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

[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]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[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!. 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]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[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 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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:

Scripture Verse:

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.

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.

[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...

-