YEC is not Absolute: Though Genesis Is Literal

[Vance]

No, He did not create it to "look" old, He created it "fully developed", which is different!

For example, which would have come first, (if God created it) the chicken or the egg? I would think that the chicken would have been created first, and once the egg was laid, the chicken would take care of it. But the egg could not take care of itself. The same as we believe that Adam was created a grown man, who could have dominion over all things, a ruler of the earth. A man who could walk and do take care of himself. Not a baby that God had to feed, change diapers, bathe, etc.

So, could God not also create a "world ready for man to inhabit"? Notice, the supposed age of the "young earth" is not necessarily related to the length of time that it would take for any other planet to develop, but the time from its creation to now. The same as the age of Adam was not according to how long it would take for a baby to develop into a grown man and unto death; instead, it is of how long he lived after his creation.

If it was just that God created things in maturity, that is one thing, since there is an argument for creating certain things to be in a position to move forward efficiently. But why the mountains created in a way that look EXACTLY as they would look if they had taken billions of years to develop (and are still developing); why created layers upon layers that so convincingly look (and test!) as if they were created over billions of years? This list goes on and on of evidences for a young earth that would be entirely unecessary for a God simply creating things "in maturity".

This entire "appearance of age" because God created in maturity was brought up long ago and has created more problems for young earthers than it can possibly solve.

 

[Karaite]

Good point, Vance. Unfortunately, I am not educated in the cumulation of layers et al. I may have to do some more study on this part of the subject, and see how much of a point you actually have.

However, I don't see any more complications by stating that God created the earth mature, as opposed to simply saying that the earth has developed quite quickly, and the interpretations (which are more than often wrong, since they are biased) are taken from flawed measurements.

 

[Vance]

Good point, Vance. Unfortunately, I am not educated in the cumulation of layers et al. I may have to do some more study on this part of the subject, and see how much of a point you actually have.

However, I don't see any more complications by stating that God created the earth mature, as opposed to simply saying that the earth has developed quite quickly, and the interpretations (which are more than often wrong, since they are biased) are taken from flawed measurements.

One thing to keep in mind about the dating techniques (and actually, the age of the earth in general) is that the ONLY group which disputes the general validity of the scientific conclusions are those groups which *start* with a preconceived idea that they must be incorrect. Everybody who has studied this subject without the "young earth" mandate has concluded that the dating techniques are reliable enough to conclude without doubt that the earth is old.

I think this is telling.

For an analysis of the age of the earth, dating techniques, etc, from someone who is ardently opposed to evolution (and thus is not biased in favor of an old earth in order to accomodate evolution), see Hugh Ross, an astrophycisist, here:

www.reasons.org

In particular, here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/carbon14.shtml?main

and here:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue07/index.shtml?main#dynamics_of_dating

I don't agree with everything on the site, but he is very sound on the "age" issues, and it is impossible to say he is biased against Biblical principals or for scientific conclusions.

 

[Karaite]

One thing to keep in mind about the dating techniques (and actually, the age of the earth in general) is that the ONLY group which disputes the general validity of the scientific conclusions are those groups which *start* with a preconceived idea that they must be incorrect.

I give you a point, and you come up with something like this...? Preconceptions are abundant on all sides of the arguments. You can't tell me that only one group has preconceptions, that is why they are always wrong. I have been doing some reading on the different theories that have been around ever since (and even before) Darwin's theory was presented. The book I am reading now is Bones of Contention. Perhaps you have already read it, or maybe not. But the book tells a few stories of Piltdown Man, Ramapithecus, and the Nebraska Man. If you have not read it, I recommend you do get the book. It shows how these well established scientists, respected around the world, were able to fall for these fakes and tell stories about the meaning of the fragments of bones that they found.

Anyway, thanks for the recommendations, but I was thinking more along the line of a real book for study.

 

[Vance]

Well, you were stating that the scientific conclusions were "more than often wrong because they are biased" and I was simply giving you a counter point to think about: the YEC's are not only biased, they state very clearly that they have a specific starting point regarding the facts and view every piece of evidence with the specific purpose of proving that starting point to be correct.

