Former 'Young Earth Creationist' - Now Confused 'Old Earth Creationist'...

[mpb1]

I grew up in an ultra-conservative Christian family, and always believed in young earth creation. But over the years, as I began hearing about almost-irrefutable evidence related to the age of the earth (on PBS/NOVA, etc.), I gradually shifted to an old earth creation perspective because of:

- the fact that what we see in the night sky is starlight from stars that are billions of light years away (light that apparently took billions of years to reach the earth); and

- the fact that even when we attempt to say the earth was created 'with the appearance of age,' there still seems to be indisputable evidence that the earth is much, much older than 6,000 years - especially when scientists from a variety of fields come up with the same time period for specific events, like super-volcano activity in one area 75,000 years ago (among many other examples).

In the last year or two, I think I finally 'accepted' the GAP theory (that there is a gap between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1 - between the creation of the universe and the creation of man).

But then there's the fact that there also seems to be almost-indisputable evidence that animals and human-like creatures lived many thousands, if not millions, of years ago.

I have no idea how to reconcile any of this with the Book of Genesis.

Young earth creation now seems almost as ridiculous to me as evolution.

And old earth creation seems to lead to a belief that life existed on earth - and was later destroyed - before the Genesis account of creation ever took place.

Hugh Ross says there was 'progressive creation' over millions of years - I guess this is one version of the day-age theory that seems to be growing more popular among Christians. But personally, I can't see how this theory makes any real sense biblically.

I was wondering HOW OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE WRESTLED WITH THESE ISSUES HAVE COME TO RECONCILE THE FACTS OF SCIENCE WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION.

ALL THE THEORIES I'VE HEARD SO FAR SEEM TO BE UNREALISTIC... AND I CAN NOW SEE HOW SCIENCE-MINDED ATHEISTS HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM BELIEVING IN A BIBLE THAT (CONTRARY TO WHAT I ALWAYS BELIEVED) REALLY DOES * 'SEEM TO BE' * AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE...

[Xavier]

Do your self a favour and read up on the "Framework Hypothesis". An understanding of the social background of Israel in general and of Genesis in particular wouldn't hurt much either.

I think it is extremely important to recover the intent of the text's instruction rather than attempting to impose a particular (exceptionally modern) viewpoint.

[NJon]

I was wondering HOW OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE WRESTLED WITH THESE ISSUES HAVE COME TO RECONCILE THE FACTS OF SCIENCE WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION.

ALL THE THEORIES I'VE HEARD SO FAR SEEM TO BE UNREALISTIC... AND I CAN NOW SEE HOW SCIENCE-MINDED ATHEISTS HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM BELIEVING IN A BIBLE THAT (CONTRARY TO WHAT I ALWAYS BELIEVED) REALLY DOES * 'SEEM TO BE' * AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE...

I was a theistic evolutionist for most of my life. I suppose that my venture into YEC (which is where I stand today) began with discussing evolution with my best friend (who is now deceased) back when we were in high school. I was not saved at the time (I thought that I was, but I hadn't repented) and my view of Scripture was actually pretty low.

In chemistry class my sophomore year, I had to do a report on a scientist and I stumbled across Dr. Patrick Young of the Young Earth Creation Club (http://www.creationists.org/). This began to really make me start thinking differently about evolution, but I still went on believing it. Senior year on the last day of high school is when my best friend died. I went through about seven or eight months of a radical spiritual journey during which I was truly saved.

In time I stumbled across Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/), the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/) and a documentary titled A Question of Origins (http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html). Said documentary also led me to Understand the Times, International (http://www.understandthetimes.org/).

It took a while, but I finally realized that evolution and the Bible simply are not compatible. While I do believe in YEC, I am willing to admit the possibility of OEC. However, in any and all cases, I absolutely reject the notion of any human death before the fall.

[mpb1]

Hi NJon,

(I saw your photo on a few other posts and thought you were still in high school :) I guess it's an old photo. ...Not trying to insult you - I just thought the photo was a little homorous.)

Anyway, about there not being any death before the fall, I too believed that. But how many ancient bones do they have to dig up before we finally admit these suckers are a lot older than we'd like to believe? :)

[The Plain Jane]

I think it is extremely important to recover the intent of the text's instruction rather than attempting to impose a particular (exceptionally modern) viewpoint.

I agree! :shocked:

[NJon]

Hi NJon,

(I saw your photo on a few other posts and thought you were still in high school :) I guess it's an old photo. ...Not trying to insult you - I just thought the photo was a little homorous.)

:lol: No, I haven't been for quite a while now. I'll be a junior in college as of December.

[Xavier]

I agree! :shocked:
Wonders never cease... :smile:

[mpb1]

Regarding the "Framework Hypothesis," I found a page on it here:
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html

At first glance, it appears to be the equivalent of where I WAS for so many years myself, basically sticking my head in the sand...

I CAN'T SEE WHY WE SHOULDN'T ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE THE BIBLE WITH SCIENCE - especially if we want to be taken seriously by an unbelieving world.

As far as evangelism, if we simply say, "Believe this ancient book because it changed my life - even though science has already proven the Creation account to be completely false," we won't get very far.

Here's an excerpt from the page I found on the "Framework Hypothesis" link listed above (by Herman Hanko) http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html :

"Creation is a Matter of Faith

...That all brings up one final point.

We do not attempt to prove creationism from science. We must not attempt to do this. I am not saying that true science contradicts the creation narrative. It does not. But the battle lines are not drawn between competing and contradictory interpretations of creation, It is not a question of who does the best science. The issue is far more profound than that. The question is simply this: Do you believe the word of God or don’t you? The battle is between faith and unbelief. It is unbelief to construct a view of the origin of the creation which conflicts with the literal meaning of Genesis 1. It is unbelief to take Christ’s book and say to Christ, “There are some things that didn’t happen the way you said they happened, because science says that it is impossible for creation to happen that way.

Hebrews 11:3 puts the entire battle where it must be fought. How is it possible to confess the truths of creation as given in Scripture? The only way is the way of faith. Unbelief will always seek to destroy the truth of God — also the truth of creation. But faith alone is able to confess the doctrine of creation, namely, that God formed all things in six days of twenty-four hours. How do we know that by the Word of the Lord the heavens were framed and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth (Psalm 33:6)? How do we know that God is the One who calls the things that were not as though they were (Rom. 4:17)? How do we know that any form of evolutionism, which teaches that things which are seen came from things which do appear, is heresy? How do we know that God formed all things in six days of 24 hours, limited by morning and evening? The only way is faith. “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:3). Faith is the only way. Saving faith. Faith which confesses that salvation is in Christ alone. Faith which, laying hold on Christ, receives Scripture as Christ’s Word.

If the whole world believes in evolutionism, and the church meekly follows the world, the believer who clings to Christ by faith and finds in Christ the fullness of his salvation, who glories in the hope of being with Christ forever and ever world without end, maintains, even in the fires of persecution, the simple yet profoundly glorious truth of the doctrine of creation."

[Xavier]

It's not about sticking our heads in the sand, but respecting the Scriptures enough to allow them to speak for themselves and to the issues that they were penned to address.

From your cited source:
The men who defend the Framework Hypothesis do not want Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 to be taken literally. I consider that idea, apart from the difficulty in understanding the Framework Hypothesis, to be a deliberate and calculated assault on the sacred Scriptures.

SOURCE: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html

This is that enforcing of a modern context over the intentions of Scripture. This shows NO regard for the Scriptures at all, because it doesn't seek to understand them in their proper context. This article is about forcing one opinion into the text at the determent to other opinions and to the text itself.

Genesis 1 was not written as a blueprint for creation nor as a scientific account of that creation. It is simply a poem designed to highlight Israel's God as creator at a time when there were a few competing options.

EDIT NOTICE: This post has been edited from its originally posted form to add additional comment.

[mpb1]

It's not about sticking our heads in the sand, but respecting the Scriptures enough to allow them to speak for themselves and to the issues that they were penned to address.

Genesis 1 was not written as a blueprint for creation nor as a scientific account of that creation. It is simply a poem designed to highlight Israel's God as creator at a time when there were a few competing options.

If you believe that, you may as well allegorize the entire Bible. If you can do that to the Genesis account of Creation, then I can discredit the entire Bible as worthless (if not deceptive) crap. Sorry that's my opinion, and I've been a (sold out) Christian all my life...

[Xavier]

If you believe that, you may as well allegorize the entire Bible. If you can do that to the Genesis account of Creation, then I can discredit the entire Bible as worthless (if not deceptive) crap. Sorry that's my opinion, and I've been a (sold out) Christian all my life...
I'm sorry, but that's just plain stupid and a complete misreading of my statement.

I do not disagree that portions of the Bible are to be taken literally. However, there are portions of the Bible NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. Due justice to Scripture would be allowing Scripture and its context to inform us as to how it should be interpreted rather than holding onto to some backward and Modernist theory of hermeneutics.

[mpb1]

I'm sorry, but that's just plain stupid and a complete misreading of my statement.

I do not disagree that portions of the Bible are to be taken literally. However, there are portions of the Bible NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. Due justice to Scripture would be allowing Scripture and its context to inform us as to how it should be interpreted rather than holding onto to some backward and Modernist theory of hermeneutics.

Let's agree to disagree :)

Your point is well taken. I simply refuse to believe that the Creation account was NOT meant to be taken literally.

For those who DO take the Creation account literally, and can shed any light on the original question posed, I hope you'll reply...


-

[Xavier]

Your point is well taken. I simply refuse to believe that the Creation account was NOT meant to be taken literally.

You do so at your own peril... The reason that you are in the mess is that wooden approach to reality.

If you care, then you should investigate. If you don't care, then you weren't much of a Christian to begin with.

And with that and due deference to your wishes as OP, I'm done here.

[mpb1]

You do so at your own peril... The reason that you are in the mess is that wooden approach to reality.

If you care, then you should investigate. If you don't care, then you weren't much of a Christian to begin with.

And with that and due deference to your wishes as OP, I'm done here.

Xavier,

No offense was intended. And I don't take your words offensively either.

I just wanted to 'agree to disagree' before this thread became an argument about whether or not the Creation account should be taken literally.

Some of us will never be convinced we shouldn't take the Creation account literally. And we will keep our 'wooden approach to reality' until we can make sense of it :)

With that in mind, I'm looking for help in making sense of it...

[NJon]

With that in mind, I'm looking for help in making sense of it...

To essentially return to one of my original references, try checking around AiG's main archive. Click here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp).

Despite the flak that it draws from skeptics, AiG's staff are all highly-qualified academics. You may be especially interested in the archive on Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp) itself.

[mpb1]

To essentially return to one of my original references, try checking around AiG's main archive. Click here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp).

Despite the flak that it draws from skeptics, AiG's staff are all highly-qualified academics. You may be especially interested in the archive on Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp) itself.

They are YEC - and they seem to be stuck in the same quagmire of being unable to defend it...

When you read their explanation of light from stars, they offer what seems to me at least to be an absurd explanation for it...

here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

There was a PBS show on this recently (I think it was NOVA), showing how a group of scientists from around the world were literally able to photograph Supernovas (gigantic stars) forming.

It's kind of hard to wrap your mind around it, but the photos showing before and after images were actually taken IN OUR TIME - when the light from those events actually REACHED earth - from something like 10 billion light years away (meaning the supernovas actually formed [the events happened] 10 billion years ago!

If we try to explain this away with some freaky explanation of 'time,' like a time warp, it's like explaining nature with science fiction. And even if there was some kind of time warp, it wouldn't change 10 billion years into 10 thousand years...


-

[NJon]

They are YEC - and they seem to be stuck in the same quagmire of being unable to defend it...

When you read their explanation of light from stars, they offer what seems to me at least to be an absurd explanation for it...

here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp


-

If God is indeed Who He claims to be, a miracle-based explanation should not be that shocking. Dr. Humphreys has spent a good deal of his career working in this field. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=446

[mpb1]

If God is indeed Who He claims to be, a miracle-based explanation should not be that shocking. Dr. Humphreys has spent a good deal of his career working in this field. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=446

NJon,

While you were posting I added this to my last post:

"There was a PBS show on this recently (I think it was NOVA), showing how a group of scientists from around the world were literally able to photograph Supernovas (gigantic stars) forming.

It's kind of hard to wrap your mind around it, but the photos showing before and after images were actually taken IN OUR TIME - when the light from those events actually REACHED earth - from something like 10 billion light years away (meaning the supernovas actually formed [the events happened] 10 billion years ago!

If we try to explain this away with some freaky explanation of 'time,' like a time warp, it's like explaining nature with science fiction. And even if there was some kind of time warp, it wouldn't change 10 billion years into 10 thousand years..."

-

Even AIG acknowledges that it makes no sense for us to be able to 'SEE' these things happening (billions of light years away), and then try to say it's just 'created light.' http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

Not that you're saying that, but I don't believe a time warp explanation makes sense. Scientists are able to photograph an event that happened 10 billion years ago - just as the light is reaching earth - and we want to call that a time warp, KNOWING the light is coming from a source 10 billion light years away???

-

By the way, I know you said you reject any notion that there was death on earth before the fall, but (I say this sincerely) what do you do with bone fragments that COULD NOT be less than 100,000 years old? Do you simply fault the dating method?

I did this for years. But I no longer believe it is INTELLECTUALLY HONEST.


-

Another edit / addition to post:

Also, I believe scientists have PROVEN in the last few years that the universe is EXPANDING (through changing measurements in starlight). I believe this and other findings have already disproven any idea that the universe has a center or a boundary, OR that the speed of light could be slowing down (as some creationists have postulated that at the time of creation, the speed of light was much faster than it is today).

-

[NJon]

NJon,

While you were posting I added this to my last post:

"There was a PBS show on this recently (I think it was NOVA), showing how a group of scientists from around the world were literally able to photograph Supernovas (gigantic stars) forming.

It's kind of hard to wrap your mind around it, but the photos showing before and after images were actually taken IN OUR TIME - when the light from those events actually REACHED earth - from something like 10 billion light years away (meaning the supernovas actually formed [the events happened] 10 billion years ago!

If we try to explain this away with some freaky explanation of 'time,' like a time warp, it's like explaining nature with science fiction. And even if there was some kind of time warp, it wouldn't change 10 billion years into 10 thousand years..."

-

Even AIG acknowledges that it makes no sense for us to be able to 'SEE' these things happening (billions of light years away), and then try to say it's just 'created light.' http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

Not that you're saying that, but I don't believe a time warp explanation makes sense. Scientists are able to photograph an event that happened 10 billion years ago - just as the light is reaching earth - and we want to call that a time warp, KNOWING the light is coming from a source 10 billion light years away???

Those figures are based on assumptions that the universe was created by a Big Bang billions of years ago. If you start with an incorrect assumption, you end up with an incorrect conclusion. An example of this in fairly-contemporary science was the famous Stanley Miller experiment, which Miller himself later recanted as flawed.



By the way, I know you said you reject any notion that there was death on earth before the fall, but (I say this sincerely) what do you do with bone fragments that COULD NOT be less than 100,000 years old? Do you simply fault the dating method?

Who says? Again, if we have flawed assumptions, we end up flawed conclusions. Even the inventor of the C-14 dating method admitted that it is flawed and can only date within tens of thousands of years, not hundreds of thousands or millions.



I did this for years. But I no longer believe it is INTELLECTUALLY HONEST.

I'm not sure what you want anybody to say here. The truth is, if you choose to find fault in the Bible, you will, even if it's not there. It all comes down to are you going to trust Jesus Christ (the Creator), or are you going to trust fallen, fallible human beings? Ultimately, nothing I nor anyone else says will change your mind. It's your decision what to believe.

[mpb1]

Well, so far the only responses seem to be from...

a.) Those who do not take the Creation account literally; and

b.) Young earth creationists trying to debate old earth creation

This thread was clear from the beginning that the ASSUMPTION was being made that young earth creation does not square with accepted science.

Other threads can debate this.

I was looking for one thing in this thread... Old earth creationists who know of a reasonable explantion for how we can reconcile known science with the Genesis account of Creation.

After 25 years of saying, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," I really want to be able to defend my faith WITHOUT having to stick my head in the sand and pretend that I can explain away science, which to many is as PLAIN as 2+2=4.

I don't believe in evolution. I believe evolutionists are DISHONEST in continuing to believe and promote evolution in spite of the lack of evolutionary fossil records, and in light of the mathematical impossibilities of DNA - or anything else in the human body - being formed by CHANCE.

Apparently, you and many others, including the fine people with Answers in Genesis, are content to use outlandish theories to explain starlight - not to mention ALL other indications that the earth (and life on earth) is MUCH older than our Bible seems to indicate that it is.

I want to reconcile known science with the Book of Genesis, without denying a literal interpretation of Creation, and without denying the reality of known science.

-

[The Plain Jane]

After 25 years of saying, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," I really want to be able to defend my faith WITHOUT having to stick my head in the sand and pretend that I can explain away science, which to many is as PLAIN as 2+2=4.
If the age of the earth is so PLAIN, then why are people debating it?


Apparently, you and many others, including the fine people with Answers in Genesis, are content to use outlandish theories to explain starlight - not to mention ALL other indications that the earth (and life on earth) is MUCH older than our Bible seems to indicate that it is.

I have an explaination that you might not have heard before concerning the age of the universe. I have never seen Answers in Genesis or other organizations like it come up with this response. With this explaination, the days of the Creation account stay earth rotation days, and the theories trying to reconcile Genesis and the age of the earth stays out.

Most Christians believe Adam and Eve sinned soon after they were created. But if you want to explain the earth looking old, then maybe they were sinless for millions of years. That is the only way, to my knowledge, that you can reconcile old earth with the Bible and still allow Scripture to say what it has been saying for centuries.

[mpb1]

The Bible tells us Adam died at age 930.

As far as the age of the earth, I realize it is still being debated. But the debate about the earth's age is in the vacinity of four billion years. And the debate about the age of the universe is in the vacinity of 12-20 billion years.

So when I say it's PLAIN to most people, what I'm referring to is the fact that there seems to be NO conceivable way the earth (or the universe) could be EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE to the age proposed by young earth creationists.

-

[NJon]

Rich Deem at God & Science (http://www.godandscience.org/) is an OEC. Of course I disagree with his view on that issue, but he's a good guy and he knows his material.

[The Plain Jane]

The Bible tells us Adam died at age 930.
But after he sinned, then he started to age. I think that is what those numbers mean, how long he lived after the Fall.

[mpb1]

NJon,

Thanks for referring me to God And Science. On a previous TWeb post (a couple months ago), I had referred others there myself - for his info. on Hell/Annihilationism (which I agree with). But I had never read his material on Creation.

Since reading your post above, I spent quite a bit of time reading through his articles, and for the first time in my life, I was able to NOT 'reject out of hand' the teaching of 'progressive creation.'

What I read on his site made a lot of sense, especially his articles on the meaning of the word 'day' and what actually happened in each of the 'days,' some of which appear to have taken much longer than one twenty-four-hour period (day six particularly).

I don't know if I'm completely convinced yet. (Perhaps I am :) But I think the articles shed a great deal of light on the possibility that the 'day-age' creation view could be more biblical than I once believed. (Apologies to anyone I inadvertently 'insulted' by my previous posts in this thread :)

Here are some God and Science links for anyone else who wants to read them:

Progressive Creation: An Overview
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html

Biblical Creationary Model for the Universe and Life on Earth (Timeline)
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html

Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Biblical Defense of Long Creation Days
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dayagedefense.html

Does Genesis One Conflict with Science?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html


OTHER GOD AND SCIENCE ARTICLES ON CREATION:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

-

I'd welcome any comments on these articles, or on anything else related to the question of HOW one can reconcile known science with the Genesis account of creation...

By the way NJon, I know you're a YEC, but perhaps not for long, huh :)

-

[NJon]

By the way NJon, I know you're a YEC, but perhaps not for long, huh :)

Well, I'll always stand by the view that no humans died before the fall. I don't forsee myself leaving YEC, but I have always said that I am willing to consider the possibility of OEC. Jane's view on Adam's life after the fall is something that never occurred to me; I certainly think that it could be valid.

It is theistic evolutionism that I feel is definitely incompatible with Scripture, and I will never go back to evolutionism; it is simply not Scripturally possible. I've been there, I believed TE for many years --- no more. I am not saying that TEs are not Christians. I consider any repentant believer in Jesus Christ to be my brother/sister in Christ. However, I do feel that TE is Biblically-inconsistent and leads to a skewed view of who God is and why suffering plagues our world.

My main passion is evangelism; I never get tired of seeing people saved, baptized, etc. I make it a point to oppose evolutionism in my form of apologetics, but my central focus has and always will be leading sinners to repent and receive Christ.

I wish you the best on your spiritual journey.

[Jorge]

I grew up in an ultra-conservative Christian family, and always believed in young earth creation. But over the years, as I began hearing about almost-irrefutable evidence related to the age of the earth (on PBS/NOVA, etc.), I gradually shifted to an old earth creation perspective because of:

- the fact that what we see in the night sky is starlight from stars that are billions of light years away (light that apparently took billions of years to reach the earth); and

- the fact that even when we attempt to say the earth was created 'with the appearance of age,' there still seems to be indisputable evidence that the earth is much, much older than 6,000 years - especially when scientists from a variety of fields come up with the same time period for specific events, like super-volcano activity in one area 75,000 years ago (among many other examples).

In the last year or two, I think I finally 'accepted' the GAP theory (that there is a gap between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1 - between the creation of the universe and the creation of man).

But then there's the fact that there also seems to be almost-indisputable evidence that animals and human-like creatures lived many thousands, if not millions, of years ago.

I have no idea how to reconcile any of this with the Book of Genesis.

Young earth creation now seems almost as ridiculous to me as evolution.

And old earth creation seems to lead to a belief that life existed on earth - and was later destroyed - before the Genesis account of creation ever took place.

Hugh Ross says there was 'progressive creation' over millions of years - I guess this is one version of the day-age theory that seems to be growing more popular among Christians. But personally, I can't see how this theory makes any real sense biblically.

I was wondering HOW OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE WRESTLED WITH THESE ISSUES HAVE COME TO RECONCILE THE FACTS OF SCIENCE WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION.

ALL THE THEORIES I'VE HEARD SO FAR SEEM TO BE UNREALISTIC... AND I CAN NOW SEE HOW SCIENCE-MINDED ATHEISTS HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM BELIEVING IN A BIBLE THAT (CONTRARY TO WHAT I ALWAYS BELIEVED) REALLY DOES * 'SEEM TO BE' * AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE...
The above clearly expresses a great deal of doubt/confusion. A simple question : Why not continue believing in the plain, literal Word of God until such a time as that doubt is sufficiently eradicated?

Put another way, if you're going to have doubt, why must that doubt be exercised towards God's Word and not against the always-fallible theories of humans?

Jorge

[mpb1]

The above clearly expresses a great deal of doubt/confusion. A simple question : Why not continue believing in the plain, literal Word of God until such a time as that doubt is sufficiently eradicated?

Put another way, if you're going to have doubt, why must that doubt be exercised towards God's Word and not against the always-fallible theories of humans?

Jorge

Hi Jorge,

Of course I believe all humans and all theories are fallible. And for most of my life, I have done exactly what you proposed. I took the Bible at 'face value' and didn't really care whether I could reconcile particular issues or not.

But the more I became involved in evangelism and in trying to convince OTHER people - especially skeptics - about the truth of God's Word, the more I was faced with issues that I could not easily resolve or explain.

So I decided that from then on, I would call a spade a spade. I believe that many Christians (including myself, for many years) use salesman-like tactics to convince people that God's Word is true NO MATTER WHAT. We do mental and verbal gymnastics to reconcile passages with other passages - and in the field of science, we basically choose to IGNORE obvious facts (not theories) just so we can stand by what we believe to be the clear Word of God.

I'm tired of playing that game. I believe the Bible should be RECONCILABLE with all KNOWN FACTS (and with itself) if it is the Word of God. I don't doubt that it is, but I don't want to have to pretend it is - while closing my eyes and ears to everything else around me.

I personally believe that science has proven beyond any doubt that the earth and the universe are exponentially OLDER than young earth creationists (who take the Bible at 'face value') believe it to be.

What if all the Christians who have rigidly enforced this teaching have caused many atheists to remain atheists BECAUSE they saw the Bible as being in complete contradiction to KNOWN FACTS and CLEAR SCIENCE. If I had started in life as an atheist and the Bible was presented to me as contradictory to all I KNEW to be true, I wouldn't believe it either.

Throughout the recorded history of God's dealings with His people, there are many accounts of God's People GETTING IT WRONG when it came to what they THOUGHT the Scriptures said, and how they interpreted certain prophecies, etc. I no longer believe that the Bible is as plain and clear as we like to pretend that it is.

I personally believe that many passages in the Bible are very difficult to understand, and even CONFUSING. If that were not the case, there wouldn't be so many contradictory interpretations. I cannot conceive of WHY God would make His Word so difficult to understand. But it appears that He did.

So it doesn't surprise me that while the Church has BELIEVED for centuries that the days of Genesis were meant to be taken as literal 24-hour days and that the earth was only around 6,000 years old - THAT THE CHURCH MAY HAVE GOTTEN IT WRONG.

As I said in a previous post, I believe the Bible should be RECONCILABLE with science. And I believe that IF you can turn the detail-specific (!) Creation account into a virtually-meaningless poem (with no connection to what really happened), then you can just as well throw out the rest of the Book.

But at this moment, I believe it is a plausible explanation to say that the 'days' of Creation could have been long periods of time.

As much as we don't like to admit it, I think that when we FORCE the Bible to teach the earth was created 6-10,000 years ago, and we FORCE it to teach that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days, then we are FORCING the text to be diametrically opposed to KNOWN SCIENCE (not theory).

It is BEYOND CLEAR that as science progresses and as research continues, that the age of the earth and the age of the universe (in the billions of years) will only become MORE UNDENIABLE. We are past the point of no return. SCIENCE could no more teach that the universe is YOUNG, than it could teach that the earth is flat.

As science continues to DISPROVE the 'traditional understanding' of Genesis, the world will have even more ammunition to call the Bible an ancient FABLE, full of myth, completely out of touch with reality. As I said, if I were an atheist with no reason to follow God or His Book, I WOULDN'T BELIEVE IT EITHER - if I were forced to choose between an 'old book' and UNDISPUTABLE SCIENCE. And there seems to be a growing number of atheists who fall into this category. So we should be very careful in what we FORCE the text to say.

God gave us brains to use them, and I don't believe that even HE expects people to DENY OBVIOUS TRUTH (not theory) displayed in HIS CREATION, just so we can stand by a particular interpretation of His Word.

-

[Calminian]

ALL THE THEORIES I'VE HEARD SO FAR SEEM TO BE UNREALISTIC... AND I CAN NOW SEE HOW SCIENCE-MINDED ATHEISTS HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM BELIEVING IN A BIBLE THAT (CONTRARY TO WHAT I ALWAYS BELIEVED) REALLY DOES * 'SEEM TO BE' * AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE...

But these same atheists can read Gen. 1 for themselves and see the writers intended to convey a 6 day six thousand year old miracle. By denying what is obviously written, how are you helping them? By admitting Genesis is wrong aren't you solidifying their reasons for rejecting the Bible?

[mpb1]

But these same atheists can read Gen. 1 for themselves and see the writers intended to convey a 6 day six thousand year old miracle. By denying what is obviously written, how are you helping them? By admitting Genesis is wrong aren't you solidifying their reasons for rejecting the Bible?

I know it's strange to go from confused and skeptical of the day-age interpretation to all of a sudden defending it... I'm not 100% convinced of it myself. But I think the explanation of days as being longer time periods makes more sense (in light of science) than any other interpretation I'm aware of.

- Point #8 below, regarding the sixth day, is pretty convincing...

(bolding added)

Here's an excerpt from GodandScience.com's article, "Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days":

"Scripture Declares the Days to be Long

Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include:

1. The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time.

2. Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."

3. The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day."

4. In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:

For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)

5. The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4).

6. The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).

7. The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long.

8. The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. It is very unlikely all of this could take place in 24 hours, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God.

9. The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalms 105:8). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology).

