"unorthodox" Creation views [Archive]

Vigilante

October 5th 2009, 10:10 PM

Also, by the way, in most churches the teaching is not about "what makes you a Christian", as far as origins, but rather, "what does the Bible TEACH". Churches are about teaching the Word, and as such, the Word teaches YEC to most people who read it, and thus, a lot of churches "teach the Word" which comes out as YEC. God created the world, he created the stars and people, 6 days, 7th rest, in a Garden, take care of the earth, Satan comes, eat the fruit, sin and death enter humanity, etc.... This is strait from the Bible, and churches are about teaching the Bible, and so classrooms sound YECish.

The problem is people are trying to take focus away from teaching what God's Word SAYS, and focusing on "being a good Christian" while not paying much attention on what the Word says. Especially Genesis. We'll just take parts of the Bible we like to make good Christians, but we'll use the corrupt thinking of fallen, godless men to tell us what the truth is in nature and history. I think not.

If you want to have fights about what makes a person Christian, I would think a pretty big tenant is believing scripture is His inspired revelation to man, in other words, it's TRUE. Even Genesis. If you can't believe what God did in Genesis because Darwin pondered birds, then why believe what God did in MML&J when Dawkins ponders humanity and the irreversibility of death?

You guys talk like teaching YEC in a church is some kind of evil, when in fact, they are just teaching Scripture as best they can. Dawkins and Darwin and Dennet and Harris are not Scripture, and they are not infallible, and they are not 100% accurate, and they are not much of anything. They are fallen humans with corrupt thinking, and they need God as much as anybody else to know the truth of history.

Philosophickle

October 6th 2009, 02:15 AM

We should all be dogmatic for the truth. It's only when somebody holds a different idea of truth that people use "dogmatic" as some kind of derogatory description. But I say that almost every person I've encountered with ANTI-YEC beliefs is far more dogmatic than any YEC I've come across.
They are all passionate, but they are ALL dogmatic as well. Why wouldn't you be if you think it's the truth?

Because not all truth is worth being dogmatic about. There are trivial truths and there are very complex issues (like evolutionary theory), and to simply make broad pronouncements of your opponents whom you may have everything else in common is arrogant and foolish.

Philosophickle

October 6th 2009, 02:15 AM

You guys talk like teaching YEC in a church is some kind of evil, when in fact, they are just teaching Scripture as best they can. Dawkins and Darwin and Dennet and Harris are not Scripture, and they are not infallible, and they are not 100% accurate, and they are not much of anything. They are fallen humans with corrupt thinking, and they need God as much as anybody else to know the truth of history.

What does that have to do with anything?

Lotrfreak323

October 6th 2009, 06:29 AM

Eeset-Shadowgrl

October 6th 2009, 09:23 AM

Does anyone else feel like it's taboo to speak of anything other than YEC, when in church? Maybe it's just the area where I live... at least I hope so.
To make even more fun we're watching AiG videos in my sunday school class, and I don't know whether I should shoot through it's fallacious reasoning in the discussion, or just sit down and shut up.:no:
Patience is the other side of wisdom. I have learned that sitting down and shutting up is often the wisest course of action when faced with dogma. The age of the cosmos is whatever it is and to argue over whether a 24 hour day could be the correct interpretation of Genesis accomplishes little except to back people into their respective corners. I don't see where it was ever important enough for Jesus to even comment on it. When such subjects come up I wait patiently for the topic to change to something of importance.

Vigilante

October 6th 2009, 07:14 PM

Because not all truth is worth being dogmatic about. There are trivial truths and there are very complex issues (like evolutionary theory), and to simply make broad pronouncements of your opponents whom you may have everything else in common is arrogant and foolish.

True, but I would think Biblical truths are not that trivial. Especially when the two major "interpretations" of Genesis are "it's right as written, God did everything" or "none of it is accurate as written, God didn't really do anything."

franktalk

October 6th 2009, 11:45 PM

Actually this is a tough subject. As I see it both the science camp and the YEC are in the same boat. Science has set the rules of the game and the YEC are using those rules to show that science is wrong in their interpretation. Both groups using the same rules is the issue. Take for instance uniformitarianism. It is an assumption of both science and YEC. But we have no evidence that that assumption is correct. From a Biblical viewpoint we have 2Peter which tells us that people who believe in uniformitarianism are fools. So for me I have cast off the set of rules and am open to many views of the past, even one in which the past is not linear at all. Now once you make this leap then all of the data gathered by science over time can and should be viewed with a more open interpretation.

I happen to like to study anomalies. Because I think this is where we find if a theory has any merit or is it just a consensus built on a show of hands. Maybe a couple of examples would be in order now.

Take evolution, yes, we can show evolution in bacteria. But that evolution requires a 99.9% death rate (actually more). Like when we try and cure malaria we can inject something into a person that kills off normal malaria. But we find that some of them have mutated and are immune to our treatment. But that infected person had a billion malaria in them. Now we take this data and overlay it on higher order creatures. If we do then we find that we would need the same 99.99999% death rate in order for evolution to progress. But we are told that we came from apes over millions of years. And why is it that the numbers can be ignored when we make that statement? Because we are here so it must be true. There is a growing number of people who are seeing these numbers and will one day be crushed just like all those who came before them who disagreed. For you see that it is not facts that get to rise to the top of the heap but the majority opinion.

Take the age of the earth. If one studies soil erosion you would find that all of the continents are young. How would we know? Because they all would have flowed into the sea long ago at current erosion rates.

So what does this mean. Nothing really. I bring this up not to show that YEC is correct but to show that our data set has holes in it. And if it does have holes then why do we trust it? I for one do not trust it at all when it comes to things we can not observe or reproduce. So projections into the past mean little to me. The whole debate over the age of the earth means little when we accept that we may have a nonlinear past. Now since I believe in scripture I assume that miracles happened which can explain all kinds of anomalies. Exactly how I don't have a clue. I just accept that the jumbled mess left over from the Fall and the Flood makes things way hard to interpret.

Science does not give us answers or causes. It gives us observations and theories. No one in science can tell you why the underlaying foundation of the universe is the way it is. Why does a proton have a certain mass or charge? Not a clue. So the foundations of science rest on vapor. It is man who assumes that it rest on solid ground or one day will be able to answer those tough questions. But that is faith. Faith that one day man will find out. But faith can see through the vapor and see the root cause of the universe to be outside of this universe. So we all have faith. We just choose what to have faith in. The unseen forces in a spirit world, or faith in man. Since man did not make man, and man did not make the universe then I will hang my faith hat on the spirit world.

Vigilante

October 7th 2009, 09:02 PM

Take the age of the earth. If one studies soil erosion you would find that all of the continents are young. How would we know? Because they all would have flowed into the sea long ago at current erosion rates.
Except that you don't hold to uniformitarianism, remember? So when you say "current erosion rates", therein lies the problem. Because they assume what we see today, always was in the past. And as you know, we don't have to hold to such a presupposition. So even with the age of the continents, who knows?

franktalk

October 7th 2009, 11:44 PM

Except that you don't hold to uniformitarianism, remember? So when you say "current erosion rates", therein lies the problem. Because they assume what we see today, always was in the past. And as you know, we don't have to hold to such a presupposition. So even with the age of the continents, who knows?

