Presbyterian Church in America accepts old earth creation as a valid interpretation

[A Beautiful Truth]

The following article was published by the Presbyterian Church in America's official website.

Is it not interesting that here we have a very conservative group of Christians saying that belief in an old earth is within the scope of conservative Christianity?

They spent two years on their: "Report of the Creation Study Committee" which details why they accept old earth creationism as scripturally based. You can find that 92 page report on their website for full details.


* * * * * * * *
Creation


One Explanation of the Creation Dilemma


By Ray Williams
Accepting an old-earth view does not compromise a Christian's trust in the Bible.



PCANews - Brother,

I believe your recent reply to my message exhibits a strategy of avoiding specific comments on exegetical interpretations and the discussion of scientific information. Instead your reply resorts to the use of phrases such as “man’s preconceived agendas,” “the acceptance of the scientific party line on astronomy,” and a faulty “understanding of the relationship between human knowledge and Scripture.” This strategy stems from the adoption of a dogmatic interpretation of Genesis 1 coupled with the rejection of any conflicting information.
In reference to my comment that “many” in the PCA hold the position that you do, your parenthetical statement asserting that it is “the overwhelming majority” has not, in fact, been borne out by the action of two General Assemblies. If you recall, when the Creation Study Committee’s report was presented, a concerted effort was made to have the Assembly immediately adopt the twenty-four hour day interpretation of Genesis 1. But this effort was defeated by a good margin. The following year, an overture was submitted to have the Assembly declare the intent of the Westminster Divines’ use of the phrase “in the space of six days” was to specify six calendar days. But again, this action was defeated. Consequently, I believe that the years 2000 and 2001 will be the time when the high-water-mark was reached in attempts to have the PCA adopt the twenty-four hour day or young-earth interpretation.

Since you brought up the question concerning the proper understanding of the young-earth position, I think it is appropriate to present a thumbnail sketch of the historical development of the creation age question to explain why the Church finds itself in its present dilemma:

1. There is no doubt that in the 17th century, at the time of the Westminster Assembly, the prevailing view was that the earth was approximately six thousand years old and the days of Genesis were 24 hours in duration. However, much earlier, Augustine, because of his observations of the created world, was uncertain and stated, “What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive.” [1]

2. Davis A. Young in his book, Christianity & The Age Of The Earth, gives an historical description of the geological investigations up to 1750 and cites the developing awareness and acceptance of the Earth’s antiquity. He points out, “The facts are that the modern view that the Earth is extremely old was developed by Christian men who believed wholeheartedly in creation and the Flood and who were opposed to evolution. They came to their view, not because of a preconceived evolutionary philosophy, but because of their intimate knowledge of rocks gained over the years from thorough field study. The traditional ideas of a six thousand-year-old Earth and a global flood simply could not account for what they saw.” [2]

3. A very informative article entitled Geology and Genesis Unearthed, by Michael B. Roberts, traces the development of geology in England and Scotland during the 19th century, and examines the response of those in the Anglican, Non-conformist, and Scottish Presbyterian churches to the changing ideas about the natural history of the earth. He documents that, contrary to popular belief, many of the foremost geologists at the time were evangelical clergymen or church leaders and some of the most vocal opponents of geology were established scientists, scholars in the humanities, and more liberal churchmen. [3]

4. Much confusion about the distinction between creation and evolution was introduced by the publication of Charles Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859. As Ronald L. Numbers pointed out, “Although one of Darwin’s principal goals was to overthrow the dogma of separate creations, he invoked at least one creative act for the purpose of getting life going and allowed for the possibility of several more interventions.” [4]


5. Numbers also gives an outstanding and well-documented account of “The Evolution of Scientific Creationism” (the subtitle of his book), in The Creationists, in which he describes the important influence that Seventh-Day Adventists had in developing and promoting the modern-day Flood Geology concept. Concerning the interpretation of Genesis 1, Numbers writes, “Because of their distinctive Sabbath doctrine, Adventists adamantly opposed any scientific theory that proposed interpreting the days of creation symbolically. To follow ‘infidel geologists’ in supposing that the events described in Genesis 1 required seven vast, infinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.” [5]

6. George McCready Price (1870-1963), a Seventh-day Adventist and follower of the charismatic Ellen G. White (1827-1915), was a zealous anti-evolutionist and considered the “chief exponent” of flood geology. He was motivated by two factors, (1) to uphold SDA. doctrine, and (2) to oppose the theory of evolution. He also was convinced that geology furnished “nine-tenths” of the argument for organic evolution; therefore, he focused his attack on that science. [6]

7. Since the last century, evangelical Christianity has been engaged in intense controversy over the relationship of geology and the Bible. This controversy received fresh impetus with the publication in 1961 of The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. They were both greatly influenced by Price’s work both by personal contact and by his writings. Their work brought about a stunning renaissance of flood geology in Christian circles. [7]

8. In Henry Morris’ early writings he maintained that science had no role to play in the interpretation of Genesis 1 and in establishing the age of the earth, because he believed that a plain reading of Scripture taught that the earth was young. However, as time went on, he organized “scientists” from various fields to develop theories to support his young-earth view. His influence led to the formation of such organizations as the Creation Research Society, the Creation Science Research Center, and the Institute of Creation Research (ICR).

9. Individuals from these organizations made a number of challenges to mainstream scientific understandings in an attempt to discredit such things as plate tectonics, radioactive dating, nuclear fusion of the sun, coral reef growth & burial, etc. They also proposed numerous theories including, (1) the speed of light has decreased over time, (2) the measurement of astronomical distances are not accurate, and (3) light from distant objects was created already on its way to earth thereby giving the appearance of age. All of these challenges and theories have been shown to be bogus and even some young-earth advocates, ones who are objective, admit that they have no credible scientific evidence to support their position.