Early Church Fathers Believed the Creation Days were Long

The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said [ http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/c_t/c_t2.html ] regarding their interpretation of creation chronology. Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. The evidence presented in Creation and Time is both overwhelming and well documented (all references are given). You can read and/or download translations of the actual text of all of the early church fathers at Wheaton College's server [ http://www.ccel.org/fathers/index.html ]. The collection consists of nearly forty files, averaging ~2 mb each. Alternatively, these writings can be obtained on CD from Logos Research."

The excerpt above is from this page:

Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

-

And here are the other articles, which all seem to make a fairly strong case for the view:

Progressive Creation: An Overview
http://www.godandscience.org/younge...rogressive.html

Biblical Creationary Model for the Universe and Life on Earth (Timeline)
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html

Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Biblical Defense of Long Creation Days
http://www.godandscience.org/younge...agedefense.html

Does Genesis One Conflict with Science?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html


OTHER GOD AND SCIENCE ARTICLES ON CREATION:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

-

[Calminian]

I know it's strange to all of a sudden go from confused and skeptical of the day-age interpretation to all of a sudden defending it... I'm not 100% convinced of it. But I think the explanation of days as being longer time periods makes more sense (in light of science) than any other interpretation I'm aware of.

You may be surprised to find I agree with you in a sense. It is more compatible with science. I'd be curious, though, how you define science.

Regarding the arguments over the term day, let me ask you this about the following sentence.

Back in my grandfather's day, he used to walk to school each day, and return home while it was still day.

Since the first and third occurrence are not 24 hour literal time periods, am I now free to interpret the second occurrence as something other than a 2 hour period?

[mpb1]

You may be surprised to find I agree with you in a sense. It is more compatible with science. I'd be curious, though, how you define science.

Regarding the arguments over the term day, let me ask you this about the following sentence.

Back in my grandfather's day, he used to walk to school each day, and return home while it was still day.

Since the first and third occurrence are not 24 hour literal time periods, am I now free to interpret the second occurrence as something other than a 2 hour period?

(Obviously, I'm no expert on science), but as far as how I would define science in this context, I would say that whenever something in nature has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that we can safely consider it 'science.'

I don't believe evolution is even close to being considered science. I don't believe life can come from non-living matter. I don't believe order can come from disorder. And I don't believe there are transitional forms to support evolution. I consider evolution to be man's haughty attempt to explain the universe apart from God.

But I do believe that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth and the universe are - at the very least - millions of years of old, and much more likely, billions of years old. (As mentioned previously, I think starlight from stars over a billion light years away makes a compelling case for a universe many billions of years old.)

I'm afraid that many young earth creationists simply won't acknowledge the huge body of scientific research showing how old the earth and the universe really are - because they are afraid it undermines their view of the Bible, and specifically the account of Creation in Genesis. I counted myself among these devoted fundamentalists for many years. Now, I choose to believe what makes sense to me in light of Scripture and known science, even when that puts me in the minority.

As far as your question about the use of the word 'day,' I don't know the answer :) All I know is that I believe it is a plausible explanation to say that the days of Creation may have been long periods of time, rather than 24 hour days.

As the article from God and Science pointed out, when you think about it, it does seem a little absurd to think that God meant for us to believe that everything outlined in day 6 of Creation actually happened in one day.

I started this post because I was confused and wanted answers. And maybe I'm just taking the first answer that seems to make any sense at all - I don't know... I want to keep researching and considering alternative views. But I feel certain that there is no possible way I could ever go back to the young earth creationist view. The evidence to the contrary is just overwhelming.

-

[Soundsurfr]

Put another way, if you're going to have doubt, why must that doubt be exercised towards God's Word and not against the always-fallible theories of humans?

Because you can't exclude the fallible human theory that the bible is the infallible word of God?

[Calminian]

(Obviously, I'm no expert on science), but as far as how I would define science in this context, I would say that whenever something in nature has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that we can safely consider it 'science.'

I was afraid you would define it as such. I would suggest this is nothing close to what science actually is. I started a thread called, I'm losing faith in science! (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=84853). I get the feeling we are at a very similar crossroad. Being that you are at this point in your walk, I'd be greatly interested in your feedback. Despite the natural inference from the thread title, I'm not anti-science. But I'm becoming very aware of its limitations in regard to origins and the distant past. This is primarily due to my understanding of the nature of miracles.



But I do believe that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth and the universe are - at the very least - millions of years of old, and much more likely, billions of years old. (As mentioned previously, I think starlight from stars over a billion light years away makes a compelling case for a universe many billions of years old.)

Understood. There is no other natural explanation (notice the emphasis).



As far as your question about the use of the word 'day,' I don't know the answer :) All I know is that I believe it is a plausible explanation to say that the days of Creation may have been long periods of time, rather than 24 hour days.

What I'm asking is, if you came a across a sentence like the one I offered, would you have any doubts as to what it meant? How would you have interpreted it? I also believe the word day in Gen. 2:4 was not speaking of a 24 hour time period. The context determines how it is meant and just because the word has a range of meanings, only one meaning can be used in that instance. But the same is true of the other occurrences in Gen. 1. You can't use the context of Gen. 2:4 to determine their meaning.



I started this post because I was confused and wanted answers. And maybe I'm just taking the first answer that seems to make any sense at all - I don't know... I want to keep researching and considering alternative views. But I feel certain that there is no possible way I could ever go back to the young earth creationist view. The evidence to the contrary is just overwhelming.

I would only suggest that you are using science as a synonym for evidence. They are two different things. Theories about the past can be scientifically correct yet factually incorrect. This is true even in our modern courts of law! Science is the study of normal, regular, material, repeatable processes. Miracles, therefore, if they exist (certainly we christians believe they do), would cause quite a bit of confusion in scientific extrapolations. I believe I can demonstrate this.

One question: Do you believe creation was a miracle? Or are we the product of natural testable processes?

[Soundsurfr]

One question: Do you believe creation was a miracle? Or are we the product of natural testable processes?

Loaded question and false dichotomy. The first question leaves open the definitions of both "creation" and "miracle", both of which could mean many things to many people. It also presupposes that "creation" is some sort of event that has occurred. The second question then goes on to presume that the only other possibility is a testable process.

If you're asking whether or not he believes the Mosaic God created the universe ex nihilo, then ask that.

:hrm:

[mpb1]

Hi Calminian,

Before your last post (above), I had read through your thread on losing faith in science, and I believe my position is the exact opposite of yours.

I HAD no faith in (some aspects of) science for most of my life. I'm 32, and since I was 7, in Christian school, until the last year or two, I had always considered all science related to the age of the earth as bogus evolutionary-supporting nonsense.

After debating enough atheist skeptics, I finally took my head out of my --- :) and figured I might as well LOOK at SECULAR scientific evidence and see if it made any sense - apart from my YEC BIAS!

I still have suspicions about evolutionists whose bias in research is obvious. But as I said in a previous post, after watching one PBS show after another, showing some of the world's best scientists in many different fields coming up with the same evidence, pointing to similar or identical time periods in studies of earth and space, I finally realized that this research can't ALL be the result of evolutionary bias - and it can't ALL be wrong.

As far as how miracles relate to science, I think it's simple. God can suspend the natural laws and systems He created in the universe whenever He chooses to. And because I believe He rarely chooses to suspend those natural laws or systems, I think their effect on science as a whole is nil. (Sorry, that's my opinion.)

About your question related to the sentence with different uses of the word day, I really don't know what to say (honestly, I don't understand your question). But I'm willing to admit that most people who read Genesis will come to the conclusion that the days are literal 24-hour days. It's only because God's Word has a long history of being MISUNDERSTOOD (and God apparently allows this to happen - repeatedly), that I DO NOT SEE IT AS A PROBLEM that MOST people would see the days as literal 24-hour days, even when God MAY have intended them to mean longer periods (from the start).

I do believe creation was a miracle. I believe God caused eveything in creation to happen. I don't know if God instantly created everything or if He setup systems to reproduce (on earth and in space)... I really have no clue... But either way, I believe everything in nature and science is dictated by natural laws and systems that God put into place. He may suspend those laws and systems occassionally (for rare miracles), but as I said, I think those occurrences have no effect on the laws or the systems He established at Creation.

I do see science as being basically synonymous with evidence. I guess I don't care if that's correct or not :) To me, it's splitting hairs. In the end, the result is the same, regardless of what you call it. I think the overwhelming abundance of scientific research has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the universe and the earth have been around for millions or billions of years (after 100,000 years, YEC is toast anyway :) So whether it's evidence or science, it's good enough for me :)

-

I wanted to add this note here... that after thinking about it, when I choose to accept that the universe is billions of years old, in a sense, I find it a little relieving. It had always seemed odd to me that GOD ALWAYS EXISTED, and yet, for some reason, He had (seemingly) never decided to create anything except Heaven. When I choose to accept scientific data showing that the universe has been around for billions of years, IT MAKES MORE SENSE - that God was busy creating His handiwork for a lot longer than YEC's give Him credit for :)

-

[Calminian]

Hi Calminian,

Before your last post (above), I had read through your thread on losing faith in science, and I believe my position is the exact opposite of yours.

Your resolution of the problem was opposite, sure. But we both came to the conclusion that the Bible has some conflicts with science. You chose to doubt the Bible and look for alternative interpretations, I chose to doubt science and seek deeper understandings of the method and why its conclusions might be wrong.

My only concern was your definition of science. You weren't even in the ballpark. Shouldn't you at least seek to understand better this thing you are placing such blind faith in? Don't you owe that to yourself?



After debating enough atheist skeptics, I finally took my head out of my --- :) and figured I might as well LOOK at SECULAR scientific evidence and see if it made any sense - apart from my YEC BIAS!

I still have suspicions about evolutionists whose bias in research is obvious.

And, just how do you know this? The same method that concluded millions of years also concludes evolution. If you are as devoted to science as you say, I would image it is only a matter of time before you alter your interpretations further and move to TE.



But as I said in a previous post, after watching one PBS show after another, showing some of the world's best scientists in many different fields coming up with the same evidence, pointing to similar or identical time periods in studies of earth and space, I finally realized that this research can't ALL be the result of evolutionary bias - and it can't ALL be wrong.

And all of these scientists are evolutionists as well, and I would image they discount other miracles like the resurrection of Christ. These are all in opposition to science.



As far as how miracles relate to science, I think it's simple. God can suspend the natural laws and systems he created in the universe whenever He chooses to. And because I believe He rarely chooses to suspend those natural laws or systems, I think their effect on science as a whole is nill. (Sorry, that's my opinion.)

Actually I'm of the same opinion. I stated so in my thread. Natural processes are vastly normative in a christian world view. But you and I both agree that creation was a miracle. Thus we should both logically have concerns about origin science.



About your question related to the sentence with different uses of the word day, I really don't know what to say (honestly, I don't understand your question). But I'm willing to admit that most people who read Genesis will come to the conclusion that the days are literal 24-hour days. It's only because God's Word has a long history of being MISUNDERSTOOD (and God apparently allows this to happen - repeatedly), that I DO NOT SEE IT AS A PROBLEM that MOST people would see the days as literal 24-hour days, even when God MAY have intended them to mean longer periods (from the start).

Many so called christians like Bishop Spong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Spong) believe the resurrection account is not meant literally. Do you think he is justified in that opinion? If anything goes in Genesis, can we really criticize liberal christians who deny all biblical miracles?



I do believe creation was a miracle. I believe God caused everything in creation to happen. I don't know if God instantly created everything or if he setup systems to reproduce (on earth and in space)... I really have no clue... But either way, I believe everything in nature and science is dictated by natural laws and systems that God put into place. He may suspend those laws and systems occasionally (for rare miracles), but as I said, I think those occurrences have no effect on the laws or the systems He established at Creation.

I also believe everything is guided or dictated by the natural laws God put in place, unless God intervenes. Most of the time He doesn't.



I do see science as being basically synonymous with evidence. I guess I don't care if that's correct or not :)

Hmmm. I guess that's the difference between you and me. I do care if it's correct. Being that you have no clue what science is and how it works, I'm surprised you have elevated it above biblical revelation. It seems to be a case of blind faith and a desire to be esteemed by others. Not a lot of deep thinking is involved.

[mpb1]

I respect and appreciate your concern that I don't elevate science above Scripture. I believe that is a valid concern.

As far as Bishop Spong, I think he's a joke. I think he made an early career choice to go into ministry, and being stuck with it, decided to spend the rest of his days assaulting the faith. I couldn't care less about any of his thinking...

Interpreting the days of Creation as longer periods does not seem to be such an enormous stretch to me. It essentially changes nothing, except how much time God allowed the process to take. The word 'day' has been known to mean a period of time longer than 24 hours, and in light of what is said to have been accomplished in each of the six days (especially after reading the God and Science articles), I find the day-age position to be a reasonable position which does not diminish my view of Scripture (once I get all the residue of YEC out of my head).

As I said previously in this thread, I believe that when honest analysis is done of God's creation, that the facts should AGREE with Scripture.

It seems that you and I disagree on what constitutes SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Let's agree to disagree on that issue.

-

[Calminian]

As far as Bishop Spong, I think he's a joke. I think he made an early career choice to go into ministry, and being stuck with it, decided to spend the rest of his days assaulting the faith. I couldn't care less about any of his thinking...

We would both agree on this. I'm simply saying his reason (at least ostensibly) for rejecting miracles is science.



Interpreting the days of Creation as longer periods does not seem to be such an enormous stretch to me. It essentially changes nothing, except how much time God allowed the process to take. The word 'day' has been known to mean a period of time longer than 24 hours, and in light of what is said to have been accomplished in each of the six days (especially after reading the God and Science articles), I find the day-age position to be a reasonable position which does not diminish my view of Scripture (once I get all the residue of YEC out of my head).

I'm sensing a lot of YEC hostility. I'm curious, are you at a church that rejects young earth creation?



As I said previously in this thread, I believe that when honest analysis is done of God's creation, that the facts should AGREE with Scripture.

The facts should be revealed by scripture.



It seems that you and I disagree on what constitutes SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Actually we just disagree on what constitutes FACT. Something does not have to be scientific to be fact. And all scientific conclusions are not necessarily fact (such as evolution).



Let's agree to disagree on that issue.

No problem. This is just interesting to me. Both of us see scientific conflicts, yet have taken very different paths.

By the way I want to share something. In my internet forum experience I’ve come across two situations where young earthers have converted to old earthers, with a stance much like yours. Interestingly, both of them, a short time later, became theistic evolutionists. I’m not saying this will happen to you, but once they accepted science as their standard, they just weren’t content with progressive creationism. The same science that swayed them to accept naturalistic theories in astronomy and geology, eventually swayed them in biology. They then adjusted their interpretation of Genesis to accommodate evolution. Once science becomes your hermeneutical standard, I think you’ll find it difficult not to apply it universally. This is why I would urge you to really examine the philosophical foundations of science. Make sure you know exactly what it is that’s influencing you.

Col. 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

1Tim. 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,

[mpb1]

Thanks Calminian,

I can see your intentions are good. I'd want to help keep others from being deceived as well, especially if I thought it would lead them to reject God's Word as being the final authority on truth.

About my negativity toward the YEC position, it doesn't have anything to do with the views of a particular church. It has to do with the fact that I feel like the YEC position and its advocates practically 'kept me prisoner' (in my own mind, that it) to false beliefs about science.

I feel like I allowed myself to equate old earth science with the 'evils of evolution' for so many years, that it's kind of like feeling you'd been brainwashed into believing the earth was flat, and were taught that all views to the contrary were 'from the devil.'

Then you wake up one morning and find undeniable evidence that the earth is round. It leaves you feeling just a little resentful toward the people who (even in good conscience) deceived you.

Many young earth creationists defend their views vehemently (as I once did) because they believe their view of God's Word FORCES them to deny what science has proven about the age of the earth. I now find this extremely annoying :)

I'm not out to convince YEC's they are wrong, but when someone wants to argue about it, I think they can only do so by (a.) ignoring science altogether, or (b.) trying to argue against what most people believe to be irrefutable science. You and I diagree on what constitutes fact and science, but to me, your current perspective is really just the same kind of 'denial' I experienced for so many years. I think you admit that your perspective is at least partially influenced by a fear that it could lead to an acceptance of theistis evolution... I see you as trying to 'hold the fort' for a noble cause, even though the foundation of your fort has already been destroyed, and you don't even realize it's gone.

That's how I see it, but it's nothing personal against you :)

-

[Godan]

Hi! This is Rich Deem from godandscience.org (http://www.godandscience.org). I was asked to take a look at the thread, since my site was mentioned a couple times. I will make some general comments to (hopefully) clear up some things about the YEC/OEC debate. To start off, I would like to say that neither interpretation is completely compatible with all the biblical creation texts. I am an OEC because it fits best with the vast majority of scripture, and secondarily, because it matches the science. Since I don't want to write a book here, I will cite pages where you can get a more detailed explanation.

The problem I see with creation position of most Christians is that they limit their creation interpretation to Genesis 1 and 2 only, without considering the vast number of other creation passages (Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Job, etc.), which add to the detail of the Genesis account, and help us decide what exacly Moses was referring to. If the Bible is inerrant, then one creation passage cannot contradict another.

The major stumbling point of Genesis 1 is the first verse. Most people think it is a summary of the creation account. However, the conjunction in verse 1:2 tells us that it is a statement of action that continues through the rest of the account (remember that verse numbers are arbitrary later creations of copyists). The summary occurs at the end. For more info, see The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html). Since verse 1 is a statement of what God did, one has to ask what, exactly, He did do. "...God created the heavens and the earth." What do the heavens consist of? YEC tend to interpret this verse as saying "God created nothing [empty space] and the earth" If God had just created the earth by itself, the verse would have said "God created the earth". However, the terms heavens and earth encompass the entire created universe, including the stars. So, God created the Sun on the first day. God himself told Job that the earth was dark because He had created it with a thick set of clouds (Job 38). So, when God declared the light (day and night), he simply removed some of the clouds so that the Sun's light could strike the earth. This is why there was day and night "before the Sun was created on day 4". The page goes on to explain the rest of the days (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html). It is a good place to start to understand the OEC interpretation.

One significant problem for the YEC interpretation is that at least some of the days must be longer than 24 hours according to the Genesis text itself. You can get more info on this at Genesis Clearly Teaches that the Days Were Not 24 Hours (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html).

There seem to be some miconceptions regarding the OEC interpretation of the creation of mankind. OEC believe that God created non-human bipedal primates before He created mankind. Some of these creatures made tools, but they were not created in the image of God, since they lacked a spirit with which to communicate with God. Adam and Eve were created 50-100 kya and placed within the garden. There was no human death before the fall, but the text suggests that Adam had seen animal death before that time. See No Death Before the Fall - A Young Earth Problem (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html). In claiming a 6,000 year earth, YEC tend to ignore scriptures that claim that God's law had been proclaimed to 1,000 generations before Jesus came to earth. Unless generations were only 6 years long, these suggest that a 50-100 kya date for mankind's creation is probably correct.

Contrary to what was stated in this thread, the evidence for the age of the earth is not restricted to a "Big Bang assumption". The evidence comes from virtually every field of science. You can get some of this at Scientific Evidence for the Age of the Universe (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/ageofuniverse.html). However, the Bible does teach an expanding universe model for the universe. At least 11 verses claim God stretches out the heavens when He created them:
Who alone stretches out the heavens, And tramples down the waves of the sea; (Job 9:8)
Covering Thyself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain. (Psalms 104:2)
It is He who sits above the vault of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. (Isaiah 40:22)
Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it, (Isaiah 42:5)
Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone" (Isaiah 44:24)
"It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host." (Isaiah 45:12)
"Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together." (Isaiah 48:13)
That you have forgotten the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens, And laid the foundations of the earth; That you fear continually all day long because of the fury of the oppressor, As he makes ready to destroy? But where is the fury of the oppressor? (Isaiah 51:13)
It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 10:12)
It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens. (Jeremiah 51:15)
The burden of the word of the Lord concerning Israel. Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, (Zechariah 12:1)

So, even though scientists wanted to believe in a static, eternal universe, the Bible taught a created, expanding universe thousands of years before the Big Bang gained acceptance as the means by which the universe was created. YEC's want to go back to a static (although created) universe despite the biblical and scientific evidence to the contrary.

Sorry to leave out framework and gap, but I don't find enough biblical evidence within the text to endorse those models.

[Calminian]

Thanks Calminian,

I can see your intentions are good. I'd want to help keep others from being deceived as well, especially if I thought it would lead them to reject God's Word as being the final authority on truth.

But how can you do so if you haven't even taken the time to understand what science is? Look back at the definition you offered. Do you really feel you are in a position to save YECs from brainwashing?



About my negativity toward the YEC position, it doesn't have anything to do with the views of a particular church. It has to do with the fact that I feel like the YEC position and its advocates practically 'kept me prisoner' (in my own mind, that it) to false beliefs about science.

If you are that susceptible, how do you know you're not a prisoner now? You yourself have admitted that YEC is the straightforward interpretation of Genesis. And you've admitted you don't know much about science. So.... isn't that a formula for brainwashing? Personally I’ve gone full circle in the debate. I started as a YEC, as that is the natural reading. Then I went to the Gap Theory, then to Progressive Creationism and then back to YEC. But I haven’t accused anyone of brainwashing me or deceiving me through that journey. I’m surprised you’re are stooping to that.



I feel like I allowed myself to equate old earth science with the 'evils of evolution' for so many years, that it's kind of like feeling you'd been brainwashed into believing the earth was flat, and were taught that all views to the contrary were 'from the devil.'

But if a six day creation is the natural reading, how is it you've determine that you've been brainwashed? Unless you feel you were brainwashed by the Bible?



Then you wake up one morning and find undeniable evidence that the earth is round. It leaves you feeling just a little resentful toward the people who (even in good conscience) deceived you.

Okay, so you feel YECs have deceived you? How is it you can say on the one hand, YEC is the natural interpretation of scripture, but on the other say YECs have deceived you into believing a false interpretation? This is nothing but slander.



Many young earth creationists defend their views vehemently (as I once did) because they believe their view of God's Word FORCES them to deny what science has proven about the age of the earth. I now find this extremely annoying :)

And this from a person that openly admits they don't understand science. Very confusing. And yet you turn around and say quite confidently that science has not proven evolution. I'm just wondering who is trying to brainwash who. Why are we deceptive for rejecting one field of science, but you are not for rejecting another? Is it really productive to be making these kinds of accusations?



I'm not out to convince YEC's they are wrong,

Yes, I know, you just want to show them they are deceptive brainwashers that kept you in prison for years. :wink:



but when someone wants to argue about it, I think they can only do so by (a.) ignoring science altogether, or
(b.) trying to argue against what most people believe to be irrefutable science.

Like you do with evolution.



You and I disagree on what constitutes fact and science, but to me, your current perspective is really just the same kind of 'denial' I experienced for so many years. I think you admit that your perspective is at least partially influenced by a fear that it could lead to an acceptance of theistis evolution... I see you as trying to 'hold the fort' for a noble cause, even though the foundation of your fort has already been destroyed, and you don't even realize it's gone.

You believe it's destroyed by science obviously (which is fine), yet you reject the science of evolution? How is that consistent?



That's how I see it, but it's nothing personal against you :)


Thanks, I do have a much clearer understanding of where you are coming from. You’re making it clear you are not willing to disagree agreeably. You’ve determined not merely to disagree with your brothers but accuse them of deception and brainwashing that is akin to flatearthism. I think that’s a shame. :sad:

[mpb1]

Thanks to Rich Deem of God and Science - for his post above, shedding more light on the subject...

------------

Calminian,

You seem to be fighting this on an emotional level.

I can see your point that it seems to be duplicitious to say on one hand that the 'obvious' reading of Genesis is for the days to be literal 24-hour days, and then to say on the other hand that YEC's are brainwashing people into believing a lie.

The bottom line is that science clearly and overwhelmingly REFUTES the belief that the earth is young. If you want to ignore or discount the science, that is your perogative. As I said, that is exactly what I DID, and I believe that is exactly what most YEC's DO. Period.

I believe it would be much more HONEST for YEC's to collectively make a statement like this:

"While we understand and acknowledge that the overwhelming body of modern scientific research - from nearly every field of science - has continually proven and upheld the view that the universe is well over a billion years old, we categorically refuse to believe it. As creationists, who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we refuse to accept anything as science which undermines the clear teaching of Genesis. We believe the clear teaching of Genesis is that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. We believe in a global flood. And we believe the earth and the universe are no more than twelve thousand years old. No amount of scientific research to the contrary will ever convince us otherwise."

-

[Calminian]

TYou seem to be fighting this on an emotional level.

I disagree. I actually think I'm the logical one here. I'm concerned that you have degraded the debate into emotional accusations of deception and brainwashing. I'm surprised you are still defending such immature behavior.



I can see your point that it seems to be duplicitous to say on one hand that the 'obvious' reading of Genesis is for the days to be literal 24-hour days, and then to say on the other hand that YEC's are brainwashing people into believing a lie.

Seems duplicitous? I am deeply grateful your true colors have come out. I feel like I understand you better now.



The bottom line is that science clearly and overwhelmingly REFUTES the belief that the earth is young. If you want to ignore or discount the science, that is your prerogative. As I said, that is exactly what I DID, and I believe that is exactly what most YEC's DO. Period.

Again from someone admitting they know nothing of science and aren't really that interested. And from someone that categorically states that science is wrong about evolution.



I believe it would be much more HONEST for YEC's to collectively make a statement like this:

Actually I changed up that last paragraph a little for you. I know you'll appreciate it.

"While we understand and acknowledge that the overwhelming body of modern scientific research - from nearly every field of science - has continually proven and upheld the view that evolution is true, we categorically refuse to believe it. As progressive creationists, who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we refuse to accept anything as science which undermines the clear teaching of Genesis. We believe the clear teaching of Genesis is that God designed men plants and animals after their kind, instantaneously. They did not evolve. No amount of scientific research to the contrary will ever convince us otherwise."

[mpb1]

I don't want to keep having the same argument over and over again. But I think you are taking my words offensively, when they were never intended that way.

If you and I were sitting across the table from each other, and you said, "I feel such and such..." then I would be wise not to JUDGE your feelings. People cannot help their feelings.

In an earlier post, I described my current feelings about all the years I spent as a YEC, as if I had been brainwashed... By expressing my feelings, I am not attacking young earth creationists as 'brainwashers.' I am simply saying that I feel as if I had been brainwashed into believing something was true - when in reality, it was not.

Christians often describe those who are suckered into believing the lies of a cult as being 'BRAINWASHED.' They were convinced of things that are not true. And we say that based on our view of THE TRUTH.

We like to think that truth is objective, but it is really subjective. Absolute truth is ONLY objective in the mind of God, where it is actually KNOWN.

To Christians, God's Word is TRUTH. And to some Christians, modern scientific research is NOT truth - or at least NOT if it appears to be in conflict with the Bible (as our argument has repeatedly established).

I think it is safe for Christians to divide modern secular scientific research into two categories: EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE and NON-EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE. Yes, there is overlap between the two, but I do NOT believe the overlap if NECESSARILY REQUIRED.

CASE IN POINT - from today's news:

"OSLO, Norway (AP) - Researchers on Thursday announced the discovery of the remains of a short-necked plesiosaur, a prehistoric marine reptile the size of a bus, that they believe is the first complete skeleton ever found.

The 150 million year old remains of the 33-foot ocean going predator were found in August on the remote Svalbard Islands of the Arctic..."

Article here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061005/D8KIF7J80.html

I happen to believe the estimatation of age - at 150 million years - is reasonably accurate.

I believe the estimate is based on fairly reliable scientific research. And I believe the scientific estimation of age makes it 99.9% certain that the bones found are NOT LESS THAN 100,000 years old.

The dating methods used to determine the age of the bones are scientific enough to make them reasonably accurate. (Though, this IS - admittedly - a judgment call, based on the available information.)

However, the minute these same researches attempt to convince us that this animal evolved from some long line of reptiles (and fish before that, etc.), I would then ask for evidence to substantiate their claim, and they would be unable to provide it.

I believe that thinking Christians - who are willing to accept the possibility that the days in Genesis were longer than 24 hours - can accept PROVEN scientific research without accepting UNPROVEN evolutionary claims.

You and the rest of the YEC community DISAGREE with the OEC community as to whether the scientific research indicating an OLD earth and an OLD universe is reliable or not. YEC's say the research is not reliable, and OEC's say it is. Let's accept that and move on...

