For Christians

[Vance]

I know it is not wholly kosher to post long quotes from other sources, but this is not too long, and it happens to say what I would say very well. It is by Dr. Hugh Ross (a real Phd in Astrophysics), a Christian Creationist (anti-evolution, but "old earth"), and is something all Christians interested in this topic should read. It is actually an introduction to a book called "A New Look at an Old Earth". I don't agree with everything Hugh Ross believes, or everything included in the book, but what Ross writes here is very good. I added a couple of small notes in brackets which I think clarifies what he is saying.

"James, the brother of Jesus, in addressing the council at Jerusalem declared, "It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:19)." The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans said, "Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way (Romans 14:13)." Don Stoner challenges us in the following pages to remove a great impediment to the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Instead of focusing on the now overwhelming evidence for the God of the Bible and on the complete accuracy of His Word [Ross believes that the scientific evidence of an old universe actually provides strong support for God's Creation], many within Christendom would have us discount this potent new evidence, all for the sake of clinging to the rather peripheral (to the Gospel) dogma of a recently-created universe.

This digression [into YEC'ism] has effectively inoculated a large segment of secular society against taking seriously the call to faith in Christ. It also has divided the Christian community into hostile camps that focus more energy on attacking each other than on reaching nonbelievers. Worse yet, the nation's courts have come to perceive age as the central issue for the creation/evolution debate. Thus, a pretext has been provided - the lack of credibility for a thousands-of-years-old universe - for removing the Bible and the concept of creation from public education.

As Mr. Stoner emphasizes, science is man's attempt to interpret the facts of nature, while theology is man's attempt to interpret the words of the Bible. God created the universe and also is responsible for the words of the Bible. Since He is incapable of lying or deceit, there can be no contradiction between the words of the Bible and the facts of nature. Any conflict between science and theology must be attributable to human misinterpretation. Such conflicts should be welcomed, not feared or battled, for they point the way to further research and study that could resolve the apparent discrepancies.

Historically such resolutions have not only born the fruit of bringing warring parties to peace and fellowship but also provided new tools for winning souls for Christ. It is in this spirit that this book is written, and it is in this spirit that I hope this book will be read."

 

[Siliconaut]

Hmm... seems only a few steps away from realizing evolution doesn't harm his belief, either...

Since he is primarily an astrophysicist, he probably finds OE evidence harder to ignore than evidence for evolution.

 

[Vance]

Yeah, I am not sure why he stops where he does, but he is very sound on the science behind an old universe and old earth and the lack of a global flood. I think it is very important that he IS opposed to the idea that our diversity is due to evolution since it shows that the old earth belief is merely an accomodation to allow time for evolution to occur.

But I think his point here is the negative impact of the young Earth belief on Christianity, a point with which I whole-heartedly agree.

 

[Sinai]

Thanks, Vance. Once again you have posted a well reasoned and thought provoking article. It also parallels some of the problems I have encountered while witnessing to others for Christ. The perceptions created by many well-meaning young earth creationists may have added additional stumbling blocks to winning to Christ many scientists and other persons who are well educated in science.

 

[AlHailThePowerOfJesusName]

I am a YEC, but I know that even if evolution is found to be true, it would not prove the Bible false, or at least that is what I have heard, I came on this forum to debate, and I like debating, so that is what I am gonna do. My aunt is an old earth creationist, She also beleives in evolution save the evolution of humans. She is able to justify her beleifs with scripture, though I disagree with her i am open to the possibility that I could be wrong. But nothing yet has convinced me of that. btw how do you make signatures?

 

[troodon]

It also parallels some of the problems I have encountered while witnessing to others for Christ. The perceptions created by many well-meaning young earth creationists may have added additional stumbling blocks to winning to Christ many scientists and other persons who are well educated in science.

All too true.

btw how do you make signatures?