Congratulations, you see the difficulty in forming a past without uniformitarianism. So my statement about soil erosion is completely a theory and not fact. But there is something I left out in my first post. That the world is being held as it is until it is time to be destroyed by fire. So from the time of the flood until today (in general) the world is bing held without supernatural change, and one could make the argument that it is being protected as well from natural or man made changes that would upset a balance determined by God. This too is in 2Peter.

Now that I have admitted using uniformitarianism let me state for the record I was projecting it into the future not the past. But I used the projection to object to the classic age of the continents. You see that using current erosion rates North America would erode down to sea level in around 10.5 million years. This is assumed going forward with erosion and mountain building at their current rates. But as we apply uniformitarianism backwards we run into problems with other conclusions of science. Like the age of the rock and soil of North America. So if we use uniformitarianism to date the rock and soil yet also use it on soil erosion we end up with an impossible situation. Like the age of the rock in the midwest is dated around 50 mil to 85 mil years old. This was an ancient seafloor that was pushed up. That seafloor was pushed up according to science so long ago that it should all be gone today using erosion numbers. Now when I see two sets of numbers that don't agree I assume that the numbers are wrong or something else is going on that I am not aware of. In this case a nonlinear past affecting atomic decay, or a flood that rearranged rock and soil, and even a complete redo of the universe after the fall. Who is to say how supernatural events changed things on the earth? But one of the signs would be inconsistent projections into the past when the events occurred. And of course this is what we have today. Why is it that the age of rock is determined by fossils or atomic dating? Could it be that the age of the earth needs to be old so evolution had a chance to work? Could we hide slow change that we can't even measure today if the age was 10 million instead of 4.5 billion? No we could not. This is why Charles Lyell and Darwin wanted an old earth. They needed it to hide the past. For if the events happened in a catastrophic manner then their theories would fall apart. Only now after 150 years of pushing back has geology accepted some catastrophic events. Bretz flood and Mount St Helen supplied too much data for them to ignore catastrophic events. Had they continued they would have been exposed as the dogma driven group that they are. Most people can see big giant scars on the landscape so the uniformitarians were forced to accept some catastrophic events. The Darwinist can still hide behind atomic dating until someone finds out a way to disprove it. Oh, like soil erosion.

But for me I don't have a horse in this race. I could care less. I study these things not to prove an age but to show that accepted dates may be way off. We humans think too highly of ourselves.

aegis

October 8th 2009, 01:12 AM

my take on the YEC is that I read a lot of Old Testament theologians who DO NOT take the view of YEC....so there is no concensus amongst the theologians on the literal reading of genesis chapter one.

So I think by dividing ourselves on the exegesis of genesis one as to whether one is a true Christian or not is a definite red herring and a major plot by the Enemy of dividing the Christians unnecessary.

Remember how the evangelicals were defined by whether you believe that the book of Isaiah was written by one author or several,..or whether you believe the time of Daniel's authorship is early or late?

aegis

October 8th 2009, 01:16 AM

another point I want to add is that there are literary genre and purpose of the author. In genesis chapter one, when moses wrote it, what was his intention, what did he wanted to highlight? Is he writing a science book or is he highlighting certain theological truth about God? What was the audience/Israelites thinking when they read genesis one? Were they learning about how God created the world or were they learning certain theological truth about God's relationship with Israel? What were those truth? I think we need to answer those questions before we can decide the truth of YEC

RCNicholas

October 8th 2009, 01:29 AM

True, but I would think Biblical truths are not that trivial. Especially when the two major "interpretations" of Genesis are "it's right as written, God did everything" or "none of it is accurate as written, God didn't really do anything."

This is the sort of straw man argumentation that I think Lot may be talking about, that makes non-YECism "taboo" in certain churches. One of the reasons it becomes frustrating to talk to YECs (like all Biblical "literalists") is that they always frame the conversation with Christians who disagree with them by saying something to the effect that, "Well, I just believe what the Bible says. And they (you) don't."

It's that sort of one-sided, narrow-minded argumentation that makes those who question YEC feel as though they're being attacked at a very fundamental level that goes beyond some "secondary" issue. Just because a person doesn't interpret a passage literally does not mean they do not believe that passage or think it's "inaccurate." They simply think it's getting at something beyond the denotative meaning of the words.

franktalk

October 8th 2009, 10:48 AM

It's that sort of one-sided, narrow-minded argumentation that makes those who question YEC feel as though they're being attacked at a very fundamental level that goes beyond some "secondary" issue. Just because a person doesn't interpret a passage literally does not mean they do not believe that passage or think it's "inaccurate." They simply think it's getting at something beyond the denotative meaning of the words.

I think we have to look at "intent" more closely to properly view science and YEC. If the intent of science is to prove that all of creation is an accident then their work can be considered anti-god. In fact their rule set excludes god and supernatural events. So what ever they do find in the way of data must be interpreted in a manner which excludes a god. So I see science as a study of the creation from an observers point of view. They do not even try and answer the question of where did we come from and why are we here. Their rule set is too limited to allow any worth to their conclusions or theories. But science is made up of men and men of course will use any means to push along an agenda. Science is no exception.

The YEC typically try and show that science has it wrong and the data shows that the Bible is true from an evidence view point. The attempt to prove a god exist is just as wrong as science is. Because the YEC use the same rule set as science. If one believes in supernatural events as I do then trace evidence of the past can not be interpreted by a set of rules established by science. It just does not work. The most one can do is show that the past is unsure because of anomalies and inconsistent using all of the tools. In my study of YEC I came to this conclusion some time ago.

From a Biblical view God has said that we are to come to Him through faith. For me this means that He left no data trail that proves He exist. Why would an all Knowing God allow a data trail and then ask us to come to Him through faith. I have more respect for the abilities of God than to think He missed something. At the same time I do not think He is a trickster and left data which disproves Him as well. So from my point of view neither group will ever prove a thing.

I pick and choose from science and YEC to form some arguments on these boards. It is impossible to stay completely away from them. But I try and frame my conclusions without the support of both groups. Except of course to show that they both are wrong.

This of course brings us to Genesis. Man believes that God came down in human form and died on a cross but we can't believe there was a garden on the earth at one time. You do realize how silly that argument sounds in that light. But if one throws out Genesis then one also throws out the reason for Christ to die on the cross. I for one will not do that. It may be that God told Moses to write Genesis exactly the way He made the Universe. It may be a stumbling block for some. It may be that God knew the heart of man and knew of man's pride. Maybe He made the universe in this fashion just to cause the prideful to fall. I do not know the mind of God. All I can tell you is I fear and love Him.

aegis

October 8th 2009, 11:24 AM

RCNicholas

October 8th 2009, 02:35 PM

I think we have to look at "intent" more closely to properly view science and YEC. If the intent of science is to prove that all of creation is an accident then their work can be considered anti-god. This is not the intent of science. It may be the intent of certain ScientISTS.

In fact their rule set excludes god and supernatural events. So what ever they do find in the way of data must be interpreted in a manner which excludes a god. So I see science as a study of the creation from an observers point of view. They do not even try and answer the question of where did we come from and why are we here. Science does try to answer the question of where we came from, but you are correct that it does not (and really, cannot) answer the question of meaning. Which is part of the reason why non-YEC Christians find it odd that YECs become so antagonistic whenever the scientific credence of their beliefs is questioned (as though this indicates that a metaphysical or spiritual principle is being questioned). If YECs wanted to chalk it all up to the miraculous and say, "I know it doesn't make any sense scientifically, but God is omnipotent and can do whatever he wants," they would probably have far fewer people critically questioning them. But the problem is that they don't do this; they continually insist that "real science" is on their side. And so naturally they're going to receive scientific criticism.