-

[mpb1]

I just found this quote in another TWeb thread, and was amazed that St. Augustine actually said this - in the fourth century!

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
(De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim)
(translated by J. H. Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41) Book 1 Chapter 19

Info. on St. Augustine here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rdwallin/syl/GreatBooks/202.W99/Augustine/AugustineChron.html

[ Chronology of the Life of Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) ]

[Calminian]

I just found this quote in another TWeb thread, and was amazed that St. Augustine actually said this - in the fourth century!

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
(De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim)
(translated by J. H. Taylor, Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41) Book 1 Chapter 19

Info. on St. Augustine here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rdwallin/syl/GreatBooks/202.W99/Augustine/AugustineChron.html

[ Chronology of the Life of Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) ]

I love Augustine. He was a great YEC and strongly opposed the old earthers of his day. Everyone seems to mine this same quote from him, but this speaks nothing of the issue of science's naturalistic bias. He was speaking of direct observations, not naturalistic extrapolations. He understood the concept of miracles. He very plainly stated the creation was an instantaneous supernatural act of God. Sorry, this day-age stuff never would have flown with him. He’d spin in his grave if he knew what people were using him to defend.

[Jorge]

Hi Jorge,

Of course I believe all humans and all theories are fallible. And for most of my life, I have done exactly what you proposed. I took the Bible at 'face value' and didn't really care whether I could reconcile particular issues or not.
A great number of issues will likely never be solved. Why then doubt God's Word?


But the more I became involved in evangelism and in trying to convince OTHER people - especially skeptics - about the truth of God's Word, the more I was faced with issues that I could not easily resolve or explain.
You assume that those OTHER people wish to be convinced. Since questions always remain, it turns out that people ultimately decide based on desire and spiritual inclination. IOW, it is a grave mistake (one that I made for a long time) to think that people become 'convinced' because of the 'evidence'.


So I decided that from then on, I would call a spade a spade.
Fine, that's okay. Do you "call a spade a spade" regarding OEC/TE/PE? These positions have countless unresolved issues, you know. Hopefully you're not one of those that raises the bar to the stratosphere regarding YEC yet places that bar a few inches above the ground for these other positions. I personally see this ALL the time.


I believe that many Christians (including myself, for many years) use salesman-like tactics to convince people that God's Word is true NO MATTER WHAT. We do mental and verbal gymnastics to reconcile passages with other passages - and in the field of science, we basically choose to IGNORE obvious facts (not theories) just so we can stand by what we believe to be the clear Word of God.
I'm sorry to hear that you've had to resort to such tactics. I personally never do.


I'm tired of playing that game.
As well you should be. I, too, would be dissatisfied with such tactics.


I believe the Bible should be RECONCILABLE with all KNOWN FACTS (and with itself) if it is the Word of God. I don't doubt that it is, but I don't want to have to pretend it is - while closing my eyes and ears to everything else around me.
I couldn't agree more. What makes you think you have to "pretend"?

Look here, what I've invariably found are two things : (1) The "pretending" you speak of is due to ignorance or, (2) the "pretending" is due to spiritual /ideological inclinations against YEC.


I personally believe that science has proven beyond any doubt that the earth and the universe are exponentially OLDER than young earth creationists (who take the Bible at 'face value') believe it to be.
I share no such conviction and I've studied the matter a lot. Furthermore, I've yet to find a way to reconcile Scripture with billions and billions of years. Also, I've never found anyone else that has found a way that I could honestly consider as 'valid'. All attempts that I've ever encountered require some kind of distortion of God's Word. Perhaps you know of a source (?). Kindly direct me to it for my consideration.


What if all the Christians who have rigidly enforced this teaching have caused many atheists to remain atheists BECAUSE they saw the Bible as being in complete contradiction to KNOWN FACTS and CLEAR SCIENCE. If I had started in life as an atheist and the Bible was presented to me as contradictory to all I KNEW to be true, I wouldn't believe it either.
Since questions always remain, why doubt God's Word? In case you didn't know, much of what is touted as "known facts" and "clear science" are anything but.


Throughout the recorded history of God's dealings with His people, there are many accounts of God's People GETTING IT WRONG when it came to what they THOUGHT the Scriptures said, and how they interpreted certain prophecies, etc. I no longer believe that the Bible is as plain and clear as we like to pretend that it is.
I hear you loud and clear. So I ask again : do you know of a way of reconciling billions of years with God's Word that does NOT entail a distortion of that Word?


I personally believe that many passages in the Bible are very difficult to understand, and even CONFUSING. If that were not the case, there wouldn't be so many contradictory interpretations. I cannot conceive of WHY God would make His Word so difficult to understand. But it appears that He did.
Many passages in Scripture are, in fact, difficult to understand - you'll get no argument from me on that.

But many others are clear as a bell. Since we're talking about an old earth let's take the Hebrew word yom as an example. Yom is used all throughout the OT and I've never once encountered a dispute about what yom means EXCEPT in Genesis 1-2. Why? Because that is the one and only place in Scripture where those 'billions of years' may be inserted.

That fact alone should at the very least raise some sort of flag.


So it doesn't surprise me that while the Church has BELIEVED for centuries that the days of Genesis were meant to be taken as literal 24-hour days and that the earth was only around 6,000 years old - THAT THE CHURCH MAY HAVE GOTTEN IT WRONG.
Theoretically, yes, we may have gotten it wrong.

Now let's go to the next level. Let's consider the theological implications of billions and billions of years. Let's consider sin and the Fall and pain, suffering and death. Let's consider the Cross and atonement. Let's consider Scriptural chronology and the continuity of God's creation from "the beginning" through the present.

It is considering the big picture, including those things mentioned above and others, where it doesn't look like we got it wrong at all. What Christians are now resorting to is to reinterpret and add to, delete from and mythologize parts of Scripture so as to make God's Word conform to the edicts of secular mainstrean science.

Ironically, aside from allowing us to achieve "technology" in many areas, this "science" has always been proven wrong and yet Christians are placing this "science" at the highest level of authority - higher than God's Word.


As I said in a previous post, I believe the Bible should be RECONCILABLE with science. And I believe that IF you can turn the detail-specific (!) Creation account into a virtually-meaningless poem (with no connection to what really happened), then you can just as well throw out the rest of the Book.
The Bible IS fully reconcilable with science. The Bible is NOT reconcilable with "science" falsely-so-called. It is on this point where I've discovered most Christians to be lost on.


But at this moment, I believe it is a plausible explanation to say that the 'days' of Creation could have been long periods of time.
"Plausible" as long as one totally ignores the theological implications that I alluded to earlier.


As much as we don't like to admit it, I think that when we FORCE the Bible to teach the earth was created 6-10,000 years ago, and we FORCE it to teach that the six days of creation were literal 24-hour days, then we are FORCING the text to be diametrically opposed to KNOWN SCIENCE (not theory).
I personally don't have to "FORCE" anything at all. I simply recognize that there exist unanswered questions. But then, every other position (TE/PE/OEC/Naturalism/Humanism/etc.) also have many unanswered questions. Many people believe that "science has or will eventually have all the answers". That's just plain silly and sophomoric.


It is BEYOND CLEAR that as science progresses and as research continues, that the age of the earth and the age of the universe (in the billions of years) will only become MORE UNDENIABLE. We are past the point of no return. SCIENCE could no more teach that the universe is YOUNG, than it could teach that the earth is flat.
What you're making above is a metaphysical statement - a statement of belief - not a scientific one. That's fine. Just don't go around thinking that you stand on objective, hard, undeniable science - you don't.


As science continues to DISPROVE the 'traditional understanding' of Genesis, the world will have even more ammunition to call the Bible an ancient FABLE, full of myth, completely out of touch with reality. As I said, if I were an atheist with no reason to follow God or His Book, I WOULDN'T BELIEVE IT EITHER - if I were forced to choose between an 'old book' and UNDISPUTABLE SCIENCE. And there seems to be a growing number of atheists who fall into this category. So we should be very careful in what we FORCE the text to say.
What you're making above is a metaphysical statement - a statement of belief - not a scientific one. That's fine. Just don't go around thinking that you stand on objective, hard, undeniable science - you don't.


God gave us brains to use them, and I don't believe that even HE expects people to DENY OBVIOUS TRUTH (not theory) displayed in HIS CREATION, just so we can stand by a particular interpretation of His Word.
If that "particular interpretation" happens to be TRUE then that's EXACTLY what God wants us to do, to firmly stand by His Word in spite of all of the scoffers and edicts of vain philosophies of men.

Jorge

[mpb1]

Hi Jorge,

Not long ago, I probably would have agreed with every word you wrote. I was absolutely convinced of YEC, and didn't allow anything to sway me from it. I used every argument I could to defend YEC. Most I later found to be in error - like the 'moondust argument.'

As I mentioned in the thread, it was when I finally learned about starlight reaching the earth from billions of light years away, that I had no choice but to re-consider my position. Once I did that, and I opened my eyes to the mass of research in so many fields, which indicate that the earth and the universe are much older than could possibly fit within the YEC model, I decided I would accept that as fact, and move on. Now, there's no way I could even make myself believe that YEC is accurate.

But I admire your zeal in standing for what you believe. I held on to that position for as long as I reasonably could, and if God faults me for abandoning the YEC position, in light of what I believe to be indisputable facts, then I will have to suffer the consequences.

As far as reconciling the Genesis account of creation with OEC, I have plugged these articles to the point that people are going to suspect I work for the guy, but they really helped me to get a better understanding of the day-age theory, and I highly recommend them. When you consider what Rich Deem points out regarding day six in particular, it actually becomes more difficult to believe in the 24-hour day version (for me at least).

Progressive Creation: An Overview
http://www.godandscience.org/younge...rogressive.html

Biblical Creationary Model for the Universe and Life on Earth (Timeline)
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html

Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Biblical Defense of Long Creation Days
http://www.godandscience.org/younge...agedefense.html

Does Genesis One Conflict with Science?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html


OTHER GOD AND SCIENCE ARTICLES ON CREATION:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

-

[mpb1]

During the conversation on this thread, I was warned that once I accepted OEC, the next step was theistic evolution, which really surprised me... So I started a thread asking, "What About the Mathematical Impossibilities of Evolution?"
[ here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=85013 ]

dealing with the issue of probability (in the Natural Science 301 forum), since I have always considered the issue of probability to be 'the nail in the coffin' of evolution...

That thread eventually turned into a discussion of exactly how the mutations in the genes occur - according to evolution - and on page 7 of the thread, I pretty much conceded defeat without changing my views. I now feel kind of stuck between OEC and theistic evolution. It seems that the evidence in genes showing common ancestry is so strong, that creationists (who are willing to acknowledge the DNA evidence) are caught between a hard place and a rock - until we find a way to counter the evidence, at least...

If you read this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=85013 (especially page 7) and know of any evidence which can counter the 'family tree' DNA evidence, I hope you'll post it. At the moment, I'm researching theistic evolution, since I'm not sure what else makes sense at this point :) I guess they were right ...but I hope not :)

-

[mpb1]

RE: Theistic evolution

(I also posted this on the thread mention above, re: evo. probabilities)

Goodygerbil, thanks for referring ASA - www.asa3.org. Last night, I watched their online video, "The Language of God: A Believer Looks at the Human Genome" by Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Real Player broadband video: http://www.asa3.org/movies/ASA2006Collins720x480100k.ram
Real Player dial-up video: http://www.asa3.org/movies/ASA2006Collins320x21350k.ram
ipod/Quicktime: http://www.asa3.org/movies/ASA2006Collins.mp4
MP3 audio only: http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2006Collins.mp3

The video is a fascinating one hour and twenty minutes long, and it kind of left me speechless. For others who may want to take a look at the video, he starts off by giving an overview of the gene research and the gene mapping project. Then he goes into the shared ancesty in the DNA, and then looks at the competing origin views - for Christians. He ends by proposing that theistic evolution makes the most sense. Though he didn't touch upon how to reconcile the view with Scripture until the Q&A period.

When he finally addressed how to reconcile TE with Genesis, he said he didn't know the answer to the question of whether or not Adam really existed, or whether Adam should be understood as an allegorical figure.

Going to sleep last night, I listened to the book of Genesis, from Creation through the flood, and I still don't see how it's possible to understand Adam as anything but literal. With all the genealogies, the details of their lives, etc., I still have to believe that if we can allegorize the biographies of people from Adam to Noah, we really can discard the entire Bible as uninspired.

So personally, I have no choice but to accept them as literal. Theistic evolution SEEMS to make sense otherwise. I guess I'll have to keep studying to see how others are reconciling all this..

-

[NJon]

So personally, I have no choice but to accept them as literal. Theistic evolution SEEMS to make sense otherwise. I guess I'll have to keep studying to see how others are reconciling all this..

Dr. Francis Collins is a very brilliant man, but evolution simply isn't compatible with Genesis.

A common TE explanation I've heard is that God evolved apes to a certain point, then He breathed spirit into one of them to form Adam. They further state that the "dust" from which Adam was formed really means the ape from which he was evolved.

Frankly, it's an enormous stretch that simply seems to have no basis whatsoever in Genesis.

[mpb1]

Dr. Francis Collins is a very brilliant man, but evolution simply isn't compatible with Genesis.

A common TE explanation I've heard is that God evolved apes to a certain point, then He breathed spirit into one of them to form Adam. They further state that the "dust" from which Adam was formed really means the ape from which he was evolved.

Frankly, it's an enormous stretch that simply seems to have no basis whatsoever in Genesis.

NJon - and any other YEC's,

If you were to ignore Genesis for a moment, wouldn't you agree that the DNA family tree evidence for some kind of evolution is hard to ignore?

I honestly don't see how I could look at the evidence objectively and come up with any other explanation for it. Of course, I'm new to gene research (to put it mildly), but how can this be debated - from YEC or OEC?

I'm guessing the gene researchers, including Francis Collins, probably believe they could win a court case (for evolution) based on the DNA evidence alone.

-

[NJon]

NJon - and any other YEC's,

If you were to ignore Genesis for a moment, wouldn't you agree that the DNA family tree evidence for some kind of evolution is hard to ignore?

I honestly don't see how I could look at the evidence objectively and come up with any other explanation for it. Of course, I'm new to gene research (to put it mildly), but how can this be debated - from YEC or OEC?

I'm guessing the gene researchers, including Francis Collins, probably believe they could win a court case (for evolution) based on the DNA evidence alone.

-

For speciation, yes, there's a lot of evidence. In fact, speciation is a necessary factor in the wide variety of land animals we see in the post-Flood era. For what could be called "microevolution," yes. However, I see no legitimate evidence for molecules-to-man evolution or for any one genus of creature changing into another. Plus, as has been said (and most importantly), it's incompatible with Genesis.

I'm no geneticist, but I'd like to quote ICR's Dr. Gary Parker, who is one. Parker said (and this is not verbatim; I'm going from memory):

"It's often claimed that the DNA between humans and chimps is 98% similar, which I find kind of amusing since you're not even that closely related to yourself."
<Parker then talked for a bit on genetics between parents. He then continued...>
"However, if we are going with that kind of logic: a jellyfish is 98% water. A cloud is 98% water. A watermelon is 98% water. According to the evolutionist, there's no difference between a jellyfish, a cloud and a watermelon."

[Jorge]

Hi Jorge,

Not long ago, I probably would have agreed with every word you wrote. I was absolutely convinced of YEC, and didn't allow anything to sway me from it. I used every argument I could to defend YEC. Most I later found to be in error - like the 'moondust argument.'
Here's a hint : you will find every argument on any position to be "in error / deficient" in some way.


As I mentioned in the thread, it was when I finally learned about starlight reaching the earth from billions of light years away, that I had no choice but to re-consider my position. Once I did that, and I opened my eyes to the mass of research in so many fields, which indicate that the earth and the universe are much older than could possibly fit within the YEC model, I decided I would accept that as fact, and move on. Now, there's no way I could even make myself believe that YEC is accurate.
Fine, and I won't try to make you change your mind. I would, however, like for you to change my mind.
All you have to do is show me how to reconcile all of Scripture with 'billions and billions of years' without
distorting/adding to/deleting from/mythologizing God's Word. No one has ever been able to show me this.


But I admire your zeal in standing for what you believe. I held on to that position for as long as I reasonably could, and if God faults me for abandoning the YEC position, in light of what I believe to be indisputable facts, then I will have to suffer the consequences.
Don't be too concerned about that. What I mean is, God looks at the heart of the person and that's all there is to it. If your heart is okay with Him, you'll be fine.

Just keep in mind that billions of years prior to Adam and Eve cause serious theological issues - issues that demand Scriptural compromises and these cascade on down. If you have no problem with such things then continue forward.


As far as reconciling the Genesis account of creation with OEC, I have plugged these articles to the point that people are going to suspect I work for the guy, but they really helped me to get a better understanding of the day-age theory, and I highly recommend them. When you consider what Rich Deem points out regarding day six in particular, it actually becomes more difficult to believe in the 24-hour day version (for me at least).
Okay, I'll go take a hard, serious look. I must tell you that I'm already familiar with the Day-Age view (as well as the Gap view) and haven't found these to be compelling at all. But we'll see this time around ...


Progressive Creation: An Overview
http://www.godandscience.org/younge...rogressive.html

Biblical Creationary Model for the Universe and Life on Earth (Timeline)
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/model.html

Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Biblical Defense of Long Creation Days
http://www.godandscience.org/younge...agedefense.html

Does Genesis One Conflict with Science?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html


OTHER GOD AND SCIENCE ARTICLES ON CREATION:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

-

Jorge

[mpb1]

Hey Jorge,

I couldn't agree with you more. That's why I don't fault you for your position, because I too believe that if you end up making a choice to 'trust' modern science, you end up having to practically DISTRUST the Bible. I believe it really is like you have to choose to place one above the other - to fully accept either.

This is why I stayed with the YEC view for so many years, as you have.

Like I said, the stars did me in. Even Geisler takes the OEC position because of the stars (being billions of light years away - and apparently taking billions of years for their light to reach us).

I am still searching for a coherent way to RECONCILE Genesis with science, while still reading Genesis literally (which I agree with you, is REQUIRED by the text - I keep pointing to Genesis 5, for starters).

Another TWebber recommended this article, which I finally read last night:

"In Search of the Historical Adam"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Fischer.html#Part%201

It covers some interesting ground, though it doesn't really answer the ultimate question. The author discounts the GAP heory, which if I understand correctly, is also discounted by DNA analysis showing shared ancestry (between man, apes, and chimps).

-

This thread was one of several 'searching threads' I've started since finding TWeb a few months ago. It left me with more questions than answers, just as the other ones did.

So I started another thread :)

"What Happens When You Take the Blinders Off? "
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=85758

to dig even deeper...

-

[mpb1]

Last night, I posted the info. below in the thread I mentioned above. I'm posting it here as well, since this thread covered some of these same issues - and because I'm hoping for any feedback that will help to refine or improve this summary...

--------

RE: Origins

Regarding origins (which I have been personally working through recently - attempting to reconcile science with Scripture), below is a summary of the information I've gathered so far, thanks to TWeb member postings with helpful information, links, and articles. I welcome any corrections or further devolopment of this outline. I have been a fundamentalist, young-earth-creationist (YEC) Christian nearly all my life, recently turned OEC, and I am trying to piece information together in an intellectually honest way, 'letting the chips fall where they may.'

However, this summary is based on the assumption that God always existed. Since atheist evolutionists freely admit their view of origins is based on the assumption the universe 'somehow' came into being, complete with natural laws, order, and systems, ANY view of origins must be based on one assumption or the other. Either God existed first, and He caused the universe as we know it to come into being (and also perhaps set evolutionary processes into motion), or God does not exist, and the universe, life, and evolutionary processes, all came into being apart from an intelligent designer.


ORIGIN SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE - FROM A LAYMAN'S PERSPECTIVE

1.) Following the Creation story, the book of Genesis has way too much specific biographical information, geneaologies, etc., for it to be allegorical, OR for it to have been intended as myth, rather than literal history. I believe it was clearly written to be read literally and historically. Genesis 5 (here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205;&version=49;) alone seems to prove this to be true. Not to mention the New Testament references to Adam and other events in Genesis as being literal and historical.

2.) While maintaining a literal interpretation of Genesis, many scholars believe it is possible for the six days of Creation to have been long periods of time (ages) rather than literal 24-hour days. Day six in particular seems to encompass much more activity than could have taken place in one 24-hour period, as Rich Deem of GodandScience.org points out in his series of articles, here: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html. However, whether the chronology described in the six days of Creation (or perhaps 'evolutionary progress') in Genesis actually fits the evolutionary model is apparently debatable.

3.) The earth is generally thought to be in the range of 4.5 billion years old, and the universe is thought to be in the range of 15 to 20 billion years old. The stars in the night sky are billions of light years away, and would have taken billions of years for their light to reach us. Even conservative apologists like Dr. Norman Geisler acknowledge this as evidence that young earth creationism does not fit modern science in any way.

4.) Modern scientific research seems to show that life in its earliest forms began 3-4 billion years ago, and that evolutionary progression continued until around two million years ago when Homo eructus (believed to be an ancestor of modern humans) evolved in Africa, followed by continued progression until the first anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens, evolved around 100,000 years ago. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution. More detailed info. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution)

5.) Genesis, along with the rest of the Bible, appears to show that Adam and Eve lived around 6,000 years ago. This time period, as described in the Bible, corresponds with secular history, science, and archaeology dated to the same time period. See the article, "In Search of the Historical Adam" Part 1, for more info: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-93Fisher.html. (Part 2 of this article is here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF3-94Fisher.html.)

6.) Even though the Bible seems to indicate (at first glance) that Adam and Eve were the first people created and the only people on earth at the time of their creation, the Bible also gives indications to the contrary. According to Part 1 of the article above, "The 'Nephilim' or 'giants' in Genesis 6:4 may now be identified as prehistoric, or pre-Adamic - not in Adam's line of descendants, or [direct] ancestry." It also appears there were other 'people' living in areas near Adam and Eve whom Cain was afraid would kill him, after he killed Abel. God placed a mark on Cain, so they wouldn't kill him, as he feared they would, and as God evidently acknowledged they might. (See Part 1 of the article listed above for more info.)

7.) Coinciding with research in other fields of science, modern DNA research shows 'shared ancestry' between humans, apes, and chimps. At this point in time, this information appears to be indisputable. It fits the evolutionary model, which was developed apart from more recent DNA findings. (For more information on this, watch Dr. Francis Collins' online video, which is currently featured on the homepage of www.asa3.org, or read his book, The Language of God. Dr. Collins is the Director of the Human Genome Research Project. Also, at the bottom of this post is an informative quote from Taoist on this topic - from another thread.)

8.) If it is somehow possible to reconcile the day-ages of Creation with science (potentially leading to the view of theistic evolution), then the difficulty becomes placing Adam and Eve as historical figures into a world where humans or human-like creatures (hominids) already exist. It has been postulated that God may have taken a hominid and given him a living soul/spirit, making him the first man 'created' in the image of God. Any other view, such as the creation of Adam from 'the dust of the earth' would remove him from the line of evolutionary ancestry, and since the DNA of modern humans shows common ancestry with chimps and apes, there would be no logical explanation for this.

In his online video, Dr. Francis Collins says that all the available information leads him to conclude that theistic evolution is the only view of origins that makes sense, although he isn't certain how to logically fit Adam into evolutionary history - or whether Adam is meant to be seen as a literal figure or not. As mentioned, I personally don't believe it is possible to say that Genesis was NOT intended to be read as a literal, historical account. (Please read Genesis 5 here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%205;&version=49; before asking me to defend this position :)

To continue trying to make sense of all the pieces of the puzzle, I'm looking forward to reading Dr. Collins' book, The Language of God, along with the other book he recommened, Making Peace with Science, by Darrell Falk.
If anyone else knows of other articles or resources that can help to further reconcile Genesis with modern science, I hope you'll post them here.

Not that I have any real hope of completing this, but I'm also hoping to begin collecting information to counter the most powerful atheist arguments against the Bible and Christianity. I hope you'll post any links or articles you're aware of on this topic as well...

Thanks,
Mark


[Taoist's post from page 7 of this thread is below.]


NOTE: This morning I was reading Norman Geisler's book, When Skeptic's Ask. In his chapter on evolution, he says that fossil evidence seems to agree with a day-age view of Creation, where new species were created by God and appeared instantly (rather than through gradual mutations). From what I can tell, this agrees with Rich Deem's views expressed at GodandScience.org. But this wouldn't explain the mass of species that previously existed and are now extict (or new species?), and it wouldn't explain the shared ancestry in the DNA, which supports evolutionary mutations. Any thoughts on any of this would be appreciated.



----------------------------

Quotes from Taoist - related to evolution and DNA research

from this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=85013


Greetings once again, mpb1,

I've been following with interest your thread in Protology, not least because many of the feelings you express find an echo in my own experiences. But once one has been bitten by a fact that cannot be denied, as you have been in your understanding that light falling now on earth from stars billions of light-years from us rings the death knell for a young earth worldview, you open yourself to similar facts that speak directly to the crux of the objections against the theory of evolution.

It is not evolution of other species that disturbs us, it is the evolution of the human species. We are not overly concerned with four footed creatures on land evolving from four finned creatures of the sea. It is our own history that concerns us. And a view of that history that shows us as something less than the special creations of a concerned intelligent being is a blow to our feelings of self-worth. I've been there, so I know how hard this is to accept. The idea that we have come into being through nothing more than the impersonal and uncaring forces of nature is anathema to us. But it does seem to be supported by the evidence. And summoning up the humility we learned as a virtue in our christian upbringings, it is a bridge we can indeed find the strength to cross.

Take courage in hand, and follow the evidence in front of you. Do not let yourself be deceived by what you wish to be true.

__________

Each human is a bit changed from the parents who preceded it. Literally.

At the molecular level, the level of the DNA that shapes us, we are not merely a bit of this and a bit of that from our parents. Each of us includes about a hundred of these "random" point mutations we've spoken of, and are referenced in the Time article on your table in addition to the larger scale mutations. But let's just consider the point mutations, which actually do make up the majority of genetic change over the generations. Consider the consequences of such changes over a specific period of time, say the last 6-8 million years, call it a half-million generations.

In the course of a journey half a million generations into the past, these hundred point mutations per generation turn into 50 million differences. Now let this ancestral group split into two groups, one that stayed in the forests and one that took to the plains, no longer interbreeding, and roll the clock forward again to the present day. These two groups, now separate species, will differ by about 100 million nucleotides, 50 million per group from the common ancestor, just due to point mutations alone.

Our genome is 3 billion nucleotides long, that's 3000 million nucleotides. 100 million of them represents a difference of 1 in 30, or about 3 percent or ... and here's the important part ... about the same difference we see in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. These figures alone lead me to the inescapable conclusion that Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes are near cousins on the tree of life.

__________

But that is by no means the only pillar in what has become an immense fortification shoring up our belief that our species evolved from a common ancestor with the the other great apes, and most specifically the chimpanzee.

Not all of our genome is filled with genes. In the "non-coding" regions, we find smudges and smears, places where viral invaders have hijacked our genome and inserted inert pieces of their own genetic code that are nonetheless copied from generation to generation in the normal process of human reproduction. Freeloaders, just there for the ride. These are the "endogenous retroviral insertions" or ERVs, you hear about. They are like the accessories your wife or girlfriend can't leave the house without, despite all your protests that the movie's going to start in fifteen minutes.

They do not occur often, but when they do, they're there for good. We know of 14 specific ERVs that occur in equivalent chromosomes among the primates, thoughtfully charted at talkorgins here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif) to show the nested hierarchy. Remember, these bits of the genome don't do anything but sit there and look pretty. Except that we can use them to direct us along the branches of the tree of life. There are ...