This is a type of bias that goes far beyond just the "preconceptions" of science. Yes, in order for science to be productive, it has to make certain assumptions regarding the natural world, and those assumptions are based on the work of previous investigators. Someone need not rediscover the nature of the atom in order to go deeper into the matter. This is not only human nature, it is good science.

But the difference is dramatic between this and what YEC's do. Scientists may start with a presumption about basic concepts, but if the evidence they uncover seem to disprove this presumption, or the experiment doesn't work and it is concluded that it is because the presumption is not correct, they will then go on to reconsider the presumption. Taking advantage of building blocks is good science, replacing weak building blocks or patching them where needed is even better science. This happens all the time.

The YEC position is VERY different than this. Before they even look at a single piece of evidence, they start with the conclusion: the earth is young and evolution is not the explanation for diversity on this planet. Then, their "science" is simply a search for "evidence" which supports these ideas and attempts to refute the evidence which supports what they oppose. This is a fundamentally flawed approach and not at all likely to lead to the truth.

 

[Karaite]

This is a type of bias that goes far beyond just the "preconceptions" of science. Yes, in order for science to be productive, it has to make certain assumptions regarding the natural world, and those assumptions are based on the work of previous investigators. Someone need not rediscover the nature of the atom in order to go deeper into the matter. This is not only human nature, it is good science.

That is quite different from what I was talking about, but if you wish to believe that that is the only "so called bias" that science has, then it is your choice.

 

[lucaspa]

Good point, Vance. Unfortunately, I am not educated in the cumulation of layers et al. I may have to do some more study on this part of the subject, and see how much of a point you actually have.

If God had wanted to create mountains, all He had to do was make them solid granite. Instead, the Rocky Mountains are composed of layer after layer of sedimentary rock, which is formed by first having other rock eroded to soil, carried by wind or water to be deposited (as in the subduction zone in the Gulf of Mexico), have it compressed to form rock, and then have it lifted and folded to make mountains. All of that takes time, lots of it. So it really does look old.

The Appearance of Age argument would have it created instantly but only look like it took all that time to get to be the way it is.

Here are the problems Rev. Charles Kingsley had with the Argument that the earth was created "mature" when it was first made by Paul Gosse in 1857. Gosse had asked Kingsley to write a Forward for his book. Kingsley refused, with this reply:

"You have given the 'vestiges of creation theory' [an early evolutionary pamphlet] the best shove forward which it has ever had. I have a special dislike for that book; but, honestly, I felt my heart melting towards it as I read Oomphalos. Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt the doctrine of absolute creation, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this - that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes God-the-Sometime-Deceiver. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in ...your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, by my conscience which revolts here ... I cannot ...believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind. To this painful dilemma you have brought me, and will, I fear, bring hundreds. It will not make me throw away my Bible. I trust and hope. I know in whom I have believed, and can trust Him to bring my faith safe through this puzzle, as He has through others; but for the young I do fear. I would not for a thousand punds put your book into my children's hands."

 

[lucaspa]

The book I am reading now is Bones of Contention. Perhaps you have already read it, or maybe not. But the book tells a few stories of Piltdown Man, Ramapithecus, and the Nebraska Man. If you have not read it, I recommend you do get the book. It shows how these well established scientists, respected around the world, were able to fall for these fakes and tell stories about the meaning of the fragments of bones that they found.

LOL!! And who corrected the stories? Scientists!

Why don't creationists ever mention Omo I and II, Broken Hill, Tauteval, OH 24, Bounai, etc.? Talk about selective data!

Anyway, thanks for the recommendations, but I was thinking more along the line of a real book for study.

Try two:
1. The Biblical Flood: A Case History of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence by Davis A. Young -- an evangelical Christian and a professional geologist.
2. Genesis and Geology by Gillespie.

Both go into details as to how scientists, all of whom were Christian and many of whom were ministers, discovered that the earth was not young.

In the period 1750-1831 these Christians started with the theory of YEC and a young earth. No preconceptions. Vance's reference is to present day YECs who have stated their committment to a young earth no matter what the evidence to the contrary may be.