Their rule set is too limited to allow any worth to their conclusions or theories. Don't you think that's painting with a bit of a broad brush?

But science is made up of men and men of course will use any means to push along an agenda. Science is no exception.Sure. That being said, science in the mainstream is also publicly verifiable, and it's usually pretty good at answering the questions it's supposed to answer. It is when people try to make science answer questions it was never meant to answer that we run into problems.

The YEC typically try and show that science has it wrong and the data shows that the Bible is true from an evidence view point.
The problem (and maybe this is just a problem with your particular terminology here, but you've done it several times already) is that one cannot discredit "science," and then try to use science ("true from an evidence point of view") to prove YEC.

The attempt to prove a god exist is just as wrong as science is. Because the YEC use the same rule set as science. If one believes in supernatural events as I do then trace evidence of the past can not be interpreted by a set of rules established by science. It just does not work. The most one can do is show that the past is unsure because of anomalies and inconsistent using all of the tools. In my study of YEC I came to this conclusion some time ago.
From a scientific perspective, we can't really "prove" anything. We can only disprove things. If a particular theory or hypothesis can last through many many attempts at disproof, we might say that it is an idea supported by the data.

From a Biblical view God has said that we are to come to Him through faith. For me this means that He left no data trail that proves He exist. Why would an all Knowing God allow a data trail and then ask us to come to Him through faith. I have more respect for the abilities of God than to think He missed something. At the same time I do not think He is a trickster and left data which disproves Him as well. So from my point of view neither group will ever prove a thing.
There is a difference between "prove" and "give evidence for." I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot come to God apart from faith. OECs and TEs have faith in God, too. The question they ask (which you seemed to hint at) is, Why would God provide us with evidence found in nature that completely contradicts His creative methods? If the universe is only 10,000 years old, why would God put stars 14 billion light years away and still allow us to see them? You're right that a data trail can only take us so far, but a data trail can at least point in a direction. It seems odd that God would allow a data trail to be left and then ask us to come to a conclusion that contradicts the inferences of that data.

I pick and choose from science and YEC to form some arguments on these boards. It is impossible to stay completely away from them. But I try and frame my conclusions without the support of both groups. Except of course to show that they both are wrong.Your profile says you're YEC...so you're saying YEC is wrong?

This of course brings us to Genesis. Man believes that God came down in human form and died on a cross but we can't believe there was a garden on the earth at one time. You do realize how silly that argument sounds in that light. But if one throws out Genesis then one also throws out the reason for Christ to die on the cross. I for one will not do that. It may be that God told Moses to write Genesis exactly the way He made the Universe. It may be a stumbling block for some. It may be that God knew the heart of man and knew of man's pride. Maybe He made the universe in this fashion just to cause the prideful to fall. I do not know the mind of God. All I can tell you is I fear and love Him.Understood. The Catholic position is a sort of unique middle ground on that question, in which we believe that Adam and Eve did actually exist, but we are not obligated to accept YEC (and TE could be an open question). But that's a different thread.

franktalk

October 9th 2009, 02:17 AM

Science does try to answer the question of where we came from, but you are correct that it does not (and really, cannot) answer the question of meaning. Which is part of the reason why non-YEC Christians find it odd that YECs become so antagonistic whenever the scientific credence of their beliefs is questioned (as though this indicates that a metaphysical or spiritual principle is being questioned). If YECs wanted to chalk it all up to the miraculous and say, "I know it doesn't make any sense scientifically, but God is omnipotent and can do whatever he wants," they would probably have far fewer people critically questioning them. But the problem is that they don't do this; they continually insist that "real science" is on their side. And so naturally they're going to receive scientific criticism.

Because we have two sides we have antagonist. Funny how that works out.

The problem (and maybe this is just a problem with your particular terminology here, but you've done it several times already) is that one cannot discredit "science," and then try to use science ("true from an evidence point of view") to prove YEC.

Science and YEC are in the same leaking sinking boat.

From a scientific perspective, we can't really "prove" anything. We can only disprove things. If a particular theory or hypothesis can last through many many attempts at disproof, we might say that it is an idea supported by the data.

No. Everything in science can be disproven tomorrow. The life expectancy of a theory is short.

Your profile says you're YEC...so you're saying YEC is wrong?

I study the ideas of YEC and was a big time YEC at one time. I am still labeled as YEC by most, why fight it.

There is a difference between "prove" and "give evidence for." I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot come to God apart from faith. OECs and TEs have faith in God, too. The question they ask (which you seemed to hint at) is, Why would God provide us with evidence found in nature that completely contradicts His creative methods? If the universe is only 10,000 years old, why would God put stars 14 billion light years away and still allow us to see them? You're right that a data trail can only take us so far, but a data trail can at least point in a direction. It seems odd that God would allow a data trail to be left and then ask us to come to a conclusion that contradicts the inferences of that data.

So you know as a fact that light took 14.5 billion years to get to the earth from the edge of the universe. Now we should list some of the assumptions in that statement. 1) The big bang is true and white hole expansion is false. 2) uniformitarianism applies all the way back 14.5 billion years. 3) The Bible is in error. 4) Hubble's red shift is due to an expanding universe. 5) Arp does not know what he is talking about.

Let me tell you something that bugs me about astrophysics. Maybe it will bug you as well. When the red shift was discovered we found that the light from distance sources in spheres around us was the same so it appeared as if we were in the center of the universe. But Hubble and Einstein did not like it that the earth would be in the center of the universe so a new term was added to the cosmos constant which bent space. Then no matter where you are you would see that you are in the center of the universe. This was done for two reasons. The first was it was unlikely we would be in the center unless we were special somehow. That was too close to design and supernatural intervention. The second was the redshift could be explained by travel through space. (way more complex than I am presenting) So the expanding universe came to man. OK then they are telling me that is it just as likely that the earth is really on the creative edge of the universe and not at some young point. So the galaxy next to us could be the oldest in the universe. Or the gas cloud next to us could be the youngest thing in the universe. But why is it that we always here that we look back in time as we view through our telescope. Why are we told that the viewing edge is the oldest? You see that science is saying two different things. One is we are not the center because of some things but we are the center and everything gets progressively older as we look out there. But if we are not the center then we could be the oldest thing in the universe. Or was everything made at the same time? I hope you see the problem.

Glenn P

October 9th 2009, 02:48 AM

From my time here on tweb, this is the one issue I see atheists use, trying to divide christians with. ( and in some cases, succeeding )

Ask some questions with it, maybe it might make someone step up their game in defending YEC.What's saddest of all is the way that some Christians, way more than I'd like to see, use this issue to divide Christians, in order to set themselves apart into a camp of "more faithful" as a witness just because of what they happen to believe in terms of the history of the world. Honest disagreement gets used as a weapon to morally castigate other believers as traitors.