2 ERVs shared among all New World Monkeys, Old World Monkeys, gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans ... evidence for their common ancestry
2 more ERVs not shared by New World Monkeys — but shared by Old World Monkeys, gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans ... evidence for the early split-off of New World monkeys at the time of the breakup of Pangaea
3 more ERVs not shared by New World Monkeys or Old World monkeys — but shared by gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans ... evidence for the later split-off of Old World monkeys
2 more ERVs not shared by New World Monkeys, Old World Monkeys, or gibbons — but shared by orangutans, gorillas, chimps and humans ... evidence for the still later split off of gibbons
2 more ERVs not shared by New World Monkeys, Old World Monkeys, gibbons, or orangutans — but shared by gorillas, chimps and humans ... evidence for the yet later split off of orangutans
3 more ERVs not shared by New World Monkeys, Old World Monkeys, gibbons, orangutans, gorillas or chimps — but shared by humans ... evidence for the yet later still split off of gorillas and chimps

These inferences agree with both cladistic analysis of anatomic similarities and molecular analysis of the relative sizes of DNA differences. Three independent sources saying the same thing is powerful evidence. We know our ancestors and cousins on the tree of life, and how we are related. No, it's not proof, but any other hypothesis has to account for these facts.

_________

Then there's the interesting case of our second chromosome. It is the longest chromosome in our genome and has a rather unusual feature. The middle of a chromosome is called the centromere and the ends are called telomeres. Oddly enough, our second chromosome seems to have a degraded copy of a second centromere, and what appear to be two telomeres butting head to foot in the middle of the chromosome rather than on the ends where they belong. In other words, where we should see telomere / centromere / telomere, we instead see telomere / centromere / telomere / telomere / centromere / telomere, as if two chromosomes had been fused together.

Humans have 23 chromosome pairs where chimps, gorillas and orangutans have 24. At this point, no doubt you've anticipated what I'm about to say. Yes, two of these chromosomes, in each of these groups, seem to match up quite well with our second chromosome when placed end to end.

__________

There are many other evidences available, but I'll stop here for now. Suffice it to say that I am convinced, and as Genesis, where not actually contradicted by the evidence, does not even address these relationships, it's not reasonable to fill in additional chapters to cover these gaps we have ourselves filled through painstaking observation and long, hard work.

__________





----------------------------

[mpb1]

For anyone working through these same issues, I'm still wrestling between theistic evolution and day-age creationism...


Today, I received the books, The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins and Coming To Peace with Science by Darrell Falk. Both books provide support for theistic evolution, a non-literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis, and the idea that Adam - and/or the first group of humans - was/were 'created' by God as the first human being(s) with a soul/spirit, apparently FROM existing hominids (evolved human-like creatures).

So far, I've read about 30 pages of Falk's book. And no matter what else is in the rest of the book, I have found the foreword, preface, and first chapter very moving, in that he sets the stage by outlining how he personally went through a struggle very similar to my recent struggle, almost losing his Christian faith after being exposed to evolutionary biology.

He says that according to the mass of Christian books being written against evolution and old earth science, that not only is the Church setting up Christian youth for a great battle between their faith and science, but we're also essentially telling them that, "the sciences of astronomy, astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology, and biology are all fundamentally wrong."


"...If science is not really as wrong as we are being told that it is, and if a sizable segment of evangelical Christianity continues to tell its children the things it has been telling them, a chasm is going to open up that will increasingly make Christianity inaccessible to individuals who believe that scientific investigation has revealed truth about the universe."

He goes on to say that many have and will "descend into atheism" because of this...

Quotes from: Coming To Peace with Science by Darrell Falk


------------------


On the side of day-age Creationism, Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe (www.Reasons.org) and Rich Deem of God and Science (www.GodandScience.org), among others, are teaching that God created new species - leading up to the creation of man - over billions of years. They believe the science and the fossil records support the 'instant appearance' of new species, rather than gradual evolution of new species.

Here's an article written by both men where they explain their views:

A Scientific and Biblical Response to "Up from the Apes. Remarkable New Evidence Is Filling in the Story of How We Became Human"
http://godandscience.org/evolution/timeresponse.html


More articles here: http://godandscience.org/evolution/index.html


------------------


And here's Rich Deem's review of another book (by Hugh Ross) I hope to read soon:

Book Review: Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man
http://godandscience.org/evolution/who_was_adam.html

From the review - by Rich Deem:

"The second in a series of books designed to produce a comprehensive biblical creation model, Reasons To Believe scholars, Rana and Ross present a biblical creation model that makes 13 specific predictions on the nature and origin of mankind, then go on to examine the evidence published in the latest scientific studies. One example from the biblical creation model is the predicted discrepancy between the origin dates for male and female genetic lines. The Bible claims that there was a genetic bottleneck at the Genesis flood. Whereas all females can trace their ancestry back to Eve (through the three wives of Noah's sons), all males trace their Y-chromosomes through Noah (through his three sons). This predicted discrepancy for molecular dates of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome data is actually seen in the scientific literature. In addition to the mtDNA and Y-chromosome data, Who Was Adam? examines molecular dates from nuclear genes, numerous varieties of non-coding genetic elements, and human parasites. All these data confirm a recent origin date for Homo sapiens sapiens. Other chapters examine the hominid fossil record as it relates to specific evolutionary models compared to the biblical creation model. Chapter 5 examines the question whether we can detect the image of God in modern humans that differentiates them from hominids in the fossil record. Specific hominid species are examined in detail, including Homo erectus, Homo neandertalensis, and chimpanzees. A chapter devoted to the development of bipedalism shows that the extensive changes required for this form of locomotion appeared in early hominids, with no apparent selective Darwinian driving force. An examination of hominid brain sizes shows no gradual increases within species, but large jumps as new species appeared on the scene. Opponents of the idea that humans are intelligently designed often point to the presence of "junk" (non-coding) DNA in the genomes of both apes and humans. Chapter 14 examines the most recent evidence that shows that non-coding DNA is certainly not junk, but provides vital regulatory functions for coding genes."

------------------

Here's another review of the book, Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man, from an Amazon customer:

"Multidisciplinary Masterpiece" October 8, 2006

Reviewer: Joburgpete "irridium" (Johannesburg)

(TOP 50 REVIEWER)

"Biochemist Fazale Rana and astronomer Hugh Ross examine the latest discoveries in various branches of science and the hominid fossil record, testing these against evolutionary theory and a specific creation model. Who Was Adam? elevates the creation/evolution debate by evaluating new evidence from the disciplines of archaeology, astronomy, biochemistry and genetics. The book compares traditional evolutionist thought based on naturalism (materialism) to the science of nature (creation) according to the biblical account. Both views are then put to the test for scientific viability.

Part 1: What Is Man? contrasts King David's and Darwin's ideas on mankind's significance. David pereceived the universe with a sense of awe and marveled at the fact that God cares for human beings. This part also explores the current evolutionary models of humanity's origin in view of the hominid fossil record. Finally the scientific creationist model for human origin is presented, using testable methodology and making key predictions.

Part 2: The Song Of Science, goes into detail concerning the latest findings from the various disciplines. Chapters 4 & 5 look at archaeology, genetics and paleontology, demonstrating how the evidence impacts on the aforementioned models. The perfect timing for the appearance of humanity is analyzed from an astronomical perspective in chapter 6, whilst the next one discusses the reasons for the longevity amongst early humans as recorded in Genesis. This interesting section considers cutting-edge findings in the biochemistry of aging, with reference to amongst others: free radicals, calorie restriction, telomeres and historical variations in cosmic radiation.

Chapter 8: People On The Move, investigates recent genetic findings that chart the spread of mankind from the Middle East. This includes evidence from archaeology and geology and looks at Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia and the Americas. The short section on linguistic evidence mentions the 3 language families of Amerind, Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut. For further information, I refer the interested reader to the book Language In The Americas by Professor Joseph Greenberg. For more on human genetics, I recommend the work of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza.

The probability of human evolution is examined in chapters 9 to 13 which encompass discussions of chromosomal similarities, Homo Erectus and Neanderthal. The latest mtDNA research shows that Neanderthal was a distinct species. As regards the popular perception of humanity sharing 99% of genes with the chimpanzee, by the same reasoning we share 35% of same with daffodils! The author looks at so-called Junk DNA in chapter 14, pointing out that the various types of non-coding DNA perform functional roles as is being discovered with increasing frequency. Pseudogenes, LINEs, SINEs and endogenous retroviruses are all examined here.

The reading pleasure is enhanced by text blocks discussing topics like the Garden of Eden and the genealogies of the Bible. Seventeen figures throughout the text include maps of the human diasporas, protein and chromosome structure and the elements of Junk DNA. The book concludes with 38 pages of bibliographical notes and an index. This illuminating work is a gripping read and great reference source. I also recommend A Matter Of Days by Hugh Ross which presents the sane Christian view of the duration of the creation days in Genesis."


------------------


And here's an e-mail response I received from Christian apologist, Dr. Norman Geisler, today. In his books, he sides with old-earth creationism (mentioning the 'light from the stars' issue). Since he rejects theistic evolution, I'm assuming his beliefs are probably closely aligned with Rich Deem and Hugh Ross, though I haven't asked (and was lucky to get this one response from him :)

This was the exact question he responded to (which I thought was going to his assistant):

Has Dr. Geisler analyzed the DNA evidence which seems to show 'shared ancestry' between humans, apes, and chimps; and does he consider theistic evolution a viable option for Christians?


"Mark,

In regards to common DNA between apes and humans… this may be evidence of common design for existence in the same biosphere, rather than evidence of a common ancestor. For example, just because the tea spoon, skillet, pot, and cauldron have similar design, does not mean that the cauldron descended from the spoon. (see Frank Turek’s and my book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist)

In regards to Christians and Theistic Evolution… theistic evolution (though, not necessarily Old Earth Creationism) is contrary to conservative Christian doctrine. First, because it fails to take Genesis literally. Second, it disregards the doctrine of original sin (Rom. 5). And third, it violates Jesus’ affirmation in a literal Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4-6). I hope this helps you in studies.

Blessings,
Norm Geisler"

--

[mpb1]

I just found this post by grmorton in another thread.

(bolding & color added)

----------------------------


"Look, one has several choices in this issue with the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

1. one can do what the YECs do. Say the story is absolutely historical with a global flood 4000 years ago and then ignore astronomy, biology, geology, chemistry, physics.....that is a bad choice in my view.

2. One can do what many do and say the story is not historical and/or means something other than what it clearly says...that too is a bad choice in my view

3. One can deny that the Bible tells us anything of value.

4. or one can look for a scenario which fits all the facts and then hope for someday some verification. Today, I have none to offer. Most likely I never will have any to offer. But, my views fit within the known data and and don't deny scientific data. It also maintains the historicity of the Scripture--something I think is important even if many others don't (why believe as inspired and god given a book which tells incredibly false stories about history and creation?)

Can I prove my scenario, no! Do I have evidence for it? Yes, but it isn't proof (there really isn't such a thing as proof in science anyway).

The Mediterranean did indeed fill 5.5 million years ago. Prior to that it was a desciccated desert with a few salty lakes scattered about.

That was the time that the first hominids were appearing in the fossil record,

The genetics of humanity seem to point to that time as the only time it is possible to have a 2 person population bottleneck see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm

Mankind would not have been capable of passing on a farming society through an 8 person bottleneck. Technology would take a long long time to redevelop. While people today say how inventive humanity is, the reality is we only a few of us are inventive and that means that we need a large population to have a large number of inventors. That is why technology has accelerated in the past 400 years.

The Bible does indicate evolution to me, when God said, "Earth bring forth living animals--it was the earth which did the creating.

Religion goes way back long before anatomically modern humans existed.
This is from 425,000 years ago. As you read this, ask yourself if you would feel comfortable in a village that had such a thing. Would you like their religion.

"But Mania's most intriguing find lies under a protective shed. As he opens the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of smooth stones and pieces of bone that he believes were arranged by humans to pave a 27-foot-wide circle.
"'They intentionally paved this area for cultural activities,' says Mania. 'We found here a large anvil of quartzite set between the horns of a huge bison, near it were fractured human skulls.'"

So, if Adam was the first spiritual man, how do we explain the fact that H. erectus seemed to engage in spiritual activities as well? No other apologetical system even addresses this evidence. They all act as if it isn't there. for more see The Ancient Record of Religion among Archaic Hominids," http://home.entouch.net/dmd/religion.htm

To me, this is pretty good evidence that IF the Bible is to be considered true at all, apologetical systems that ignore religiousity among our ancient ancestors can't be correct. Religion extends way back. Art goes back even further.

One thing I will say is that I am disgusted by apologetical systems that depend upon ignoring data rather than explaining data. And all I have heard do that. the Liberals ignore the Biblical data by saying it isn't to be taken as real history, the YECs ignore scientific data by saying it isn't to be beleived. As far as I am concerned both liberal and YECs are doing the same thing--saving the validity of the Bible by ignoring evidence. They just ignore different evidence than the other guy does.

Hugh Ross ignores the anthropological evidence and the genetic evidence and then gets incensed when the YEC ignore astronomical evidence. For instance, Hugh is very quick to accept the mtDNA genetic information which says that all our mtDNa came from a woman who lived 150,000 years ago (but then he changes the number and makes it 60,000 years ago). But he is also quick to ignore the nuclear DNA which says that there has been absolutely NO population bottleneck of a handfull of people in our lineage for 5 million years. Why would he accept what agrees with him and then reject what disagrees with him.

Christians need to cease this type of game playing. We either must find a coherent, cogent view of prehistory that ignores nothing, or give up Gen 1-11 as false and then deal with the consequences of a God who can't communicate the true story of what happened at creation. My views are an attempt to ignore nothing during the creation of an apologetical system.


Nowhere does the Bible say animals must give rise to animals after their kind--meaning animals is the subject of the sentence and animals is the object of the sentence. YECs have misread that passage for centuries.

Nothing in the Bible says what Adam looked like. It doesn't say he was blonde, black with curly hair, bigbrained or small brained. But if my views are to be correct, then either something like H. erectus lived earlier or small brained hominids were capable of doing complex tasks. And that concept seems to have been confirmed now. Small brained hominids can do complex human-like tasks. These are the hominids found on the island of Flores, H. floresiensis.

“Faunal remains included those of Stegodon (with cut marks evident on some bones), Komodo dragon, rat and bat, as well as the hominin mandible, scapula, radius and ulna from Spit 51 that were found on a well-defined occupation floor. Use of fire by hominins is indicated by charred bone and clusters of reddened and fire-cracked rocks. These include a cluster of three burnt, waterrolled, volcanic pebbles from Spit 84 (840 :t 5 cm depth) in Sector VII, and a circular arrangement of five similarly burnt pebbles from Spit 43 (435 :t 5 cm depth) in Sector XI.”

“Another notable point is that the Liang Bua fossils come from a lengthy temporal span during which the cave's inhabitants were hunting animals, producing stone tools and making fire. Although the original LB 1 skeleton is estimated to be 18,000 years old, a child's radius was found in deposits estimated to be 12,000 years old, and the new mandible is estimated to be 15,000 years old; other finds may be as old as 95,000 years.”

Given its oddities, H. floresiensis threatens to throw cold water on some long-held ideas about human cognitive evolution. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1013/p02s01-stss.html accessed 10-21-05


So, one of the earlier objections to my ideas was that small brained hominids, the only ones available as candidates for a 5.5 myr old Adam were not capable of performing the highly sophisticated activities described. That may not be the case any longer.

The biggest problem these ideas have is that they don't have that missing piece of data in the Med. Most think it doesn't exist, and I can't wish it into existence. Nor can I claim my views are true until such a time as it is found. But I won't ignore data as other apologists do."

----------------------------

The post above was written by grmorton - copied from another thread.

(bolding & color added)


He seems to know his stuff. I'd love to be able to make sense of all this...

[drachronicler]

I just found this post by grmorton in another thread.

(bolding & color added)

----------------------------


"Look, one has several choices in this issue with the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

1. one can do what the YECs do. Say the story is absolutely historical with a global flood 4000 years ago and then ignore astronomy, biology, geology, chemistry, physics.....that is a bad choice in my view.

2. One can do what many do and say the story is not historical and/or means something other than what it clearly says...that too is a bad choice in my view

3. One can deny that the Bible tells us anything of value.

4. or one can look for a scenario which fits all the facts and then hope for someday some verification. Today, I have none to offer. Most likely I never will have any to offer. But, my views fit within the known data and and don't deny scientific data. It also maintains the historicity of the Scripture--something I think is important even if many others don't (why believe as inspired and god given a book which tells incredibly false stories about history and creation?)

Can I prove my scenario, no! Do I have evidence for it? Yes, but it isn't proof (there really isn't such a thing as proof in science anyway).

The Mediterranean did indeed fill 5.5 million years ago. Prior to that it was a desciccated desert with a few salty lakes scattered about.

That was the time that the first hominids were appearing in the fossil record,

The genetics of humanity seem to point to that time as the only time it is possible to have a 2 person population bottleneck see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm

Mankind would not have been capable of passing on a farming society through an 8 person bottleneck. Technology would take a long long time to redevelop. While people today say how inventive humanity is, the reality is we only a few of us are inventive and that means that we need a large population to have a large number of inventors. That is why technology has accelerated in the past 400 years.

The Bible does indicate evolution to me, when God said, "Earth bring forth living animals--it was the earth which did the creating.

Religion goes way back long before anatomically modern humans existed.
This is from 425,000 years ago. As you read this, ask yourself if you would feel comfortable in a village that had such a thing. Would you like their religion.

"But Mania's most intriguing find lies under a protective shed. As he opens the door sunlight illuminates a cluster of smooth stones and pieces of bone that he believes were arranged by humans to pave a 27-foot-wide circle.
"'They intentionally paved this area for cultural activities,' says Mania. 'We found here a large anvil of quartzite set between the horns of a huge bison, near it were fractured human skulls.'"

So, if Adam was the first spiritual man, how do we explain the fact that H. erectus seemed to engage in spiritual activities as well? No other apologetical system even addresses this evidence. They all act as if it isn't there. for more see The Ancient Record of Religion among Archaic Hominids," http://home.entouch.net/dmd/religion.htm

To me, this is pretty good evidence that IF the Bible is to be considered true at all, apologetical systems that ignore religiousity among our ancient ancestors can't be correct. Religion extends way back. Art goes back even further.

One thing I will say is that I am disgusted by apologetical systems that depend upon ignoring data rather than explaining data. And all I have heard do that. the Liberals ignore the Biblical data by saying it isn't to be taken as real history, the YECs ignore scientific data by saying it isn't to be beleived. As far as I am concerned both liberal and YECs are doing the same thing--saving the validity of the Bible by ignoring evidence. They just ignore different evidence than the other guy does.

Hugh Ross ignores the anthropological evidence and the genetic evidence and then gets incensed when the YEC ignore astronomical evidence. For instance, Hugh is very quick to accept the mtDNA genetic information which says that all our mtDNa came from a woman who lived 150,000 years ago (but then he changes the number and makes it 60,000 years ago). But he is also quick to ignore the nuclear DNA which says that there has been absolutely NO population bottleneck of a handfull of people in our lineage for 5 million years. Why would he accept what agrees with him and then reject what disagrees with him.

Christians need to cease this type of game playing. We either must find a coherent, cogent view of prehistory that ignores nothing, or give up Gen 1-11 as false and then deal with the consequences of a God who can't communicate the true story of what happened at creation. My views are an attempt to ignore nothing during the creation of an apologetical system.


Nowhere does the Bible say animals must give rise to animals after their kind--meaning animals is the subject of the sentence and animals is the object of the sentence. YECs have misread that passage for centuries.

Nothing in the Bible says what Adam looked like. It doesn't say he was blonde, black with curly hair, bigbrained or small brained. But if my views are to be correct, then either something like H. erectus lived earlier or small brained hominids were capable of doing complex tasks. And that concept seems to have been confirmed now. Small brained hominids can do complex human-like tasks. These are the hominids found on the island of Flores, H. floresiensis.

“Faunal remains included those of Stegodon (with cut marks evident on some bones), Komodo dragon, rat and bat, as well as the hominin mandible, scapula, radius and ulna from Spit 51 that were found on a well-defined occupation floor. Use of fire by hominins is indicated by charred bone and clusters of reddened and fire-cracked rocks. These include a cluster of three burnt, waterrolled, volcanic pebbles from Spit 84 (840 :t 5 cm depth) in Sector VII, and a circular arrangement of five similarly burnt pebbles from Spit 43 (435 :t 5 cm depth) in Sector XI.”

“Another notable point is that the Liang Bua fossils come from a lengthy temporal span during which the cave's inhabitants were hunting animals, producing stone tools and making fire. Although the original LB 1 skeleton is estimated to be 18,000 years old, a child's radius was found in deposits estimated to be 12,000 years old, and the new mandible is estimated to be 15,000 years old; other finds may be as old as 95,000 years.”

Given its oddities, H. floresiensis threatens to throw cold water on some long-held ideas about human cognitive evolution. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1013/p02s01-stss.html accessed 10-21-05


So, one of the earlier objections to my ideas was that small brained hominids, the only ones available as candidates for a 5.5 myr old Adam were not capable of performing the highly sophisticated activities described. That may not be the case any longer.

The biggest problem these ideas have is that they don't have that missing piece of data in the Med. Most think it doesn't exist, and I can't wish it into existence. Nor can I claim my views are true until such a time as it is found. But I won't ignore data as other apologists do."

----------------------------

The post above was written by grmorton - copied from another thread.

(bolding & color added)


He seems to know his stuff. I'd love to be able to make sense of all this...

Yes he does, but he may have left out one other option the should be considered.

Just as surely as there is scientific evidence of an earth billions of years old, with lifeforms that lived and became extinct millions of years before mankind, should we turn a blind eye to the scientific evidence that the Bible has "evolved" as surely as life on earth has evolved? This does not make the Bible false, it merely means that as we must collect and assimilate all of the evidence in the fossil record to study the record of life on earth, we should be just as diligent in studying all of the scriptural evidence that records the history of the Bible, or more specifically the genesis story. For the record though, and as many Christian faith scientists have noted, it is remarkable that these bronze age peoples did have in their Creation Epic the knowledge that the first life began in the sea, that there was an epoch of great monsters (dinosaurs?), that modern mammals would follow, and finally humans, EXACTLY as the scientific evidence illustrates. We also know that the Genesis story has grave inconsistencies, such as the fact it admits other people inexplicably cohabited the earth with the family of Adam and Eve, who were supposedly the only humans at the time.

But there are far older accounts of the very same Adam, permanently recorded on Sumerian cunieform tablets at least 1500 years before the earliest Hebrew version was written down. Abraham came from Ur in Sumeria, so how can Christians simply ignore the earliest versions of the genesis stories written down in cities centuries before these stories would become garbled as an oral tradition of nomadic shepherds?

In the oldest version, a talking serpent-dragon who is "guardian of the sacred tree" offers on behalf of his God, eternal life to Adam, though called Adape in this oldest version. Nowhere does it state that Adam is the only man, or that man was already immortal. This story complies with the scientific record. Humans lived, died and reproduced. But the high God singled out Adape for eternal life. Adape refused, and in this earliest version, there is no evidence that the serpent-dragon tried to trick Adape out of eternal life. Adape was simply warned by others not to trust the Serpent-dragon. He turned down the offer of eternal life, and eventually died like all other mortals before and since.

If Christians would be willing to acknowledge this is the oldest, and therefore most reliable version of the Adam story, then we do not have to argue the inconsistencies of Genesis. Perhaps someday we will find more pieces of the earliest written creation story, and even greater compatibility between science and the Bible will be realized.

[Jorge]

I couldn't agree with you more. That's why I don't fault you for your position, because I too believe that if you end up making a choice to 'trust' modern science, you end up having to practically DISTRUST the Bible. I believe it really is like you have to choose to place one above the other - to fully accept either.

This is why I stayed with the YEC view for so many years, as you have.
It's far more serious, demanding and with deeper consequences than what you express above. Scripture begins with a historical foundation "in the beginning" that creates an unbroken sequence start-to-present-to-future. Destroy that foundation and as a Christian I'd be the first to question the rest of Scripture.

There's a great deal to this subject but the bottom line is what I've already expressed to you : there's no way that I've ever encountered to reconcile billions of years with all of Scripture unless one is willing to modify Scripture in many areas - some more notable than others. I'm not willing to do that.


Like I said, the stars did me in. Even Geisler takes the OEC position because of the stars (being billions of light years away - and apparently taking billions of years for their light to reach us).
I can certainly understand your position - don't think I don't. The light travel time does present a challenge to YEC but I don't think it's an unsurmountable one. Humphrey's, for instance, has presented his WHC model as an alternative. While WHC does not answer every question, it does answer some.

One thing I know for certain is that the reigning Naturalistic cosmological models (all based on a Big Bang) have many questions and problems. It never ceases to amaze me how people, Christians even, have no difficulty in accepting those models along with their many questions and problems but those same people cannot accept any part of the questions/problems that, for example, WHC has.

Why do you think that is, mpb1?


I am still searching for a coherent way to RECONCILE Genesis with science, while still reading Genesis literally (which I agree with you, is REQUIRED by the text - I keep pointing to Genesis 5, for starters).
I personally know of NO conflict between science and Genesis. I know of many conflicts between Genesis and what people REGARD as science, but that's a totally different matter, agreed?


Another TWebber recommended this article, which I finally read last night:

"In Search of the Historical Adam"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Fischer.html#Part%201

It covers some interesting ground, though it doesn't really answer the ultimate question. The author discounts the GAP heory, which if I understand correctly, is also discounted by DNA analysis showing shared ancestry (between man, apes, and chimps).
My take : Gap Theory and Day Age Theory are artificial fabrications created to reconcile billions of years with Genesis. Note, however, that to propose such theories one must FIRST believe in those billions of years (obviously since if one doesn't then the reconciliation isn't necessary).

I always say to Christians : okay, let's go ahead and assume the billions of years. Now let's see what happens to Scripture. IMHO, that's the heart of the matter and where the answer to all this resides.


This thread was one of several 'searching threads' I've started since finding TWeb a few months ago. It left me with more questions than answers, just as the other ones did.

So I started another thread :)

"What Happens When You Take the Blinders Off? "
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=85758

to dig even deeper...

-
As you seem to be genuinely and openly interested in finding answers, please feel free to PM me if you have other questions. I don't have all the answers but whatever I have I'll gladly share.

EDITED TO ADD : I just took a quick look at your "blinders" thread. I couldn't disagree any stronger.

Jorge

[rmwilliamsjr]

i read a good book on the topic of moving from a YECists to OEC position:



book review: Paradigms on Pilgrimage
Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology, and Biblical Interpretation
Godfrey, Stephen and Smith, Christopher

http://www.amazon.com/Paradigms-Pilgrimage-Creationism-Paleontology-Interpretation/dp/1894667328/sr=8-1/qid=1159467693/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7437601-1505653?ie=UTF8&s=books

This is a part of my continuing interest in the Creation-Evolution-Design (CED) debate. It is however a bit off my usual reading schedule, it is in the genre of personal stories, of transition from young earth creationism (YEC) to something else. I don't usually read personal stories or books with substantial personal involvement, i prefer to spend my time on science and ideas rather than with people's personal struggles. This was an online recommendation that i took seriously and am frankly glad i did. It is not a spectacularly argued book, careful but not with great flashes of insight, more understated and calmly through the years type of analysis. It has as a goal not to discourage people from reading the whole thing, not to push hot buttons and have people just put the book down in disgust and move on. It has a goal of personal involvement and sympathetic identification with the authors as they tell you their journeys in the field, and as such it is very well done. Don't read this for big ideas in the CED debate, for great pieces of refutation you can take to the online boards, it isn't that type of a book. What it is, is a gentle, kindly story of two rather smart and sensitive men studying how their youthful background ought to interact with their adult callings and their studies of both God's World and God's Word over time and with increasing maturity and sensitivity to nuance.

I'd recommend this to every YEC, to anyone who struggles with the issues in CED, to anyone who reads Genesis and asks real hard questions. It is designed for this audience, it is very sympathetic to their concerns and sensitivities, and ought not to upset even the most hard boiled YECist. I'd just read it front to back, in order, not because the chapters are in a logical and necessary order requiring this, but because the author's have given some real thought to how important ideas interact and structure the book to be such a journey. It really is best just read as a novel, then go back and highlight and read for detail. Just breeze through the first time for the passion and the pain the authors wish to transfer to the reader as their story of their studies.

from my review at: http://rmwilliamsjr.livejournal.com/197391.html#cutid1
the rest of the review is an outline using pullquotes from the book

[mpb1]

Hi RMW, That looks like an interesting book. If the price goes down a little, I might order it used :) Thanks for the referral!