 

[lucaspa]

That is quite different from what I was talking about, but if you wish to believe that that is the only "so called bias" that science has, then it is your choice.

What bias do you think science has?

 

[lucaspa]

No, He did not create it to "look" old, He created it "fully developed", which is different!

Hmm, seem to have lost my reply to this. Must try again.

As I said, He could create a tree with no growth rings. That is "mature" but has no deceptive signs of aging.

The same as we believe that Adam was created a grown man, who could have dominion over all things, a ruler of the earth. A man who could walk and do take care of himself. Not a baby that God had to feed, change diapers, bathe, etc.

But how does a human become capable of doing those activities? He has to learn them growing up!! So, if God created Adam with those capabilities, then that means God makes it appear that Adam grew up and learned them. Instead, God must have implanted the knowledge in Adam's brain, right? God made it appear that Adam had a history when he didn't. Deceptive.

So, could God not also create a "world ready for man to inhabit"?

Sure, but such a world does not have to look like it had a history. The mountains could be solid granite. No extensive deltas for the rivers, the ice sheets a solid sheet with only 6,000 annual layers on top, etc. It's simple to create a young earth that actually looks young.

Notice, the supposed age of the "young earth" is not necessarily related to the length of time that it would take for any other planet to develop, but the time from its creation to now. The same as the age of Adam was not according to how long it would take for a baby to develop into a grown man and unto death; instead, it is of how long he lived after his creation.

Everyone's age is calculated from their "creation", i.e. birth. I'm not sure what you mean in the first sentence.

Did Adam have a navel?

 

[lucaspa]

The book I am reading now is Bones of Contention. Perhaps you have already read it, or maybe not.

Is this the Richard Lewin book or the Martin Lubenow book?

 

[DayAge]

Well hello Vance,

I have followed Dr. Ross for almost 9 yrs. now. It is good to run into another Day-Ager.
Here is a link that will tell why Dr. Schroeder's view is wrong from a Biblical perspective:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/p9401.shtml?main
Plus as lucaspa pionted out the universe is 13.7 Billion years old +- 0.1 By.
Also the 7th day has not ended yet.

Hay Vance, did you listen to Tuesday's webcast. What a blow to the theory of "Retro-viruses."

Oh, I almost forgot. Here is a link dealing with the old age of the earth and the universe. Read the online book at the top of the link. Most of the evidence has nothing to do with radiometric dating:
http://www.lordibelieve.org/page15.html


God Bless!

 

[troodon]

Hay Vance, did you listen to Tuesday's webcast. What a blow to the theory of "Retro-viruses."

Tuesday the 14th or the 7th?

Ugh, and you have to pay for them

Can you paraphrase what they said?

 

[DayAge]

Vance,
Here is a link to Tuesdays webcast. The "Retro-virus" discussion is on the last hour of the program, but the first hour is good too.
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/

God Bless!

 

[DayAge]

troodon,
Dr. Rana can do a much better job than I, so listen.
14th.

God Bless!

 

[DayAge]

troodon,
I don't get it.
Ugh, and you have to pay for them
Pay for what?

God Bless!

 

[Vance]

Actually, I don't think I qualify as a true Day-Ager, since I believe that most, if not all, of the diversity we see on our planet today is the result of evolution according to God's plan. This may have included special creations (especially for Man), since God can do whatever He likes, but it is not clear that he did, or is it theologically necessary that He did. I do believe the actual "day=age" concept is most likely, though, which is why some would describe me as a "day age" believer. I believe that Genesis did describe the Creation as it happened in general terms and that each "day" is representative of a period of the ongoing creation process (although with overlapping and continuing processes).

I think Ross is a great help to the study of origins for Christians since he points out how the earth simply can not be young, and that believing in an old earth is not just an accomodation to atheistic thought. I don't agree with him on his anti-evolution stance, though.