10. However, scientific challenges are continuing and the young-earth movement has been very successful in creating, in the mind of many Christians, a deep distrust of science. These Christians are convinced that modern scientific theories are opposed to biblical teaching. The strategy of linking geology, astronomy and an old-earth view with Darwinism and biological evolution has hit a resonant note with these skeptics and therefore, anyone who advocates an old-earth view should be categorized as an evolutionist and vigorously opposed.

11. But, in the last ten years, precise cosmological measurements have been made by instrumentation systems such as the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-ray satellite, the COBE and WMAP cosmic background radiation probes, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer and the soon to be added Space Infrared Telescope Facility. Because of the data accumulated by these systems, confirmation of Einstein’s theorems of Special and General Relativity, the standard Big Bang cosmological model, and the configuration and age of the universe have been established to a known certainty.

Although this overwhelming and irrefutable evidence should be good news to Christians, since it proves that there must be a Creator, the reality is that young-earth advocates have resorted to vicious attacks on people like astronomer/theologian Hugh Ross and his Reasons-to-Believe ministry. At his presentations, people confrontationally try to disrupt his message, to seeking unbelievers, by distributing their “Attack Pack” material that disparages his character. In a fund raising letter for the organization Answers-in-Genesis, Ross is referred to as “the enemy from within,” an enemy “more dangerous and destructive” than any from without. Because of his so-called “deadly compromise teachings” he is compared to the deceivers mentioned in Acts 20.

However, the fundamental fact is that the earth is old and the universe even older. And, Christians need to come to grips with this truth, overcome their fears and be assured that their trust in the Bible will not be compromised if they accept an old-earth view. What is at stake is the credibility of the Church in witnessing to the world and to be a positive influence on our educational system and society.

Dr. J. P. Moreland addressed the age of the earth question during a lecture at Northshore Church, Everett, Washington on February 2, 2002, at which time he said:



Now we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe of space-time and matter had a beginning. It is now no longer reasonable to believe that the universe has always been here. That is now an irrational belief. Instead, we now know beyond reasonable doubt that the physical cosmos, of matter, and of space and of time, came into existence some time ago. At this point, it doesn’t matter how long ago that was…some estimates are 15 to 20 billion years…that is not relevant to my concerns. What is relevant is that it is now beyond reasonable doubt that the universe came into existence a finite period of time ago. [8]

Concerning the exegesis of Genesis 1, Dr. Moreland also stated:



Now…I’m not a Hebrew exegete. But I will tell you that two of the best-known exegetes of the Old Testament in the American evangelical community are Gleason Archer at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Walter Kaiser at Gordon-Conwell. Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer are respected in the entire United States as being faithful expositors of the Old Testament. Both of them know eight to ten Old Testament languages, and they both have spent their entire lives in Hebrew exegesis. Both of them believe the days of Genesis are…vast, unspecified periods of time, and are in no way required to be literal twenty-four hour days. [9]


I hope the above information is helpful and that we both continue to search for his truth.
------------
Notes:

[1] Augustine, The City of God, Book 11, chap. 7

[2] Davis A. Young, Christianity & The Age Of The Earth, (The Zondervand Co., 1982, pp. 66-67)

[3] Michael B. Roberts, Geology and Genesis Unearthed, (Journal, Churchman, vol. 112 No. 3, 1998)

[4] Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists, (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1992, Page 4)

[5] Ibid., Page 74

[6] Ibid., Page 76

[7] Davis A. Young, Creation and the Flood, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1997, Page 7)

[8] J. P. Moreland, http://reasons.org

[9] Ibid.
============
RE Ray Williams lives in Blairsville, Ga.

For more articles like this go to PCANews.

[kuboes1831]

An excellent post. Reference 3 is on disc if anyone wants it. Ask nicely and it's yours

Anyway OEC is the traditional view of American presbyterians like Hodge and Warfield

[seer]

They are apostate and now believe in macro human evolution:

6. Evolution

Basic meaning: change over time. (Simply a descriptive claim, with no comment on how the change took place.)

Biological evolution (neutral sense): genetic change over time. (This makes no comment on where those changes came from, or on how extensive they can be.)

Naturalistic evolution (neo-Darwinism): The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments (National Association of Biology Teachers). This rules out any supernatural activity of God in the origin and development of life and of humans, and hence makes a naturalistic metaphysic the basis of science.

Theistic evolution:

- precise sense: God designed a world which has within itself all the capacities to develop life and its diversity.

- broader senses: some apply the term to all brands of old-earth creationism; some apply it to versions of old-earth creationism that allow large-scale biological development (e.g. all mammals share a common ancestor); some apply it to any view that allows common ancestry for all living things.

- Woodrow/Warfield theistic evolution: Adam’s body was the product of evolutionary development (second causes working alone), and his special creation involved the imparting of a rational soul to a highly-developed hominid.

We employ the precise sense of theistic evolution because of its clarity and its relation to Darwinism.

Micro-evolution: genetic variations over time (or evolution) within certain limits (i.e. within a type or kind).

Macro-evolution: evolution that crosses the boundary of kinds.

http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/pcacreation.html

[A Beautiful Truth]

They are apostate and now believe in macro human evolution:

6. Evolution

Basic meaning: change over time. (Simply a descriptive claim, with no comment on how the change took place.)

Biological evolution (neutral sense): genetic change over time. (This makes no comment on where those changes came from, or on how extensive they can be.)

Naturalistic evolution (neo-Darwinism): The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments (National Association of Biology Teachers). This rules out any supernatural activity of God in the origin and development of life and of humans, and hence makes a naturalistic metaphysic the basis of science.

Theistic evolution:

- precise sense: God designed a world which has within itself all the capacities to develop life and its diversity.

