If the universe is <10,000 old....

[TasManOfGod]

You didn't answer my question.

My answer is all you are getting. Get comfortable with it.

 

[philadiddle]

In other words, you don't think there is any scientific reason to think the universe had a beginning. Alrighty then.

 

[miamited]

hi phil,

And I agree that there is no scientific reasoning that explains a miracle. We can't find the answers to what God does in science. He works outside of such constraints. I'll ask again, and since you loath those who won't answer your questions I know that you will answer mine. What is the scientific explanation for Mary being with child. She had no sexual union with a man. How does science explain her pregnancy?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[shernren]

Just trust and believe God! It really isn't important to Him that you have great worldly knowledge. What He asks is that we trust and believe and most of all, love Him. Love Him! Don't just know about Him. Love Him. Spend time with Him every day. All that time that you give to studying these other issues, I challenge you to get down on your knees in a quiet place and just pour out your heart to Him and declare your steadfast love, not knowledge, love for Him. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love the Lord your God with all your strength. Take that strength that you are giving to studying all the scientific reason you can find and turn it to Him. With all your heart. Empty your heart completely and fill it with love for your Creator. He will give you the answers that you seek. It is His delight, my friend, absolute delight to give knowledge and wisdom and understanding to the heart that is diligently seeking after Him.

I could reply peevishly, you know. It wouldn't take me long to whip up an (entirely heartfelt response) that goes like this:

Just trust and believe God! It really isn't important to Him that you have great spiritual knowledge. What He asks is that we trust and believe and most of all, love Him. Love Him! Don't just know about Him. Love Him. Spend time with Him every day. All that time that you give to writing the most amazingly long forum posts, I challenge you to get down on your knees in a quiet place and just pour out your heart to Him and declare your steadfast love, not knowledge, love for Him. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love the Lord your God with all your strength. Take that strength that you are giving to refuting all the evolutionists you can find and turn it to Him. With all your heart. Empty your heart completely and fill it with love for the Creator of your utterly misguided theistic evolutionist brothers. He will give you the peace that you seek; He will fill the hole that you are desperately trying to fill by constantly putting down your brothers in the faith. It is His delight, my friend, absolute delight to give love and peace and joy to the heart that is diligently seeking after Him.​

And you would feel rightly insulted. How dare I assume that you aren't already doing just that - loving God! How dare I assume that you do not pray enough! How dare I assume that your unceasing condescension for evolutionists and undying defense of your own holy proximity to God really stems from a burning, unmet need to justify yourself!

I could be nasty and ask you why you dare to assume that I do not love God enough, that I do not pray quietly to God enough, and that I am turning away from God simply by being a theistic evolutionist. But, you know, I don't think I will. After all these are injunctions from the Bible, and I will gladly thank you for reminding me of them.

My problem with you is deeper. It is that I have, indeed, done all these things. I have loved God, as much as His grace enables me to. I have spent hours in silence with Him, and I have spent hours upon hours in selfless service to Him in church and at work. I have submitted my desire for scientific knowledge to Him, which is why I am remaining a high school (equivalent) teacher to a bunch of snotty-nosed brats when I could well be spending all of my time pursuing a fully-paid PhD at any university of my choice, simply because I believe God is calling me back to Malaysia.

And yet for all that I have not experienced the creationist epiphany you promise.

What does that mean, miamited? I genuinely want to know what you think. What would you say to the Christian who brings his evolutionary beliefs before God and finds nary a rebuke? What would you say to someone like that who both believes in a magnificently ancient Earth and feels a deep kinship with his Lord, enjoys regular quiet time, serves the local community and church, and even challenges his non-believing students with the compatibility of science and theism? Should I pray ever more fervently for my mind to be magically reprogrammed into accepting creationism? Should I assume that I am less blessed by God until that happens? Should I be begging and pleading with God on my knees that a certain number in my head - the age I accept for the universe - will mystically have a few zeroes swiped from it? Will I be an ineffective Christian for Christ until then?

Or could you possibly be wrong about what God says?

... miamited wrong? Nah. Couldn't be.

