Young Earth,Old Earth Which Is It?

[BABerean2]

Gerald Schroeder is not a Christian, but an orthodox Jew who fails to recognize that the first eleven chapters of Genesis is a collection of severely redacted epic tales or sagas. Therefore, seeking to understand the six days of creation in terms of physics and the big bang theory is nothing less than ridiculous. However, when the first eleven chapters of Genesis is correctly understood to be a collection of severely redacted epic tales or sagas, there is no conflict whatsoever between Genesis and the fact that the earth is very old. Moreover, when the first eleven chapters of Genesis is correctly understood to be a collection of severely redacted epic tales or sagas, there is no conflict whatsoever between Genesis and the theory of evolution or anything else that God has chosen to teach us through science. Therefore, we can be conservative, evangelical Christians while also believing in reality.

What books would you recommend?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Forgive me for being outspoken when it's none of my business but you do profess be a pastor. You have the right to state your opinion on a commentary like your first paragraph, however your last sentence was rude and not necessary. You have no right to judge another and it served no useful purpose.

I don't understand how a verifiably factual statement about Henry Morris's educational credentials could be construed as opinions.

The post as a whole served the useful purpose of giving needed perspective on Mr. Morris's ability to provide professional expertise on science relevant to origins and on theology. I studied him in my agnotology class last fall and remember that in his NY Times Obit a critic of his work did praise him as a gentlemanly and kind person. Likewise, I think many people who are followers of his ideologies are probably decent and sincere but are not understanding why the science and the theology he presented are so untenable. Perhaps the last sentence was an tad bit snarky but certainly very tame in comparison to the vitriol hurled towards others, and especially Christians who accept evolution on here.

In my first paragraph, I wrote nothing at all about Henry Morris’ commentary. In my second paragraph, I wrote a very brief reply to the statement by St Worm that Morris’ commentary “is one of the best, well-written, and most informative commentaries” that he has ever read. Of all of the very many commentaries on Geneses that I am familiar with, Morris’ commentary is by far the most ridiculous and inaccurate. Therefore, if a man believes that Morris’ commentary “is one of the best, well-written, and most informative commentaries” that he has read, that man (whoever he may be) has a very serious problem! Please note that I made no reference of any kind to any actual person, but only generically to people who share such a view of commentaries on the Bible.

We only briefly discussed him in a class last fall and even more briefly in a component of US History about the fundamentalist movement of the 20th century following Scopes. You clearly know more about him. Is he the one who propagated the notion that evolution is a religious belief and the vilification of evolution? I believe he claimed that Darwin compromised the foundation of the church, but Darwin's contemporaries - those who actually knew him and his work - bestowed upon him the honor of burying him literally within the foundation of a church. It seems like the vehemence against Darwin was stronger well after his death, but I could be mistaken.

Are the criticisms of his work in this brief summary fair and valid in your opinion?

Henry M. Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also... Is he the one who popularized the erroneous belief that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

What books would you recommend?

My recommendation for commentaries on Genesis would be close to the following appraisals:

Best Commentary on Genesis | Best Commentaries Reviews

 

[Willtor]

...

We only briefly discussed him in a class last fall and even more briefly in a component of US History about the fundamentalist movement of the 20th century following Scopes. You clearly know more about him. Is he the one who propagated the notion that evolution is a religious belief and the vilification of evolution? I believe he claimed that Darwin compromised the foundation of the church, but Darwin's contemporaries - those who actually knew him and his work - bestowed upon him the honor of burying him literally within the foundation of a church. It seems like the vehemence against Darwin was stronger well after his death, but I could be mistaken.

...

To answer this question: yes, that's exactly right. When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, the Church was generally divided in its support/opposition. Interestingly, it wasn't along liberal and conservative lines, but between two different schools of natural theology. Even when modern YECism was first proposed in 1906, it wasn't popular or widespread. It was Henry Morris who brought it into the mainstream in the 1960's. Some of the founders of Fundamentalism were outspoken theistic evolutionists.

There's a good book that describes this history called Darwin's Forgotten Defenders by David Livingstone (Amazon).

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Are the criticisms of his work in this brief summary fair and valid in your opinion?

Henry M. Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. In my opinion they are fair and valid.

Also... Is he the one who popularized the erroneous belief that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution?