- broader senses: some apply the term to all brands of old-earth creationism; some apply it to versions of old-earth creationism that allow large-scale biological development (e.g. all mammals share a common ancestor); some apply it to any view that allows common ancestry for all living things.

- Woodrow/Warfield theistic evolution: Adam’s body was the product of evolutionary development (second causes working alone), and his special creation involved the imparting of a rational soul to a highly-developed hominid.

We employ the precise sense of theistic evolution because of its clarity and its relation to Darwinism.

Micro-evolution: genetic variations over time (or evolution) within certain limits (i.e. within a type or kind).

Macro-evolution: evolution that crosses the boundary of kinds.

http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/pcacreation.html


They are apostate and now believe in macro human evolution:

What! You did not read carefully, obviously, and cut and pasted points out of context....hummm.

Perhaps it was not worth your time to read carefully since you already made up your mind....

~Charleen

[kuboes1831]

Come on YECs , give some response.

[kuboes1831]

In the first post the PCA article refered to Michael B. Roberts, Geology and Genesis Unearthed, (Journal, Churchman, vol. 112 No. 3, 1998)

This is now on a website of a very wise Christian

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geolandgenesis.htm

The article needs revision as there are many more evangelical geologists in the early 19th century, but that will come out in his book next year

[Socratism]

Come on YECs , give some response.

What's to say? It is obvious that members/leaders in the various denominations are human beings brought up in a culture where science is greatly respected and since many if not most do not differentiate between operational science and that of Origins then that respect for science in general causes people to hestitate being called "fools" for going against the cultural norm.

This is a particular problem in this day and age where the ministry has a weakened respect in general as far as the public is concerned. The result is that only those who are quite stong in their scriptural beliefs are willing to put their ministries "on the line" by standing up for scripture.

This is no joke for it is a fact that many ministries have been split when pastors take strong stands on controversial topics. The same then holds true all the way up the hierarchy. Thus we see endless "commissions" formed to "study" sexuality and abortion.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Socratism has hit it. There is no more to say really. The PCA split with USA was based partly on allegorizing Genesis and a low view of Scripture by some who are now in the USA branch (that is not ALL - I know many I respect in the USA branch). We shall see how far they take it.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Socratism has hit it. There is no more to say really. The PCA split with USA was based partly on allegorizing Genesis and a low view of Scripture by some who are now in the USA branch (that is not ALL - I know many I respect in the USA branch). We shall see how far they take it.

What do you mean by "We shall see how far they take it"?

~Charleen

[Dee Dee Warren]

I mean that I wonder until TE wil be a valid interpretation and then when allegory might be. They may not. But no church jumps from what I see as the correct Biblical view (YEC) to complete disregard for Scripture in one leap. That is NOT to say that accepting OEC inevitably leads that way. It IS to say that it IS always one step along the way.

But such an article as this I find pretty useless, such as when I hear such and such demonation accepts the abomination of praticising homosexuality as acceptable for a Christian. My answer is so what?

I "accept" OEC as a "valid" interpretation only to the extent that it does not cut one off from Christian fellowship. I do not accept it as a "valid" interpretation as being equal to others because I firmly believe it is utterly wrong. It is one of those items for which Christian charity for unity can be extended even in strong disagreement. But I really could care less if the PCA accepts OEC or not, that does not give it any weight for me. The HUGE QUESTION BEGGED IS THIS.... why is this news? Why wasn't it accepted before. Has there been new Scriptural revelation? Has the faith once for all delivered to the saints been updated? I think not.

That is my commentary, have at it for the last word. You don't see me going around posting about who has accepted preterism. It doesn't matter. What does the Bible say? That is what matters.

[Socratism]

I mean that I wonder until TE wil be a valid interpretation and then when allegory might be. They may not. But no church jumps from what I see as the correct Biblical view (YEC) to complete disregard for Scripture in one leap. That is NOT to say that accepting OEC inevitably leads that way. It IS to say that it IS always one step along the way.

But such an article as this I find pretty useless, such as when I hear such and such demonation accepts the abomination of praticising homosexuality as acceptable for a Christian. My answer is so what?

I "accept" OEC as a "valid" interpretation only to the extent that it does not cut one off from Christian fellowship. I do not accept it as a "valid" interpretation as being equal to others because I firmly believe it is utterly wrong. It is one of those items for which Christian charity for unity can be extended even in strong disagreement. But I really could care less if the PCA accepts OEC or not, that does not give it any weight for me. The HUGE QUESTION BEGGED IS THIS.... why is this news? Why wasn't it accepted before. Has there been new Scriptural revelation? Has the faith once for all delivered to the saints been updated? I think not.

That is my commentary, have at it for the last word. You don't see me going around posting about who has accepted preterism. It doesn't matter. What does the Bible say? That is what matters.

"That is what matters."

Amen.

[CobraA1]

I'm with Dee Dee on this one. OK, there were people who believed in OEC. So? I'm trying to find what the Bible says, not what some person's interpretation says. There is nothing more to say - this isn't news.

[A Beautiful Truth]

It is news to me that some conservative denomination (PCA is conservative, not liberal) sees OEC/animal death before the Fall as not the cult-like fling that some people make it out to be.

Having learned conservative scholars "normalize" the OEC view is important to the OEC's who have been painted by AiG into some cultish corner with their characterizations.

And you are right, Dee Dee, that acceptance of OEC does not logically lead to belief of liberal interpretations of scripture like homosexuality or allagorizing Genesis.

The PCA report made it clear that the PCA does not accept theistic evolution as a valid interpretation.

~Charleen

[Dee Dee Warren]

It is news to me that some conservative denomination (PCA is conservative, not liberal) sees OEC/animal death before the Fall as not the cult-like fling that some people make it out to be.

PCA is currently conservative. But all denoms with historical background started that way.