 

[philadiddle]

I could reply peevishly, you know. It wouldn't take me long to whip up an (entirely heartfelt response) that goes like this:

Just trust and believe God! It really isn't important to Him that you have great spiritual knowledge. What He asks is that we trust and believe and most of all, love Him. Love Him! Don't just know about Him. Love Him. Spend time with Him every day. All that time that you give to writing the most amazingly long forum posts, I challenge you to get down on your knees in a quiet place and just pour out your heart to Him and declare your steadfast love, not knowledge, love for Him. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love the Lord your God with all your strength. Take that strength that you are giving to refuting all the evolutionists you can find and turn it to Him. With all your heart. Empty your heart completely and fill it with love for the Creator of your utterly misguided theistic evolutionist brothers. He will give you the peace that you seek; He will fill the hole that you are desperately trying to fill by constantly putting down your brothers in the faith. It is His delight, my friend, absolute delight to give love and peace and joy to the heart that is diligently seeking after Him.​

And you would feel rightly insulted. How dare I assume that you aren't already doing just that - loving God! How dare I assume that you do not pray enough! How dare I assume that your unceasing condescension for evolutionists and undying defense of your own holy proximity to God really stems from a burning, unmet need to justify yourself!

I could be nasty and ask you why you dare to assume that I do not love God enough, that I do not pray quietly to God enough, and that I am turning away from God simply by being a theistic evolutionist. But, you know, I don't think I will. After all these are injunctions from the Bible, and I will gladly thank you for reminding me of them.

My problem with you is deeper. It is that I have, indeed, done all these things. I have loved God, as much as His grace enables me to. I have spent hours in silence with Him, and I have spent hours upon hours in selfless service to Him in church and at work. I have submitted my desire for scientific knowledge to Him, which is why I am remaining a high school (equivalent) teacher to a bunch of snotty-nosed brats when I could well be spending all of my time pursuing a fully-paid PhD at any university of my choice, simply because I believe God is calling me back to Malaysia.

And yet for all that I have not experienced the creationist epiphany you promise.

What does that mean, miamited? I genuinely want to know what you think. What would you say to the Christian who brings his evolutionary beliefs before God and finds nary a rebuke? What would you say to someone like that who both believes in a magnificently ancient Earth and feels a deep kinship with his Lord, enjoys regular quiet time, serves the local community and church, and even challenges his non-believing students with the compatibility of science and theism? Should I pray ever more fervently for my mind to be magically reprogrammed into accepting creationism? Should I assume that I am less blessed by God until that happens? Should I be begging and pleading with God on my knees that a certain number in my head - the age I accept for the universe - will mystically have a few zeroes swiped from it? Will I be an ineffective Christian for Christ until then?

Or could you possibly be wrong about what God says?

... miamited wrong? Nah. Couldn't be.

^This

Ted's long drawn out posts that say "I really really truly believe God and other people obviously aren't" have caused me to stop reading his posts. They don't contribute to the conversation in any way.

 

[Smidlee]

Since the YECs who responded in the other thread I tried to make are ignoring my followup question, I'll try to be a little more direct.

If you think the universe is less than 10,000 years old because you reject the evidence for the big bang, then how would respond to an atheist who thought the universe was static and eternal?

What evidence for the Big Bang? "Static and eternal universe" is not the current dogma so no need to focus on it.
It's the same in World War II Hitler was the bigger threat than Stalin so the Allies team up only defeat Hitler yet still were enemies.

You'd totally support him because at least he doesn't believe in the Big Bang.

A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology - Answers in Genesis

Doppler Toppler? - Answers in Genesis

So you think AiG is sending these atheist some funds? My idea of "totally support something oe someone" would include some funds.

 

[Assyrian]

Wouldn't that still leave you with Stalin?

 

[Smidlee]

Wouldn't that still leave you with Stalin?

No doubt. Our main job as Christians is not to clean up the pond but to fish out of it. It's the same I support Democracy knowing when Jesus returns he will not be forming a Democracy.

 

[Assyrian]

No doubt. Our main job as Christians is not to clean up the pond but to fish out of it. It's the same I support Democracy knowing when Jesus returns he will not be forming a Democracy.

