nothing I would say would convince you since you refuse to accept the verses as a response to your request.

            Third, your insulting manner in the second part just turned me off from further engagement. The verse you use doesn’t give permission to accept secular scientific theories and studying what was made does not mean one goes to evolutionary thinking.

            But you use that verse as an excuse to disobey God who clearly said not to follow the deceived, blind secular world. Your problem is, you use each verse in your response as a justification for disobedience and to ignore what God wants and truly means by his words

            Fourth, your inability to be serious, respectful and non-insulting only hurts your case not enhance it.

            Fifth, your refusal to address my request shows you do not want the truth. So if I said more I would only be casting pearls before swine.

            Sixth, your desire to have the exact YEC words used by God is unrealistic and only a means to avoid the truth. Let’s see if you can be honest with yourself about these points and non-sarcastic, non-insulting and present a real answer that doesn’t allow you to willingly deceive yourself.

          • First, You are not my brother.

            I disagree, friend.

            Second, I wasn’t trying to be ‘engaging’

            Clearly.

            or ‘put you in your place’.

            Debatable.

            I read your post and saw that nothing I would say would convince you since you refuse to accept the verses as a response to your request.

            You shared one verse, which was completely out of context.

            Third, your insulting manner in the second part just turned me off from further engagement.

            Yes, I see how “turned off” you are.

            The verse you use doesn’t give permission to accept secular scientific theories and studying what was made does not mean one goes to evolutionary thinking.

            Again, the Bible doesn’t say ANYTHING about “secular science,” since it did not exist when the Bible was written.

            Fourth, your inability to be serious, respectful and non-insulting only hurts your case not enhance it.

            Whoops. I forgot young-earthers think humor is sinful unless it originates from them.

            Fifth, your refusal to address my request shows you do not want the truth. So if I said more I would only be casting pearls before swine.

            I did address your request, by pointing out the flaw in it. You asked for a verse that speaks to something that did not exist when the Bible was written. It would be like me asking you to provide a verse that addresses “American Idol” or Apple Inc.

            Sixth, your desire to have the exact YEC words used by God is unrealistic and only a means to avoid the truth.

            I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

            et’s see if you can be honest with yourself about these points and non-sarcastic, non-insulting and present a real answer that doesn’t allow you to willingly deceive yourself.

            OK, I’m all aquiver with anticipation. How’d I do?

          • dangjin1

            Disagree all you want but you are not my brother.

            One verse is all you asked for and you got it. (Though I think I gave 3)

            That would be news to Archimedes and other ancient scientists. Secular science has existed for a lot longer than you image. It is nice to know that you deny existence of things when they do not fit your ideology.

            Your willingness to deny reality is astounding and your willingness to disobey God is amazing. maybe you would prefer the word, ‘ungodly’. Read Lev. 20:26 in the NASB maybe that will help dent your arrogant spirit.

            You would be surprised at hat verses do address american idol or apple inc.

            My point was, you are being dishonest and unrealistic in your request. The word God uses may not be exactly the same as the ones you want to see in scripture.You already know the result thus you consider yourself safe. The verses I gave were not out of context but apply to all of Moses’ words.

            You didn’t do well. Your mocking tone comes through loud and clear and you have no intention of having a honest discussion where you use an open mind.

          • Disagree all you want but you are not my brother.

            Too bad. You seemed like such a charming individual. I thought we could have a real connection.

            One verse is all you asked for and you got it.

            I asked for a verse that says Christianity is dependent on young-earth creationism. You provided a verse in which Jesus criticizes those who failed to see the messianic prophecies and teachings in the Old Testament.

            (Though I think I gave 3)

            Last time I checked, John 5:45 was one verse.

            That would be news to Archimedes and other ancient scientists. Secular science has existed for a lot longer than you image. It is nice to know that you deny existence of things when they do not fit your ideology.

            Then I repeat my earlier request: Offer a verse in which followers of Christ are explicitly forbidden to analyze the material evidence or natural processes of the created order, which is all “secular science” is.

            Your willingness to deny reality is astounding and your willingness to disobey God is amazing. maybe you would prefer the word, ‘ungodly’. Read Lev. 20:26 in the NASB maybe that will help dent your arrogant spirit.

            Wow, you have really opened my eyes. I used to think Leviticus 20 was about sexual sins; now I see it is really about modern science.

            You would be surprised at hat verses do address american idol or apple inc.

            You are quite right. I would indeed be surprised by this.

            My point was, you are being dishonest and unrealistic in your request. The word God uses may not be exactly the same as the ones you want to see in scripture.

            Well, I actually wouldn’t want or expect to see any English word in the original, divinely inspired documents that form the canon of scripture.

            The verses I gave were not out of context but apply to all of Moses’ words.

            Of course they apply to “all of Moses’ words.” The entire Old Testament points to Christ. John 5 still says nothing about the Genesis creation accounts, a young earth, or a six-day creation.

            You didn’t do well.

            Aw, shucks.

          • dangjin1

            “Then I repeat my earlier request: Offer a verse in which followers of
            Christ are explicitly forbidden to analyze the material evidence or
            natural processes of the created order, which is all “secular science”
            is.”

            You forget I made the request first and it is one you are dancing around refusing to fulfill. You still need to provide verses which give God’s and Jesus’ permission to follow after and listen to secular teachings.

            “John 5 still says nothing about the Genesis creation accounts, a young earth, or a six-day creation.”

            “You provided a verse in which Jesus criticizes those who failed to see
            the messianic prophecies and teachings in the Old Testament.”

            You are changing the context of the verses (and I gave 3. I said verse 45 to the end) to justify your pursuit of false teaching. Jesus does not limit Moses’ writings to messianic prophecies but simply said:

            “46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?””