Having learned conservative scholars "normalize" the OEC view is important to the OEC's who have been painted by AiG into some cultish corner with their characterizations.

That is blatantly unfair. Don't complain about alleged unfairness on the part of others and be unfair yourself in the process. It is highly hypocritical to me to see "some" OEC tactics of painting YEC as wild-eyes maniacs. How do you like that? This brush is broad and blind.



And you are right, Dee Dee, that acceptance of OEC does not logically lead to belief of liberal interpretations of scripture like homosexuality or allagorizing Genesis.

But it is ALWAYS a step along the way. That was my point. You don't see any denom go from YEC to TE without the intermediate step. I also don't know of any strong YEC that accept homosexuality as a valid Christian practice. It is not a logical connection.

Such as A does not lead to B

But A is generally present on the road to B



The PCA report made it clear that the PCA does not accept theistic evolution as a valid interpretation.

~Charleen

Obviously they once did not accept OEC either or this would not be "news." So?

This is simply a fallacious appeal to "popularity" or numbers.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Having learned conservative scholars "normalize" the OEC view is important to the OEC's who have been painted by AiG into some cultish corner with their characterizations.



That is blatantly unfair. Don't complain about alleged unfairness on the part of others and be unfair yourself in the process. It is highly hypocritical to me to see "some" OEC tactics of painting YEC as wild-eyes maniacs. How do you like that? This brush is broad and blind.

Alleged unfairness?? AiG's brush is personal indeed. In a fund raising letter, Ross is referred to as “the enemy from within,” an enemy “more dangerous and destructive” than any from without. Because of his so-called “deadly compromise teachings” he is compared to the deceivers in Acts 20.

I'll quote Acts 20:29-30 for you:

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

OEC's are classed in this same characterization. This is not alleged unfairness, this is unfairness.


And you are right, Dee Dee, that acceptance of OEC does not logically lead to belief of liberal interpretations of scripture like homosexuality or allagorizing Genesis.


But it is ALWAYS a step along the way. That was my point. You don't see any denom go from YEC to TE without the intermediate step. I also don't know of any strong YEC that accept homosexuality as a valid Christian practice. It is not a logical connection.

This is interesting. Always.... I would have to look into it myself. This has really only been an issue for a relatively short time so I wonder about this...

Anyway, about "logical connections". It is again not a logical connection that a strong OEC will accept homosexuality.

While you may not see any YEC going to accept homosexuality, you do have YEC's turning to atheisim. Both homosexuality and atheism is having one shipwrecked in the faith. You could no sooner use your OEC leads to homosexuality argument then I could use the YEC leads to atheism argument.


Such as A does not lead to B

But A is generally present on the road to B

Do a poll, I wonder how much of YEC was generally present that led on the road to atheism.


Obviously they once did not accept OEC either or this would not be "news." So?

Well, from what I gather there was never a stand on the issue but when divisions arose in their churches, they conducted this study in order to make a stand.


This is simply a fallacious appeal to "popularity" or numbers.

And the appeal to the church fathers is...how many church fathers can I interpret to be on my side?

[kuboes1831]

What's to say? It is obvious that members/leaders in the various denominations are human beings brought up in a culture where science is greatly respected and since many if not most do not differentiate between operational science and that of Origins then that respect for science in general causes people to hestitate being called "fools" for going against the cultural norm.
.
By arguing like this YECs make all Historical science to be highly questionable and based on faith or opinion. But they do not extend it to archaeology, forensic science or even history which operate on the same methods. Above all this argument for Origins Science is a YEC device to cleverly and decietfully dispose of the vast age of the earth . It simply is not true like all YEC arguments.

I suppose this makes me a compromiser and a savage wolf from all the YEC demonising, but I look froward to the day when YECs first stop demonising other Christians and secondly presenting honest and well-substantiated arguments instead of arm-waving and con tactics.

ORIGINS SCIENCE
This is a term, which has been made up by creationists of various hues to isolate historical science from empirical science. It is based on the presumption that empirical science is somehow ‘true’ science as it relies on experiment and direct observation whereas ‘origins science’ i.e. what would normally be called geology, palaeontology, cosmology deals with past events which are not open to experiment or observation and therefore cannot be truly science in their method of definition. This is a clever but fatally flawed rhetorical ploy to cast doubt on universally accepted conclusions of all scientists working in these fields. The implications of this are discussed in the section on historical science.

Quote from SEAO - the OHIO anti-evolution lobby "Historical science. Most sciences, including chemistry and physics, are empirical (or experimental) in nature; theories can be tested by experiments in the laboratory and/or by observations of the world. Some disciplines, like origins science, are historical in nature; that is, they attempt to explain events and processes that have already taken place in the distant past. Theories in historical sciences cannot be verified experimentally, so the explanations are always tentative. Biological evolution (like creation and design) cannot be proven to be either true or false. The historical nature of evolution/design theory should be explained in the standards. "

Let's consider the falsity of this SEAO says "
HISTORICAL SCIENCE. Most sciences, including chemistry and physics, are
empirical (or experimental) in nature; theories can be tested by
experiments in the laboratory and/or by observations of the world. "
Many Creationists argue that only experimental sciences are real sciences because there is an observer who observed. (In fact many aspects of science rely on inference or indirect observation.) They overlook that many things are not "observed" but inferred and I would include X-ray, ultrasound, geophysics etc. One only has to consider the effectiveness of geophysics in finding oil.