It's under User CP. I believe the tab is titled "Signature"

 

[lucaspa]

"James, the brother of Jesus, in addressing the council at Jerusalem declared, "It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God (Acts 15:19)." The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans said, "Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way (Romans 14:13)." Don Stoner challenges us in the following pages to remove a great impediment to the furtherance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

While sympathizing with the viewpoint, I have trouble with this because it does take the Bible out of context. After all, the impediments referred to here were total conversion of Gentiles to Judaism before they could become Christians -- complete with circumcision, dietary laws, etc. Taking it like this to the science vs creationism argument is not kosher.

many within Christendom would have us discount this potent new evidence, all for the sake of clinging to the rather peripheral (to the Gospel) dogma of a recently-created universe.

Hmm. He seems to shy away from pointing out that the dogma is man-made.

This digression [into YEC'ism] has effectively inoculated a large segment of secular society against taking seriously the call to faith in Christ. It also has divided the Christian community into hostile camps that focus more energy on attacking each other than on reaching nonbelievers. Worse yet, the nation's courts have come to perceive age as the central issue for the creation/evolution debate. Thus, a pretext has been provided - the lack of credibility for a thousands-of-years-old universe - for removing the Bible and the concept of creation from public education.

1. I agree that YEC has turned a lot of people off Christianity.

2. I disagree that the courts focussed on the age of the earth as the central issue. After all, one of the central tenets of creation science is the separate creation of man and apes -- which Ross agrees with.

3. The Bible had to be removed from public school science classes without YEC; it violates the Establishment Clause. Back when the US was homogenous Judeo-Christian you could ignore the issue. But when the US became more diverse with religions other than Judeo-Christianity, it was inevitable that the Bible was withdrawn. Getting it back in is going to be tyranny.

4. The concept of creation is not denied in public school science classes as far as I know.

As Mr. Stoner emphasizes, science is man's attempt to interpret the facts of nature, while theology is man's attempt to interpret the words of the Bible. God created the universe and also is responsible for the words of the Bible. Since He is incapable of lying or deceit, there can be no contradiction between the words of the Bible and the facts of nature. Any conflict between science and theology must be attributable to human misinterpretation.

Standard Christian position.

However, Ross and his people deny this when they refuse to accept evolution.

So ... this appears to be an appeal to heal rifts within the creationist community (by siding with Ross) and not a real attempt to achieve good science education.

 

[lucaspa]

I am a YEC, but I know that even if evolution is found to be true, it would not prove the Bible false, or at least that is what I have heard, I came on this forum to debate, and I like debating, so that is what I am gonna do.

The problem with this is that debate is a sport. It does nothing but decide who the best debator is. Whatever tactic will win the debate is acceptable. It is not a serious attempt to discuss among adults and discover truth.

I thank you for your clear statement of your purpose here. But now you will understand why I will not be taking you very seriously.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I believe that mankind is about 6000 years old , but that the earth itself is much much older , I also beleive this why there are discrepensies between genesis 1 - 2 . It is written in Revelation that the earth with be made new , not that it wont exist anymore , who can say how many times God remade things and exactly how? I believe something happened on earth as well when satan rebelled .

 

[Angel4Truth]

oh sorry for interupting , but what do the green numbers in peoples name section mean?

 

[tankiawee]

Using the Bible to justify anything is fallacious.

This is a fallacy of false authority.

Alternatively, it could also be a fallacy of circular argument

Typically, the Argument goes like this:

1. The Bible is God's Word
2. God is incapable of saying anything but truth. (from the Bible)
3. Therefore, God, as defined in the Bible exists. (from the Bible)
4. Therefore, since there is a God as described in the Bible exists,
5. The Bible is true.

Many verses have been quoted on this board, but all fall prey to this when used to justify the validity of the Bible (Statements 1-5) or the existence of God (Statements 1-3).

 

[David Gould]

oh sorry for interupting , but what do the green numbers in peoples name section mean?

I am not sure I know what you mean. What green numbers and where? (if you want to be led by the blind, just ask me!)

 

[David Gould]

Do you mean the age? For example, the 32 under my name? I am 32.

 

[lucaspa]

Using the Bible to justify anything is fallacious.

Not quite. Within the confines of theology, using the Bible to decide theology is not fallacious. After all, that's how the Trinity came about.

This is a fallacy of false authority.