[mpb1]

Regarding the (long) GRMorton post above (post #59), which I copied from another thread, here's a response that was posted by Charlene on that other thread.

---------------------------------

I think the simplest explanation is that we are talking about Mesopotamian civilization. It fits easiest with the text, it fits easily with what we know about ancient Mesopotamia.

And I don't think that gardening and keeping livestock would have been lost to Noah and his descendents. As I said, it is a way of life and Noah would not have forgotten, good grief, he brought the whole herd with him. In Noah's position off the ark, it would have been easier for him to keep up animal husbandry than to revert back to huter/gatherer. It is what he knew, it is a way of life God helped to preserve when He told him to bring the animals on the ark with him, it was a livelihood. He had this knowledge for three hundred and fifty years after the flood, farming away, planting vineyards, making wine, getting drunk. And with his eight sons having this knowledge as well, and spreading it to their children, and without the problem of being isolated, I don't see it really reasonable that this way of life was lost. Indeed, it has not been lost since.

No, I think the whole ark thing was to preserve the way of life for Noah and his descendents rather than just having the animlas as company on board the ark. What, did the domesticated livestock revert back to wild only to be redomesticated ten thousand years ago? Could the sheep and goat ancestors even be domesticated five million years ago? So, did the "clean and unclean" of Noah's understanding have any resemblence to the "clean and unclean" of the Bible?

I think the simplest explanation for early Genesis is that we indeed are talking about ancient Mesopotamia, with the dawn of civilization.

Indeed, it would have been the right time for God to reveal Himself to man then, as language was common and with trade, new ideas could disperse. I think this may be the beginning of God's people, the line of Adam. Through Adam's line we have the knowledge of God. And it was not until Seth, Adam's son, that "men" began to "call upon the name of the Lord." Sounds like the Adamic line evangelized in a time where this knowledge could indeed spread to men through the way and means of ancient Mesopotamia. As Christ was born at the right time in history, in the backdrop of the Roman Empire, complete with Roman roads, etc, so Adam was born in the right time to bring the knowledge of God to civilization.

As was pointed out to me by another here, it was not Adam who first sinned, but Eve. And yet scripture says that through Adam's sin that sin entered the world. I say this shows federal headship. It was not literally Adam's but Eve's sin that entered first through mankind. There is something more here, Adam was the head of Eve. And not only Eve, but all of mankind as well.

Adam is the first to whom God reveals Himself. With Adam in his setting in Mesopotamia with the dawn of civilization, the knowledge of a monotheistic God could spread. I see it may be about timing in man's history, rather than the very beginning of it in Africa.

---------------------------------

The post above was written by Charlene, and copied from another thread. It is a response to GRMorton's post (which was copied into this thread as post #59, above.)

[mpb1]

I always say to Christians : okay, let's go ahead and assume the billions of years. Now let's see what happens to Scripture. IMHO, that's the heart of the matter and where the answer to all this resides.

I just took a quick look at your "blinders" thread. I couldn't disagree any stronger.

Jorge

Hi Jorge,

You are right, if we assume the earth is billions of years old, I agree that we have a serious problem, at least if we take Genesis at face vale. Which is one of the reasons there are so many atheists, and why people like you (and me - until recently) will fight tooth and nail to keep the earth young.

As far as my thread you mentioned about 'Taking the Blinders Off,' these issues have become an obessesion for me - because I HAVE to find a way to reasonbly resolve them. In the last couple weeks, I have questioned the veractity of Scripture and Christianity more than ever in my entire life...

Though now that I have basically narrowed it down in my own mind to one of two choices - either Theistic Evolution or Day-Age Creation, my cognitive dissonance has been reduced to a managable level. For a few days, I actually wondered if I might end up an atheist. It scared the living hell out of me, to be quite frank with you.

I'm currently reading Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk, a book I would strongly encourage you to read (if I can say that without it sounding offensive :) Though I should say I disgree with some things in the book, myself...

In chapter 3 of the book, he lays out a number of evidences for an old earth, several of which I had never heard before: trees that show the earth is at least 12,000 years old, lake sediment that shows the earth is at least 35,000 years old, and ice cores that show the earth is at least 180,000 years old.

He also clearly explains how scientists use radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks. He acknowledges discreprencies in rock dating, but points out that tests have never shown any change in the rate of decay - no matter what kind of atmospheric changes they have artificially created in an attempt to change the rate of decay. He also points out that even if there were major errors in the dating of rocks, the discrepencies could not possibly change the age of rocks from say 1.5 billion years old to 6,000 years old or even 100,000 years old. It's as if God put ticking clocks into the rocks to let us know how long they'd been here... And the old age of earth rocks obviously agrees with the old age of the universe, as evidenced by starlight reaching the earth from billions of light years away.


In the book, Falk mentions this link for more info. on the subject:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

-

[mpb1]

Notable Christians Open to an Old-universe, Old-earth Perspective

http://reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

This page contains dozens of quotes from top apologists in favor of an old earth, old universe...


-----------------------------


Also, I didn't know this wealth of information was even online...


ONLINE ARTICLES / AUDIOS SUPPORTING DAY-AGE CREATION

FROM HUGH ROSS / REASONS TO BELIEVE:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#creation_vs_evolution

http://www.reasons.org/resources/index.shtml

--

(previosuly mentioned)

ONLINE ARTICLES SUPPORTING DAY-AGE CREATION

FROM RICH DEEM / GOD AND SCIENCE

http://godandscience.org/evolution/index.html

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html


-----------------------------


ONLINE ARTICLES FROM ASA3 SCIENTISTS & RESEARCHERS

SUPPORTING THEISTIC EVOLUTION, DAY-AGE CREATION, ETC.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/index.html#The%20Bible%20and%20Science%CA

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html


-----------------------------


Know of other great article links? Please post 'em :)

[mpb1]

Oximudd sent me this by PM:


Though I understand it is hard to cross post, I am at a disadvantage to interact with you over in Prot, as I am basically a TE.
Hey Jim,

I didn't realize theistic evolution was considered to be outside the realm of Creationism, but I can see how that makes sense. I may have to get this thread moved after all :)



I had a question for you though. I say this a while back, but for some reason it has become painfully clear to me their are
two major questions unanswered in the YEC/OEC camp.

1) The issue of the use of our knowledge of nature to selectively reinterpret quite a bit of scripture without a second thought, BUT going bonkers at the same in Genesis.

2) The fact that the structure of the Earth and Cosmos described in Genesis 1:6-8 is so completely out of connection with reality, that one MUST reinterpret the words to make ANY sense of it at all applying a 21st century knowledge of the structure of the solar system and universe. These two verses, if taken lterally, place a fixed expanse or surface above the earth with a mass of water positioned/resting on top(ostensibly an explanation for the blue sky), and the sun moon and stars placed within it. Implicit here is also the understanding of a flat earth, and the sun/moon and stars literally rising and setting each day - moving across the 'expanse'.

In light of that, I can't see how we can even begin to think God intends for us to accept Genesis 1 as a literal description of His creative work. This is in the text evidence (coupled with the most basic of physical understading) that tells me Gen 1(and likely 2 and 3 as well) MUST have been painted in the language and tradition of the culture to which it was given.


One final question/comment

Do you at this time still feel it undermines the authority and inspiration of scripture if God chose to give us Genesis in those terms: more symbolic, containing references more geared to the culture and time given, with an emphasis on spiritual truth rather than physical truth?


Jim

As you know, I have chronicled my ignorance from day one on this topic. So all I am doing is searching for the best information available to make sense of it in my own mind. (I suppose that describes a lot of other people around here as well.)

Figuring this out became an obsession for me when I thought my entire faith was going to fall apart if Genesis turned out to be completely inaccurate, based on modern science. So I have been researching online, reading everything I can to make sense of it.

As you pointed out above, the more I've read, the more it seems that those who have worked through this issue have come to believe that the story of Creation does not have to be read literally in order for the Bible to be a message from God. I'm still working on finding a comfort level with this view, but the more I study, the more a non-literal understanding of the Creation story seems to make sense.

Beyond the Creation story however, I still don't see how it's possible in any way to interpret Adam as an allegorical figure. I believe the genealogies, the biographical information, and the New Testament references to Adam make an allegorical reading impossible. So I have to believe in a literal Adam, and I have to believe the genealogies were meant to be historical (though probably not inerrent).

At this point, my conclusions are that...


- The Creation story may not have been intended to be taken literally, which would allow for science to explain the details.

- God may have used evolution to bring about Creation or He may have created new species over time, as in the day-age view of Creation.

- The veracity of both the Old and New Testament depends on Adam being a literal person, though it appears there may have been other human-like creatures on earth prior to Adam's 'creation.'

- Adam may have simply been the first human 'created' in the image of God, and if DNA 'shared ancestry' evidence is correct, Adam must have been 'created' from an existing species of hominid.

- - - - - - - - -

I'm still looking for holes in theistic evolution and the day-age view, to better understand which is most most plausible, but I'm starting to think it may not make much difference either way, as far as my faith is concerned - thank God! :)

[Jorge]

You are right, if we assume the earth is billions of years old, I agree that we have a serious problem, at least if we take Genesis at face vale.
Okay ... :huh: ... then, if you know this, why shift over to that position? Perhaps below ...


Which is one of the reasons there are so many atheists,
There are many Atheists because they do not wish to submit to God - period!
The rest is just window-dressing meant to justify their rebellious decision.


and why people like you (and me - until recently) will fight tooth and nail to keep the earth young.
Frankly, I don't "fight to keep the earth young". I fight to keep people from distorting God's Word so as to allow the introduction of vain philosophies and false doctrines. In doing that, the earth remains young.


As far as my thread you mentioned about 'Taking the Blinders Off,' these issues have become an obessesion for me - because I HAVE to find a way to reasonbly resolve them. In the last couple weeks, I have questioned the veractity of Scripture and Christianity more than ever in my entire life...
I'll pray for your spiritual crisis. Just one word : be very, very careful of the source(s) where you seek advice from. I assure you, there are those out there that would like nothing better than to see you abandon God and His Word and adopt some man-made view of "reality". As God tells us, be sure to "test all spirits".


Though now that I have basically narrowed it down in my own mind to one of two choices - either Theistic Evolution or Day-Age Creation, my cognitive dissonance has been reduced to a managable level. For a few days, I actually wondered if I might end up an atheist. It scared the living hell out of me, to be quite frank with you.
I have stated many times here at TWeb that NO Christian merely wakes up one morning and says, "Hmmm ... I think today I'll become an Atheist." Rather, the process is usually gradual and in every case that I know of involves adopting old earth and evolutionary thoughts. IOW, I have never known of an ex-Christian (even "great" ones such as Templeton) that did not first accept billions of years. THAT should tell you something.


I'm currently reading Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk, a book I would strongly encourage you to read (if I can say that without it sounding offensive :) Though I should say I disgree with some things in the book, myself...
What's the essence ... the main thesis? Oops, you say so below ...


In chapter 3 of the book, he lays out a number of evidences for an old earth, several of which I had never heard before: trees that show the earth is at least 12,000 years old, lake sediment that shows the earth is at least 35,000 years old, and ice cores that show the earth is at least 180,000 years old.
One word : i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n. I know of these 'evidences'. They are unconvincing.


He also clearly explains how scientists use radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks. He acknowledges discreprencies in rock dating, but points out that tests have never shown any change in the rate of decay - no matter what kind of atmospheric changes they have artificially created in an attempt to change the rate of decay. He also points out that even if there were major errors in the dating of rocks, the discrepencies could not possibly change the age of rocks from say 1.5 billion years old to 6,000 years old or even 100,000 years old. It's as if God put ticking clocks into the rocks to let us know how long they'd been here... And the old age of earth rocks obviously agrees with the old age of the universe, as evidenced by starlight reaching the earth from billions of light years away.
Same comment as above.

However, and for the third (or is it fourth?) time, I remind you of the critical question : is it even possible to introduce billions of years without having to distort/"rewrite" Scripture? I've never found anyone able to do so and the more I study the matter the less I believe such a thing is possible.

You need to very seriously consider what/who constitutes the final authority in your life. If you think these people don't have unresolved questions then you simply haven't done your homework. They've got tons of questions. SO DO WE. Thus, since everyone has questions, who will you 'stand by' while those questions get answered?


In the book, Falk mentions this link for more info. on the subject:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

-
Thanks for the link.

Jorge

[mpb1]

Hey Jorge,

I finished that Falk book last night, Coming to Peace with Science. Then I scanned through The Language of God by Francis Collins. (If you watch his video at www.asa3.org, there's really no need to read the book. The video covers all the same territory, only with fewer words.)

Coming to Peace with Science is a much better, more comprehensive book. It's basically a treatise on theistic evolution. Falk ever-so-gently tries to shift the reader's mind into accepting the 'facts' piece by piece - from the age of the the earth, to the fossils, to the DNA evidence. Though he leaves Genesis an unanswered question, essentially saying that once we allegorize Creation, it doesn't really matter. (He also assures the reader that this allegorizing of Creation should not lead to an undermining of other essential Christian doctrines, like the Resurrection.)

But it matters a great deal to me. For reasons I explained in posts above, I believe Adam MUST have been a historical figure.

But the book did a pretty good job convincing me that 'gradual creation' (as Falk refers to TE) is much more in line with science than 'sudden creation' over any amount of time. To me, the onus is on the day-age ('sudden creation') view to disprove the 'shared ancestry' DNA evidence, which I find extremely compelling.

As far as your warnings Jorge, I don't take them lightly. You have been studying this topic far longer than I have. So I respect your admonitions. However, I'm afraid I now see the world differently than I once did, and at this moment, I believe I would stake my life on the belief that the earth and the universe are over 100,000 years old. Once you look at the evidence objectively, you can't un-convince yourself. But you are afraid to believe anything which appears to go against Scripture (as I was). I'm sure God sees your heart is right, whether or not He would want you to acknowledge modern scientific research as being honest and accurate.

I've said it over and over again - that since I was a kid, I've defended the YEC view because I believed (as you do) that any other view was completely incompatible with Scripture. And just recently, when I opened my eyes to other possibilities - especially when I started looking at the evidence for evolution - over several days, I actually feared I could end up an atheist.

But God kept me from losing my faith altogether, thankfully! And I'm working my way back to a confident faith.

It seems there isn't enough information YET to fully resolve Genesis with science. In The Language of God, Collins says that he doesn't see how Adam and Eve could have been literal because, "Population geneticists, whose discipline involves the use of mathematical tools to reconstruct the history of populations of animals, plants, or bacteria, look at these facts about the human genome and conclude that they point to all members of our species having descended from a common set of founders, approximately 10,000 in number, who lived about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. This information fits well with the fossil record, which in turn place the location of those founding ancestors most likely in East Africa."

Then he says, "...the biblical texts themselves seem to suggest there were other humans present at the same time that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden." He mentions Cain's wife.

Collins continues, "The real dilemma for the believer comes down to whether Genesis 2 is describing a special act of miraculous creation that applied to a historical couple, making them biologically different from all other creatures that had walked the earth, or whether this is a powerful and poetic allegory of God's plan for the entrance of the spiritual nature (the soul) and the Moral Law into humanity."

Since I have to believe Adam and Ever were literal (again, Genesis 5 alone forces me to have this perspective), then I have to wonder how the genealogies could lead us to believe that Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago, when science is saying it was a much larger group of 'founders' who lived 100,000 years ago?

And should we believe that God breathed his Spirit into either a human-like creature or a fully-formed human - to 'create' Adam?

I don't know. Right now, I believe Genesis was meant to be understood as a literal account of history, at least after the possibly-figurative account of (what I currently suspect was a gradual/evolutionary) Creation. I also believe the earth is billions of years old. So like everybody else, I'll probably have to keep wrestling with the issue - trusting that the facts of science will eventually reconcile with at least a 'reasonable' understanding of Genesis.

With all my heart, I worry for the millions of fundamentalists who've stood on YEC as if it was synonymous with Scripture. If I hadn't spent weeks researching the details to make sense of it all, I potentially could have walked away from the faith, seeing Christianity and science as completely unresolvable.

As has been attested to on this forum, many already have, and I'm sure that many more will in the future. I pray that as the evidence for an old earth and biological evolution becomes increasingly more convincing that godly teachers (like Falk) will come along to reassure Christians they don't have to abandon the faith in order to acknowledge science as true.

-

Below are some links to a video seminar I watched recently. This presentation is called the 'You Can Understand the Bible' Seminar by Dr. Bob Utley. He puts a number of things into perspective, including Creation. He also does a good job of keeping your attention!

You can visit this page http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/ and scroll down near the bottom, where you'll see the links, or use these:

'You Can Understand the Bible' Seminar - Online Video Presentation by Dr. Bob Utley

Broadband links:

Part 1: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb1bb.WMV
Part 2: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb2bb.WMV
Part 3: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb3bb.WMV

-

[mpb1]

In post #59 on page 4 of this thread, I quoted another post from GR Morton.

Then I PM'd him to ask what this meant:




The biggest problem these ideas have is that they don't have that missing piece of data in the Med. Most think it doesn't exist, and I can't wish it into existence. Nor can I claim my views are true until such a time as it is found. But I won't ignore data as other apologists do."



To my question above, GR sent me this reponse by PM:





First off you should know that I would describe myself as a biblical literalist, but an evolutionary, old earth Biblical literalist. I have a page on theological issue at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/theo.htm

I am convinced that unless Christian apologetics takes a new road away from YEC, away from Anti-evolutionism, but also away from liberal-the-bible-is-false theologies, we will never solve these issues.

I believe that the flood was local, it was in the Mediterranean basin 5 million years ago. I am just finishing a 2 volume pamphlet on who was Adam which discusses the archaeological evidence for all of the features that mark us as humans existing millions of years ago. Religion goes back at least to 425,000 years and I could argue much older. If they were religious, they were HUMAN.

Now, what I am lacking is positive evidence for a preflood civilization on the bottom of the Mediterranean. But no one has that, not even the yecs. That is what that is about.

See http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Morton.html

for a discussion of the Mediterranean flood idea.

-

[Jorge]

Hey Jorge,

I finished that Falk book last night, Coming to Peace with Science. Then I scanned through The Language of God by Francis Collins. (If you watch his video at www.asa3.org (http://www.asa3.org), there's really no need to read the book. The video covers all the same territory, only with fewer words.)

Coming to Peace with Science is a much better, more comprehensive book. It's basically a treatise on theistic evolution. Falk ever-so-gently tries to shift the reader's mind into accepting the 'facts' piece by piece - from the age of the the earth, to the fossils, to the DNA evidence. Though he leaves Genesis an unanswered question, essentially saying that once we allegorize Creation, it doesn't really matter. (He also assures the reader that this allegorizing of Creation should not lead to an undermining of other essential Christian doctrines, like the Resurrection.)

But it matters a great deal to me. For reasons I explained in posts above, I believe Adam MUST have been a historical figure.

But the book did a pretty good job convincing me that 'gradual creation' (as Falk refers to TE) is much more in line with science than 'sudden creation' over any amount of time. To me, the onus is on the day-age ('sudden creation') view to disprove the 'shared ancestry' DNA evidence, which I find extremely compelling.

As far as your warnings Jorge, I don't take them lightly. You have been studying this topic far longer than I have. So I respect your admonitions. However, I'm afraid I now see the world differently than I once did, and at this moment, I believe I would stake my life on the belief that the earth and the universe are over 100,000 years old. Once you look at the evidence objectively, you can't un-convince yourself. But you are afraid to believe anything which appears to go against Scripture (as I was). I'm sure God sees your heart is right, whether or not He would want you to acknowledge modern scientific research as being honest and accurate.

I've said it over and over again - that since I was a kid, I've defended the YEC view because I believed (as you do) that any other view was completely incompatible with Scripture. And just recently, when I opened my eyes to other possibilities - especially when I started looking at the evidence for evolution - over several days, I actually feared I could end up an atheist.

But God kept me from losing my faith altogether, thankfully! And I'm working my way back to a confident faith.

It seems there isn't enough information YET to fully resolve Genesis with science. In The Language of God, Collins says that he doesn't see how Adam and Eve could have been literal because, "Population geneticists, whose discipline involves the use of mathematical tools to reconstruct the history of populations of animals, plants, or bacteria, look at these facts about the human genome and conclude that they point to all members of our species having descended from a common set of founders, approximately 10,000 in number, who lived about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. This information fits well with the fossil record, which in turn place the location of those founding ancestors most likely in East Africa."

Then he says, "...the biblical texts themselves seem to suggest there were other humans present at the same time that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden." He mentions Cain's wife.

Collins continues, "The real dilemma for the believer comes down to whether Genesis 2 is describing a special act of miraculous creation that applied to a historical couple, making them biologically different from all other creatures that had walked the earth, or whether this is a powerful and poetic allegory of God's plan for the entrance of the spiritual nature (the soul) and the Moral Law into humanity."

Since I have to believe Adam and Ever were literal (again, Genesis 5 alone forces me to have this perspective), then I have to wonder how the genealogies could lead us to believe that Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago, when science is saying it was a much larger group of 'founders' who lived 100,000 years ago?

And should we believe that God breathed his Spirit into either a human-like creature or a fully-formed human - to 'create' Adam?

I don't know. Right now, I believe Genesis was meant to be understood as a literal account of history, at least after the possibly-figurative account of (what I currently suspect was a gradual/evolutionary) Creation. I also believe the earth is billions of years old. So like everybody else, I'll probably have to keep wrestling with the issue - trusting that the facts of science will eventually reconcile with at least a 'reasonable' understanding of Genesis.

With all my heart, I worry for the millions of fundamentalists who've stood on YEC as if it was synonymous with Scripture. If I hadn't spent weeks researching the details to make sense of it all, I potentially could have walked away from the faith, seeing Christianity and science as completely unresolvable.

As has been attested to on this forum, many already have, and I'm sure that many more will in the future. I pray that as the evidence for an old earth and biological evolution becomes increasingly more convincing that godly teachers (like Falk) will come along to reassure Christians they don't have to abandon the faith in order to acknowledge science as true.

-

Below are some links to a video seminar I watched recently. This presentation is called the 'You Can Understand the Bible' Seminar by Dr. Bob Utley. He puts a number of things into perspective, including Creation. He also does a good job of keeping your attention!

You can visit this page http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/ and scroll down near the bottom, where you'll see the links, or use these:

'You Can Understand the Bible' Seminar - Online Video Presentation by Dr. Bob Utley

Broadband links:

Part 1: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb1bb.WMV
Part 2: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb2bb.WMV
Part 3: http://www.biblelessonsintl.com/fbc/video/utb3bb.WMV

-
Okay, I watched the first part of Utley's seminar. I have just two more things to say to you here :

(1) I've provided you with some of what you need to help vanquish your spiritual crisis - the rest is up to you. Pray and seek more from God and less from men.

(2) I'd take Utley with a block of salt - a big block. He does say some things that are true - there's no question about that. But he also said far too many things that made me play that section of the presentation again to make sure I heard correctly. Overall, my impression of Utley is decidedly unfavorable. There was way too much focus on the 'I' and on what is best described as theological relativism. Frankly, the man scared me in the sense that he's loose spreading such teachings. I'm not insinuating that he's wicked or intentionally deceptive (that's a call for God only). I am saying that his teachings contain a lot of bad stuff for Christians.

You're old enough to decide for yourself (at least I think you are). Make your own determination.
My advice : be very careful with what comes out of Utleys' mouth!

Jorge

[mpb1]

Okay, I watched the first part of Utley's seminar. I have just two more things to say to you here :

(1) I've provided you with some of what you need to help vanquish your spiritual crisis - the rest is up to you. Pray and seek more from God and less from men.

(2) I'd take Utley with a block of salt - a big block. He does say some things that are true - there's no question about that. But he also said far too many things that made me play that section of the presentation again to make sure I heard correctly. Overall, my impression of Utley is decidedly unfavorable. There was way too much focus on the 'I' and on what is best described as theological relativism. Frankly, the man scared me in the sense that he's loose spreading such teachings. I'm not insinuating that he's wicked or intentionally deceptive (that's a call for God only). I am saying that his teachings contain a lot of bad stuff for Christians.

You're old enough to decide for yourself (at least I think you are). Make your own determination.
My advice : be very careful with what comes out of Utleys' mouth!

Jorge

Thanks Jorge,

For a Baptist with a fundamentalist background, I like the way he opened himself up to 'possibilities' leading away from absolute dogmatism about every friggin' interpretation :) ...something I finally learned recently.

Obviously, that kind of 'open' thinking could lead to problems, but it could also prevent people with personalities like you and me from digging our heels in on debatable doctrines (like the literalness of the Creation story), only to find out we may been wrong - and then wonder what that does to the rest of our faith.

I mentioned the similarity in personalities only because I was almost a carbon copy of you - in idealogy and inflexibility - and I know there are many other fundamentialists like us. When people like that (or people like us) encounter faith problems, I think they are more likely to go the way of Doubting John or FormerFundy (as I could have myself). It's ALL RIGHT or it's ALL WRONG! All or nothing extremism, so to speak...

Dr. Utley takes the edge off of otherwise 'life and death' interpretations... That's what I like about him. To be honest though, I never heard of the guy before yesterday afternoon (seriously). He e-mailed me out of the blue, through EvangelismForum.com. I invited him here, don't know if he'll come or not :)

-

[mpb1]

I decided I'd try turning my lemons into lemonade, and hopefully help a few people get through the same maze I've been working through recently...

So a couple days ago, I registered www.OriginScience.com, and I'm going to work on a site with links to TWeb threads and other pertinent articles on this topic.

I just put up a template, and I'll be adding content soon. Any suggestions are welcome.

(Jeorge, I know you'll disagree with the entire premise of the site, but I promise I'll make certain your view is well represented, with links to all the best YEC sites, to boot :) The site may never develop into anything. But I figured it's worth a try, and may help a few people - eventually...

[Tophet]

Dear mpb1,

How old is your house?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?

How old is the earth?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?

Jesus turned water into wine virtually instantaneously. Likewise an omnipotent God can fabricate matter.

If people can accept that STAR TREK’s holodeck and replicator technologies can materialize fully adult humans, fully-cooked foods, and fully “aged” materials, people should also accept God can do the same thing on a grander scale.

In a matter of days, God gave us a fully-formed and functional earth.

[mpb1]

Tophet,

I'd say you were preaching to the choir, except that the choir has left the building :)

For years, I believed that God created the earth with the appearance of age. I still have no question that He could if He chose to.

But once you get beyond the surface of that argument, you realize that IF He created the earth with the appearance of age, then He also created it with many EVIDENCES to the contrary.

I finally gave up on YEC, only when I had no other choice. The evidence was just too overwhelming. I'm gathering links and information on the subject at www.OriginScience.com. If you visit the site and click 'Young Earth Creationism' on the left, you'll see links to YEC-promoting sites, and links to YEC-disproving sites, including information on the methods used to date the earth, such as radiometric dating. Yes, you can debate the accuracy of such methods, but once you study it, and have a good understanding of how it works, it becomes very hard to say the 'clock' in the rocks saying two, or three, or four billion years, should really say 6,000 years.

And even if you don't trust radiometric dating, there are other natural ways of measuring time, like rings in glaciers from annual snowfall, going back 180,000 years. Also, tree rings show the earth is at least 12,000 years old, and lake sediments show it is least 35,000 years old. (1)


1 - Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, by Darrel R. Falk. IVP 2006.

The book is a treatise for theistic evolution. I can't fully agree with the book because the author believes that Adam may not have been a literal person. Instead, Falk says that God may have intended the story to paint a picture - as allegory - rather than being literal. And this becomes a serious problem when you look at the genealogies from Adam to Noah (and beyond), as well as the references to Adam in the New Testament.

At this moment, there is no easy way to reconcile science with Genesis, while seeing Adam as literal. But the book is a good starting place. The reviews of the book on Amazon are also very helpful - here: http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0830827420/


The Falk book was referred to me by Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, who was kind enough to respond to an e-mail I sent him, asking questions about his online video, which you can watch at www.asa3.org. The video is based on Dr. Collins' book, The Language of God. (if you watch the video, you don't need his book :) But Coming to Peace with Science is well worth reading.