They then say "Some disciplines, like origins science, are historical in nature; that is, they
attempt to explain events and processes that have already taken place in
the distant past. Theories in historical sciences cannot be verified
experimentally, so the explanations are always tentative."
"Origins science" is the YEC word for anything that looks into the past and includes geology etc. They take the obvious situation that they cannot be verified experimentally to cast doubt on the reliability of, say, all geological findings to be able to dismiss the whole geological record radiometric dates etc etc. In fact if one just considers geology the conclusions of the great age of the earth and succession of life are extremely well–established and based on careful research over 200 years. It would take far too long to demonstrate point by point how geologists have arrived with their present picture of the geological development of this planet. To take the geologic column and the record of life, scientists began the process of elucidating it in the 1660s and it was virtually worked out in its present form by 1850 – 9 years before the publication of The Origin of Species. It was based on careful observations on strata in the field and made no reference whatsoever to evolution. In fact most of the geologists up to 1865 rejected any kind of evolution. Part of my own research in the history of geology has been on the elucidation of the Cambrian period by the Revd Adam Sedgwick in the 1830s. His work is very much testable, as are all geological findings. In a sense I have done this testing all over Britain, I also did it in Africa when I worked there as a geologist and also in the United States as for example when I visited the rock exposures in the Grand Canyon and in the Black Hills. This is just by one person – myself. Add to that the accumulated work of geologists throughout the world over 200 years there has been an immense amount of testing going on, so that geologists are right to insist on the general certainty of major geological findings. The whole understanding of the Geologic Column for example is absolutely certain, not tentative. On minor details conclusions are often tentative as, for example, the sandstone dykes in the Badlands of South Dakota. I taught my students the two alternative interpretations and that their and my conclusion must be tentative.
Radiometric Age–Dating is a mix of historical and experimental science. Techniques have been developed over the last century and until the 1960s there were a lot of problems. Now the dates given are reliable and for example determinations by different methods give similar dates. Thus for the ancient rocks (Banded Ironstone) of Amitsoq in Greenland 6 different methods give very similar dates demonstrating considerable certainty.

SEOA also say "Biological evolution (like creationism and design) cannot be proven to be either true
or false."
This is the conclusion, both "evolution" (and any old earth argument) and Creationism and Design are therefore equally valid and as neither have experimental support they are all "faith" positions and you have to choose one or the other. Clearly only YEC as a faith position agrees with a literal view of Genesis and thus as it has outside support from the authority of the Bible. Thus if you are a Christian you must be YEC! Q.E.D.
It is a superficially clever argument and excellent at getting the support of fundamentalists and undermining others who don’t see through the flaws. If one follows this argument then one must also reject archaeology, human history and forensic science. One must also reject the work of accident investigators such as Walter Starkey who is a key activist behind the proposals for science in Ohio. In his book The Cambrian Explosion, Starkey described how he determined the cause of fatal explosions to ammonia tanks on a tractor and a propane tanker. Despite the fact there were no witnesses he points with certainty to the cause. He seems to have overlooked his friends’ arguments that Theories in historical sciences cannot be verified experimentally, so the explanations are always tentative. From there he continues to present his alternative explanations for the Cambrian Explosion. However the whole basis of his argument cannot be proved to be true or false if one follows his colleagues seeking to change the teaching of science in Ohio!


Such inflamatory and broad brushed comments devoid of proof violate the decorum. If you would like to make said charges, but include your supporting evidence and a narrower delimitation of those who engage in said tactics that would be a separate matter.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am sorelly disappointed in some of the tone of your post Charleen and have reported it.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Well, I appreciate your honesty in reporting it to someone else, though I know it is within your rights to moderate it yourself.

What did you report, may I ask?

~Charleen

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well, I appreciate your honesty in reporting it to someone else, though I know it is within your rights to moderate it yourself.

What did you report, may I ask?

~Charleen

Charleen we as moderators do not moderate in threads iin which we are debating if at all possible to avoid the appearnace of impropriety. So I did not have the right to moderate myself. I reported that part that GP edited and that was where you broad-brushed YEC with charges of dishonesty. If you would like to hash this out personally with me more, I invite you to PM me.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I reported that part that GP edited and that was where you broad-brushed YEC with charges of dishonesty.

That was not my post, you have me confused with Koboes1831, perhaps, who was edited by GP.

[Dee Dee Warren]

CHARLEEN!!!!N FRAME THIS ON THE WALL!!!

I am an idiot, I scrolled too fast and did confuse you with Kuboes!!!

Well then my statement to you should be directed towards Kuboes.

I was kind of astounded you would say such a thing, and this explains why. it wasn't you

[A Beautiful Truth]

CHARLEEN!!!!N FRAME THIS ON THE WALL!!!

I am an idiot, I scrolled too fast and did confuse you with Kuboes!!!

Well then my statement to you should be directed towards Kuboes.

I was kind of astounded you would say such a thing, and this explains why. it wasn't you

It's okay, Dee Dee. :flowers:

[kuboes1831]

And where in my post did I charge YEC with dishonesty or was that edited out?

As Pilate asked, "What is truth?" I get confused today on what it is.

P.S. Kuboes is a village built on a granite intrusion 550 m.y. old It is pronounced with a click.

[Dee Dee Warren]

It was edited out. If you have further questoins, you can certainly ask the moderator in question.

[Socrates]

The following article was published by the Presbyterian Church in America's official website.

Is it not interesting that here we have a very conservative group of Christians saying that belief in an old earth is within the scope of conservative Christianity?
So there are compromises within ostensibly conservative Christianity? This is supposed to be news?


They spent two years on their: "Report of the Creation Study Committee" which details why they accept old earth creationism as scripturally based.

Rubbish -- even that shows how much they are intimidated by "science".


By Ray Williams
Accepting an old-earth view does not compromise a Christian's trust in the Bible.
That's exactly what it is -- compromise. You'd never get a local flood or billions of years from the Bible alone.


5. Numbers also gives an outstanding and well-documented account of “The Evolution of Scientific Creationism” (the subtitle of his book),
That's ignorant crap, claiming that YEC/global Flood began with Price, although it was the almost universal view of the whole church for most of its history. But Ross spouts this discredited book by an apostate as if it were almost verbally inspired.