So Stalin is like democracy?

 

[miamited]

hi phil,

I guess you won't be reading this and so I'm not really posting it for your benefit, but rather for the benefit of others who may be taken in by your guile. You began this post with consternation that all of us YEC's wouldn't stand and answer your follow up questions.

You're good! You really are! You have allowed for a perfectly plausible excuse that allows you to do the same thing as others provide follow up questions for you. I'm so long-winded that you've give up even reading my posts. Oh, Oh that's precious! That's great! You are the master!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Jig]

If you think the universe is less than 10,000 years old because

The only reason I believe a supernatural "creation" occurred less than 12,000 years old is because a historical-grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures plainly teaches such. I then take this philosophical worldview and use it to interpret the evidence around me.

This is much like what you do, but with a different philosophical worldview and in reverse.

 

[gluadys]

The only reason I believe a supernatural "creation" occurred less than 12,000 years old is because a historical-grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures plainly teaches such. I then take this philosophical worldview and use it to interpret the evidence around me.

This is much like what you do, but with a different philosophical worldview and in reverse.

It seems to me that the only way to interpret the evidence around us from a historical-grammatical view of scripture is to turn a blind eye to most of the evidence.

That is what calls the historical-grammatical view of scripture into question for me.

Not scripture per se, but the historical-grammatical view of it.

I do not understand the creedance given to a hermeneutical principle that requires most of creation to be an illusion. Especially as nothing of importance theologically, or even as far as human history is concerned, is destroyed or dismissed using other hermeneutical views of scripture.

 

[Jig]

It seems to me that the only way to interpret the evidence around us from a historical-grammatical view of scripture is to turn a blind eye to most of the evidence.

Those who interpret Scripture from this perspective are not turning a blind eye to the evidence. They are simply using the philosophical worldview garnished from their perspective to interpret all the evidence differently than those who hold different assumptions.

I disagree with the philosophical worldviews (not the interpretations) of those who give the evidence a different interpretation.

For instance, I agree that when the evidence is interpreted from a foundation of ontological naturalism the conclusion rejects a young earth model. In fact, it is expected.

That is what calls the historical-grammatical view of scripture into question for me.

Not scripture per se, but the historical-grammatical view of it.

I do not understand the creedance given to a hermeneutical principle that requires most of creation to be an illusion. Especially as nothing of importance theologically, or even as far as human history is concerned, is destroyed or dismissed using other hermeneutical views of scripture.

I certainly do not believe that creation "is an illusion" nor do I feel that my espoused methodology leads to such an idea.

You must remember that under my philosophical worldview I believe that God created a "mature" universe, not an "aged" one.

Age: the amount of time something has existed.
Maturity: the state or quality of being developed.

For instance, let's use a popular passage of Scripture: Jesus' supernatural turning of water into wine at Cana. This wine was fully developed instantly (no grapes were planted, grown, picked, crushed, or fermented). It's maturity had nothing to do with it's age.

Was the reality of the wine's maturity an illusion? Not at all. The maturity was real.

Now, there are numerous other factors I consider when interpreting the evidence (e.g. the Fall, a worldwide Flood, etc.), but this single factor should suffice to make my point.

 

[Jig]

Especially as nothing of importance theologically, or even as far as human history is concerned, is destroyed or dismissed using other hermeneutical views of scripture.

I wanted to address this point further. I strongly disagree.

Genesis 1-11 is arguably the most important piece of Scripture. It's proper interpretation is necessary for a proper view on a number of topics.

The affirmation of man’s dignity; he is made in the very image of God. He is not an evolved beast.

The religious and moral responsibility of humanity; i.e., the relationship of a “created” being to the “Creator” (cf. Psalm 100:3; Romans 9:21); man is required to obey his God.

The regulations regarding marriage — the exclusively male/female relationship that constitutes a valid marital union — along with the one-man for one-woman arrangement. These laws are grounded in this document.

The origin and consequences of human sin are here detailed.