Glenn P

October 9th 2009, 02:53 AM

But I say that almost every person I've encountered with ANTI-YEC beliefs is far more dogmatic than any YEC I've come across.That's probably more to do with feeling than fact. people (in this case, you) are more inclined to form an impression of somebody else as dogmatic if that other person does not agree with them.

If you were with very dogmatic people but never disagreed with them, you would be shielded from their dogmatism. I've said this assuming that you're YEC. I could, of course, be wrong.

Vigilante

October 10th 2009, 03:32 AM

That's probably more to do with feeling than fact. people (in this case, you) are more inclined to form an impression of somebody else as dogmatic if that other person does not agree with them.

If you were with very dogmatic people but never disagreed with them, you would be shielded from their dogmatism. I've said this assuming that you're YEC. I could, of course, be wrong.

I'm simply making a point that on this issue, everybody holds their position with firm dogmatism well established and practiced. But for some arbitrary reason, it's only YECs that get this term flung at them like some derogatory insult. In my experience, ALL sides are quite dogmatic in their assertions and beliefs. So when one side can't make the other side agree, they start flinging the "dogmatic" insult at them, when in fact they themselves are also just as dogmatic. It's just a term I find rather hypocritical to use. I don't really see them changing their minds either, or are any more open to changing beliefs.

Glenn P

October 10th 2009, 03:56 AM

I'm simply making a point that on this issue, everybody holds their position with firm dogmatism well established and practiced. But for some arbitrary reason, it's only YECs that get this term flung at them like some derogatory insult. In my experience, ALL sides are quite dogmatic in their assertions and beliefs. So when one side can't make the other side agree, they start flinging the "dogmatic" insult at them, when in fact they themselves are also just as dogmatic. It's just a term I find rather hypocritical to use. I don't really see them changing their minds either, or are any more open to changing beliefs.Here is the reason that this entirely fair complaint is made mostly against YEC believers: While both sides are of the view that their side is the correct one, the YEC position often crosses a whole other line, by accusing those on the other side not merely of being incorrect, but of actually being less Christian, or of being traitors to the word of God.

I have never ever seen that kind of thing from believers who are not YEC, so I think that believers in YEC will just have to wear this charge of dogmatism from within their camp. it is real, and as a reliable rulle of thumb, it is worse than that found amoung non-YEC believers.

If you think that smarts, then become part of the solution: Start campaigning against this behaviour from YEC believers so that the criticism will be made less often.

technomage

October 11th 2009, 11:06 PM

We should all be dogmatic for the truth.
We should, and if YEC were "the truth," such tenacity would be quite commendable.

technomage

October 11th 2009, 11:41 PM

When we are talking about science, we should try to distinguish between the generic and systematic study of nature e.g. by Newton, Pascal, Maxwell and a lot of Christian scientist from the kind of science that came down from the Enlightenment period where the scientist assumed a materialistic and naturalistic worldview and denied the possibility of miracle.

I do not think that there is a conflict between God and science in the first sense, but there is definitely an ideological conflict between God and science in the second sense.

Aegis, it looks like you have a misapprehension about post-Enlightenment science. Science does not exclude God: science acknowledges that it is incompetent to inquire about God (or, indeed, about angels, spirit, or anything else that does not qualify as a "natural phenomena"). The attempts by Sagan and Dawkins to use science to disprove God is precide proof that while Dawkins is (and Sagan was) a brilliant scientists, they're lousy philosophers and worse theologians. Science cannot prove or disprove God--it's the wrong tool for the job.

I believe that a lot of argument between YEC and science is that there is a confusion of definition of science
I wish I could agree with you, but I have met very few confused YECs. I've met a few deceitful YECs, and I've met a lot of deceived YECs, but they're quite clear about the falsehoods they spread--most without knowing that they are falsehoods.

Vigilante

October 12th 2009, 12:43 AM

Here is the reason that this entirely fair complaint is made mostly against YEC believers: While both sides are of the view that their side is the correct one, the YEC position often crosses a whole other line, by accusing those on the other side not merely of being incorrect, but of actually being less Christian, or of being traitors to the word of God.

I have never ever seen that kind of thing from believers who are not YEC, so I think that believers in YEC will just have to wear this charge of dogmatism from within their camp. it is real, and as a reliable rulle of thumb, it is worse than that found amoung non-YEC believers.

If you think that smarts, then become part of the solution: Start campaigning against this behaviour from YEC believers so that the criticism will be made less often.

But I'm not defining "dogmatic" in any kind of way to suggest "good Christian/bad Christian". Rather just that they push their views/beliefs/theories/ideas/arguments/evidences/complaints with just as strong a voice, just as ferocious, just as insulting, just as unchanging, unwavering, and usually utterly unsympathetic to the other side with no hope of changing belief. Both sides act the same. Adding the "you're a bad Christian" is just another argument in the toolbox, nothing more, even if it stings a little to be told that. But one single argument doesn't tip the scales from nondogmatic to dogmatic, that's a bit unfair, even if you don't like the argument.

Besides, on a lighter note, I've never heard a TE tell a YEC they were going against scripture. :wink: Sure it may be a useless argument, but the argument is on our side nonetheless, and perhaps that means something.

Even still, that's all getting slightly off topic. My point from the start was not to charge anybody with "bad Christian", but merely to point out that a cursory reading of scripture IS YECish, so it seems quite natural most churches would follow that view. In other words, it is in no way apparent, even with deeper study of the text, that the story in genesis has any evo in it. Or grand epochs of time. To teach that means they have to lean heavily on extra-Biblical, and dare I say, even Naturalistic, anti-God reasoning, to change its ideas. This isn't to say it's WRONG, but just to say that is likely why most churches would swing YEC in their teaching. No church is going to read scripture to a kid and then say, "BUT we know from man's reasoning that this really didn't happen the way it says, my latest Nature magazine actually says it happened this way. And this is backed up but National Geographic and many college professors. So now let's read John."
I might add it's not because of the "bad Christian" argument, but because of underlying confusion. That we have to apply OUR reasoning to scripture to find truth. That we have to check scripture by popular scientific opinion. That we can't trust the basic meaning of the words without consulting the godless on whether it's really accurate or not. You get the point? It isn't "good Christian, bad Christian", it's just that it makes life in church so much easier. And when people are old enough and smart enough to dig deep in the issues, or go to Theology school, or become geologists, they can dig in if they want.

aegis

October 12th 2009, 01:07 AM

Thanks Silent Running for your comment.

I think we are talking about the same thing so I don't think I disagree with you. I think I am not making myself clear and I apologize for that.

What I meant was that there are two kinds of argument regarding post-enlightenment science. The first one is the one that I adhere to and the one that you mentioned and also the kind of undertaking by Christian Scientist like e.g. JOhn Polkinhorne, Francis Collins. It is that science is an observation of the natural phenomenon and with no ideological presupposition. So it is an open approach that allows supernatural occurrences like miracles, deity, creation of universe.

