Genesis

[Xaero]

Proof is the collection of evidences.

You can say that a collection of evidences that matches a certain pattern is a proof for the theory that predicted this pattern.

I'm not sure you can make that claim as the bases of YEC is "God did it" and a literal reading of Genesis.

so you say that god ex nihilo created universe and earth looking old? even the astronomical cycles that predicts varities in isotope rates measurable in the varves and ocean floor? Even supernovae of stars that never exists ? (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/supernova_distance.html)
Do the skies declare the power of gods works when it's all an illusion?
The vast amount of space and time, the laws of nature, the evolution - these things all declare the power and glory of god. Not the poorly creation in 6 earthly days that sounds more like the work of an impotent god.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I think he meant:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
(Psalms 19:1-2 NIV)



Basically, both these passages tell us that God's characteristics have to be reflected in His creation. So I study His creation. I find a lot of things in this creation that cannot be explained if this creation was young and if the earth experienced a recent global flood. I find, on the other hand, that a lot of these things can be explained if the universe and the earth are old - in fact, the theories scientists come up with explain things to a T.

So now I'm faced with a question: what should this, the data I observe in creation, tell me about God? If God created a universe that looks old and an earth that looks old (but not as old), and He expects me to believe against evidence and for no good theological reason that they are young and that the Earth experienced a recent global flood which did absolutely nothing that geology can detect, what would that tell me about God?

I think our responce should be awe and wonderful God is. I agree that we see God's handiwork in all that He has made and that it all points to Him and His power. I do think that we need to be careful when we attempt to make sence of God outside of scripture. I don't believe science is an enemy of God. After all, God created everything thus He created science. And true, at times when what we discover doesn't line up with scripture we may need to question our theology. But, I don't think that is the case here. I am not convinced by the evidence for evolution. To me there seems to be more explaining away than actual evidence.

As for Psalm 19:1-2 it still doesn't tell us to study creation to understand God. It points to the awesomeness of God.

I think that to often we look at God's creation and decide we need to study it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against studying God's creation, because studying it should bring us all the more in awe of God. But I think it would be a good exercise to just look at God's creation and say "Wow, God made all of this. God is so awesome." Or just smiling and saying "Abba Father". Wow, what a way to worship God.

God, may you be praised as we gaze at your awesome creation. Lord, you amaze me at Your beautiful and wonderful work. Father forgive me for the times that I take Your creation forgranted. Abba Father!

 

[pastorkevin73]

Hi pastorkevin73,

sorry it is psalm 19:1,2:"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge."(NIV)

The quote from psalm 13 reminds me of my struggle against YECist spirits.

i didn't write that the bible says something like "hey dude look there for the age of the earth".

"the firmament sheweth his handywork"(KJV)

when we look to the firmament and see how it works we can also say something about its age.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made"(KJV)

What is understood by "the things that are made"? You need science to understand those things.YECs seem to understand nothing about these things. The more intelligent ones from AiG, ICR etc. are just ignorant liars deceiving those who want to be good fellowers of Jesus Christ and make them think that a belief in a 6000 year earth is fundamental for christian apologetics.

But the truth is by assuming a 6000 year earth, the gospel of jesus is undefendable because Jesus pointed to Moses.

Be careful here. Your mention of YECist spirits and calling groups of people liars flurts with the line of flaming.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I looked into it, and the poll I was refering to was published in the June 29, 1987 issue of Newsweek. Take that as you will.
The poll indicated that of all the US scientists questioned, 95% accepted evolutionary theory. Most notably, of the 480,000 scientists working in the fields related to evolution (biology and geology), 99.85% accepted evolution. Keep in mind that this was in the US -- one of the largest YEC-sympathyzing countries in the world.

I don't know if Newsweek is simpathetic to either side, but I am willing to accept this state. This is a rather old state. Is there a newer one? It would be interesting to see a current study and see if it has changed one way or the other.

Mallon, thanks for post this info. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

 

[pastorkevin73]

You can say that a collection of evidences that matches a certain pattern is a proof for the theory that predicted this pattern.



so you say that god ex nihilo created universe and earth looking old? even the astronomical cycles that predicts varities in isotope rates measurable in the varves and ocean floor? Even supernovae of stars that never exists ? (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/supernova_distance.html)
Do the skies declare the power of gods works when it's all an illusion?
The vast amount of space and time, the laws of nature, the evolution - these things all declare the power and glory of god. Not the poorly creation in 6 earthly days that sounds more like the work of an impotent god.