            I do not see any exclusion for creation as stated in Genesis 1.

            The question is: why would you accept the words of sinful, fallible, errant, unholy, unbelieving people who weren’t at creation and far removed from it, over the words of the sinless, infallible, holy, inerrant God who was at the beginning and knows how he did it?

          • You forget I made the request first and it is one you are dancing around refusing to fulfill. You still need to provide verses which give God’s and Jesus’ permission to follow after and listen to secular teachings.

            You, apparently, forget that I did respond to your request, by pointing out that “secular science” is not something scripture addresses because it would be anachronistic. You are the one that maintains that the Bible does indeed talk about secularism (not to mention “American Idol” and the company that created the iPod), so the burden falls to you, my friend.

            (and I gave 3. I said verse 45 to the end)

            Oh, now I see. My apologies. I have never before seen someone cite a passage of scripture in that way, so I misunderstood.

            Jesus does not limit Moses’ writings to messianic prophecies but simply said:

            Whether he limited it or not, you are going far outside his explicit focus, as well as the actual words that he said. The context is obviously Messianic: “he wrote about Me.” By your same logic, we could say that this passage illustrates Jesus’ belief that the full Levitical law remains in force for Gentile Christians.

            The question is: why would you accept the words of sinful, fallible, errant, unholy, unbelieving people who weren’t at creation and far removed from it, over the words of the sinless, infallible, holy, inerrant God who was at the beginning and knows how he did it?

            It’s a matter of interpretation, brother. The real question is, why would you accept your own sinful, fallible, errant interpretation of an ancient text that, while divinely inspired, is open to a number of perfectly reasonable exegeses, over the witness of the material universe, created by a sinless, infallible, holy, inerrant God?

          • dangjin1

            I see there is no point in continuing this discussion with you. You play semantics in order to avoid dealing with the truth. You know full well that secular means unbeliever so you choose to avoid dealing with the truth by invoking different definitions of the word secular than the one I have used.

            I also see you questioning your position by trying to turn the question around on me while avoiding to provide a direct and honest answer. Yours isn’t the ‘real’ question because mine was. Why don’t you be honest instead of manipulating scripture to justify your refusal to accept what God has written?

            As I pointed out, Jesus did not make qualifications about Mosaic writings. You do so you can avoid the truth.

          • You know full well that secular means unbeliever so you choose to avoid dealing with the truth by invoking different definitions of the word secular than the one I have used.

            Secular means “not religious.” Obviously, science is a mindless tool, so it cannot be an “unbeliever,” or a believer, for that matter, which means your definition here does not apply. However, science can be secular in the sense that it seeks to analyze material evidence and understand natural processes without appeal to supernatural causes. Which is almost exactly the definition I provided above. If you disagree, please explain how science can be an “unbeliever.”

            I also see you questioning your position by trying to turn the question around on me while avoiding to provide a direct and honest answer. Yours isn’t the ‘real’ question because mine was.

            Do you disagree that the Bible requires any interpretation?

            Why don’t you be honest instead of manipulating scripture to justify your refusal to accept what God has written?

            Sorry, how did I “manipulate scripture”? Was that when I pointed out how you used John 5:45 without any regard for its context?

            As I pointed out, Jesus did not make qualifications about Mosaic writings.

            Again, it’s not about qualifications. It’s about what was the point of Jesus’ statement, and he makes it painfully clear in verse 46. You can pretend he was talking about all kinds of other things, too, and he may have been. But, personally, I’d rather place my trust in what’s clear in the passage rather than your assumptions.

          • dangjin1

            again, you are just playing semantic games to avoid having to be honest with yourself. You cannot provide a direct answer to the questions I posed thus it is pointless to continue any further.

            a discussion requires honest answers to questions not turn the questions back onto the person asking them in order to avoid dealing with the purpose of the questions.

            You are a typical alternative accepting person, you cannot be honest at all.

          • I answered your questions as honestly as I possibly could. You may not have liked my answers, but at least I tried, whereas you have completely ignored my questions and refused to engage with my responses, all the while insulting and belittling me, judging my faith and accusing me of dishonesty. You’re a real credit to our faith, my friend.

          • Darwin Bloise

            Hey, wait Tyler. I have a question. What does it mean in John 4:45 to say “Moses wrote of me”? Because if I remeber correctly, you mentioned in one of your answers to me that the Pentateuch was probably written down after the Second Exodus in 600-500 B.C,(O.k, so maybe you didn’t say all of that.) But the idea is there, right? Moses couldn’t have written the Penteteuch, as he was already dead. Also, Dangjin here does not seem to be getting what you are saying.

          • What Jesus is saying here is that the Old Testament writings speak of him. All of the Old Testament writings, including the ones that no one believes were written by Moses. He refers to them as “Moses’ writings” simply because that is what the Jewish community of the day commonly called them, but he means the entire Old Testament — not just the Torah. Obviously, the writers of the gospels quote many OT writings besides just the first five books of the Bible in finding messianic prophecies about Christ.

          • Darwin Bloise

            Right, thanks man. Keep up the great work, as usual.

          • No problem, brother. Take care.

          • dangjin1

            you are wrong. Jesus was strictly referring to Moses. If he meant the whole OT he would have said the whole OT.

          • And yet you have no trouble believing that Christ is here referring to the creation accounts when, in fact, he says nothing of the sort. What a strange, convoluted hermeneutic you possess.

          • Headless Unicorn Guy

            I move we rename this thread to “The Guest Show”.

          • Haha, I totally forgot about this chucklehead. Yeah, I second that.