However, I do think there is a second school of philosophy of science that is advocated by people like Dawkins, Sagan. Their idea is that science presumed a naturalistic presupposition and so for them, science can never accept the explanation of supernatural intervention no matter how strong the evidences are presented. It is simply unacceptable to their worldview and they will accept any scientific speculations or ideas like multiverse instead of the universe's origin

As regards to YEC, I cannot comment on that as I do not know enough of YEC to be able to comment. My gut feeling is that they have problem not with science but with the principles of biblical hermeneutics

Glenn P

October 12th 2009, 01:24 AM

But I'm not defining "dogmatic" in any kind of way to suggest "good Christian/bad Christian". Rather just that they push their views/beliefs/theories/ideas/arguments/evidences/complaints with just as strong a voice, just as ferocious, just as insulting, just as unchanging, unwavering, and usually utterly unsympathetic to the other side with no hope of changing belief. Both sides act the same. Adding the "you're a bad Christian" is just another argument in the toolbox, nothing more, even if it stings a little to be told that. But one single argument doesn't tip the scales from nondogmatic to dogmatic, that's a bit unfair, even if you don't like the argument.Eve if you don't like the use of terms, the complaint here is about a certain sort of dogmatism, a dogmatism that goes as far as to undermine the faith of brethren. If you would prefer that this conduct was not called out as dogmatic and deemed inappropriate, then I am unable to share your view, and I hope most other people do not share it.

Besides, on a lighter note, I've never heard a TE tell a YEC they were going against scripture. :wink: Sure it may be a useless argument, but the argument is on our side nonetheless, and perhaps that means something.Obviously, the dispute between YEC and other Christians is about whether or not the argument is on your side.

Actually that reminds me of another feature of YEC that is likely to contribute to its image as dogmatic: while its leading lights might know better, the movement as a whole is incredibly insular. The majority of it's "normal" adherents seem to find it unbelievable that other views even exist in Christianity.

Even still, that's all getting slightly off topic. My point from the start was not to charge anybody with "bad Christian", but merely to point out that a cursory reading of scripture IS YECish, so it seems quite natural most churches would follow that view.That may be your motive in the thread, but this does nothing to compensate for the unfortunately graceless and dogmatic appropach of so many in the YEC movement.

franktalk

October 12th 2009, 01:30 AM

If you think that smarts, then become part of the solution: Start campaigning against this behaviour from YEC believers so that the criticism will be made less often.

I don't care how old anyone thinks the world is. But a case can be made for a young earth from scripture.

Now Luke has a genealogy of Christ going back to Adam. If the earth is old how do you read Luke to place long ages into scripture?

Genesis describes life in six days not billions of years. Is it wrong? How do you make scripture say something else?

Jesus says let your answer be yes or no, not much grey in there. If this is the case why would Christ tell Moses to write a grey creation?

Since God knows everything from the beginning do you think He knew that man would believe Lyell about the age of the earth and Darwin about ape to man ascent? Do you think that He told Moses to write Genesis just the way it is so it would be a stumbling block for those of little faith?

Why would Peter write that mockers would deny the flood? Did he know in advance that geology would deny the flood? Are geologist mockers? Are Darwinist Christians?

These are simple questions. They should have simple answers. If your answers are "could be" or "might be" or I read it to say "this", or that word actually means something else. Are you not making Moses and God simple minded? For the God who made man probably knows how to write a verse that can be understood. But if you think that only some men get it and scripture must bend to man's ideas then you are lost.

This argument is tired. I am tired of writing it. The world weighs in against God in many areas. It is so hard to cast it all off. I do not know or care how God made the earth or man, I just know He did. I also know that God had men write scripture under His guidance. He is not a trickster, nor is He simple minded. I think He gave us exactly what we needed. It is our choice to see it or not.

Glenn P

October 12th 2009, 02:25 AM

I don't care how old anyone thinks the world is. But a case can be made for a young earth from scripture.This thread is not about how good anyone thinks the case for their view on the age of the earth is.

technomage

October 12th 2009, 06:54 AM

Thanks Silent Running for your comment.

I think we are talking about the same thing so I don't think I disagree with you. I think I am not making myself clear and I apologize for that.

What I meant was that there are two kinds of argument regarding post-enlightenment science. The first one is the one that I adhere to and the one that you mentioned and also the kind of undertaking by Christian Scientist like e.g. JOhn Polkinhorne, Francis Collins. It is that science is an observation of the natural phenomenon and with no ideological presupposition. So it is an open approach that allows supernatural occurrences like miracles, deity, creation of universe.

However, I do think there is a second school of philosophy of science that is advocated by people like Dawkins, Sagan. Their idea is that science presumed a naturalistic presupposition and so for them, science can never accept the explanation of supernatural intervention no matter how strong the evidences are presented. It is simply unacceptable to their worldview and they will accept any scientific speculations or ideas like multiverse instead of the universe's origin

We do agree, and thank you for the clarification.

As regards to YEC, I cannot comment on that as I do not know enough of YEC to be able to comment. My gut feeling is that they have problem not with science but with the principles of biblical hermeneutics

Unfortunately, I do know many in the YEC community, as I grew up in that sector of Christianity.

franktalk

October 12th 2009, 09:07 AM

This thread is not about how good anyone thinks the case for their view on the age of the earth is.

One creation view is to use the Bible as a reference and let everything else be subject to the reference. Now I don't know if that view is correct but it does allow for a supernatural history. It is the view that "God did it" and everything else must be seen in this light. So many of the proofs and theories of man would be tossed because they appear to conflict with the reference. So where man assumes a linear past we would look at the trace data of the past and compress it into a nonlinear past with supernatural events which somehow jumble the data. This method of interpreting the past is just as valid as any other view. Since we can not actually return to the past to verify our theory.

I see YEC as a stepping stone for some people. It is a way to ease into being a Christian. But then once someone has faith I see no need for anyone to hold onto any YEC view. The reason is, it should be easy to cast off the world and have faith. But I don't see a lot of this going on. So many people sit on the fence and try and keep a foot in the world and a foot in the spirit world. All that does is give you splinters in the most inappropriate places.

RCNicholas

October 14th 2009, 09:10 PM

Because we have two sides we have antagonist. Funny how that works out.

You don't think YECs are antagonistic towards those who disagree with them? Vigilante just said in so many words that non-YEC Christians basically don't believe the Bible. To me that's antagonism. :shrug:

No. Everything in science can be disproven tomorrow. The life expectancy of a theory is short.
But everything isn't disproven. Some theories last longer than others, and those that do are generally said to be supported (not proven) by the evidence.

I study the ideas of YEC and was a big time YEC at one time. I am still labeled as YEC by most, why fight it.

Well there's a pretty easy way to tell...do you believe the Earth and/or the universe is around 10,000 years old?

So you know as a fact that light took 14.5 billion years to get to the earth from the edge of the universe. No, because again things in science are not "proven." However, we have good reason to think so. In order to deny this you would have to deny that the speed of light is constant, and that at some point it traveled WAY faster than it does now. Now, I'm not an astronomer (enter pithy comment like, "then shut up about things you don't understand" here...), but again, my point goes to a larger philosophical question. It is totally possible that God at some point made light go much much faster than it does now, making it possible that the universe is only 10,000 years old but we can see stars that are 14 billion light years away. God can do whatever He wants. But again, the question non-YECs ask is, WHY would God form the universe in such a way and then leave behind evidence which clearly indicates a method or timeframe of creation that totally contradicts reality?

