Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Up until a few weeks ago, I was an Old-Earth Creationist who believed the Earth was billions of years ago, and the days of Genesis were not literal days. I even used to entertain the thought of theistic evolution as a possibility. I have now come to the realization that things I had come to believe from science class (which, no matter how hard they tried, never convinced me of evolution) concerning the origin of life, the Earth, and the Universe, and how much time it has taken to get here are nothing more than interpretations based on scientist’s a priori assumptions. I came to this conclusion through extensive debates on origins on a libertarian political forum which led to investigation and further research into the Young-Earth point-of-view (based mostly on Answers in Genesis). It also seems as if God has really been guiding my life through the past month or so, coming upon more and more reasons to believe the Word.
My first discovery of a reason to believe the Earth was very young was the fact that I found out that many scientists assume naturalism as their basis for belief in billions of years. The only “evidence” that the Earth was older than a plain reading of Genesis is based on unverifiable assumptions about the past. Most scientists are relatively uniformitarian in their outlook on the past, and even neo-catastrophists have taken a lot of the assumptions of uniformitarian scientists. Therefore, they believe that the same processes at work today are what were active in the past. That is not necessarily the case. Most scientists also assume evolution, which requires billions of years for it to even have a chance at working. Radiometric dating itself, one the most oft cited source for billions of years, is based on several assumptions that can’t be proven beyond doubt, and often gets woefully wrong dates for rocks that have known ages. Rocks resulting from the Mt. St. Helen’s eruption were tested for age, and they got a date 500,000-3,700,000 years, when we know for absolute, undeniable, fact that these rocks were less than two decades old at the time of testing. This puts a lot of holes in radiometric dating.
After discovering that unverifiable assumptions are the basis for a lot of scientific work guessing at the past, I began to look at the world through the lenses of naturalism, old-earth creationism, and young-earth creationism to see which made the world the most clear in my mind. I discovered that the clearest way to look at the world is through the lens that the Bible is the inerrant Word of the One True God. The other lenses simply leave a lot more questions than answers, and the answers there are seem absurd when you really think about it. The outright naturalist (i.e., one who believes that nature explains everything) believes print shops explode to create dictionaries, organization comes from chaos, and that nature obeys laws despite the fact nothing gave those laws. The Christian theistic evolutionist believes a loving God decided to create the world through a process of death and destruction, and then say he loved the world and give his son to die for its sins. The Christian old-earth creationist believes a loving God decided to allow death and destruction go on in His “very good” creation, and then deceive us as to the reasons behind the horrors of the present state of affairs and His laws. I think both theistic evolution and forms of creationism are explained by Romans 1:20 (KJV):
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Proverbs 1:7 states “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Knowing this, it is important to look at the world through a Biblical lens. This provides the clearest way to see it. The entire Universe can be explained based on Biblical principles and taking Genesis as historicity. The fossil record can be read as the story of the Flood, and its aftereffects. Our present state of affairs is explained by Adam’s sin. The appearance of old age can be explained by the effects of the Flood, and that God created a mature universe on the days of creation. For any difficulties one can present to a young-earth, there are models to deal with them, or can be easily explained away. I encourage all of you to go to Answers in Genesis to see their arguments, for I have been convinced by them, and the world became clearer.
As for how this brought me closer to God, there is a very simple reason. It means Scripture says what means and means what It says. The World is so clear, God created a beautiful world of bounty, and man wrecked it by sinning. This state of affairs is not the way that God intended it, it is merely a temporary stop before God restores Heaven and Earth as it was on the very first Sabbath Day. Furthermore, the universe, being created by a logical God, can be explained using His Word and human observations. Any attempts to apply present processes to explain the past fail miserably, and any explanations at odds with the Word of God cannot be trusted. They can never be proven, and we have a Book inspired, and in some places written, by the perfect witness to all history, God Himself. I am now more excited about going out into the World and spreading the Word of God to every soul I can possibly get to, and am even considering becoming a minister. I have also felt the presence of the Lord much more in prayer and in everyday life. None of this is to say that those who believe in billions of years, but who believe Christ died for them, cannot be close to God, it just means belief in the first parts of Genesis is the foundation upon which the Gospel is built and building the rest on a faulty foundation might lead to collapse later on.
Most scientists are relatively uniformitarian in their outlook on the past
And on what basis do you draw that startling conclusion? Do you have a PhD in biology, or geology or archaeology? Do you participate in peer review? Probably not. Until you undertake a recognised course of study you cannot come up with such a sweeping generalization just because its music to your ears. You see, you are doing exactly what you accuse those scientists of doing - making sweeping statements.