I believe that he was, but I am not sure of it. Very many young-earth creationists have been teaching that absurd view for at least 40 years. I know that Morris taught it as early as 1973, and in detail in his 1974 book, Scientific Creationism. Please see the following for more information:

Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability

 

[SkyWriting]

This is nothing but imaginative fiction like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits.

Likely you've never watched either show. They don't have
1/10 the imagination needed to understand our current reality.

25 Strangest Things Found In Outer Space

25 Mind-Blowing Things Science Can't Explain | Cracked.com

10 Quick Scientific Facts that Will Blow Your mind

The honest men are those who are honest with themselves and honest with others. As has been repeatedly documented in several or more CF threads, young-earth creationist websites are notorious for their blatant dishonesty.

Because you don't admit that you and everyone do this,
then you are not being honest with yourself.

Henry M. Morris lacked a formal education in all the areas of scientific inquiry that are relevant to measuring the age of the earth. Moreover, his interpretation of Genesis is the interpretation of Genesis taught by the Roman Catholic Church during the dark ages. No one, absolutely no one publishing today in an academic biblical journal recognized for its academic excellence is teaching anything remotely similar to the interpretation of Genesis given by Morris in the book linked to above.

I'm not sure who you've been led to believe is qualified to read
and understand the Bible but scripture repeatedly explains why
the well educated are at a disadvantage. Still:

He graduated from Rice University with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering in 1939.
After graduating in 1939, Morris served as an hydraulic engineer working with the
International Boundary and Water Commission (1939-1942).

From 1946-1951, he studied at the University of Minnesota, where he was awarded
a master's degree in hydraulics (1948) and a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering (1950).
In 1951 he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana
at Lafayette, then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University from 1956-1957.

Topical Bible: Wisdom

 

[SkyWriting]

Young-earth creationist websites do represent Henry Morris as being a scientist, but he was not. Indeed, he never earned so much a bachelor’s degree in any field of science! He had earned a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering, and as an independent Baptist with no education in the Bible, he liked to represent himself to the public as Dr. Henry Morris—an expert on the age of the earth and the book of Genesis. He died nine years ago.
If “one of the best, well-written, and most informative” commentaries a man has read was a commentary on Genesis by a hydraulic engineer with no education in the Bible—that man has a very serious problem!

It is very clear and informative. If you have
an alternative book you've written, please cite it.
Genesis mirrors Revelations in many interesting ways
and The Revelation record is even more eye opening.

 

[St_Worm2]

...if a man believes that Morris’ commentary “is one of the best, well-written, and most informative commentaries” that he has read, that man (whoever he may be) has a very serious problem! Please note that I made no reference of any kind to any actual person, but only generically to people who share such a view of commentaries on the Bible.

Hi PG, since you made your remarks in reference to what I wrote, then you have aimed your remarks directly at an "actual person". Your opinion is noted.

That said, what suggestion do you have as a better book for James to read on the subject of YEC? Which commentary on Genesis do you believe to be better written from the YEC perspective than Morris' and why .. Thanks!

BTW, if memory serves, that is what he asked us for, books on the subject of Christian origins from the various perspectives that exist today and, specifically, ones that we would personally recommend. Not being of the Day/Age or TE persuasion for instance, I thought it best to leave those recommendations to someone else and stick with YEC.

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - Henry Morris' THE GENESIS RECORD was listed at the website you recommended, BestCommentaries.com. It was critiqued by the website and by 84 of its customers and the overall opinion of it was quite favorable.

 

[Moldme]

The earth is old, 4.5 billion years, more or less, but there are the generations of the earth to consider. II Peter 3 tells us just that, first generation, the "world that then was "(over 4 billion years), second generation, "world which is now"(10,000 to 14,000), the third and final generation, the "new heavens and new earth" to come(eternal).

 

[BABerean2]

One of the things most overlooked in the discussion of Old Earth vs. Young Earth, is time.

Unfortunately, very few Christians seem to understand how relativity effects time.

There are also many unknowns, even if one holds to the traditional view?

How long did Adam and Eve live in the garden before the fall?
Was it a week or was it 10 million years?

Some have claimed the 6 days of creation were normal 24 hours days.
They seem to be unaware that the 24 hours comes by dividing the earth's rotation period into 24 equal periods of time.
However, the earth's rotation period is not the same as it was, even 6,000 years ago.


The fact is, that time itself is not a constant.


The following old program done by the Moody Institute of Science in 1957 does an excellent job of showing the mystery of time.

Most of the relativistic effects are in the last half of the program.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AbUtH814n4


.