8. In Henry Morris’ early writings he maintained that science had no role to play in the interpretation of Genesis 1 and in establishing the age of the earth, because he believed that a plain reading of Scripture taught that the earth was young.
That should be the most important thing. The PCA claims to believe in Sola Scriptura, yet they whinge that Morris practised it.


However, as time went on, he organized “scientists” from various fields to develop theories to support his young-earth view.
Here we go -- the pejorative quotes around "scientists", although they had high earned scientific qualifications. What a pillock, but typical of the people Charleen adulates, while claiming with a straight face that it's the YECs who resort to insults while the OECs are poor gentle persecuted martyrs.


9. Individuals from these organizations made a number of challenges to mainstream scientific understandings in an attempt to discredit such things as plate tectonics, radioactive dating, nuclear fusion of the sun, coral reef growth & burial, etc. They also proposed numerous theories including, (1) the speed of light has decreased over time, (2) the measurement of astronomical distances are not accurate, and (3) light from distant objects was created already on its way to earth thereby giving the appearance of age.
Omitting the current white hole cosmogony, which is the mainstream creationist view now. This omission is highly sloppy or just plain dishonest.


All of these challenges and theories have been shown to be bogus and even some young-earth advocates, ones who are objective, admit that they have no credible scientific evidence to support their position.
Do they really? More importantly, there is no credible biblical evidence to support billions of years. I know Charleen clings to such indefinite terms like "ancient", which are only relative terms and often used to describe human antiquity.


10. However, scientific challenges are continuing and the young-earth movement has been very successful in creating, in the mind of many Christians, a deep distrust of science.
Nope, an increased respect for true operational science once the materialistic pseudo-science of uniformitarianism is refuted.


These Christians are convinced that modern scientific theories are opposed to biblical teaching.
Nope, nothing wrong with modern science, but everything wrong with modern materialistic philosophies masquerading as science.


The strategy of linking geology, astronomy and an old-earth view with Darwinism and biological evolution has hit a resonant note with these skeptics and therefore, anyone who advocates an old-earth view should be categorized as an evolutionist and vigorously opposed.
Oh, but it's OK for Ross and Charleen to portray YECs as hyper-evolutionists.


11. But, in the last ten years, precise cosmological measurements have been made by instrumentation systems such as the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-ray satellite, the COBE and WMAP cosmic background radiation probes, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer and the soon to be added Space Infrared Telescope Facility. Because of the data accumulated by these systems, confirmation of Einstein’s theorems of Special and General Relativity, the standard Big Bang cosmological model, and the configuration and age of the universe have been established to a known certainty.
Total piffle and elephant hurling. The big bang is an interpretation of data via an unbiblical principle -- that the universe has no preferred direction and position, called the cosmological or copernican priniciple.


Although this overwhelming and irrefutable evidence should be good news to Christians, since it proves that there must be a Creator, the reality is that young-earth advocates have resorted to vicious attacks on people like astronomer/theologian Hugh Ross and his Reasons-to-Believe ministry.
Poor baby :cry::baby: More hypocritical double standards. He and Charleen don't mind portraying the saintly scholar Archbishop Ussher as a dunce, attacking YECs as essentially gnostic and like the Galatian Judaizers, and invoking fanatical God-hater Ian Plimer as an authority on YEC behavior.


At his presentations, people confrontationally try to disrupt his message, to seeking unbelievers, by distributing their “Attack Pack” material that disparages his character.
Then call the friggin' police if there's any law broken! Otherwise these are just more fairy tales from the Ross woods.


In a fund raising letter for the organization Answers-in-Genesis, Ross is referred to as “the enemy from within,” an enemy “more dangerous and destructive” than any from without.
What crap -- it is Ross' compromise TEACHING that is so disparaged NOT the person.


Because of his so-called “deadly compromise teachings” he is compared to the deceivers mentioned in Acts 20.
Stop whinging. This passage sez: "Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth. Ross does this, e.g. his mendacious comments about what the Church Fathers believed, and his deceitful attacks on YECs.


However, the fundamental fact is that the earth is old and the universe even older.
Lovely ipse dixit.


I hope the above information is helpful and that we both continue to search for his truth.
No, it's trash.
Soc tone it down a bit. This is not a request

[Socrates]

But it is ALWAYS a step along the way. That was my point. You don't see any denom go from YEC to TE without the intermediate step.
Indeed not. You don't see any individual doing this either. Morton's slippery slide into full-fledge rejection of the biblical teaching of special creation began with rejection of the biblical teaching on geology, as his website makes clear. But the problem was already there in any person whose final authority is not the Bible but autonomous human reasoning.

And in history, Darwin's belief in biological evolution was paved by Lyell's teaching on geological evolution (uniformitarianism). Once you start deferring to "science" and "reinterpreting" God's Word, there's no stopping the slippery slide, although the downhill speed may be in terms of a generation or three.

[kuboes1831]

Indeed not. You don't see any individual doing this either. Morton's slippery slide into full-fledge rejection of the biblical teaching of special creation began with rejection of the biblical teaching on geology, as his website makes clear. But the problem was already there in any person whose final authority is not the Bible but autonomous human reasoning.

And in history, Darwin's belief in biological evolution was paved by Lyell's teaching on geological evolution (uniformitarianism). Once you start deferring to "science" and "reinterpreting" God's Word, there's no stopping the slippery slide, although the downhill speed may be in terms of a generation or three.

Does anything Socrates say reflect the love of Jesus? He misrepresents ideas, slags off fellow Christians and expects to be recognised as a fellow Christian.