__________________ Not all those who wander are lost
And on what basis do you draw that startling conclusion? Do you have a PhD in biology, or geology or archaeology? Do you participate in peer review? Probably not. Until you undertake a recognised course of study you cannot come up with such a sweeping generalization just because its music to your ears. You see, you are doing exactly what you accuse those scientists of doing - making sweeping statements.
Yeah, except mine are backed up by polls and studies done of religious beliefs of scientists, not to mention debating them. Also, the people I read had Ph.Ds in the fields you mentioned. Also, just because I am not a Ph.D of biology doesn't mean I am incapable of using logic and reasoning on biology-related subjects.
Yeah, except mine are backed up by polls and studies done of religious beliefs of scientists, not to mention debating them. Also, the people I read had Ph.Ds in the fields you mentioned. Also, just because I am not a Ph.D of biology doesn't mean I am incapable of using logic and reasoning on biology-related subjects.
Indeed - but you have avoided the question - on what grounds do you support your claim that
Most scientists are relatively uniformitarian in their outlook on the past
?
The reason I confront you on this point is that I doubt very much you can come up with any such reference. The reason you could not do so is because if 'scientists' actually took such an outlook they would not be scientists but something else. If then you base the rest of your thesis on those who are not scientists you will, naturally, arrive at an unscientific answer.
By the way 14C dating is not the only methodology of determining age - there are other methods.
Now, if you are going to stack the Bible up against science you might want to do some further study. For instance, you might like to examine how it is that no archaeological evidence for King Solomon's Temple has ever been found. If the edifice was constructed according to the Bible some evidence would exist in the archaeological record. You can't hide something that big nor so well documented. The fact is there was never such an a building as outlined in the Bible.
My point is - you beliefs concerning God do not need to conform to rational thought. Whether the world is 15 billions of years old or 15 thousand does not matter.
__________________ Not all those who wander are lost
Indeed - but you have avoided the question - on what grounds do you support your claim that ?
The reason I confront you on this point is that I doubt very much you can come up with any such reference. The reason you could not do so is because if 'scientists' actually took such an outlook they would not be scientists but something else. If then you base the rest of your thesis on those who are not scientists you will, naturally, arrive at an unscientific answer.
By the way 14C dating is not the only methodology of determining age - there are other methods.
Now, if you are going to stack the Bible up against science you might want to do some further study. For instance, you might like to examine how it is that no archaeological evidence for King Solomon's Temple has ever been found. If the edifice was constructed according to the Bible some evidence would exist in the archaeological record. You can't hide something that big nor so well documented. The fact is there was never such an a building as outlined in the Bible.
My point is - you beliefs concerning God do not need to conform to rational thought. Whether the world is 15 billions of years old or 15 thousand does not matter.
I have told you, I have read some polls on the beliefs of scientists, and a majority don't believe in any God and never could, and this one has admitted as such:
Originally Posted by Richard Lewontin
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’
And, a creationist notes:
Originally Posted by Stephen Grocott Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry
Now it might surprise readers without a scientific background to hear me say that very few scientists have any real idea what science is. However, if you are a scientist you will probably acknowledge the truth of this seemingly nonsensical statement. In my undergraduate studies and postgraduate research, I can’t ever recall anyone telling me what science is (and isn’t!), showing me what it is, or providing me with an explanation of how it operates. If you are studying science or working with scientists and you doubt me, I challenge you to ask them for a definition of what is “scientific.” After a pause, most of them would not be able to give an answer much deeper than “It is what scientists do.”
As for King Solomon's Temple, Arabs (understandably) won't let there be any excavations on the site of the Temple, where their Dome of the Rock now stands. Also, I said radiometric dating, which is all dating using radioactive half-lives. C-14 actually provides some evidence for a younger Earth because it cannot be measured beyond 100,000 years even according to evolutionary assumptions, and there has been dating on supposedly millions of years old rock and fossils that have produced dates.
I have told you, I have read some polls on the beliefs of scientists, and a majority don't believe in any God and never could, and this one has admitted as such
Don't put your trust in God based on polls.
Thank you for the names. Now I can understand where you are coming from.
But my point still stands - whether scientists prove the earth is 15 billions of years old or 15000 years does not matter with respect to your relationship with God. I am happy that have found that relationship closer as a result of your studies. The step now is one of faith - that what scientists say does not matter with respect to your belief.
As for King Solomon's Temple, Arabs (understandably) won't let there be any excavations on the site of the Temple, where their Dome of the Rock now stands.
I am aware of where KST is suppose to be. Looking under the dome would be an advantage but there are other avenues archaeologists pursue. In a land so rich in writing and with so rich a heritage one would expect to find some reference to KST. But nothing has been found.
As I said scientists don't just rely on C14 dating.