I would hardly say poorly in six days. If you are wrong, which obviously I do, and God created the universe in six days, then you have seriously slapped God in the face. I encourage you to be careful when speaking in this way. It shows a lack of the Fear of the Lord.

Anyway, God creating the universe in six days doesn't mean God didn't have forethought. Just a thought.

 

[Xaero]

Be careful here. Your mention of YECist spirits and calling groups of people liars flurts with the line of flaming.

Ok i'm trying to be more politically correct here , but i think it is obvious to say that the big YEC groups are either deeply ignorant or liars. ICR, AiG etc. consists of educated people. They must know about the unsolvable problems of young earth creationism.

I would hardly say poorly in six days. If you are wrong, which obviously I do, and God created the universe in six days, then you have seriously slapped God in the face. I encourage you to be careful when speaking in this way. It shows a lack of the Fear of the Lord.

God has the power to create the whole universe in its present state in one point of time. Human time, strictly speaking - because in gods time billions of years can be just a point in gods time. The whole time can be just one time-point in gods view. (I'm wondering why YECs interpret the days of genesis as human time, not gods time.)
I don't deny God's power to create in this way ,but isn't the awe higher toward a god that created deep time and space and an awesome adventure of the creation of life than toward a god that created a totally deceiving nature in a boring 6 human working days?

 

[Markus6]

i think it is obvious to say

Something I've been realising recently is that the word "obvious" only tends to be used with unsubstatiated opinion. If it truly was "obvious" then you wouldn't need to use the word.

the big YEC groups are either deeply ignorant or liars. ICR, AiG etc. consists of educated people. They must know about the unsolvable problems of young earth creationism.

Just because you can't see how they can hold their position doesn't mean that they can't hold it rationally. The safest thing to say is always "I don't understand how they can hold that position so I need to look into it more" instead of jumping to calling them ignorant or liars. Calling people ignorant or liars is blatantly insulting and never helps in debate. Not being able to see why people hold their positions is the main reason people offend others. I see it all the time in atheist vs. theist debates. If one side can't see how the other can believe what they do then they become insulting. Having been on the wrong side of this (i.e. being insulted by atheists who can't understand why I believe what I do) I think we should all try to understand why people hold their positions before we insult them.

 

[artybloke]

Just because you can't see how they can hold their position doesn't mean that they can't hold it rationally.

Just because something is internally consistent within its own a priori's doesn't make the a priori's themselves "rational." The fact is, that in order to believe in YEC you have to ignore the overwhelming evidence of your eyes. That can't be rational.

 

[KerrMetric]

Be careful here. Your mention of YECist spirits and calling groups of people liars flurts with the line of flaming.

Sorry, but it is not flaming for someone to say AIG or ICR are liars. It is only flaming if they refer to you as a poster as a liar, and even then if someone can show a poster lied then it probably still isn't flaming.
It cannot be flaming to call George Bush a liar for instance since he does not post on here.

I know these silly internet terms like flaming and troll love to be used as weapons around here but at least reserve them for actual attacks on actual posters not outside groups like ICR/AIG where if you want I'll be glad to furnish examples of them lying.

 

[Xaero]

Hi Markus6,

Just because you can't see how they can hold their position doesn't mean that they can't hold it rationally. The safest thing to say is always "I don't understand how they can hold that position so I need to look into it more" instead of jumping to calling them ignorant or liars.

Believe me, i read enough yec stuff also from sites like AiG,ICR to know their apologetics. I also was someone who supported yec worldview for a while, but inside of me i knew it was undefendable from a plain and simple rational view about natural processes. So, "creation scientists" only stick to scriptural claims, which they are proud of belonging to the "true believers of the scripture". All the others christians are just "weak in faith" and "compromisers of the truth".

There is no science behind "creation science", they only can hold up the fear that any other interpretation of Genesis is a sign of weak faith. That's the whole hocus pocus about the YEC movement.


@ artybloke:
The YECs ain't even theological consistent if they try to base their worldview on scripture. Has god made a deceiving creation? Is god deceiving? Why does scripture point to the nature to see "the work of His hands"? but nature looks older than 10k years?

 

[pastorkevin73]

Ok i'm trying to be more politically correct here , but i think it is obvious to say that the big YEC groups are either deeply ignorant or liars. ICR, AiG etc. consists of educated people. They must know about the unsolvable problems of young earth creationism.