One last note: I'm personally still hoping that DNA research won't completely eliminate the possibility of the Day-Age view of gradual creation, which says that God created species 'instantly' over long periods of time. (See www.GodandScience.org and www.Reasons.org.) But so far, the evidence seems to be pointing in the direction of evolution. Once you understand the DNA evidence showing 'shared ancestry' leading up to humans, there's not much you can honestly say to argue against it (at least, not at this point). In his book, Falk does a good job of making the concept understandable for beginners...

-

[Tophet]

Tophet,

I'd say you were preaching to the choir, except that the choir has left the building :)-

Dear mpb1,

Actually, I was addressing you.

Please answer my questions.

How old is your house?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?

How old is the earth?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?


For years, I believed that God created the earth with the appearance of age. I still have no question that He could if He chose to.

Which He did.


But once you get beyond the surface of that argument, you realize that IF He created the earth with the appearance of age, then He also created it with many EVIDENCES to the contrary.

False. Evidences to the age of the material, not to when the material was created.


I finally gave up on YEC, only when I had no other choice.

You do have a choice. You can believe God's Word.


The evidence was just too overwhelming.

False. None of the material you cite refutes my argument.

Please answer my questions.

How old is your house?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?

How old is the earth?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?

Who determines who built the earth? The Builder, or the ones made by the Builder?

Which is master, the potter or the clay?

Jesus turned water into wine virtually instantaneously. Likewise an omnipotent God can fabricate matter.

If people can accept that STAR TREK’s holodeck and replicator technologies can materialize fully adult humans, fully-cooked foods, and fully “aged” materials, people should also accept God can do the same thing on a grander scale.

Do you understand this concept, mpb1?

[Mister900]

I grew up in an ultra-conservative Christian family, and always believed in young earth creation. But over the years, as I began hearing about almost-irrefutable evidence related to the age of the earth (on PBS/NOVA, etc.), I gradually shifted to an old earth creation perspective because of:

- the fact that what we see in the night sky is starlight from stars that are billions of light years away (light that apparently took billions of years to reach the earth); and

- the fact that even when we attempt to say the earth was created 'with the appearance of age,' there still seems to be indisputable evidence that the earth is much, much older than 6,000 years - especially when scientists from a variety of fields come up with the same time period for specific events, like super-volcano activity in one area 75,000 years ago (among many other examples).

In the last year or two, I think I finally 'accepted' the GAP theory (that there is a gap between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1 - between the creation of the universe and the creation of man).

But then there's the fact that there also seems to be almost-indisputable evidence that animals and human-like creatures lived many thousands, if not millions, of years ago.

I have no idea how to reconcile any of this with the Book of Genesis.

Young earth creation now seems almost as ridiculous to me as evolution.

And old earth creation seems to lead to a belief that life existed on earth - and was later destroyed - before the Genesis account of creation ever took place.

Hugh Ross says there was 'progressive creation' over millions of years - I guess this is one version of the day-age theory that seems to be growing more popular among Christians. But personally, I can't see how this theory makes any real sense biblically.

I was wondering HOW OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE WRESTLED WITH THESE ISSUES HAVE COME TO RECONCILE THE FACTS OF SCIENCE WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION.

ALL THE THEORIES I'VE HEARD SO FAR SEEM TO BE UNREALISTIC... AND I CAN NOW SEE HOW SCIENCE-MINDED ATHEISTS HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM BELIEVING IN A BIBLE THAT (CONTRARY TO WHAT I ALWAYS BELIEVED) REALLY DOES * 'SEEM TO BE' * AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE...

I'm glad that you left young earth creationism, as it based on pseudoscience and unbiblical doctrines. I too was YEC but now I am an Old Earth Creationist open to evolutionary change(with conditions-Not Darwinian evolution). I actually believe that Genesis suggests some form of evolutionary change(not necessarily Neo-Darwinism). For example, in day 3 God commands the earth to produce grass. Note that He does not say 'let there be grass'. He used the land to produce the grass, He did not directly create it Himself. He let the land 'do its own thing' to make grass. The bible implies some sort of indirect creation, instead of special creation.

Old earth creationists interpret the "days" in Genesis as represeting long periods of time (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html). The "days" of creation were God days, not human ones. Man wasn't even on earth at the time. I personally believe that we are currently in "day 7" and that the eighth day will be the "Day of Judgement".

Hebrews 4:4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work."

Hebrews 4:6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience.

Most of us OECs also believe in the big bang (http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first) (see God's "stretching out" of the heavens-Isaiah 42:5), a local flood (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html), an inerrant and infallible bible, and death before the fall (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html). Rest assured, you can believe in both an old earth and the bible.

[mpb1]

Dear mpb1,

Please answer my questions.

How old is your house?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?

How old is the earth?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?

Who determines who built the earth? The Builder, or the ones made by the Builder?

Which is master, the potter or the clay?

Jesus turned water into wine virtually instantaneously. Likewise an omnipotent God can fabricate matter.


Tophet, your tone is demeaning and your questions condescending. I normally ignore such questions. Like most people, I find them very irritating.

I realize you ask them to prove a point, but your point would be better made by answering the foolish questions yourself, and then making your ultimate point as a comparison. This is a much less confrontational way of achieving the same goal, without offending the other party.

You obviously find my arguments offensive to your sense of biblical truth. You appear to take my conclusions personally, as if I am attacking you or your faith. I believe this comes through in your words, whether you realize it or not.

Now, as to your questions, I am willing to agree with your point that God is able to fabricate matter, and that He could have used matter that was billions of years old to create this earth approximately 6,000 years ago.

You believe He did. I believe He didn't.

You obviously consider my view to be an attempt to refute Scripture. It is not. As mentioned previously in this thread, I was once a staunch young earth creationist. I also took attacks on my beliefs personally, and I used every argument possible to defend the YEC view.

Now, I believe the view is not scientifically supportable, regardless of any arguments to the contrary, 'age of material' arguments not withstanding.

-

[Tophet]

Hello, mpb1:

My response is in bold.

Tophet, your tone is demeaning

No, it's not. That is a false assumption on your part.

and your questions condescending.

Another false assumption on your part.

I normally ignore such questions.

Because you can't handle the answers? They should be simple for you to answer.

Like most people, I find them very irritating.

Challenging questions usually do that.

I realize you ask them to prove a point, but your point would be better made by answering the foolish questions yourself,

You haven't demonstrated they are foolish questions.

and then making your ultimate point as a comparison.

I did so in my earlier post. Did you not understand it?

This is a much less confrontational way of achieving the same goal, without offending the other party.

You're easily offended by questions? You shouldn't be.

You obviously find my arguments offensive to your sense of biblical truth.

And you obviously find my arguments offensive to your sense of Biblical truth. So?

You appear to take my conclusions personally, as if I am attacking you or your faith.

Another false assumption on your part.

I believe this comes through in your words, whether you realize it or not.

Not at all, if you take my questions at face value.

Now, as to your questions, I am willing to agree with your point that God is able to fabricate matter, and that He could have used

Not used. Created.

matter that was billions of years old to create this earth approximately 6,000 years ago.

You believe He did. I believe He didn't.

Yes. That is what debating is all about. And you still haven't refuted my point.

You obviously consider my view to be an attempt to refute Scripture.
It is not. As mentioned previously in this thread, I was once a staunch young earth creationist. I also took attacks on my beliefs personally, and I used every argument possible to defend the YEC view.

Except, apparently, the argument I am using.

Now, I believe the view is not scientifically supportable,

Because you ignore the science of jurisprudence, as well as the miraculous power of an omnipotent God.

regardless of any arguments to the contrary, 'age of material' arguments not withstanding.

And so you ignore the argument because you want to ignore the argument? Such is circular reasoning.

But, since you said,

"I am willing to agree with your point that God is able to fabricate matter ..."

it appears there's nothing more to argue.

[mpb1]

Tophet,

I ignore the argument because you apparently choose to ignore the evidence.

And when a person proves they will ignore evidence, arguing with them is pointless.

You dismiss radiometric dating because you say God could have used billion+ year-old material. There is no Scriptural reason to believe this was the case, and no logical reason to believe it. But you do, and you expect others to believe it as well - based on the 'power of God' argument. His power is not in question. It is the manipulation of facts to make them suit your argument that is in question.

Will you honestly consider these questions?

Did God create trees with rings in them showing an age of 12,000 years to deceive us?

Did God create glaciers with snowfall rings in them going back 180,000 years to deceive us?

Did God create lakes showing 35,000 year-old sediment to deceive us?

And what about the stars that took billions of years for their light to reach us - in order that we could see them?

Whenever possible, I like to keep debate friendly. So could you drop the attitude, and if you reply, keep your personal feelings about me or my position out of it. Let's just deal with facts, please.

-----------------------------

Here is a (partial) list of Christian scholars, theologians, authors, and scientists who are either open to or convinced of the OLD EARTH VIEW. (Some are deceased.)

And here is link where you can read their quotes as to why they believe it: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml


John Ankerberg
Gleason Archer
John Battle
Michael Behe
William Jennings Bryan
Walter Bradley
Jack Collins
Chuck Colson
Paul Copan
William Lane Craig
Norman Geisler
Robert Godfrey
Guillermo Gonzales
Hank Hannegraff
Jack Hayford
Fred Heeren
Charles Hodge
Walter Kaiser
Greg Koukl
C. S. Lewis
Paul Little
Patricia Mondore
J. P. Moreland
Robert Newman
Greg Neyman
Mark Noll
Nancy Pearcey
Perry Phillips
William Phillips
Mike Poole
Bernard Ramm
Jay Richards
Hugh Ross
Fritz Schaefer
Francis Schaeffer
C. I. Scofield
Chuck Smith Jr.
David Snoke
Lee Strobel
Ken Taylor
B. B. Warfield

-

[Tophet]

Hello again, mpb1,

My response is in bold.

I ignore the argument because you apparently choose to ignore the evidence.

You're not telling the truth. I addressed the evidence in post #76:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1703039&postcount=76



But once you get beyond the surface of that argument, you realize that IF He created the earth with the appearance of age, then He also created it with many EVIDENCES to the contrary.



False. Evidences to the age of the material, not to when the material was created.

Now tell me, mpb1, why do you feel the need to not tell the truth? Or was what I said beyond your comprehension?

And when a person proves they will ignore evidence,

Accomodated in post #76, which I demonstrated.

arguing with them is pointless.

And yet you continue to argue? Why do you adhere to a double standard?

You dismiss radiometric dating because you say God could have used billion+ year-old material.

Really? Cite the post with a direct quote, and do so in your next post, or concede you are not telling the truth.

There is no Scriptural reason to believe this was the case

Of course there is. You're just ignoring it. Scripture supports the omnipotence of God and the miracles He performs. Creation is one of them.

and no logical reason to believe it.

I gave you two reasons, both involving logic, and you ignored them. Ignoring an argument is not a refutation.

But you do, and you expect others to believe it as well - based on the 'power of God' argument. His power is not in question. It is the manipulation of facts to make them suit your argument that is in question.

It is the acceptance of God's word and His power that is in question.

Will you honestly consider these questions?

Did God create trees with rings in them showing an age of 12,000 years to deceive us?

For an omnipotent God to create pre-aged trees is no deception.

Did God create glaciers with snowfall rings in them going back 180,000 years to deceive us?

For an omnipotent God to create pre-aged glaciers is no deception.

Did God create lakes showing 35,000 year-old sediment to deceive us?

For an omnipotent God to create lakes with pre-aged sediment is no deception.

And what about the stars that took billions of years for their light to reach us - in order that we could see them?

Do you believe omnipotent God cannot manipulate time and space to accomodate that?

Now that I have answered your questions, it's fair that you should answer mine.

Do you believe it's a deception for Jesus to turn water into wine virtually instantaneously?

Do you believe it's a deception for Jesus to control the weather? Heal people? Multiply food? Conquer death?

Do you believe it's a deception when, on STAR TREK, Captain Picard orders a hot Earl Grey tea from a replicator and it appears to him in seconds?

Do you believe it's a deception when, on STAR TREK, the holodecks can create pre-aged environments in a matter of seconds?

How old is your house?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?

How old is the earth?

Is its age determined by when it was built, or by the age of the materials used in its construction?

Who determines who built the earth? The Builder, or the ones made by the Builder?

Which is master, the potter or the clay?


Whenever possible, I like to keep debate friendly.

Me, too. So why are you making false claims about my position?

So could you drop the attitude,

I addressed this in my previous post to you. Please read it.

and if you reply, keep your personal feelings about me or my position out of it. Let's just deal with facts, please.

I have done so.

Don't blame me if you can't handle the argument, which so far, you haven't.

-----------------------------

Here is a (partial) list of Christian scholars, theologians, authors, and scientists who are either open to or convinced of the OLD EARTH VIEW. (Some are deceased.)

Did you not know that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy?

Hence the question, Who determines who built the earth? The Builder, or the ones made by the Builder?

[rmwilliamsjr]

I think the easiest way to understand and dismiss the omphalos argument is to see what it means using Adam.

If Adam was created as a full grown man. Did he have a scar on his knee and the memories of falling out of a tree at 11 and getting it? Are false memories of this type really what you expect from God?

Can you create a full grown man without false memories of a history and a particular past? is a generic, unlabelled, unindividualized human being possible? where did he get the language that he used to speak to God and to Eve? language is a human community construct not a generalized body of knowledge you can program into a computer.

the omphalos argument fails on the specificity neccessary to create a world with a particular history, essentially making God label the world with a false creation date.

but there is a huge literature on the subject dating back to Grosse in the mid 19thC. if this doesn't convince YECists that apparent age is a bad argument, then no one here will be able to either. it's a waste of effort until people want to study the issue carefully and examine it reasonable and without strong preconceptions.

[mpb1]

Tophet,

If someone else wants to argue with you, they can certainly feel free. If you've made your point, and you believe you've won, I hope you will let the issue rest, and move on. I am not worried about convincing you. If anyone reading this thread considers your position believable, then you have won, and you can consider this a victory.

Please don't ask me again to answer your questions. You will not convince me, and your point has been made. Consider this a cowardly refusal to debate you, and let it go, please. I will ignore any of your further posts.

[jpholding]

NJon - and any other YEC's,

If you were to ignore Genesis for a moment, wouldn't you agree that the DNA family tree evidence for some kind of evolution is hard to ignore?

I honestly don't see how I could look at the evidence objectively and come up with any other explanation for it.

Then may I suggest you look into the social science aspects of the situation, which you refused to do before where other matters were concerned.

For the ancient person, this would rather be seen as evidence of God's mastery over his material, inasmuch it was considered honorable to be able to rework old material into new forms, just as Mary reworked OT passages to create the Magnificat.

Western peoples have an illusion that divinity must be original in all that it creates, because they impose the value of originality upon divinity arbitrarily.

[mpb1]

Hey JP,

I want to avoid arguing or 'fighting' with you - at any cost :) since I went down that road on another thread, and don't want to repeat it...

You are a well-respected apologist, and I will acknowledge again that you know far more than I do, so we can get that out of the way :)

On the issue of re-working older material, coming from a fundamentalist background, I was never really able to let that possibility enter my mind, as it seemed to compromise inspiration and all that...

But over the last month or so of considering all the issues related to Genesis, I have become much more open to the possibility. I guess you have to go through a process of opening your mind slowly but surely, before you can accept ideas that 'at first glance' seem to oppose your theology.

Do you have an article explaining how you interpret Genesis, or would you be able to give an overview here? I am really hoping to continue learning (rather than arguing :) So I'd be interested in hearing how you fit the pieces together...

Thanks,
Mark

-

[reyvin]

I grew up in an ultra-conservative Christian family, and always believed in young earth creation. But over the years, as I began hearing about almost-irrefutable evidence related to the age of the earth (on PBS/NOVA, etc.), I gradually shifted to an old earth creation perspective because of:

- the fact that what we see in the night sky is starlight from stars that are billions of light years away (light that apparently took billions of years to reach the earth); and

- the fact that even when we attempt to say the earth was created 'with the appearance of age,' there still seems to be indisputable evidence that the earth is much, much older than 6,000 years - especially when scientists from a variety of fields come up with the same time period for specific events, like super-volcano activity in one area 75,000 years ago (among many other examples).

In the last year or two, I think I finally 'accepted' the GAP theory (that there is a gap between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1 - between the creation of the universe and the creation of man).

But then there's the fact that there also seems to be almost-indisputable evidence that animals and human-like creatures lived many thousands, if not millions, of years ago.

I have no idea how to reconcile any of this with the Book of Genesis.

Young earth creation now seems almost as ridiculous to me as evolution.

And old earth creation seems to lead to a belief that life existed on earth - and was later destroyed - before the Genesis account of creation ever took place.

Hugh Ross says there was 'progressive creation' over millions of years - I guess this is one version of the day-age theory that seems to be growing more popular among Christians. But personally, I can't see how this theory makes any real sense biblically.

I was wondering HOW OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE WRESTLED WITH THESE ISSUES HAVE COME TO RECONCILE THE FACTS OF SCIENCE WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION.

ALL THE THEORIES I'VE HEARD SO FAR SEEM TO BE UNREALISTIC... AND I CAN NOW SEE HOW SCIENCE-MINDED ATHEISTS HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM BELIEVING IN A BIBLE THAT (CONTRARY TO WHAT I ALWAYS BELIEVED) REALLY DOES * 'SEEM TO BE' * AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE...

I recommend books by those who know the language best rather than scientists (on both sides of the debate) who are speaking more from science than the text. That being said, I like Jack Collins two books (he's a professor of Hebrew) Science and Faith, and his new commentary on Genesis 1-4.
They make good sense of the science (he's an MIT nerd) and respects the language.

[mpb1]

Hey Reyvin,

Any way you could summarize their views - maybe the basic points?

[mpb1]

Here's an interesting mini-book-length article from Reasons to Believe. It's called the 'Report of the Creation Study Committee' by the Presbyterian Church in America.

The 'Report of the Creation Study Committee' includes this information:

- Background to the Current Discussion of the Creation Days

- Description of the Main Interpretations of Genesis 1-3 and the Creation Days (showing strengths and weaknesses of each position)

A The Calendar Day Interpretation
B. The Day-Age Interpretation
C. The Framework Interpretation
D. The Analogical Days Interpretation
E. Other Interpretations of the Creation Days

- The New Testament's View of the Historicity of Genesis 1-3


Report here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/pca_creation_study_committee_report.shtml


---------------


More food for thought (from the Day-Age Creation view):


Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale 'Fuz' Rana - radio show webcast
http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/interview/20051212_kgnw.ram


Who Was Adam?" (MP3) - Dr. Hugh Ross on - radio show webcast
http://www.thethingsthatmattermost.org/Sound/06-18-06.mp3


---------------

[jpholding]

On the issue of re-working older material, coming from a fundamentalist background, I was never really able to let that possibility enter my mind, as it seemed to compromise inspiration and all that...

Yes. That of course is understood.


Do you have an article explaining how you interpret Genesis, or would you be able to give an overview here?

No -- my own view is that the genre package of Genesis could permit other views but due to lack of comparative literature and how it was used we cannot rule out any view completely. A literal view is "safest" from a literary-interpretive perspective but my leg would not be broken if YEC were proven untrue.

That said, if you wish to know more about the recombining/reuse of old material see http://www.tektonics.org/gk/helmsr01.html in which I address someone who tries to abuse the evidence to form a modern-mindset conclusion with respect to the NT.

[reyvin]

Hey Reyvin,

Any way you could summarize their views - maybe the basic points?

In your post here:

- Description of the Main Interpretations of Genesis 1-3 and the Creation Days (showing strengths and weaknesses of each position)

A The Calendar Day Interpretation
B. The Day-Age Interpretation
C. The Framework Interpretation
D. The Analogical Days Interpretation
E. Other Interpretations of the Creation Days


His is the 'D' interpretation. The books elaborate much more though, and I'd recommend reading them.

[YellowSquash]

He also clearly explains how scientists use radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks. He acknowledges discreprencies in rock dating, but points out that tests have never shown any change in the rate of decay - no matter what kind of atmospheric changes they have artificially created in an attempt to change the rate of decay. He also points out that even if there were major errors in the dating of rocks, the discrepencies could not possibly change the age of rocks from say 1.5 billion years old to 6,000 years old or even 100,000 years old. It's as if God put ticking clocks into the rocks to let us know how long they'd been here... And the old age of earth rocks obviously agrees with the old age of the universe, as evidenced by starlight reaching the earth from billions of light years away.

-

Hi Mpb.

Have you ever had a chance to visit www.setterfield.org?

It discusses scientific measurement that speak to these points: Radioactive decay rate, ticking clocks in the rocks and starlight.

The evidence provides a solution to the starlight issue you seem to be having with YEC.

Some of the pages on this site can get a little technical, here is a link that summarizes it in more simplified terms:


http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html


with regards,
Yellow

[mpb1]

Hi YellowSquash,

I read the simplified version — another supposed explanation of how the speed of light has slowed down...

Here's a quote from near the end:

"And the faster the speed of light (or the lower Planck's Constant) in the past, the faster the radiometric decay rate. So, for instance, if the speed of light were one million times its current speed, then a million atomic years would be measured in the space of one of earth's circuits about the sun.

Two ways of measuring time. Two run rates on two different clocks.

When the correction of atomic dates is made using the redshift/lightspeed curve shown above, we find that both the majority of atomic dating is right in terms of atomic years, and that the Bible is also correct in terms of this being a very young creation."

Everything I've read on these arguments says that if the speed of light had ever changed, it would have enormous consequences on the universe. One researcher said that if the speed of light had been twice as fast in Abraham's day, all life on earth would have been incinerated.

I just don't buy the YEC speed of light arguments.

On www.CreationCrisis.com (a message to young-earth creationists), I've added some information related to the speed of light arguments.

As you may know, this is particular thread is pretty old...

The other day, I started a new one here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=97611

on this topic:


New Origin Views Comparison Chart - Is it Accurate/Complete or Not?...

I recently completed a beta version of an Origin Views Comparison Chart:

Online version here: http://www.originscience.com/origin-views-comparison-chart.htm

Printable PDF here: http://www.originscience.com/ORIGIN-VIEWS-COMPARISON-CHART.pdf

The chart seeks to accurately represent Young-Earth Creationism, Old-Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, and Naturalistic Evolution.

Since "You don't know what you don't know," I'm looking for feedback as to whether or not this chart could be considered accurate and complete (in the sense of providing enough information to give a person a basic understanding of each view).

---

My main site is www.OriginScience.com.

(Message to Young-Earth Creationists @ www.CreationCrisis.com)

There's also a new Origin Views Research Links page on the site, here:
http://www.originscience.com/creatio...arch-links.htm

If you know of any links that should be added, please e-mail info@originscience.com.


Thanks,
Mark

-

RE: How I got kicked around T-Web and schooled in evolution here:
http://www.originscience.com/editors-story.htm :)

-

[YellowSquash]

Everything I've read on these arguments says that if the speed of light had ever changed, it would have enormous consequences on the universe. One researcher said that if the speed of light had been twice as fast in Abraham's day, all life on earth would have been incinerated.

I just don't buy the YEC speed of light arguments.
-

Then you apparently have only read arguments against this concept and never really look at it in depth. If you are interested, here (http://www.setterfield.org/other.htm#candheat) is a page where Dr. Setterfield responds to questions about heat generated by faster speeds of light. Questions 3, 4 and 5 might be of interest to you.

I did browse your website www.CreationCrisis.com and found that you did place a small paragraph about this, but totally misrepresented Dr. Setterfield's work.

Setterfield actually uses E=Mc^2 as definitive validation of the variableness of the speed of light. He shows, and quite soundly, the relationship between Planck's constant (h) and the speed of light (c) using this formula.

I mentioned Dr. Setterfield's work because you have concluded that the authority of science is greater than that of God. This response demonstrates that your mind is already made up.

The Bible predicted this outcome:

In Jesus' parable concerning the rich man and Lazarus; after the rich man is in torments he begins to plead for his brother's sake:

Luke 16

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

If you deny the best evidence [Exodus 20:11] then no amount of evidence, scientific or otherwise, would ever suffice.

Yellow

P.S. Your 'Origin Views Comparison Chart' seems to accurately represent your views on such views. I don't know if they are complete, but probably would give a person a basic understanding of what you like and dislike about these views.

[mpb1]

YellowSquash,

It has happened before that someone who has another ID here sets up a new ID, and then starts posting.

I don't know if that's the case here or not. I'm sure the admins will look into it...

The info on this subject at CreationCrisis.com does not refer to Setterfield at all.

Before we go any further, would you identify your real name, so everyone here will know who they are discussing this issue with?

Then, I'd encourage you to start a thread in another forum, maybe Natural Science here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=12

(If the admins need to move it, they will.)

Since I consider this argument similar to someone trying to convince me that birds used to fly backward, I don't see the point in having to spend hours personally studying it to debate you. I think it's pointless.

But if you copy your post above to a forum where Christians and non-Christians alike can tackle your issue, I'll definitely keep a close eye on it.

Mark Bradford

-

[Augustine2004]

Science is the search for naturalistic explanations, no? More specifically, the search for principles (technical meaning that I won’t explicate) that can be used to predict the future, based on the assumption that whatever is being investigated can be explained naturally. (“Postdiction” also, because we must necessarily use information from the past to check the predictions.)

Hence, science is not exactly applicable to Genesis, which is essentially a description of a God-creation-and-sustainment process. We need to know the points where God allowed the universe to evolve naturally. How can we possibly know? Not with science because it assumes that the universe is 100% natural; not with the Bible because it’s so vague. In my opinion, we cannot ever know just where the points are.

As for the apologetic value of any attempt to square current scientific ‘knowledge’ with Genesis, I would judge that the above 2 paragraphs are the best statement that can be made. Science cannot prove the Bible wrong; the Bible cannot be used to prove science wrong. (Certainly the Bible could be studied to uncover potential scientific principles or theories or possible evidence, however - e.g., the Gulf Stream.)

[mpb1]

NOTE: I just started a new thread on this topic here:

NASA Ph.D. Debunking YEC 'Speed of Light' Arguments...
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=97713

Please post any replies to this issue on the thread above.

-------------------------

Last night when I answered the YellowSquash post, I completely forgot about an online resource I was informed of recently.

Since I've been aggressively trying to go after YEC lies, I called a phone number I found online a week or so ago for NASA, just hoping I might eventually get to someone there who would be willing to do a recorded phone interview (for a podcast) discussing things like the speed of light and astronomical proofs for the age of the universe.

I got a call back from an astronomy writer who works in the public relations department of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Amazingly, he put me in touch with a Ph.D. who also works there, Tom Bridgman.

Tom sent me an e-mail with basic information about his site. (If I ever have an opportunity to interview him for a podcast, I'll put the link up here.) He's a Christian who apparently became very concerned with the lies of YEC, and decided to do something about it.

Below is a link to Tom (W.T.) Bridgman's main web site, as well as links to a few of his articles. By the way, Tom makes it clear that none of his writings on this topic reflect the views of his employer NASA, or anyone else.

Frankly, these articles — even the topics themselves — are way above my head. So I'm not going to personally try to argue their points. Perhaps the person who posted the YellowSquash post and anyone else scientifically advanced enough to understand these issues can read these articles and make some sense of them.

It is very nice to know, though, that a NASA Ph.D. has dedicated himself to debunking YEC lies!

(Remember, I used to be a dedicated YEC, and I'm still furious that I bought the lies and staunchly defended them, until I decided to look at objective science, and realized I had been duped.)

Tom (W.T.) Bridgman, Ph.D.
Main site entitled: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
Main site link: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1

Some article links from the site:

------------

A Changing Speed of Light?

A proposal by creationist Barry Setterfield to solve the problem of seeing galaxies billions of light years away in a 6000 year old universe was that the speed of light was much higher in the not-so-distant past.

Issues on Barry Setterfield's Claims of a Recently Decaying Speed of Light, 2nd Edition (DRAFT)
by W.T. Bridgman

June 10, 2006, 1.99MB, 76 pages: SHA1=8513f5fa98e49a303b5ae9df2a47930cd3b55722)
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/cdecay_e2d1.pdf

Analysis of the implications of a rapidly changing speed of light. Creationists advocating that the speed of light has changed rapidly in recent history seem to avoid dealing with these problems, even though it takes no more than basic calculus to demonstrate it. This is presented as a PDF file to present the full mathematics of the problem.