 

[DayAge]

Well Vance,
You are farther along than many theistic evolutionists, who either say that creation was made up as an alternate story, to those of other nations. Or they try to hijack the framework view, which says that God revealed what He had done in a non-sequential way. The main point being that He was Creator and Sustianor.

You said that the days overlap. I don't think they do. Each Day/Age ends before the next begins. God did replace creatures/things (plants, etc.) that went extinct even during alternate ages. ~70,000 years ago, that stopped. I believe that each Day/Age tells of the initial introduction of events/creatures, not their whole history.
Example: The first supercontinent formed about 2.5 Bya. It split and reformed into Rodinia about 1.1 Bya. It split and formed Pangea 250 Mya.

In the begining God created the:
(begins) Heavens - 13.7 Bya and (ends) the Earth dark and covered with water - between 4.4 and 3.8 Bya.

Day 1 - light, (begins) Photosythetic life - 3.8 Bya and (ends) ?.

Day 2 - Open atmosphere (begins) ? and (ends) by 3.2 Bya.

Day 3 - Land rises above the global ocean (begins) 3.2 Bya and (ends) Advanced land plants 1.25 Bya?.

Day 4 - Upper atmoshpere begins to clear (begins) ? and (ends) by 543 Mya.

Day 5 - Cambrian explosion (begins) 543 Mya and (ends) possibly with Basilasuarus 40 Mya or modern type whales 20 Mya.

Day 6 - Land Mammals that eventually lived with man (begins) wolves, mammoth, skunks, etc. 5 Mya and (ends) with Man ~70,000 yrs. ago.

Day 7 - Gods rest Begins 70,000 yrs. ago and (ends) at the New Creation ?.

God Bless!

 

[troodon]

In the begining God created the:
(begins) Heavens - 13.7 Bya and (ends) the Earth dark and covered with water - between 4.4 and 3.8 Bya.

Day 1 - light, (begins) Photosythetic life - 3.8 Bya and (ends) ?.

Day 2 - Open atmosphere (begins) ? and (ends) by 3.2 Bya.

Day 3 - Land rises above the global ocean (begins) 3.2 Bya and (ends) Advanced land plants 1.25 Bya?.

Day 4 - Upper atmoshpere begins to clear (begins) ? and (ends) by 543 Mya.

Day 5 - Cambrian explosion (begins) 543 Mya and (ends) possibly with Basilasuarus 40 Mya or modern type whales 20 Mya.

Day 6 - Land Mammals that eventually lived with man (begins) wolves, mammoth, skunks, etc. 5 Mya and (ends) with Man ~70,000 yrs. ago.

Day 7 - Gods rest Begins 70,000 yrs. ago and (ends) at the New Creation ?.

God Bless!

Erm, where do animals that did not live with man fit in? And why did God make it look like animals were evolving?

 

[DayAge]

troodon,
I was only showing the 7 events that the Bible focused on in Genesis 1. And I only mentioned the begining and ending events in the time periods described. I am interpreting them with the aid of Psalm 104. The word for small mammals (remes) can include reptiles, but Psalm 104 only describes 3 classes of land mammals; long legged wild mammals (wild donkeys, wild goats, & lions), long legged domesticated mammals (cattle), and small land mammals (hyrax syriacus or rock badger). Psalm 104 as well as other texts give more information about creation not found or not fully explained in Gen.1.
My point was also to show Vance that Gen. 1 was in sequential order.

In answer to your question, God created a lot of things during this entire period. He only focused on 6 main events (before His rest), that showed His preparation of the earth for the creation of man.

Now as far as evolution. There is an over all progression of more advanced life forms on earth through the ages. That is because only certain types of life can exist at certain times:
Because of earths rotation, wind velocities 3.8 Bya would have been about 1,000 mph 3ft off the ground and 2,000 mph at 6ft. Not good if you live on land.
Also, certain piosonous metals were at too high a concentration on the surface. So, God made bacteria that would eat them and put them out into concentrated ore deposits.
The many different life forms created over the ages were used to change the atmosphere, produce soil, etc.
If you are refering to macro-evolutionary changes in animals, I have not seen them.
If you will be more specific, I will try to answer.

God Bless!