__________________ Not all those who wander are lost
My point is - you beliefs concerning God do not need to conform to rational thought. Whether the world is 15 billions of years old or 15 thousand does not matter.
it does matter, as whether it is 15 billion or 15 thousand years old directly says whether or not the Bible is truth.
__________________ O Lord, you will ordain peace for us,
for you have indeed done for us all our works. Isaiah 26:12
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Also, I said radiometric dating, which is all dating using radioactive half-lives. C-14 actually provides some evidence for a younger Earth because it cannot be measured beyond 100,000 years even according to evolutionary assumptions, and there has been dating on supposedly millions of years old rock and fossils that have produced dates.
Yes, but those dates were not done using Carbon. Carbon-14 is unreliable past a certain amount of time. There are other atoms with much longer half lives which were likely used to get those dates. Radiometric dating does not supply evidence for YECism. It, like every other physical science, points to an old universe.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
Thank you for the names. Now I can understand where you are coming from.
But my point still stands - whether scientists prove the earth is 15 billions of years old or 15000 years does not matter with respect to your relationship with God. I am happy that have found that relationship closer as a result of your studies. The step now is one of faith - that what scientists say does not matter with respect to your belief.
I am aware of where KST is suppose to be. Looking under the dome would be an advantage but there are other avenues archaeologists pursue. In a land so rich in writing and with so rich a heritage one would expect to find some reference to KST. But nothing has been found.
As I said scientists don't just rely on C14 dating.
I don't trust in God based on polls, I trust in Him because I believe that he is out there and the Bible is His Word. I looked to see if those claims are indeed true, and surveys have indeed suggested that is the case.
As for scientists "proving" the age of the Earth, they'll never prove the age of the Earth. In order to determine the age of the Earth, you have to assume something that cannot be scientifically observed to be true. However, the entire story of the Bible depends on a straightforward reading of Genesis. The entire premise of the story is that God created a world without sin and without death. Then, Satan rebelled and led man into rebellion by encouraging the violation of the one "no" God gave to man, and because this happened, we live in a fallen world that needs Christ to come back and save it from sin. If we accept millions of years, then we have to accept that this isn't true. If we accept that this isn't true, then the foundation of the Gospel is destroyed. If the foundation of the Gospel isn't believed in, then it is only a matter of time until the whole thing collapses. That is what we have seen since churches started to compromise and accept millions of years; less and less people are in the pews. Churches need to teach about how the World is created, and about how science based on the Bible does indeed provide answers and isn't "pseudoscience," and if it is, so is "evolutionary biology" and other such nonsense.
Edit: As for the Temple of Solomon not having a record outside the Bible, that doesn't mean it wasn't there. The reason why other writings wouldn't have mentioned it was because they didn't really care about some foreigner's religious beliefs, and the Israelites recorded their history in the Bible. The only reason why historians don't accept the Bible as true is because it has religious connotations. As far as the Kingdom of Israel goes, it has as much credibility as any other ancient text describing the events of their civilizations, but those didn't invoke God as being involved in their events, so secular historians readily accept them.
I don't trust in God based on polls, I trust in Him because I believe that he is out there and the Bible is His Word. I looked to see if those claims are indeed true, and surveys have indeed suggested that is the case.
As for scientists "proving" the age of the Earth, they'll never prove the age of the Earth. In order to determine the age of the Earth, you have to assume something that cannot be scientifically observed to be true. However, the entire story of the Bible depends on a straightforward reading of Genesis. The entire premise of the story is that God created a world without sin and without death. Then, Satan rebelled and led man into rebellion by encouraging the violation of the one "no" God gave to man, and because this happened, we live in a fallen world that needs Christ to come back and save it from sin. If we accept millions of years, then we have to accept that this isn't true. If we accept that this isn't true, then the foundation of the Gospel is destroyed. If the foundation of the Gospel isn't believed in, then it is only a matter of time until the whole thing collapses. That is what we have seen since churches started to compromise and accept millions of years; less and less people are in the pews. Churches need to teach about how the World is created, and about how science based on the Bible does indeed provide answers and isn't "pseudoscience," and if it is, so is "evolutionary biology" and other such nonsense.
"You weren't there" is a rather fallacious argument. You might as well assume the entirety of history has not happen. In fact, I can tell you that the world was created exactly as it was, with everyone's memories completely intact, last Thursday.
Genesis being the foundation for the entirety of Christian truth is also a tired argument. The spiritual truth contained within the account does not become diminished with the discovery of modern scientific knowledge. The death of humanity's perfect conscience came about because of the fall. They fell into sin. Jesus showed up and saved everyone. The end!
You do not have to depend on a literal reading of the creation account to recognize the spiritual truth of Christianity. There are plenty of allegorical readings of Genesis that retain the truth and agree with modern science.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
Linear Mode