God has the power to create the whole universe in its present state in one point of time. Human time, strictly speaking - because in gods time billions of years can be just a point in gods time. The whole time can be just one time-point in gods view. (I'm wondering why YECs interpret the days of genesis as human time, not gods time.)
I don't deny God's power to create in this way ,but isn't the awe higher toward a god that created deep time and space and an awesome adventure of the creation of life than toward a god that created a totally deceiving nature in a boring 6 human working days?

You need to reread Genesis one. Yes God is not confined to time, but the passage you are refering to does not apply, because of words like "day and night the first day." You cannot interprete this as one day being a thousand years. The wording if clear that it is a 24 hour period.

 

[pastorkevin73]

The YECs ain't even theological consistent if they try to base their worldview on scripture. Has god made a deceiving creation? Is god deceiving? Why does scripture point to the nature to see "the work of His hands"? but nature looks older than 10k years?

It's not a matter of deceiving, it's a matter of things needing to be in place for life to exist or even needs we will have in the future. It's to bad that you read it as God being deceitful. This is not the case. Besides God is God, who are you to question or label Him?

 

[random_guy]

You need to reread Genesis one. Yes God is not confined to time, but the passage you are refering to does not apply, because of words like "day and night the first day." You cannot interprete this as one day being a thousand years. The wording if clear that it is a 24 hour period.

Are we sure it's a 24 hour period? How are day and night defined before a Sun exists? What about measurements that show a day was shorter the further you go back in time. Suppose it's the year 3000, will the wording be clear that a day is 23 hours? There are a lot of issues that come up that make it not clear. That's why there's so many different interpretations. It would suggest that it's anything but clear.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The wording if clear that it is a 24 hour period.

no it is not clear.

there are at least two very different ways of looking at the Hebrew, as i have pointed out before, and yet no YECist has engaged with these issues at the word level.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Yom is being defined here as the period of DAYLIGHT. the word called is used a number of times in Genesis to define things.

look at the Hebrew:
`ereb
boqer
'echad
yowm

evening morning day-first.

this can be interpreted either as:
evening night morning daylight = YOM and thus redefining YOM as something different from how it is used in the first half of the verse.
recapitulation.

or
sequentially:
evening, morning, daylight.

it is more natural and less manipulation of the Scriptures to see it as a sequential list, not as two words and a recapitulation and a redefinition.

see why the word "clearly" is not appropriately used?

 

[pgp_protector]

You need to reread Genesis one. Yes God is not confined to time, but the passage you are refering to does not apply, because of words like "day and night the first day." You cannot interprete this as one day being a thousand years. The wording if clear that it is a 24 hour period.

Regarding Day / Night on the first few days.
What day was the sun (that causes the sunrise / sunset) created ?

 

[Mallon]

You need to reread Genesis one. Yes God is not confined to time, but the passage you are refering to does not apply, because of words like "day and night the first day." You cannot interprete this as one day being a thousand years. The wording if clear that it is a 24 hour period.

I'm curious about this, as I've heard it said before. From a YEC framework, how can we be sure that a "day" in Genesis = 24 hours? Afterall, YEC apologetics enforces a catastrophic worldview with changing constants. If the speed of light has been slowing down since creation, how can we be sure a day in Genesis = 24 hours, or a year = 365 days? Any answers?

 

[Mallon]

It's not a matter of deceiving, it's a matter of things needing to be in place for life to exist or even needs we will have in the future.

Why does the earth need to contain dinosaur bones, meteor craters, or palaeosols in order for us to exist???
Is this an informed apologetic, or just ad hoc?

 

[pgp_protector]

Why does the earth need to contain dinosaur bones, meteor craters, or palaeosols in order for us to exist???
Is this an informed apologetic, or just ad hoc?

And why do we need light from stars 1,000,000's of light years away to exist ?

 

[busterdog]

It's not a matter of deceiving, it's a matter of things needing to be in place for life to exist or even needs we will have in the future. It's to bad that you read it as God being deceitful. This is not the case. Besides God is God, who are you to question or label Him?

Yes.

I just don't see the argument that the world would look different if it were younger.

This is sort of like the evil twin for the anthropic principle.

 

[KerrMetric]

Yes.

I just don't see the argument that the world would look different if it were younger.

That is because you don't understand science.