Now we should list some of the assumptions in that statement. 1) The big bang is true and white hole expansion is false. 2) uniformitarianism applies all the way back 14.5 billion years. 3) The Bible is in error. 4) Hubble's red shift is due to an expanding universe. 5) Arp does not know what he is talking about.
Again, your "assumption" #3 seems to indicate a very close-minded view, which is exactly why non-YECs often feel that their views are "taboo" among YECs. Why would the Bible necessarily be false simply because it took light 14 billion years to get here from a star 14 billion light years away?

Let me tell you something that bugs me about astrophysics. Maybe it will bug you as well. When the red shift was discovered we found that the light from distance sources in spheres around us was the same so it appeared as if we were in the center of the universe. But Hubble and Einstein did not like it that the earth would be in the center of the universe so a new term was added to the cosmos constant which bent space. Then no matter where you are you would see that you are in the center of the universe. This was done for two reasons. The first was it was unlikely we would be in the center unless we were special somehow. That was too close to design and supernatural intervention. The second was the redshift could be explained by travel through space. (way more complex than I am presenting) So the expanding universe came to man. OK then they are telling me that is it just as likely that the earth is really on the creative edge of the universe and not at some young point. So the galaxy next to us could be the oldest in the universe. Or the gas cloud next to us could be the youngest thing in the universe. But why is it that we always here that we look back in time as we view through our telescope. Why are we told that the viewing edge is the oldest? You see that science is saying two different things. One is we are not the center because of some things but we are the center and everything gets progressively older as we look out there. But if we are not the center then we could be the oldest thing in the universe. Or was everything made at the same time? I hope you see the problem.
I'm not an expert on these things, but I believe the quandry you seem to be struggling with is explained by the theory of general relativity. You seem to imply that Einstein created this theory to deny God or the supernatural, but Einstein seems to have believed in a God of some sort. He just wasn't YEC or geocentric. So again, you seem to have this idea stuck in your head that abandoning YEC is somehow "anti-God." What OECs and TEs are trying to tell you is, it isn't.

franktalk

October 14th 2009, 11:11 PM

You don't think YECs are antagonistic towards those who disagree with them? Vigilante just said in so many words that non-YEC Christians basically don't believe the Bible. To me that's antagonism. :shrug:

Both groups act like people with all of the faults of people. Some YEC cast doubts on people being Christian. Science types typically think the rest of the world is stupid if they don't go along with the program. These are both misguided attitudes. Both groups think they can prove theories of the past. They can't. I know enough about science and YEC to know that both sides don't prove and can't prove what they say. Both groups says that they study the universe to honor God and show how it works. They say by studying nature they uncover the real way the universe was made. But they exclude God in their study and force all of the data into naturalistic explanations. The YEC force the data into Biblical explanations, but they still use the naturalistic limitations. If God made the world as He said and then said we need to come to Him though faith then there is no evidence of God to find. At the same time there will be no evidence to disprove God either. How man interprets data with all of his biases is interesting but does little to clear up the past.

But everything isn't disproven. Some theories last longer than others, and those that do are generally said to be supported (not proven) by the evidence.

OK

Well there's a pretty easy way to tell...do you believe the Earth and/or the universe is around 10,000 years old?

It is probably around 7800 years old but it may be 14.5 billion years old or older. No matter how I feel about how old it is it is what it is. With a white hole explanation of the universe the earth experienced six days while the rest of the universe experienced 14.5 billion years. Since the earth and Jerusalem are the center and the attention spot then six days on the earth matters, not what happens outside. So maybe if we focus on Jerusalem like God does we do well. But this explanation uses naturalistic methods as well. I tend to think God did it by miracles. Since we have no idea what if any evidence they leave behind then our sorting through all of the past data could be worthless.

No, because again things in science are not "proven." However, we have good reason to think so. In order to deny this you would have to deny that the speed of light is constant, and that at some point it traveled WAY faster than it does now. Now, I'm not an astronomer (enter pithy comment like, "then shut up about things you don't understand" here...), but again, my point goes to a larger philosophical question. It is totally possible that God at some point made light go much much faster than it does now, making it possible that the universe is only 10,000 years old but we can see stars that are 14 billion light years away. God can do whatever He wants. But again, the question non-YECs ask is, WHY would God form the universe in such a way and then leave behind evidence which clearly indicates a method or timeframe of creation that totally contradicts reality?

Light, space, matter, and time are all related. Man has interpreted what we see. We of course could be totally wrong. I spent two years studying this light issue and believe it to be a stumbling block for many people. Have faith and do not let light or some man's opinion rule over you. It is just not that important. The Gospel is stranger than some expansion model.

Again, your "assumption" #3 seems to indicate a very close-minded view, which is exactly why non-YECs often feel that their views are "taboo" among YECs. Why would the Bible necessarily be false simply because it took light 14 billion years to get here from a star 14 billion light years away?

Again if a theory that explains the light is important to you then study white holes. You seem to think in a mechanistic mode. Our past may be nonlinear and everything we see as traces of the past could be all jumbled up. There are things in science that don't add up, there are many anomalies which science can't explain. If you really need to know that science has huge holes in it then study anomalies. I have it is great. Also look up the opinions of scientist that disagree with accepted theory. (non-YEC) Great reading by the way.

I'm not an expert on these things, but I believe the quandry you seem to be struggling with is explained by the theory of general relativity. You seem to imply that Einstein created this theory to deny God or the supernatural, but Einstein seems to have believed in a God of some sort. He just wasn't YEC or geocentric. So again, you seem to have this idea stuck in your head that abandoning YEC is somehow "anti-God." What OECs and TEs are trying to tell you is, it isn't.

Anyone who deny miracles or refuses to allow them in the explanation of the universe could be described as anti-god. But the Gospel does not say how the universe was crerated so I don't think it is required for salvation. But it still could be a stumbling block that prevents faith or promotes doubt.

You did not understand what I was saying. It is not worth describing it in more detail.

Everyone has agendas, we can't help it. I have some, we all do. Scientist think like scientist. Stay in the culture long enough and some of it rubs off. This is why it is so important for fellowship.

Vigilante

October 15th 2009, 12:55 AM

Eve if you don't like the use of terms, the complaint here is about a certain sort of dogmatism, a dogmatism that goes as far as to undermine the faith of brethren. If you would prefer that this conduct was not called out as dogmatic and deemed inappropriate, then I am unable to share your view, and I hope most other people do not share it.
Obviously, the dispute between YEC and other Christians is about whether or not the argument is on your side.
I just think you're taking the term WAY too far. A basic definition of "dogmatic" is "Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles."
And who would deny the arrogance displayed by just about ANY Darwinian thinker? YEC is too small and underpowered to presume any kind of arrogance, even if they try.

I think that can easily be applied to both sides in almost any debate I've ever witnessed. I just don't like it when the non-YECers fling it out like an insult, obviously implying that they, in their lofty views, are not dogmatic in the least, then there seems to be a further implication that by extensions of being dogmatic, that somehow also makes them more wrong in their arguments or conclusions. I.e.:
- You're being dogmatic!
- Therefore: WE are NOT at all acting like that!
- Therefore: OUR arguments are more true and yours invalid or dismissible.

Dogmatism, I think, has about zero influence on the truth value of a claim, and so that makes it more of an ad hom than anything, just a way to fling a dirty "image" on your opponent, to make them seem less believable or worthy of thought to the audience. The word is used more like a tactic than anything else.
I just happen to think the term is flung around flippantly, falsely, and used in the wrong way, not to mention an air of hypocritical irony. So we may just agree to disagree.