A Quick Reference to the Problems with Setterfield's c-Decay Claims:
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/cdecay_quickref.html

Here's a short reference to the problems inherent in Barry Setterfield's c-Decay claims.

Presentation Graphics (Graphics from the document suitable for printing.):
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/presentation.html

Sample Data

CSV Data files (suitable for spreadsheet importing):

Setterfield A: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/SetterfieldA.csv.zip

Setterfield B: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/SetterfieldB.csv.zip

Setterfield C: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/SetterfieldC.csv.zip

Setterfield D (under development)

Setterfield E (under development).

Under Development for the Next Edition (Items that didn't make it in the last big release but hopefully will make it into the next): http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/nextedition.html

More on these issues here: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/index.html

---

Tom Bridgman's site ( http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/index.html )
covers all these issues related to YEC claims:

[The question mark after some of these is how they are listed on his site, meaning 'supposed' because they are provably false YEC claims]

- New Redshift Interpretation?

- Polonium Halos

- Accelerated Radioactive Decay?

- Solar Claims

- A Shortage of Supernova Remnants?

- Decaying Planetary Magnetic Fields?

- Quantized Extragalactic Redshifts?

---

Again, Tom Bridgman's main site covering all these YEC arguments is here:
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/index.html

-

Note: I realize it seems very odd that someone would post this argument in one of my threads a week or so after I was referred to a site that deals specifically with debunking these issues. At 3 in the morning last night, I realized I had this resource to refer to, covering this topic. Then I went to the site today (after only taking a cursory look at it previously), and was amazed that it deals directly with the Setterfield arguments. That name was completely foreign to me until it was brought up in this thread, unless I heard it and didn't remember it :) Anyway, since I questioned YellowSquash's possible use of an alternate ID (thinking YellowSquash was probably a YEC who had already been banned for breaking the rules and using multiple IDs, as has happened several times before), I wanted to say clearly that YellowSquash is not me — I assure you :) I have never used an alternate ID, and don't intend to start now. ...I say this because this almost seems too coincidental to actually be coincidental.

---------------------


NOTE: I just started a new thread on this topic here:

NASA Ph.D. Debunking YEC 'Speed of Light' Arguments...
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=97713

Please post any replies to this issue on the thread above.

-

[kstarr]

I saw Hugh Ross two weeks ago at a conference. He soundly refuted the Gap Theory position, something about more recent documents of the text show that the language won't allow for it. Hugh's site has a hotline you can call and hook up with something that will dialogue with you.

[mpb1]

Thanks kstarr,

I gave up on the Gap Theory a good while back...

Now I'm stuck between old-earth creationism and theistic evolution, where I'll probably remain indefinitely.

-

[mpb1]

This is not important, but because I just referred to this a few posts up (and I can no longer make changes to that post), I wanted to note that:

After stating that my site www.CreationCrisis.com did not refer to Setterfield or his website, related to the YEC claim that the speed of light has slowed down, I just added a new feature box on the site that deals with this issue and links to NASA astrophysicist, Dr. Tom (W.T.) Bridgman's site debunking the YEC claims. Dr. Bridgman's site also provides links to Setterfield's own arguments.

-

[YellowSquash]

YellowSquash,

It has happened before that someone who has another ID here sets up a new ID, and then starts posting.

I don't know if that's the case here or not. I'm sure the admins will look into it...

The info on this subject at CreationCrisis.com does not refer to Setterfield at all.

Before we go any further, would you identify your real name, so everyone here will know who they are discussing this issue with?
-

I must say, this is an extremely odd request, and possibly some sort of veiled threat? I am confused, have I left something out of my profile that I shouldn't have? And no, I will not provide my name. It is an unreasonable request IMO.

The admins know my name. If you are concerned about it then I suggest you take it up with them.



Since I consider this argument similar to someone trying to convince me that birds used to fly backward, I don't see the point in having to spend hours personally studying it to debate you. I think it's pointless.
-

So you discounted the solution before you even got started...no surprise here.

I responded to you after reading this entire thread because:

You identified yourself as one having a crisis with the YEC issue, most profoundly concerning the starlight issue...to which nobody ever addressed with you. (This was the reason for my post)

I provided, as yet, undisclosed information and provided a link to a scientist who was supporting this concept. To which you batted away with virtually no attempt to consider the information because of hearsay you had read (apparently some time ago).

Now you say that you had never even heard of Dr. Setterfield (although you could quote objections to his findings).

Good luck with all of that. I am so sorry that I provided a solution to your 'crisis'. I forget sometimes that people don't really want an answer to their problems. I am naive that way.

Yellow

[mpb1]

YS,

When I saw your post, and noticed that you had just recently joined, I felt sure that you were either one of the YEC folks who has been banned previously for breaking the rules, and who keep re-joining with new IDs — or that Jorge put you up to it.

The 'sock-puppet' thing has happened a number of times before, and the admins usually catch the sock puppets shortly after someone posts their suspicions.

If you are not one of those people who has been banned and keeps re-joining under new IDs — and you are not a personal friend or relative of Jorge (who he is using to get his his message across) — then please accept my apologies.

Your first two posts sound a heck of a lot like Jorge wrote them.

---------------------

As far as the topic at hand, if you look on page 6 and then this page 7 of this thread, and read all the posts in order, I think you'll be able to understand what happened here:

1.) You posted a notice about Setterfield

2.) I blew it off because I give absolutely no credence to any YEC alternate-reality explanations. My site CreationCrisis.com didn't mention Setterfield at all, because I was unfamiliar with the name. But my site did provide information disputing YEC claims that the speed of light has changed over time.

3.) Then I remembered the Astrophysicist's site ( http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/ ), went back to it, and saw that he directly addressed Setterfield's arguments, saying they were easily disprovable.

4.) I posted his links and information on this thread (see page 6), a few other threads, and my site.


I can't understand Setterfield's arguments, and I can't understand Bridgman's arguments. But frankly, I trust Dr. Bridgman, and I don't trust anyone with a YEC bias. Period. You may feel that is unfair. But I'm really tired of YEC lies.

Setterfield's arguments may make perfect sense to him. But when Dr. Bridgman says he can debunk Setterfield's arguments by demonstrating the ramifications that any change in the speed of light would have on earth, then WHY would you fault me for trusting the more reliable source — over the biased YEC argument?

Besides Dr. Bridgman, one could probably find a dozen other astrophysicists who would scoff at Setterfield's arguments, seeing the problems with it right off the bat.

How many astrophysicists would you need to DEBUNK your theory before you'd stop hounding people with it? One dozen? Two dozen? How many?

My guess is that you wouldn't care how many.

Most YECs I have encountered would take ANY argument! ...Anything that gives them the feeling that there's some other way — any other way — to explain reality.

I'm done trying to redefine reality. it is what it is...

-

[YellowSquash]

YS,

When I saw your post, and noticed that you had just recently joined, I felt sure that you were either one of the YEC folks who has been banned previously for breaking the rules, and who keep re-joining with new IDs — or that Jorge put you up to it.

The 'sock-puppet' thing has happened a number of times before, and the admins usually catch the sock puppets shortly after someone posts their suspicions.

If you are not one of those people who has been banned and keeps re-joining under new IDs — and you are not a personal friend or relative of Jorge (who he is using to get his his message across) — then please accept my apologies.

Your first two posts sound a heck of a lot like Jorge wrote them.


I do appreciate that I am a new poster here and you don't know me. I understand and I accept your apology. I know absolutely nobody here, but I am no stranger to forums.



---------------------
As far as the topic at hand, if you look on page 6 and then this page 7 of this thread, and read all the posts in order, I think you'll be able to understand what happened here:

1.) You posted a notice about Setterfield

2.) I blew it off because I give absolutely no credence to any YEC alternate-reality explanations.


I think you made that perfectly clear. You will not consider YEC even if the explanation has some merit. It is a non-starter with you because your mind is already made up. Your mind has closed to the possibility of YEC. period.



My site CreationCrisis.com didn't mention Setterfield at all, because I was unfamiliar with the name. But my site did provide information disputing YEC claims that the speed of light has changed over time.

3.) Then I remembered the Astrophysicist's site ( http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/ ), went back to it, and saw that he directly addressed Setterfield's arguments, saying they were easily disprovable.

4.) I posted his links and information on this thread (see page 6), a few other threads, and my site.


You found someone who can tell you that you are right to ignore the evidence, so you do. From your own testimony you have as much as admitted that this is the same thing you did when you had a YEC mindset as well...accept what others have said without making the determination yourself. This is why your argument had no root in itself and your views have wavered. IMO. Remember what James cautioned - a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. Your views have changed like the wind, being tossed to and fro. You are actually considering evolution at this point, the transformation is evident within this very thread.



I can't understand Setterfield's arguments, and I can't understand Bridgman's arguments. But frankly, I trust Dr. Bridgman, and I don't trust anyone with a YEC bias. Period. You may feel that is unfair. But I'm really tired of YEC lies.

Setterfield's arguments may make perfect sense to him. But when Dr. Bridgman says he can debunk Setterfield's arguments by demonstrating the ramifications that any change in the speed of light would have on earth, then WHY would you fault me for trusting the more reliable source — over the biased YEC argument?

Besides Dr. Bridgman, one could probably find a dozen other astrophysicists who would scoff at Setterfield's arguments, seeing the problems with it right off the bat.


Right, you derive your authority from man without understanding the issues yourself. Every scientific concept has been debunked by someone at some point. It comes down to who you put your faith (trust) in. It is that simple.



How many astrophysicists would you need to DEBUNK your theory before you'd stop hounding people with it? One dozen? Two dozen? How many?

My guess is that you wouldn't care how many.

Most YECs I have encountered would take ANY argument! ...Anything that gives them the feeling that there's some other way — any other way — to explain reality.

I'm done trying to redefine reality. it is what it is...


How many Jesus Seminars will it take before you decide that the whole Bible is just a fairy-tale then? A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. You have just started travelling down the path you have chosen, where will that journey lead you?

If you do not trust this:

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How long will you trust this:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I implore you as a fellow-labourer in Christ that you consider Jesus' parable of the sower:

Matthew 13
18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Please take care. You are precious in the eyes of God.

Yellow

[gallileo]

Hello Mr Squash,

In regards to your statements I have a few simple questions:


Right, you derive your authority from man without understanding the issues yourself.

1. How did you determine that your theological opinion is correct ? Don't you ever consider that either your opponent or you could be wrong ? It looks to me like you regard yourself as having Divine authority.. now that's blasphemy.



Every scientific concept has been debunked by someone at some point.

2. "Every scientific concept has been debunked.." REALLY ?! Please give examples of all of them, not some of them.

--> You will have a tough time with the following: Gravity ..(oh yeah my car floated away last night), Electromagnetic waves (Uh huh also the cable, TV, internet, was gone last night as, EM radiation was not working..)Aerodynamics (Yeh I noticed all the planes fell out of the sky as Bernoulli's principle was temporarily invalidated)

I would suggest not making more than one or two universal bloviated pontifications per post, it tends to undermine your credibility.

Cheers......

[KBertsche]

I can't understand Setterfield's arguments, and I can't understand Bridgman's arguments. But frankly, I trust Dr. Bridgman, and I don't trust anyone with a YEC bias. Period. You may feel that is unfair. But I'm really tired of YEC lies.

Setterfield's arguments may make perfect sense to him. But when Dr. Bridgman says he can debunk Setterfield's arguments by demonstrating the ramifications that any change in the speed of light would have on earth, then WHY would you fault me for trusting the more reliable source — over the biased YEC argument?

Besides Dr. Bridgman, one could probably find a dozen other astrophysicists who would scoff at Setterfield's arguments, seeing the problems with it right off the bat.


Setterfield's data analysis is not scientific. He made a number of errors:
1) he ignored error bars in his curve-fitting (this is essential for proper data analysis)
2) he threw out data which gave lower than accepted values of c, and did not include them in his curve fitting
3) he arbitrarily selected an unusual function for fitting, one which asymptotically goes to infinity in the past. Standard curves are linear, power series, log, etc. It is not acceptable to select an arbitrary curve, and not to use any sort of "unusual" curve unless there is a valid a priori physical reason that the data should behave in this unusual fashion.

It should be noted that ICR published a monograph years ago detailing some of these problems:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=283

What the data shows is actually a common phenomenon in science, which Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez called "intellectual phase-lock". An initial measurement of a parameter is made, but which has some error. As others try to reproduce the experiment with more precision, they subconsciously try to get close to the original value. The find and fix problems with their experimental apparatus until they are close. Then, thinking that they've got the bugs worked out, they publish their new data. But small unknown systematic errors may remain in the experimental apparatus, still giving an error in the result. This process repeats, and with time the true value emerges. Sometimes the data relaxes more-or-less smoothly to the true value (like Setterfield's curve shows), and sometimes it "oscillates" a bit around the true value (like Setterfield's curve would have showed if he had not thrown out the data that he didn't like). This can be seen with historical measurements of properties of a number of subatomic particles--see the plots here: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/historyrpp.pdf (Note that scientists believe that all of these properties are constants; the variation with time is solely due to measurement error.)

[YellowSquash]

Hello Mr Squash,

In regards to your statements I have a few simple questions:


1. How did you determine that your theological opinion is correct ? Don't you ever consider that either your opponent or you could be wrong ? It looks to me like you regard yourself as having Divine authority.. now that's blasphemy.



2. "Every scientific concept has been debunked.." REALLY ?! Please give examples of all of them, not some of them.

--> You will have a tough time with the following: Gravity ..(oh yeah my car floated away last night), Electromagnetic waves (Uh huh also the cable, TV, internet, was gone last night as, EM radiation was not working..)Aerodynamics (Yeh I noticed all the planes fell out of the sky as Bernoulli's principle was temporarily invalidated)

I would suggest not making more than one or two universal bloviated pontifications per post, it tends to undermine your credibility.

Cheers......

Hi Gallileo,


1. I place the authority of scripture above science, mpb1 doesn't. That is why I used the word 'derive'. This was neither bloviation nor blasphemy.

2. I would 'debunk' your post....but according to the logic therein you would cease to exist. Now I wouldn't want that. (I am using the term in my reply consistent with the use of the term I am replying to...just as before.)

By the way, If I am not mistaken, this is a creationist only area. I am pretty sure that theistic evolutionists would be encouraged to post elsewhere, but thanks for keeping me alert to the dangers of bloviation. I am definitely not immune to it.

Yellow

[YellowSquash]

Setterfield's data analysis is not scientific. He made a number of errors:
1) he ignored error bars in his curve-fitting (this is essential for proper data analysis)
2) he threw out data which gave lower than accepted values of c, and did not include them in his curve fitting
3) he arbitrarily selected an unusual function for fitting, one which asymptotically goes to infinity in the past. Standard curves are linear, power series, log, etc. It is not acceptable to select an arbitrary curve, and not to use any sort of "unusual" curve unless there is a valid a priori physical reason that the data should behave in this unusual fashion.

It should be noted that ICR published a monograph years ago detailing some of these problems:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=283

What the data shows is actually a common phenomenon in science, which Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez called "intellectual phase-lock". An initial measurement of a parameter is made, but which has some error. As others try to reproduce the experiment with more precision, they subconsciously try to get close to the original value. The find and fix problems with their experimental apparatus until they are close. Then, thinking that they've got the bugs worked out, they publish their new data. But small unknown systematic errors may remain in the experimental apparatus, still giving an error in the result. This process repeats, and with time the true value emerges. Sometimes the data relaxes more-or-less smoothly to the true value (like Setterfield's curve shows), and sometimes it "oscillates" a bit around the true value (like Setterfield's curve would have showed if he had not thrown out the data that he didn't like). This can be seen with historical measurements of properties of a number of subatomic particles--see the plots here: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2007/reviews/historyrpp.pdf (Note that scientists believe that all of these properties are constants; the variation with time is solely due to measurement error.)

Hi KBertsche,

Again, like I responded to mpb1 earlier, I will refer you back to http://www.setterfield.org. I believe that Dr. Aardsma's work in the ICR Impact article has been addressed here (http://www.setterfield.org/data.htm#challenge). I tried to provide the most concise link I could so that it wouldn't take too much of your time, but there is other relevant information nearby.

I know that OE creationists will have objections to this information, fine. But IF you look at the information, then look at the give and take before you dismiss it. I am not going to keep spoonfeeding information to everyone who has read an article somewhere that is critical of Dr. Setterfield.

Yellow

[gallileo]

Hi Gallileo,


1. I place the authority of scripture above science, mpb1 doesn't. That is why I used the word 'derive'. This was neither bloviation nor blasphemy.


Squash,





Per your statement




Right, you derive your authority from man without understanding the issues yourself.
it seems you defined yourself as the arbiter of whose authority comes from man and God. I see that as you setting yourself up as the standard.




By the way, If I am not mistaken, this is a creationist only area. I am pretty sure that theistic evolutionists would be encouraged to post elsewhere, but thanks for keeping me alert to the dangers of bloviation. I am definitely not immune to it.

Yellow
Sorry for intruding, I regard myself as a Creationist since I believe God to be the source of all things. I just don't presume to tell Him how to do His job, just like its not a good idea to tell the carpenter how to cut and measure if you want your house built right.

By the forum rules, I would say I am surprisingly not allowed to discuss mainstream theology here. Oh well.

Have fun bloviating,

Later

[YellowSquash]

Squash,





Per your statement



it seems you defined yourself as the arbiter of whose authority comes from man and God. I see that as you setting yourself up as the standard.


Sorry for intruding, I regard myself as a Creationist since I believe God to be the source of all things. I just don't presume to tell Him how to do His job, just like its not a good idea to tell the carpenter how to cut and measure if you want your house built right.

By the forum rules, I would say I am surprisingly not allowed to discuss mainstream theology here. Oh well.

Have fun bloviating,

Later

I wished I could see what you are seeing. The standard is the Bible, not me or any man. Right?

As far as whether you are intruding, if the moderators let you post...then post. My very first post was to the wrong area...I think it was to the basic theology site that is heavily moderated. I am still not used to this setup.

I agree that we cannot tell God how to do his job. If I left that impression then I am at fault.

Yellow

[KBertsche]

Hi KBertsche,

Again, like I responded to mpb1 earlier, I will refer you back to http://www.setterfield.org. I believe that Dr. Aardsma's work in the ICR Impact article has been addressed here (http://www.setterfield.org/data.htm#challenge). I tried to provide the most concise link I could so that it wouldn't take too much of your time, but there is other relevant information nearby.

I know that OE creationists will have objections to this information, fine. But IF you look at the information, then look at the give and take before you dismiss it. I am not going to keep spoonfeeding information to everyone who has read an article somewhere that is critical of Dr. Setterfield.

Yellow

Thanks for the reference. I have not looked at Setterfield's stuff in a few years, and not seriously in nearly 20 years. His new claims are even more nonsensical than the original, and makes me even more sure of my original conclusions. His claims of a non-constant speed of light are unscientific fantasies.

FYI, I have not merely "read an article somewhere that is critical of Dr. Setterfield." I independently analyzed his data (from his own papers) before any such articles appeared. His data analysis was simply wrong, as I noted above. Aardsma caught some of the problems that I noted, but not all of them. The complaints about Aardsma's analysis on Setterfield's website are not substantial; they do not change the poor data analysis of Setterfield.

Note also that Setterfield is NOT "Dr. Setterfield". From his own website: "Though often referred to as Dr. Setterfield, Barry has taken pains to point out that he has not received a Ph.D. and the term 'Dr.' should therefore not be used with his name." In fact, I do not see any evidence on his website that he has ANY earned degrees, even a BS or BA.

[YellowSquash]

Thanks for the reference. I have not looked at Setterfield's stuff in a few years, and not seriously in nearly 20 years. His new claims are even more nonsensical than the original, and makes me even more sure of my original conclusions. His claims of a non-constant speed of light are unscientific fantasies.

FYI, I have not merely "read an article somewhere that is critical of Dr. Setterfield." I independently analyzed his data (from his own papers) before any such articles appeared. His data analysis was simply wrong, as I noted above. Aardsma caught some of the problems that I noted, but not all of them. The complaints about Aardsma's analysis on Setterfield's website are not substantial; they do not change the poor data analysis of Setterfield.

Note also that Setterfield is NOT "Dr. Setterfield". From his own website: "Though often referred to as Dr. Setterfield, Barry has taken pains to point out that he has not received a Ph.D. and the term 'Dr.' should therefore not be used with his name." In fact, I do not see any evidence on his website that he has ANY earned degrees, even a BS or BA.

It is good to meet someone who has read his claims. I just didn't want to become the librarian in this thread.

Since you analysed the data yourself then you have reason to draw a conclusion. If you wish to characterize Setterfield's work as bad science I would accept this as your opinion, but to call it unscientific is a bit over the top. There are subjects that I would classify as bad science too, but I would not deny that they are scientific.

BTW, thanks for pointing out my error in calling him a Dr., I stand corrected.

Yellow

[OfficialPro]

Old_Earth-ism isn't as solid as they once hoped. Reference the fact that diamonds, coal, and oil ALL have measurable amounts of C-14 in them.

What does this mean?

Well, C-14's half life means that nothing can be dated before 250,000 years. In fact, going earlier than 50,000 years is stretching it. Yet Coal, diamonds and oil are all said to be Millions of years old. If C-14 (with no contamination evident, or in the case of Diamonds, it's not even possible to be contaminated) is found in measurable amounts in these things, it seriously puts into question not only the age of the materials, but also throws into question the other dating methods that may have been used (on surrounding igneous-based rocks) to guess the ages of the materials.

[KBertsche]

Old_Earth-ism isn't as solid as they once hoped. Reference the fact that diamonds, coal, and oil ALL have measurable amounts of C-14 in them.
Not true.

There have been SOME claims that diamond and coal were found to have measurable amounts of 14C. The reports are questionable (important info like how the samples were prepared and which lab did the dates were not presented). It is certainly not true that ALL samples have measurable 14C.


What does this mean?
It could mean a few things:
contamination in situ
contamination in sample prep
backgrounds in measurement technique


Well, C-14's half life means that nothing can be dated before 250,000 years. In fact, going earlier than 50,000 years is stretching it.
True.


Yet Coal, diamonds and oil are all said to be Millions of years old.
True.


If C-14 (with no contamination evident, or in the case of Diamonds, it's not even possible to be contaminated) is found in measurable amounts in these things, it seriously puts into question not only the age of the materials, but also throws into question the other dating methods that may have been used (on surrounding igneous-based rocks) to guess the ages of the materials.
Nonsense. It means contamination of some sort. And it has no implications at all on K-Ar dating mathods used on igneous rocks.

Here's a question for anyone who knows: how in the world did they even prepare a sample of DIAMOND? These measurements were supposedly done by AMS, which requires oxidizing the sample to CO or CO2 and then reducing it to graphite. How do you oxidize diamond? I would be very suspicous of this, and of any chemicals used to try to extract carbon from the diamond. The chemicals used in procesing are a well-known potential source of contamination. In addition, what reputable lab would have tried to carbon-date a sample of diamond? I doubt that any lab would have done this knowingly. The YEC folks who publish these dates are known to deceive the dating labs as to the true origin of samples, so I would not be surprised if this happened and the wrong processing was used, or if the YEC folks did some of their own sample prep ahead of time and contaminated it.

[KBertsche]

Here's a question for anyone who knows: how in the world did they even prepare a sample of DIAMOND? These measurements were supposedly done by AMS, which requires oxidizing the sample to CO or CO2 and then reducing it to graphite. How do you oxidize diamond? I would be very suspicous of this, and of any chemicals used to try to extract carbon from the diamond. The chemicals used in procesing are a well-known potential source of contamination. In addition, what reputable lab would have tried to carbon-date a sample of diamond? I doubt that any lab would have done this knowingly. The YEC folks who publish these dates are known to deceive the dating labs as to the true origin of samples, so I would not be surprised if this happened and the wrong processing was used, or if the YEC folks did some of their own sample prep ahead of time and contaminated it.
I'm replying to myself. I just did a search and found one good-quality paper on 14C and diamond. I've posted comments in the "Natural Science" thread on "The Scam of 14C", which is a more appropriate place to discuss this:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2021152&postcount=387

[Vertetuesi]

In addition, what reputable lab would have tried to carbon-date a sample of diamond?

Were they asked to? All that was needed was to ascertain if they contained any measurable and significant C-14. Dating is another matter. I'm sure you know the difference?


The YEC folks who publish these dates are known to deceive the dating labs as to the true origin of samples

How is this accusation relevant here? All diamonds are supposed to be very old; in fact, some of the oldest geological features around.


I would not be surprised if this happened and the wrong processing was used, or if the YEC folks did some of their own sample prep ahead of time and contaminated it.

And how do you contaminate a diamond?

[KBertsche]

Were they asked to? All that was needed was to ascertain if they contained any measurable and significant C-14. Dating is another matter. I'm sure you know the difference?

And how do you contaminate a diamond?
Was anyone even asked to measure the 14C in diamond?? How were the samples prepared?? If you know, please provide references.

The only decent reference that I found to actual measurements is the paper of Taylor and Southon. If anyone has any more info on YEC claims of radiocarbon in diamond, please post it here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2021152&postcount=387

[blackapologist]

I don't know, but Science can't prove anything. The creation story can be interpreted a thousand different ways. I believe creation is indirectly proven though.

[MattPalumbo]

I reccomend reading "the Science of God", It reconciles Genesis and Evolution perfectly

[KBertsche]

I reccomend reading "the Science of God", It reconciles Genesis and Evolution perfectly
Who is the author of the book you are recommending? (I believe there are at least two books with this title; one by McGrath, and the other by Schroeder).

[lee_merrill]

I would recommend "The G3n3sis debate--Three views on the days of Creation" (http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Debate-Three-Views-Creation/dp/0970224508), where the YEC / OEC / Framework views are discussed and debated. Or you can roll-your-own contrasting views set, with Safarti's "Refuting Compromise" (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=514119&netp_id=332469&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=covers) (YEC view) read alongside Ross's "A Matter of Days" (http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Days-Resolving-Creation-Controversy/dp/1576833755) (OEC view).

Blessings,
Lee

[Athanasius]

Well, so far the only responses seem to be from...

a.) Those who do not take the Creation account literally; and

b.) Young earth creationists trying to debate old earth creation

This thread was clear from the beginning that the ASSUMPTION was being made that young earth creation does not square with accepted science.

Other threads can debate this.

I was looking for one thing in this thread... Old earth creationists who know of a reasonable explantion for how we can reconcile known science with the Genesis account of Creation.

After 25 years of saying, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," I really want to be able to defend my faith WITHOUT having to stick my head in the sand and pretend that I can explain away science, which to many is as PLAIN as 2+2=4.

I don't believe in evolution. I believe evolutionists are DISHONEST in continuing to believe and promote evolution in spite of the lack of evolutionary fossil records, and in light of the mathematical impossibilities of DNA - or anything else in the human body - being formed by CHANCE.

Apparently, you and many others, including the fine people with Answers in Genesis, are content to use outlandish theories to explain starlight - not to mention ALL other indications that the earth (and life on earth) is MUCH older than our Bible seems to indicate that it is.

I want to reconcile known science with the Book of Genesis, without denying a literal interpretation of Creation, and without denying the reality of known science.

-

Here's a preliminary hypothesis which attempts to answer your questions. What if...

1. The days of Genesis are based upon the cycle of evening and morning (as the text states) not on a 24 hour clock?
2. The first night was of indefinite length. During that night, within the sphere of the waters, (which may have been light-years across) the elements formed through nuclear fusion and radioactive decay.
3. The first light source was external to the sphere of waters?
4. Although the raw material of the earth was within the waters, the earth was not at the center of the waters?
5. The firnament divided not only the waters of the earth from the waters above the firnament, but also the waters of other heavenly bodies from the waters above the firmanent?
6. The stretching of the expanse of the heavens took billions of years, more than enough time for light to arrive on the earth? During this expansion, the universe rotated once in relation to the light source.
7. The cycle of evening and morning does not become a 24 hour period until the earth, sun and moon are fully formed?

[Athanasius]

Here's a preliminary hypothesis which attempts to answer your questions. What if...