In terms of the physical universe, that's right. But in those terms, we are not dealing with "the Bible" but with a particular human interpretation of the Bible that is mistakenly labeled as the Bible or God.

In terms of theology, how do you know the Bible is false authority?

Alternatively, it could also be a fallacy of circular argument

Typically, the Argument goes like this:

1. The Bible is God's Word
2. God is incapable of saying anything but truth. (from the Bible)
3. Therefore, God, as defined in the Bible exists. (from the Bible)
4. Therefore, since there is a God as described in the Bible exists,
5. The Bible is true.

This is circular reasoning, but it is also a strawman version of Christianity.

1. The Bible is a compilation of people's encounters with God.
2. The Bible is also a compilation of several interventions of God in history.
3. God exists from the evidence of the personal encouters and interventions.

There, no circular reasoning.

 

[lucaspa]

I believe that mankind is about 6000 years old , but that the earth itself is much much older , I also beleive this why there are discrepensies between genesis 1 - 2 . It is written in Revelation that the earth with be made new , not that it wont exist anymore , who can say how many times God remade things and exactly how? I believe something happened on earth as well when satan rebelled .

This is what the creationists about 1800 believed. They believed there were several catastrophes and new creations over the history of the earth. They eventually gave this up for two reasons:

1. The evidence falsified it. For instance, we have historical records and archeological findings without interruption going back over 6,000 years.

2. It made God look really stupid. For an example of this, read Miller's comments on all these different "creations".

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/kennethmiller.shtml

 

[Angel4Truth]

This is what the creationists about 1800 believed. They believed there were several catastrophes and new creations over the history of the earth. They eventually gave this up for two reasons:

1. The evidence falsified it. For instance, we have historical records and archeological findings without interruption going back over 6,000 years.

2. It made God look really stupid. For an example of this, read Miller's comments on all these different "creations".

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/kennethmiller.shtml

Who cares what they believed in the 1800s ? My opinion isnt based on the whims of society.

You are more than welcome to follow a man , no one is stopping you , but I will continue to follow God . As far as "scientific evidence " scientists once claimed the earth sat on the back of an elephant standing a turtle too , doesnt mean they were right does it? There have been serious frauds presented by overzealous scientists as well as huge discrepensies in radiocarbon dating methods and the dating itself that have been proven too , point is you werent there were you? Then you cannot state with 100 percent accuracy that it was proven false .

Nothing makes God look stupid , only makes those who claim it look that way to me .

 

[LorentzHA]

But nothing yet has convinced me of that. btw how do you make signatures?

Up at the top of this page under User CP, click on that and you will see a lot of options.

Now I must ask you: How would a "young Earth" give legitimacy to any claims of a heaven, Hell or after life?

 

[ThePhoenix]

Who cares what they believed in the 1800s ? My opinion isnt based on the whims of society.

You are more than welcome to follow a man , no one is stopping you , but I will continue to follow God . As far as "scientific evidence " scientists once claimed the earth sat on the back of an elephant standing a turtle too , doesnt mean they were right does it? There have been serious frauds presented by overzealous scientists as well as huge discrepensies in radiocarbon dating methods and the dating itself that have been proven too , point is you werent there were you? Then you cannot state with 100 percent accuracy that it was proven false .

Nothing makes God look stupid , only makes those who claim it look that way to me .

*CHOKES* Ok, obviously new to these forums.... May I recommend you read a few of these threads before you go on? Specificly the "Questions for lupasca" thread which deals quite heavily with radioactive dating measures (Carbon being the weakest of these, since it grasp doesn't exceed 50,000 years). Basically that should answer most of your "discrepensies."

Secondly scientists don't follow "a man" when dealing in with science, they follow a principle. As for scientists and religion, there's christian scientists (both believers and non-believers in creationism), aethiest scientists, muslim scientists, they run the gammut.

This is circular reasoning, but it is also a strawman version of Christianity.

1. The Bible is a compilation of people's encounters with God.
2. The Bible is also a compilation of several interventions of God in history.
3. God exists from the evidence of the personal encouters and interventions.

There, no circular reasoning.