Actually that reminds me of another feature of YEC that is likely to contribute to its image as dogmatic: while its leading lights might know better, the movement as a whole is incredibly insular. The majority of it's "normal" adherents seem to find it unbelievable that other views even exist in Christianity.
That may be your motive in the thread, but this does nothing to compensate for the unfortunately graceless and dogmatic appropach of so many in the YEC movement.

And I think EVERYBODY in the debate has just as much a dogmatic approach to it. My "image" of my opposition is just as dogmatic as their image of me I'm sure.

Also I am not surprised "other views" exist on this issue, as other views exist on just about every Biblical doctrine and historical reference.

Peace

aegis

October 15th 2009, 08:55 AM

I enjoyed reading this thread as everyone is being respectful and restrained but also firmly arguing their convictions.

To FrankTalk: thank you for you conviction on faith and the gospel. It is the most important. I agree totally with you that the creation debate is not crucial to salvation and faith. Whether it is YEC's view or TE or OEC, people can still believe in God.

I agree that one cannot be a Christian if one does not believe in miracle or supernatural intervention ( read: God's hand in creation).

However, I do disagree that YEC is the only way God can intervene in the Cosmos or in creation. It is my argument that OEC and TE is compatible with the Biblical Genesis account of creation.

One can argue on that and one can debate on the biblical text and exegesis and it is a great thing to do.

However, one thing that caused an emotional response and antagonistic stance is the accusation that if one does not believe in YEC then that person is not a bible believing Christian; then that person is anti-God and that that person is only a materialistic atheist. I do not say that you are like that but I do met a few YEC who are like that.

I think it is this kind of accusation and dogmatic stance that led to the discussion by Dr. Jack and Vigilante.

To Vigilante:

Thank you for clarification on your view of dogmatism. I do agree with your point. Dogmatism is taken in a negative way but actually everyone has a bias, a starting point and context and that is fine. That is the basis for a good sharing and discussion. Dogma used to be a good word in Church history in the old days as the foundation and truth of our belief.

One thing that the postmodern times brought us is that no one person is likely to have a monopoly on the truth. ( A big disclaimer:: I do think that there is truth and one can know the truth, but because of the limitation of humankind, no one person can know all the truth, there is a diversity and vastness in knowledge). We can compare our 'dogma's and learn from each other.

franktalk

October 15th 2009, 10:00 AM

I agree that one cannot be a Christian if one does not believe in miracle or supernatural intervention ( read: God's hand in creation).

However, I do disagree that YEC is the only way God can intervene in the Cosmos or in creation. It is my argument that OEC and TE is compatible with the Biblical Genesis account of creation.

Science can be used as a tool to destroy someone's faith in God. I have seen it myself and I used to do it as well in days gone by. I think that is what the YEC are fighting. I think they are trying to get people to open their eyes and see an alternate explanation of scientific data. Yes, emotions run high on both sides and personal attacks are frequent.

If you read 2Peter he describes mockers that deny the flood. He then states that the reason they do is because they believe in uniformitarianism. They deny the miracle of the flood. This is exactly what science teaches today. Now can people be mockers and believe in Christ? Apparently so, I have come across many. But I ask myself, do I want to be in this class of people? The answer is no. So my faith rest in past miracles and not trace evidence interpreted by naturalistic means. It is a choice I have made. And of course I am mocked by science types all of the time. They say I am ignoring the data. To which I say I am just adding more data. Then they respond with, "but I can't see or touch your data". I respond with it is the data of faith.

Chaotic Void

October 15th 2009, 01:26 PM

Does anyone else feel like it's taboo to speak of anything other than YEC, when in church? Maybe it's just the area where I live... at least I hope so.
To make even more fun we're watching AiG videos in my sunday school class, and I don't know whether I should shoot through it's fallacious reasoning in the discussion, or just sit down and shut up.:no:

Yeah, it's like that in my area too. You ain't YEC, you be of teh debal! Well, almost. You're usually met with some degree of hostility, depending on the group you're with.

We actually had a CMI guy come and do a piece at a local church about Noah's Ark (his name escapes me at the moment). And when I say that, I mean he briefly touched on what Noah's ark might have looked like, then proceeded to poke fun at the alleged problems of an Old Earth and Evolution whilst scarcely bolstering the Young Earth case with non-sequitors. Though to be fair, it wasn't all bad. The presentation was easy to follow, plus the model of the ark was rather interesting.

RCNicholas

October 15th 2009, 02:05 PM

Both groups act like people with all of the faults of people. Some YEC cast doubts on people being Christian. Science types typically think the rest of the world is stupid if they don't go along with the program. These are both misguided attitudes.
Agreed.

Both groups think they can prove theories of the past. They can't. I know enough about science and YEC to know that both sides don't prove and can't prove what they say. And neither side, properly understood, should really be trying to do so.

Both groups says that they study the universe to honor God and show how it works. They say by studying nature they uncover the real way the universe was made. But they exclude God in their study and force all of the data into naturalistic explanations. If you're referring to scientists, then this is perfectly normal and expected. Science does not (or should not) delve into areas about purpose, spirituality, etc. We can point to some scientific evidence and say, "Hey, this seems to imply divine intention/intervention," but that's really not the POINT of science. Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Faulting it for abiding by its own rules seems rather odd.

If God made the world as He said and then said we need to come to Him though faith then there is no evidence of God to find. At the same time there will be no evidence to disprove God either. How man interprets data with all of his biases is interesting but does little to clear up the past.
The point is, asking a person "if God made the world as He said," is really a loaded question. One does not have to believe that everything in Genesis is literal to believe it's inspired any more than one has to do so with Revelation.

It is probably around 7800 years old but it may be 14.5 billion years old or older. No matter how I feel about how old it is it is what it is. Obviously. We could all be in the Matrix for all we know. I was just asking what you personally thought.

Light, space, matter, and time are all related. Man has interpreted what we see. We of course could be totally wrong. I spent two years studying this light issue and believe it to be a stumbling block for many people. Have faith and do not let light or some man's opinion rule over you. It is just not that important. The Gospel is stranger than some expansion model.
I don't really see it as a stumbling block, because I've come to realize that the Christian faith is not compromised by abandoning YEC. The Gospel can still remain true even if evolution is true.

Again if a theory that explains the light is important to you then study white holes. That's really not what I asked you. You said that one of the "assumptions" I had is that the Bible is false. I asked you to substantiate this claim.

Anyone who deny miracles or refuses to allow them in the explanation of the universe could be described as anti-god.
There are still creative miracles outside the YEC framework. That's what you seem to have a hard time accepting.

franktalk

October 15th 2009, 03:23 PM

RCNicholas

October 15th 2009, 06:29 PM

RCNicholas ,

The issue is not how we organize our thoughts on the world but how we prioritize our thoughts. If I say the earth is 7800 years old I could be wrong, if I say it is 14.5 billon years old I could be wrong also. The reality is I don't know how old it is. But how do I prioritize my thinking about the past. If I use the Bible as my reference and look at the world through that lense then I will not stumble as much as I would if I use science and naturalism as my guide. Yes, I think we should study the creation and to invent things is in our blood. But that study is not the lense we should examine the past with. Now if someone thinks science has the answers and they bend scripture to fit what science says then they have their priorities wrong. But we all know that the Bible is not a science book. But that does not mean we give science authority. How one walks that line is up to the individual.