Where are the fruit opf the Spirit in him (Gal 5)

[jason]

Ok everybody. New Rule. Before you post count to 10, relax and leave the personal attacks at home. They will be edited. And if that doesn't work try counting to infinity first.

[Socrates]

The following article was published by the Presbyterian Church in America's official website.

1. There is no doubt that in the 17th century, at the time of the Westminster Assembly, the prevailing view was that the earth was approximately six thousand years old and the days of Genesis were 24 hours in duration. However, much earlier, Augustine, because of his observations of the created world, was uncertain and stated, “What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive.”
He DID believe the world was <6000 years old, so he is hardly on the OEC side. But due to neo-Platonic influence, he thought that the days were an INSTANT. And who cares what Augustine thought about the interpretation of Genesis? He did not know Hebrew, so it's a fallacious appeal to authority.


2. Davis A. Young in his book, Christianity & The Age Of The Earth, gives an historical description of the geological investigations up to 1750 and cites the developing awareness and acceptance of the Earth’s antiquity.
Proves my point. This clearly did not come from the Bible, but from "science".


5. Numbers also gives an outstanding and well-documented account of “The Evolution of Scientific Creationism” (the subtitle of his book), in The Creationists, in which he describes the important influence that Seventh-Day Adventists had in developing and promoting the modern-day Flood Geology concept.
Why does the writer give credence to Numbers, a self-professed agnostic and apostate? Numbers misleads by insinuating that YEC/flood geology began with Price. I have conclusively documented that this was the universal teaching of the church through most of its history. This includes the author's own church -- the Westminster Confession is very forthright on creation "in the space of six days".


Although this overwhelming and irrefutable evidence should be good news to Christians, since it proves that there must be a Creator, the reality is that young-earth advocates have resorted to vicious attacks on people like astronomer/theologian Hugh Ross and his Reasons-to-Believe ministry. At his presentations, people confrontationally try to disrupt his message, to seeking unbelievers, by distributing their “Attack Pack” material that disparages his character. In a fund raising letter for the organization Answers-in-Genesis, Ross is referred to as “the enemy from within,” an enemy “more dangerous and destructive” than any from without. Because of his so-called “deadly compromise teachings” he is compared to the deceivers mentioned in Acts 20.
That is such a broad-brush inflammatory accusation. AiG attacks Ross' position as an enemy. It has explicitly stated that he is saved.

And the writer is just one more anti-YEC with hypocritical double standards. He conveniently ignores Ross's accusation that YECs are essentially gnostic heretics, that they are like the Judaizing heretics of Galatians, and even cites the scientifically and ethically discredited Australian Humanist of the Year, Ian Plimer, as an "authority" on YEC. Talking about yoking with unbelievers!!

[jason]

He conveniently ignores Ross's accusation that YECs are essentially gnostic heretics
This is not true Soc and you know that Ross has not said that at all. You know better than that, so I am wondering, is this a deliberate lie on your part to smear Ross ?

He has never said that YEC's are gnostics, nor has he ever said that they are essentially gnostic.

Jason

[Socrates]

This is not true Soc and you know that Ross has not said that at all. You know better than that, so I am wondering, is this a deliberate lie on your part to smear Ross ?
Ross does a perfectly good job of smearing himself!! E.g. when he published mocking cartoons of Ussher, he had only himself to blame for any fallout. But Ross's Sydney representative Damien Spillane had the gall to blame AiG for pointing it out, so naturally AiG gave him short shrift at www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/1219.asp

AiG's new book Refuting Compromise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp) should hopefully finish Ross's Bible-authority-undermining compromise for good.


He has never said that YEC's are gnostics, nor has he ever said that they are essentially gnostic.
I see I have to remind people about what I've already explained to Jason at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=254069&postcount=92 :

Ross explicitly said in Charisma (June 2003) YECs "encourage a form of Gnosticism".

DDW certainly thought Ross said this, as she explained to you at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=289170&postcount=22 :


With Ross saying that YEC leads logically to gnosticism, should we then say that his statement will lead OEC to think that YECs are not saved, for gnosticism is a DAMNABLE heresy. Why are you so utterly inconistent?

Ross also said:

Much as circumcision divided the first-century church, I see the creation date issue dividing the church of this century. As circumcision distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism, so, too, does young-earth creationism (Creation and Time:162).
So Ross has a long history of a smear campaign against YECs.

Jason himself said at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=288768&postcount=13 :

I think YEC groups are in danger of becoming heretical in the long run, but not at the moment.

And Ross' citation of Plimer with approval is in a letter to Charisma (September 2003). Not the slightest hint that he's a vicious enemy of the Gospel, as an Australian like Jason should know, but most readers of Charisma would not.

[jason]

Ross explicitly said in Charisma (June 2003) YECs "encourage a form of Gnosticism".
Which in context is not talking about there beliefs at all. When you said, "He conveniently ignores Ross's accusation that YECs are essentially gnostic heretics". But he has never ever made such a charge.


DDW certainly thought Ross said this, as she explained to you at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=289170&postcount=22 :
And she was mistaken.


So Ross has a long history of a smear campaign against YECs.
It is not a smear campaign groups like AiG cause division and problems with in the church and damage the faith of many.


Jason himself said at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=288768&postcount=13 :
Which I stand by.

Given my post expressed a concern for YEC's turning the whole thing into a salvational issue, and at that point it becoming a heresy, it is a true point. That was the qualification I made for it becoming a heresy. Which IIRC DD actually agreed with.

So I notice now you are trying to misrepresent me. But thats OK Soc, I forgive you.

Jason

[Dee Dee Warren]

And she was mistaken.

Hey Jason when I have a more clear plate (not now, I am swamped) you adn I can go through that article. I do believe he has essentially made such a charge. I think that article is abysmal, just as abysmal as the over-use of Churchian and I denounce both. Both sides pull some disreputable moves. So we can discuss that article at somem point, maybe in the Tennis Court sound good?