But it requires two givens, one that the bible is both factual and accurate, and another that the events weren't misinterpreted (the ancient greeks might have said lightning was proof of the gods, or the sea turning red). I believe many people don't care whether the bible is factual or not, simply that it's true for them.

 

[lucaspa]

Who cares what they believed in the 1800s ? My opinion isnt based on the whims of society.

Knowledge is cumulative. That is the big advantage humans have. We can study questions and then pass down the knowledge to generations yet to come.

That means that each generation does not have to reinvent the wheel.

What you are doing is re-inventing the wheel without seeing what we have learned about a subject already. This wastes a lot of time by you and us. You because you get to commit all the mistakes already made by the people who tried this idea out in the early 1800s and us because we have to repeat what they already found.

You are more than welcome to follow a man , no one is stopping you , but I will continue to follow God .

Then why are you trying to make God look stupid? That doesn't seem a course for someone "following God". The problem with multiple creations is this from Miller:

"Opponents of evolution have only two ways to explain away such facts of natural history.

The first is to suggest that the record is genuine, but that new species, as they appear, are the products of "intelligent design."

This suggestion seems interesting until we consider what it implies about a "designer."



It would mean, for an example, that the designer created four or five species many millions of years ago, all somewhat similar. All of those species became extinct. He then created a few more species, each only slightly different from those that had preceded them. They went extinct, too, and then he repeated the process again and again and again until he finally designed the modern horse less than 2 million years ago. Curiously, two things characterize this "designer's" work. First — lack of competence. More than 99% of the creatures he has designed have become extinct, and nearly all of them went to extinction in only a few million years. Second — a determination to mimic what we now call "evolution." Every time the designer produces a new species to replace one of his failed creations, the new species looks like a slight-modified version of the one that had just died out. In other words, the designer was determined to create in a way that would imply descent with modification. Such a designer would be both deceptive and incompetent, "

As far as "scientific evidence " scientists once claimed the earth sat on the back of an elephant standing a turtle too , doesnt mean they were right does it?

Actually, this was NEVER a view of science, but is one of a couple of relgions.

The certain statements in science are the negative ones:
1. The earth is NOT flat.
2. The earth is NOT the center of the solar system.
3. Each species was NOT specially created in its present form.
4. The earth is NOT 6,000 years old.

They arise from falsifying positive statements.

There have been serious frauds presented by overzealous scientists as well as huge discrepensies in radiocarbon dating methods and the dating itself that have been proven too , point is you werent there were you?[/QUOTE

Remember, the present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. You weren't there when a meteor hit Arizona and formed Meteor Crator either. Any doubt at all about how Meteor Crator was formed?

As long as the past leaves evidence that we can examine TODAY, then we don't have to have been there to know what happened. Unless you care to deny cause and effect.

Now, there have been occasional frauds in science. However, science is less prone to them and they do less damage than in other areas of human endeavor. Why? BECAUSE FRAUDS WILL ALWAYS BE CAUGHT. Why? Because the fraud will not be consistent with what other people find. All the "frauds" you are thinking of have been uncovered by scientists, not creationists.

Nothing makes God look stupid , only makes those who claim it look that way to me .

See above. I'm afraid some of the claims made by creationists about HOW God created do indeed make God look stupid. Since we know God isn't stupid, then that becomes one other way we know the claims are false, isn't it?

 

[lucaspa]

But it requires two givens, one that the bible is both factual and accurate, and another that the events weren't misinterpreted (the ancient greeks might have said lightning was proof of the gods, or the sea turning red). I believe many people don't care whether the bible is factual or not, simply that it's true for them.

But the logic isn't CIRCULAR. I wasn't arguing for theism being objectively correct, just that the logic used about the Bible was not circular.

Yes, you can argue that #1 and #2 are not true, and therefore the conclusion #3 is fallacious.

The Bible does need to be factual about some events. As far as I can tell, at least the Exodus and that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected have to be real events. The DETAILS of those events do not ALL have to be accurate, but God must have intervened in human history in at least those two events. If that did not happen, then Judeo-Christianity (but not theism or deism) is toast.