1. The days of Genesis are based upon the cycle of evening and morning (as the text states) not on a 24 hour clock?
2. The first night was of indefinite length. During that night, within the sphere of the waters, (which may have been light-years across) the elements formed through nuclear fusion and radioactive decay.
3. The first light source was external to the sphere of waters?
4. Although the raw material of the earth was within the waters, the earth was not at the center of the waters?
5. The firnament divided not only the waters of the earth from the waters above the firnament, but also the waters of other heavenly bodies from the waters above the firmanent?
6. The stretching of the expanse of the heavens took billions of years, more than enough time for light to arrive on the earth? During this expansion, the universe rotated once in relation to the light source.
7. The cycle of evening and morning does not become a 24 hour period until the earth, sun and moon are fully formed?

Anyone have any thoughts on this, or have most of the creationists been chased from this forum by the gang of naturalists?

[greentwiga]

Athanasius;
I started by examining the Garden of Eden story. I came to the conclusion that it could have only been at Mt Karacadag in SE Turkey between the Tigris and Euphrates. I then realized that it was talking about the domestication of wheat around 9,000 BC. I have a site that explains this:
http://sites.google.com/site/gardenineden/
Then I realized that one would either have to be a Young Earth Creationist, or that there must be an interpretation that allowed for an old earth. I focused on Gen 2:4. For one, it indicates that there were generations between "the heavens and Earth" and "Adam and Eve." Then I saw that it said that the generations were in the day that the heavens and earth were made. The period from the heavens and eart to Adam was 8 days but called 1 day in Gen 2:4. I focused on Gen 1 again. There the daytime was called day and the nighttime was called night. So, in Gen 1 and Gen 2, a day is 12 hours, 24 hours, and 6 days, along with generations. I God had meant day to be 24 hours only, why would He have used it in so many different ways just in Gen 1 and 2? If days were epochs of unknown periods of time, then all these usages would make sense. One can also see Gen 1 as being from the earth's viewpoint. Imagine, the young earth beginning to settle. Then comes another planetoid and smacks into the earth, making it bohu and tohu, (formless and void) and no sun or stars visible. Later, as the earth cools,the moon forms, the water can condense, stars appear and plant life starts. Just an alternate idea. Mainly I am convinced about Gen 2 and think the Bible supports the day=epoch concept. The rest of Gen 1, I am considering the possibilities.

[Athanasius]

Just curious, do you think the original garden of Eden was covered by an eruption of this volcano, or that it was located on the mount itself?

[JeromeD]

Just curious, do you think the original garden of Eden was covered by an eruption of this volcano, or that it was located on the mount itself?

As much as you may be uninterested in my answer (as I'm a theistic evolutionist), I would say that the garden of Eden is not so much a physical place as a state of being, and the "angel that guards its entrance" is the infinite distance put between man and God by sin.

*wanting to jump in... somehow* :blush:

[greentwiga]

Just curious, do you think the original garden of Eden was covered by an eruption of this volcano, or that it was located on the mount itself?

In Ezekiel 28, it says;
You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
ruby, topaz and emerald,
chrysolite, onyx and jasper,
sapphire, [b] turquoise and beryl. [c]
Your settings and mountings [d] were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.

14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

Eden seems to be on a mountain. Both fiery stones and a flaming sword speak of a volcano. If Eden was on the west side of the mountain, the volcanic eruption would have been on the east. Look at google earth. There seems to be visible lava flows and no one has studied the time of the latest eruptions though the Volcanic index allows that there is visual evidence that it might have erupted in the Holocene. The garden could have been covered in a lava flow. Shield volcano flows, like Kilauea, are easy to walk away from, but plants and houses are mercilessly destroyed. If I was to theorize from the Biblical evidence, I would say it was low on the west side. I would not be upset to have it on the east or on the plain at the base of the mountain, but that is my best theory.

[crawfish]

RE: Theistic evolution

(I also posted this on the thread mention above, re: evo. probabilities)

Goodygerbil, thanks for referring ASA - www.asa3.org. Last night, I watched their online video, "The Language of God: A Believer Looks at the Human Genome" by Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Real Player broadband video: http://www.asa3.org/movies/ASA2006Collins720x480100k.ram
Real Player dial-up video: http://www.asa3.org/movies/ASA2006Collins320x21350k.ram
ipod/Quicktime: http://www.asa3.org/movies/ASA2006Collins.mp4
MP3 audio only: http://www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2006Collins.mp3

The video is a fascinating one hour and twenty minutes long, and it kind of left me speechless. For others who may want to take a look at the video, he starts off by giving an overview of the gene research and the gene mapping project. Then he goes into the shared ancesty in the DNA, and then looks at the competing origin views - for Christians. He ends by proposing that theistic evolution makes the most sense. Though he didn't touch upon how to reconcile the view with Scripture until the Q&A period.

When he finally addressed how to reconcile TE with Genesis, he said he didn't know the answer to the question of whether or not Adam really existed, or whether Adam should be understood as an allegorical figure.

Going to sleep last night, I listened to the book of Genesis, from Creation through the flood, and I still don't see how it's possible to understand Adam as anything but literal. With all the genealogies, the details of their lives, etc., I still have to believe that if we can allegorize the biographies of people from Adam to Noah, we really can discard the entire Bible as uninspired.

So personally, I have no choice but to accept them as literal. Theistic evolution SEEMS to make sense otherwise. I guess I'll have to keep studying to see how others are reconciling all this..

-

Thank you for that link, I'm going to listen to it today. I have always had a great respect for Dr. Collins.

I do think Genesis 1-11 is written in a way that implies it was intended for an ancient audience to redirect their spiritual view from the polytheism that surrounded them to the truth of God, using their existing worldview but decoupling it from its spiritual elements. This is perhaps explained more clearly here: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/beyond.html. Another excellent video series (16 5-minute lectures) is located here: http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/video-presentations/science-and-christian-education/

The question of Adam is a tough one from a TE perspective. I lean heavily towards being an evolutionary creationist, but I still have some insecurity with some of the consequences.

[greentwiga]

I have covered in my website a possible interpretation of the Bible that separates Adam and Eve from the Adam(s) of Gen 1. The DNA study of Wheat puts most of the wild wheat that is related to domesticated wheat on the west side. There have been no studies of lava flows on Karacadag but an unsubstantiated report that it may have erupted during the holocene. An eruption like Kilauea would cover the garden, driving them out, without killing anyone.
https://sites.google.com/site/gardenineden/

Then, if Adam (and Eve) were the first of the J2 or J-M172 haplotype, it would fit known science. Studies put this haplotype as having originated in this area. This would allow the people of Genesis 1 to have lived in Africa and been the first people.

[Howze]

Old_Earth-ism isn't as solid as they once hoped. Reference the fact that diamonds, coal, and oil ALL have measurable amounts of C-14 in them.

What does this mean?

Well, C-14's half life means that nothing can be dated before 250,000 years. In fact, going earlier than 50,000 years is stretching it. Yet Coal, diamonds and oil are all said to be Millions of years old. If C-14 (with no contamination evident, or in the case of Diamonds, it's not even possible to be contaminated) is found in measurable amounts in these things, it seriously puts into question not only the age of the materials, but also throws into question the other dating methods that may have been used (on surrounding igneous-based rocks) to guess the ages of the materials.

The C14 in diamonds and coal is measurable, but just above detection which gives a rough age of 50K years. Reason? Apparently radiation from surrounding rocks turns C12 to C14 in small quantities. I presume that this is the same in diamonds. I read this stuff a year or two back trying to makes a case for YECism but the science was so poor it turned me right off so I am now, I guess OEC, although I have never found an Old Earth of Gen 1 that was fully convincing.

[hedrick]

I'm done trying to redefine reality. it is what it is...


Given the specific commitments you've been showing here, I suggest that you're going to end up either as a theistic evolutionist or a non-Christian. The problem is that there's equally good evidence for evolution; you just haven't run into it yet.

The best YEC I knew would say flat-out that he thought it was a mistake to use scientific evidence to guide interpretation of the BIble. He believed that the moment you got involved in assessing evidence, not enough would survive to sustain anything like Christianity.

I think he's wrong. NT scholarship has been backing off from mid-20th Cent skepticism. I think N. T. Wright's work makes quite a good case for the Resurrection in particular and the general historical reasonableness of the NT. Similarly, I don't think the minimalist version of the OT is going to survive. But I think his fear lies behind much of the discussion about TE.

If you take the best scientific and historical evidence we have, I think you end up with something like this:

* Gen is largely legendary
* Ex through about Judges has some historical foundation, but is to one extent or another idealized

Other than that I don't see an issue. There's reason to question a few details, particularly in Jesus' birth stories. But basically the picture of the kings of Israel, their actions, and the prophets' response, seems plausible, as does the general portrait of Jesus in the Gospels (John included). And I trust that God did in fact call Israel out of Egypt, whether or not the Cecile B. DeMille version of the exodus is accurate.

I think things like Gap Theory aren't going to work out. I believe in the end OEC or TE are going to lead to denial of the literal accuracy of Genesis, and that in the end it's going to be clear that this is incompatible with any kind of scientific evidence. So I believe you're going to be stuck with some literal inaccuracies in Scripture, or simply rejecting the attempt to look at evidence. Or becoming a non-Christian, which I think is probably a very real danger for you, and one I'd like to see you avoid. (Indeed it looks like I'm too late. I see that your status page lists you as former Christian. I failed to check the dates before reading through this thread.)

Is there a problem with losing literal accuracy? I don't think so. First, I maintain that there's evidence in the text that the editors understood the creation story isn't history. It can't have escaped their notice that they were included two creation accounts, which in literal terms aren't the same. I don't see that there's anything wrong with a community including their earliest legends, particularly since the theology included in those legends makes clear the difference between them and the surrounding pagan religion.

A lot of people are worried that Jesus apparently cited the OT as literally accurate. But I talk about Adam and Eve as if they literally existed when I'm talking about the doctrine of creation. And just about everyone talks about the sun rising and setting. Calvin was a major proponent of the idea that the Bible sometimes was "accomodated" to our level of understanding. He used this to deal with the new astronomy, which was an issue even in the 16th Cent.

Perhaps it's a mistake to respond to a year-old thread. But I think mdb1's problems, as we see from the thread, are a good introduction to discussion of these issues. Conservative Christian approaches to Scripture managed to lose someone who clearly wanted to be a Christian.

[greentwiga]

Hedrick. I don't see why Adam and Eve can't be literally accurate, and the Bible allow for Evolution. Of course, we would have to throw out the YEC interpretations, but not the Bible. For example, One interpretation that would have to be thrown out is that a day is 24 hours. Genesis has many interpretations for day that are not 24 hours. The Bible can still be literally true. one example is that the location of the Garden of Eden agrees exactly with the five German scientists who determined the location of the first farmer and the domestication of wheat.

[hedrick]

Hedrick. I don't see why Adam and Eve can't be literally accurate, and the Bible allow for Evolution. Of course, we would have to throw out the YEC interpretations, but not the Bible. For example, One interpretation that would have to be thrown out is that a day is 24 hours. Genesis has many interpretations for day that are not 24 hours. The Bible can still be literally true. one example is that the location of the Garden of Eden agrees exactly with the five German scientists who determined the location of the first farmer and the domestication of wheat.

I agree. There could certainly be a literal Adam and Eve. Particularly if you believe that God creates each soul (although even that isn't necessary), you can interpret Adam and Eve as the first pair with human souls. But there are other aspects of the story that it's going to be hard to take literally, such as creation of Eve from Adam's rib. I just suspect that it's not going to be likely for a literal Adam and Eve to survive in the long run with a church that believes in evolution.

[Howze]

I agree. There could certainly be a literal Adam and Eve. Particularly if you believe that God creates each soul (although even that isn't necessary), you can interpret Adam and Eve as the first pair with human souls. But there are other aspects of the story that it's going to be hard to take literally, such as creation of Eve from Adam's rib. I just suspect that it's not going to be likely for a literal Adam and Eve to survive in the long run with a church that believes in evolution.

No literal Adam and Eve, no sin, no sin no need for Jesus to die! I think we have a problem.

I am certain that some sort of Evolutionary process have resulting in the Flora and Fauna we have on Earth. How this fits with God creating these things I'm not sure but He could certainly have planned and intervened in the process any way He liked or simply set it in motion at the very beginning - don't know. But if you take out the basic historicaly factual nature of Gen 1 - 10 you are on a slippery slope IMO.

[hedrick]

No literal Adam and Eve, no sin, no sin no need for Jesus to die! I think we have a problem.

No, not really. Adam and Eve aren't needed to show us that we're sinful. That's obvious. Original sin has always seemed like one of the doctrines that even an atheist should agree to. The Adam and Eve story simply makes the point that this is endemic in the human race, and that even putting us in a perfect environment doesn't make us perfect.

The only real theological purpose I could see is to get God off the hook. It says that sin didn't come from God, but from us, or maybe from the snake. But that seems silly. God is in charge of the whole process in any case. Even if you take Adam and Eve literally, God made them without the necessary fortitude to resist the snake. Indeed Rom 11:32 suggests that he did this intentionally. Rather than creating angels, he decided to create people who had to depend upon him for redemption, and he arranged for that redemption.

Even in the story taken literally, we have to make a distinction between being responsible for creating a situation where evil is going to arise, and being the actual source of evil. Once you understand that distinction, I don't see that there's any problem with saying that the way we evolved didn't give us what we needed to completely abstain from sin. That requires God's grace.

[greentwiga]

Question. Adam of Ch 1 refers to both men and women. Adam of Ch 2,3, &4 refers to a man only. Could the Bible be saying that they are two completely different events/people/times?

[hedrick]

Question. Adam of Ch 1 refers to both men and women. Adam of Ch 2,3, &4 refers to a man only. Could the Bible be saying that they are two completely different events/people/times?

That seems like a desperation move. The normal conservative claim is that the stories in chap 1 and chap 2 are compatible. As soon as you admit that they aren't (which you seem to be doing), I think you're out of any reasonable literal interpretation. Not that that's a bad thing, but if you're going to abandon literal interpretation, that's not the way I'd do it.

[Howze]

No, not really. Adam and Eve aren't needed to show us that we're sinful. That's obvious. Original sin has always seemed like one of the doctrines that even an atheist should agree to. The Adam and Eve story simply makes the point that this is endemic in the human race, and that even putting us in a perfect environment doesn't make us perfect.

The only real theological purpose I could see is to get God off the hook. It says that sin didn't come from God, but from us, or maybe from the snake. But that seems silly. God is in charge of the whole process in any case. Even if you take Adam and Eve literally, God made them without the necessary fortitude to resist the snake. Indeed Rom 11:32 suggests that he did this intentionally. Rather than creating angels, he decided to create people who had to depend upon him for redemption, and he arranged for that redemption.

Even in the story taken literally, we have to make a distinction between being responsible for creating a situation where evil is going to arise, and being the actual source of evil. Once you understand that distinction, I don't see that there's any problem with saying that the way we evolved didn't give us what we needed to completely abstain from sin. That requires God's grace.

Bit wishy washy IMO - you also seem to be on the skeptics bandwagon of accusing God of creating evil.

I don't see how sin makes any logical sense in an completely evolutionary worldview. As we were never fully perfect to begin with how did we fall? The whole point of the story is that people were handmade perfect by God - but threw it away. My take on the garden is that it was a controlled environment free of the difficulties of the outside world (which had evolved) in which Man was to prove himself before being set free to 'subdue' the outside world.

The origin of sin is Satan who in the guise of a snake decieved Eve. So evil did not originate from God but the perverted will of Satan. I cannot see why that is 'silly'. People are decieved by evil all the time in our world. I believe they did have the 'fortitude' to resist evil but chose to disobey - at any time Eve could have said 'I'll need to check this with my husband', or Adam 'perhaps we should talk to God about this?' Why not simply cry out to God for the right thing to do then and there? Even though they were naive, they would have known they could do these things.

Whatever Evolution does say it does not preclude God from special creative acts - except where it is pure naturalism.

I agree with what you say about atheists: nominally the atheist sees sin as our animal nature and as nothing to be concerned about, but scratch the surface and they seem as concerned for goodness and righteousness to prevail in the world as any Christian!:lol:

[hedrick]

Bit wishy washy IMO - you also seem to be on the skeptics bandwagon of accusing God of creating evil.

But there's no way to avoid saying that God is in some sense responsible for evil. He created a world with temptations that he knew (and intended, if you take Calvinism straight, as I do) would result in sin. That's just as true if it came to us through Satan as if we were that way to begin with. God's plan, which he intended and did carry out, had sin in it. In either version.

What we want to avoid is saying that God is the *source* of sin, because that involves him as actually evil. But in neither case is he the source of evil. It's in his plan, but it didn't come from him. In the evolutionary model, we inherit from other hominids a nature that is not capable of resisting temptation. In the literal account, God directly creates us with a nature that is not capable or resisting temptation. The only difference is that in the literal account, the temptation that causes this to become visible comes in one particular event with a snake, whereas in the evolutionary account we don't have such a single event. But temptation still came, and people still blew it, just as Adam and Eve blew it.

I do agree that the Gen story makes things clearer, in that the sinful action comes from a background when there was no previous sin. But it doesn't actually imply any difference about people. In both cases they sinned as the result of temptations that came from outside themselves. The way I would present it is that Gen 2 makes it clear that even if put in a perfect environment, we would sin. But I don't think it actually implies anything different about us.

[greentwiga]

That seems like a desperation move. The normal conservative claim is that the stories in chap 1 and chap 2 are compatible. As soon as you admit that they aren't (which you seem to be doing), I think you're out of any reasonable literal interpretation. Not that that's a bad thing, but if you're going to abandon literal interpretation, that's not the way I'd do it.

Actually, I am coming to an even more literal interpretation. I am just getting rid of the YEC semi-literal interpretation. Adam and Eve and the Garden are in Southern Turkey, exactly where the Bible says. Adam is the first covenant man and the first to sin by breaking the covenant or command. In Gen 1, plants are created before man, and in Gen 2, Man before plants, a problem for YEC. As I read it, The Bible is just saying the domesticated plants were created after man (the plants of the field.) Mankind was created in East Africa ~70,000 years earlier, and plants long before that. All using a literal interpretation.

[jordanriver]

I would like to contribute my 2 cents.

I believe the natural evidence points to evolution (which requires more than a few thousand years of course)

But if there is a supernatural Creator Being (like Bible-Yahweh), then all bets are off.

jr

[greentwiga]

I am just proposing that if one believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and believes in a supernatural creator, he can still believe in evolution. In fact, I think it is a better literal interpretation than YEC

[Howze]

But there's no way to avoid saying that God is in some sense responsible for evil. He created a world with temptations that he knew (and intended, if you take Calvinism straight, as I do) would result in sin. That's just as true if it came to us through Satan as if we were that way to begin with. God's plan, which he intended and did carry out, had sin in it. In either version.


Yes agreed sin was unavoidable if there was to be genuine free moral will. God knew it and provided for it.



What we want to avoid is saying that God is the *source* of sin, because that involves him as actually evil. But in neither case is he the source of evil. It's in his plan, but it didn't come from him.


Yes agreed He foreknew and planned for it.



In the evolutionary model, we inherit from other hominids a nature that is not capable of resisting temptation. In the literal account, God directly creates us with a nature that is not capable or resisting temptation. The only difference is that in the literal account, the temptation that causes this to become visible comes in one particular event with a snake, whereas in the evolutionary account we don't have such a single event. But temptation still came, and people still blew it, just as Adam and Eve blew it.


I agree that the hominid is incapable of resisting evil in an evolutionary model, but I disagree in the Genesis version. That version to my mind has Adam and Eve, although naive and innocent, fully able to resist evil but not willing. It was a failure of will not of nature. This distinction is critical to understanding why God judges us so serverely for sin.



I do agree that the Gen story makes things clearer, in that the sinful action comes from a background when there was no previous sin. But it doesn't actually imply any difference about people. In both cases they sinned as the result of temptations that came from outside themselves. The way I would present it is that Gen 2 makes it clear that even if put in a perfect environment, we would sin. But I don't think it actually implies anything different about us.

I think that evolution has us not guilty of sin because it was our nature to be unable to resist. In the same way no-one will ever accuse an animal of moral evil because if they do an evil act it is simply in their nature to do the act and they are slaves to their nature.

In a sense there is little apparent difference between the two these days. Our sin nature makes us as unable to resist evil as any animal but the difference is we know we do wrong and are guilt stricken by it. I doubt that would be the case if we were simply 'superapes'.

[Catholicity]

"]
I grew up in an ultra-conservative Christian family, and always believed in young earth creation. But over the years, as I began hearing about almost-irrefutable evidence related to the age of the earth (on PBS/NOVA, etc.), I gradually shifted to an old earth creation perspective because of:

- the fact that what we see in the night sky is starlight from stars that are billions of light years away (light that apparently took billions of years to reach the earth); and

- the fact that even when we attempt to say the earth was created 'with the appearance of age,' there still seems to be indisputable evidence that the earth is much, much older than 6,000 years - especially when scientists from a variety of fields come up with the same time period for specific events, like super-volcano activity in one area 75,000 years ago (among many other examples).

In the last year or two, I think I finally 'accepted' the GAP theory (that there is a gap between the first two verses of Genesis chapter 1 - between the creation of the universe and the creation of man).

But then there's the fact that there also seems to be almost-indisputable evidence that animals and human-like creatures lived many thousands, if not millions, of years ago.

I have no idea how to reconcile any of this with the Book of Genesis.

Young earth creation now seems almost as ridiculous to me as evolution.

And old earth creation seems to lead to a belief that life existed on earth - and was later destroyed - before the Genesis account of creation ever took place.

Hugh Ross says there was 'progressive creation' over millions of years - I guess this is one version of the day-age theory that seems to be growing more popular among Christians. But personally, I can't see how this theory makes any real sense biblically.

I was wondering HOW OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE WRESTLED WITH THESE ISSUES HAVE COME TO RECONCILE THE FACTS OF SCIENCE WITH THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION.

ALL THE THEORIES I'VE HEARD SO FAR SEEM TO BE UNREALISTIC... AND I CAN NOW SEE HOW SCIENCE-MINDED ATHEISTS HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM BELIEVING IN A BIBLE THAT (CONTRARY TO WHAT I ALWAYS BELIEVED) REALLY DOES * 'SEEM TO BE' * AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE...[/COLOR][/COLOR]
First of all, let me state here, that it is ok to be confused and not understand. However, I was in your position. I came to believe understand that the word "yom" Hebrew for day, time, period of time, is simply a noun which has multiple meanings to describe time. Secondly, Check in Genesis. It was the (third or 4th day?) sorry I don't have scripture in front of me, when God created the planets moons and stars. Essentially God is the Author of time. We read in Genesis 1 a timeline of creation that literally corresponds with the Geologic column of how life came into being. (something I have always found to be of great interest) Take into account that the creation story of the 1st account is Hebrew Poetry, something passed from generation to generation. Evolution does not have to be alone. God who is the author of all life, and the universe, I have come to understand set this world into existence, but I have found no proof that he set it into existence 6 0r 10000 years ago. The data does not add up. I do however Believe that if our Great and Wonderful God, authored life, He gave us a waay to figure out how He did it. Many a men and women have been gifted with minds of science and math. Some have even come to believe in God through Science Math, and through Reason. (ontological Argument) You are always welcome to pm me if you'd like.

[greentwiga]

When I studied the Garden of Eden thoroughly, I realized that it had to be in southern Turkey 10,000 years ago, but is literally true. As a conservative Christian and a scientist, I realized that either God created mankind in Southern Turkey, or the conservatives were committing a gross misinterpretation.
1. I realized that there is nothing that says Adam and Eve of Chap 2 were in any way connected with Adam (both men and women) of Ch 1.
2. Day is interpreted as 12 hours, 24 hours, 4 days, and generations in just the first 2 chapters, so an insistence that it can only be 24 hours is wrong.
3. The Bible states that there were generations between the creation of the heaven and earth and Adam and Eve in Gen 2:6.
I was led to conclude that the Bible allows for evolution, and that it is a better literal interpretation than the 6 day creation.

[makotoseven]

ALL THE THEORIES I'VE HEARD SO FAR SEEM TO BE UNREALISTIC... AND I CAN NOW SEE HOW SCIENCE-MINDED ATHEISTS HAVE SUCH A PROBLEM BELIEVING IN A BIBLE THAT (CONTRARY TO WHAT I ALWAYS BELIEVED) REALLY DOES * 'SEEM TO BE' * AT ODDS WITH SCIENCE...

the problem is not that the bible is illogical. the bible is perfectly logically cohesive in every way on every level. the problem is that they don't like the verdict.

1. fact: using rocks to date bones to date rocks isnt' a way of measuring time
2. fact: islands dont pop up, they only erode. volcanic rock is not soil.
3. fact: the moon is drifting from the earth at a certain rate. if the earth is really as old as they say it is the current distance of it does not jive with the other data
4. fact: population growth is the absolute best way to gauge the age of the earth. why does secular science agree with the time period given by the flood?
5. fact: trees are the oldest living things on earth. the oldest ones date back to when the flood was supposed to have happened.

fact: the light from distant stars appears to be traveling for billions of years

why can't God make light in transit? he can make atoms and molecules in transit. think about this logic. say God makes the earth and he makes stars. should Jesus really be waiting around for trillions of years for the light to make it to earth or is it just as reasonable to say that he could make the light in transit.

do you think atoms are made and then jump started? no, the electrons have to be thrown into orbit all simultaneously. the more we learn about the natural world it just screams at us that God had to start this thing all off supernaturally.

let me ask you a question. when God was forming the laws of gravity was he governed by another set of principles or did he decide what the laws would be?

my God made the laws, made the light, and made everything that exists.

[Rushing Jaws]

Regarding the "Framework Hypothesis," I found a page on it here:
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html

At first glance, it appears to be the equivalent of where I WAS for so many years myself, basically sticking my head in the sand...

I CAN'T SEE WHY WE SHOULDN'T ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE THE BIBLE WITH SCIENCE - especially if we want to be taken seriously by an unbelieving world.## That's comparable to reconciling "The Lord of the Rings" with science. :smile: No reconciliation is necessary, because TLOTR is not talking about the subject-matter of palaeontology, geology, etc., from the POV of those sciences. And neither is the Bible.

I hope the day never comes when there will scientific expeditions in search of Hobbiton or Mordor...




As far as evangelism, if we simply say, "Believe this ancient book because it changed my life - even though science has already proven the Creation account to be completely false," we won't get very far.

Here's an excerpt from the page I found on the "Framework Hypothesis" link listed above (by Herman Hanko) http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_83.html :

"Creation is a Matter of Faith

...That all brings up one final point.

We do not attempt to prove creationism from science. We must not attempt to do this. I am not saying that true science contradicts the creation narrative. It does not. But the battle lines are not drawn between competing and contradictory interpretations of creation, It is not a question of who does the best science. The issue is far more profound than that. The question is simply this: Do you believe the word of God or don’t you? The battle is between faith and unbelief. It is unbelief to construct a view of the origin of the creation which conflicts with the literal meaning of Genesis 1. It is unbelief to take Christ’s book and say to Christ, “There are some things that didn’t happen the way you said they happened, because science says that it is impossible for creation to happen that way.

Hebrews 11:3 puts the entire battle where it must be fought. How is it possible to confess the truths of creation as given in Scripture? The only way is the way of faith. Unbelief will always seek to destroy the truth of God — also the truth of creation. But faith alone is able to confess the doctrine of creation, namely, that God formed all things in six days of twenty-four hours. How do we know that by the Word of the Lord the heavens were framed and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth (Psalm 33:6)? How do we know that God is the One who calls the things that were not as though they were (Rom. 4:17)? How do we know that any form of evolutionism, which teaches that things which are seen came from things which do appear, is heresy? How do we know that God formed all things in six days of 24 hours, limited by morning and evening? The only way is faith. “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:3). Faith is the only way. Saving faith. Faith which confesses that salvation is in Christ alone. Faith which, laying hold on Christ, receives Scripture as Christ’s Word.

If the whole world believes in evolutionism, and the church meekly follows the world, the believer who clings to Christ by faith and finds in Christ the fullness of his salvation, who glories in the hope of being with Christ forever and ever world without end, maintains, even in the fires of persecution, the simple yet profoundly glorious truth of the doctrine of creation."