Given my post expressed a concern for YEC's turning the whole thing into a salvational issue, and at that point it becoming a heresy, it is a true point. That was the qualification I made for it becoming a heresy. Which IIRC DD actually agreed with.

I do not know if I ever agreed with the heresy issue since I am very select with that term, but I have becomem increasingly aware that some of the rhetoric is unhelpful and gives the impression that salvation is in the backdrop. I say this without denying the utter importance I place to the ideas. I just do not like phrases such as "churchian" to anyone who is not YEC or a phrase I recently saw in a YEC publication which called RTB an "ostensibly Christian ministry" - that really turned me off incredibly.


That being said, I jsut as heartily am in consternation at the OEC here so far who will not say that Ussher cartoon was dead wrong, and so far that Ross' article was just peachy. There will be no progress until these bad tactics are admitted on BOTH sides. It is not just YEC, so if my name is invoked I insist that my clear stand that both sides are guilty be made clear for it is not fair to use my statement as a club against YEC rhetoric when it has landed on OEC rhetoric as well.

[Dee Dee Warren]

BTW before any hay is made out of me and a moderator having a debate or disagreement on points, that is exactly how our leadership is intended... we strenously debate points. I do not expect Jason to treat me any differently then before, and I certaily am not a different person. We are united in our common Christian faith - we have very different ideas about creation and the players in this in-house dispute.

[Dee Dee Warren]

On my own tangent here is Jason's statement:


No. I think YEC groups are in danger of becoming heretical in the long run, but not at the moment.

We shall see were it goes from here.

Jason



I do think there are currently YEC groups or individual YEC people who are making this such a salvational issue. There was a quote from a YEC, I think burgy brought it up, in the science section that was downright awful. That person was definitely making it a salvationall issue. But I saw Ross' article the same way. Downright awful. If I become OEC tomorrow I would still distance myself from it.

On another note, that kidn of statement is along the lines of nme saying that the logical outcome of some dispie ideas is outright blasphemous. I don't get tarred and feathered out of town for that. I firmly believe it. Yet I accept the dispies as brethren.

[Socrates]

I do think there are currently YEC groups or individual YEC people who are making this such a salvational issue. There was a quote from a YEC, I think burgy brought it up, in the science section that was downright awful. That person was definitely making it a salvationall issue.
Yes it was, and IIRC TWeb's YECs distanced themselves from it. ICR and AiG make if clear that it is NOT. They even explicitly say that Ross is saved.

[jason]

Hey Jason when I have a more clear plate (not now, I am swamped) you adn I can go through that article. I do believe he has essentially made such a charge. I think that article is abysmal, just as abysmal as the over-use of Churchian and I denounce both. Both sides pull some disreputable moves. So we can discuss that article at somem point, maybe in the Tennis Court sound good?
Give me 4 weeks (or so) and you can have my undivided attention (Well ok divided attention, but more than at the moment :wink: ).

Jason

[kuboes1831]

Yes it was, and IIRC TWeb's YECs distanced themselves from it. ICR and AiG make if clear that it is NOT. They even explicitly say that Ross is saved.

At a push that may be true but AIG in true Christian love simply rubbish all orthodox Chrsitans as Compromisers

[Socrates]

At a push that may be true but AIG in true Christian love simply rubbish all orthodox Chrsitans as Compromisers
Not all orthodox Christians, because AiG comprises orthodox Christians. Or don't you believe a YEC can be orthodox? :huh:

Yes it is in "in true Christian love" that AiG opposes compromise, as they explain in Answering some Hugh Ross supporters (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative12-11-2000.asp)

[burgy]

I do not know if I ever agreed with the heresy issue since I am very select with that term, but I have becomem increasingly aware that some of the rhetoric is unhelpful and gives the impression that salvation is in the backdrop. I say this without denying the utter importance I place to the ideas. I just do not like phrases such as "churchian" to anyone who is not YEC or a phrase I recently saw in a YEC publication which called RTB an "ostensibly Christian ministry" - that really turned me off incredibly.

Both (all) sides have erred (sinned) in this respect. Including me, for my fingers all too often get ahead of my brain.

[quote]That being said, I jsut as heartily am in consternation at the OEC here so far who will not say that Ussher cartoon was dead wrong, ...QUOTE]

The Ussher cartoon WAS an incredibly stupid tactic, as well as unfair to one who, long gone, cannot defend his reputation.

Socrates it was, I believe, who defended Ussher in past threads; I could have supported him then but did not; I should have. Ussher worked with the best knowledge and thinking of his times; had I been in his place I would probably have come up with the same conclusions as he did.

[Socratism]

With regard to the Presbyterian Church and their stance on the Age of the Earth, I might add that all Christian denominations struggle with issues that are dividing the Church. They have decided, as have almost all mainline denominations, that they will not take a stand one way or another, but will tolerate multiple, conflicting doctrines so as not to unnecessarily split their congregations.

I personally believe that this is a practical, business-like solution, but unfortunately one that in the long run may lead to a wishy-washy type of Christianity. There is some evidence that the "business-like" denominations are fading away and the more fundamental ones are growing, especially outside the US.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I personally believe that this is a practical, business-like solution, but unfortunately one that in the long run may lead to a wishy-washy type of Christianity. There is some evidence that the "business-like" denominations are fading away and the more fundamental ones are growing, especially outside the US.

What do you say of end times teachings? I think it great that most churches now do not make it such an issue to divide the church. I put the OE vs. YE in that category.

I think the growth of churches overseas is not because those churches make big deals about the non-essentials, but because this is their time of visitation and you can bet they are really focusing on the essentials as they probably have no time/leisure to squabble over the non-essentials.

~Charleen