Frank, you're acknowledging a general truth (that the Bible is not a science book), but I don't think you're really taking that principle to its logical conclusion. The Bible does not tell us how old the Earth or the universe is. It doesn't even TRY to tell us how old those things are. If we're acknowledging that as true, then it should not scare us or cause us to "stumble" in our faith when we accept science as it tries to answer the questions that it is meant to answer. There is no need to "bend" either the Bible or science. Let each of them speak, loud and clear, but understand the distinct purposes of them both. Science SHOULD be given authority, to answer SCIENTIFIC questions. The Bible SHOULD be given authority, to answer BIBLICAL questions. You say that "walking the line" between the two is up to the individual, which is fine. But the point of this thread is that many YECs, even from the pulpit, do not WANT the individual to walk that line. They want to make it very clear that YEC is the ONLY way to properly walk that line. Being Catholic, I am used to criticism about my Church being too authoritative, demanding ridiculous things of its adherents, etc. But on this issue, Catholics even have more "freedom" of thought in their parishes than many Protestants do in their local churches. And I think that's what the heart of the OP was getting at.

franktalk

October 15th 2009, 09:48 PM

Frank, you're acknowledging a general truth (that the Bible is not a science book), but I don't think you're really taking that principle to its logical conclusion. The Bible does not tell us how old the Earth or the universe is. It doesn't even TRY to tell us how old those things are.

You are of course kidding. When Luke wrote the genealogy of Christ from Adam it is pretty clear that someone could add up the ages of each father before the birth of their son and come to an age of the earth and then add six days for the universe. Using the Septuagint it comes to around 7800 years old. And I am sure that I did not miss six decimal places. Now some people say that there are gaps in there. But that is added in as an interpretation. Tell me how God in inspiring the writers of scripture could be so off in the plain text understanding of the age of the universe? Now I allow people to have their own opinion as to the age of the universe but don't tell me the Bible does not indicate the age of the earth and the universe. Now I allow for a 7800 year old universe but I also allow others to have their own opinion. But don't tell me you know the age because you do not.

mas2

October 15th 2009, 11:23 PM

Tell me how God in inspiring the writers of scripture could be so off in the plain text understanding of the age of the universe? Now I allow people to have their own opinion as to the age of the universe but don't tell me the Bible does not indicate the age of the earth and the universe. Now I allow for a 7800 year old universe but I also allow others to have their own opinion. But don't tell me you know the age because you do not.

Hi Frank and RCNicholas,

Thanks for the discussion so far, this is my first post here and the mention of the age of the earth has come up a few times in this thread and is something i have been thinking about a little bit lately.

I just wanted to add quickly to what you're saying Frank in that while the Bible does seem to indicate how old the universe is, i dont actually see it saying anywhere how old God made the universe.

For example if we take creation literally and say that God created a really big tree and a small baby tree at the same time, while they are exactly the same age biblically we would still look at them and see one as being older than the other.

Sorry if that doesnt make sense or its too off topic.

Cheers
MAS

franktalk

October 16th 2009, 12:37 AM

Hi Frank and RCNicholas,

Thanks for the discussion so far, this is my first post here and the mention of the age of the earth has come up a few times in this thread and is something i have been thinking about a little bit lately.

I just wanted to add quickly to what you're saying Frank in that while the Bible does seem to indicate how old the universe is, i dont actually see it saying anywhere how old God made the universe.

For example if we take creation literally and say that God created a really big tree and a small baby tree at the same time, while they are exactly the same age biblically we would still look at them and see one as being older than the other.

Sorry if that doesnt make sense or its too off topic.

Cheers
MAS

Welcome to tweb. The argument that God would create an item with the appearance of age is an old one. Like did God make the light in the space between us and the stars so we would see them? If so He laid out billions of years of light in an instant. But in those light streams is an apparent age and action. If by chance it is made up then God made something which could be considered a lie (something false). That is not in the character of God so it is probably not true. So there must be some other explanation. To date science has one theory that is mainstream, a big bang occured 14.5 billion years ago. But there are other theories and other ways to interpret the evidence of the universe. A good read of the Bible reveals that God's focus is Jerusalem and the earth. In Genesis it says a six day creation. That is six turns of the earth. What happened in the rest of the universe is not mentioned. That is why I talk about a white hole creation. It allows six days on earth and 14.5 billion years in the rest of the universe. Even though this theory is just like all the others in the sense that they can't be verified it shows a structure that has the same data as "old universe" yet stays inside of a literal reading of Genesis. Of course any theory is going to allow us the view the data through our own biases.

The point I am trying to make with my post is not to be too attached to any theory or interpretation. In all likelyhood they are all wrong. I do hope that someone will explain all of this after I die. I am so curious but willing to wait for the right answer.

This thread has somewhat focused on the problems created when people get too attached to their theories and heap wide criticism on others that don't agree with them. Some people think that if one does not believe in some narrow view of creation then they are lost. I think that being too attached to any theory is bad for you. Where I draw a line in the sand is when someone says the Bible is false or a made up story. They of course use the current thinking of science to do so. So people who believe that science has it right are playing a difficult game. I say this because science changes everyday. Theories come and go. Tomorrows discovery may indicate to science that all faith in an God is foolishness. Many feel that way today. So if someone believes in science then that belief can work against faith in God. Maybe even more in the future. This is why it is so important to place all of this in a bucket called "nice but don't take too seriously".

RCNicholas

October 16th 2009, 02:42 PM

You are of course kidding.
No, not really.

When Luke wrote the genealogy of Christ from Adam it is pretty clear that someone could add up the ages of each father before the birth of their son and come to an age of the earth
Well that's a silly assumption. Doing that might give you the length of time man has been around; you shouldn't assume it gives you the age of the Earth.

and then add six days for the universe.
:lol: Now YOU must be the one kidding. The meaning of the word "day" in Hebrew has been argued for centuries, if not millenia. Surely you're aware of this. Again, is the Bible a science book or not?

Using the Septuagint it comes to around 7800 years old. And I am sure that I did not miss six decimal places. Now some people say that there are gaps in there. But that is added in as an interpretation.
Frank, even a literal interpretation is still an interpretation. There is no obvious reason to assume literalism there, other than your own preconceived biases. So again, please realize that you do not come to the table free of assumptions, even when you take a "literal" position.

Tell me how God in inspiring the writers of scripture could be so off in the plain text understanding of the age of the universe?
He would only be "off" when you assume that Genesis is totally literal. Once you let go of that assumption, you might see things differently.

Now I allow people to have their own opinion as to the age of the universe but don't tell me the Bible does not indicate the age of the earth and the universe.
It doesn't. Your assumption that it does is based on your belief that Adam is as old as the Earth and that "day" means a 24-hour period of time in Genesis 1. Those are preconceived notions that you bring to the table in your Biblical interpretation. The sooner you admit this, the sooner you'll begin to realize that OECs and TEs "believe in the Bible" too.

Now I allow for a 7800 year old universe but I also allow others to have their own opinion. But don't tell me you know the age because you do not.
And neither do you, of course. We can only base our knowledge on the evidence around us. I just don't think the YEC "evidence," Biblical or scientific, is particularly compelling.