The first glimpse of Heaven’s method of redemption is previewed in the Mosaic record (Genesis 3:15), together with the selection of the Hebrew nation as a redemptive instrument in Jehovah’s plan (12:1).

 

[philadiddle]

hi phil,

I guess you won't be reading this and so I'm not really posting it for your benefit, but rather for the benefit of others who may be taken in by your guile. You began this post with consternation that all of us YEC's wouldn't stand and answer your follow up questions.

You're good! You really are! You have allowed for a perfectly plausible excuse that allows you to do the same thing as others provide follow up questions for you. I'm so long-winded that you've give up even reading my posts. Oh, Oh that's precious! That's great! You are the master!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Thank you for this short readable post where you actually had something to say. It's nice to read something from you where you aren't telling me that I'm not really following God's word or that I'm not really trusting him, usually drawn out over 500 words.

I won't be ignoring you, but when someone asks a question about science and you start with "Christian maturity....the disciples...etc" and then continue on with "it's important that we believe God as I do.....others don't really trust him...etc" and then it concludes with "I trust God....He's given me understanding.....etc" then there's no point in reading it because you aren't actually interesting in being a part of the topic at hand. You just want to preach and hear your own "holier than thou" voice. Others here feel they are trusting and listening to God just as you are, and Shernren hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that he could just turn your whole post around on you. It's arrogant of you to continually post that way.

I cut and paste your longest posts from this thread into Word and it was over 3,500 words. Can you show me anything in there that addresses the question "what scientific evidence could you give him to change his mind and convince him that the universe had a beginning?"

Can you show me anything in there that can't be turned around on you as Shernren pointed out?

If you can't do either of those things then you'll understand why I skipped over your long posts.

 

[gluadys]

For instance, I agree that when the evidence is interpreted from a foundation of ontological naturalism the conclusion rejects a young earth model. In fact, it is expected.

I certainly do not believe that creation "is an illusion" nor do I feel that my espoused methodology leads to such an idea.

You must remember that under my philosophical worldview I believe that God created a "mature" universe, not an "aged" one.

Then you are turning a blind eye to the evidence. There is no evidence that disconnects the maturity of a tree from its age. There is no evidence that disconnects the maturity of an eroded valley from its age. Maturity IS evidence of age and your belief that God created a "mature" universe that is not an "aged" one IS belief that God endowed creation with an illusion of maturity/age.


Now I grant you can consider that a miracle, like the miracle of the wine at Cana. But you cannot say it is based on the evidence or an interpretation of the evidence. You have to say that the evidence belies the conclusion, but that's ok because it was a miracle. So the evidence is illusory.


Other evidence, however, is not so easily disposed of. A "mature" but not "aged" planet doesn't need a geological history, much less one filled with fossils of species no human has ever seen. So why does evidence of that history exist? "Mature" but not "aged" stars don't need a history of past supernovas. So why do these exist? Any evidence of pre-human history has no place in a "mature" but not "aged" universe--so you are committed to believing all such evidence is about an illusory history that never happened.

That includes amazing concordances of age measured independently by different methods. Take the Hawaiian islands as an example. They are volcanic islands so their age is easily measured radiometrically and has been. Each island's age is different with the oldest on the east and the youngest on the west.

The are also being carried on a tectonic plate passing slowly over a hot spot. The hot spot produces the volcanoes. The rate of the tectonic plate movement can also be measured--and no radiometric measurement is needed for that. Is it sheer coincidence that plate movement give the same age for each island as radiometric measurements? After all, by your belief, the islands were created as they are, not as a history of plate movement over a hot spot. You have to believe this evidence is an illusion.

You have to believe the massive evidence of ice ages which scoured the rock from the Canadian shield, gouged valleys through the Alps, deposited hundreds of square miles of moraines along the southern borders of glaciers, all that history was an illusion. It never happened.

An illusory maturity is the least of the illusions you can believe by ignoring the evidence. Much more massive is the illusion of history for which we find ample evidence.

Now, there are numerous other factors I consider when interpreting the evidence (e.g. the Fall, a worldwide Flood, etc.), but this single factor should suffice to make my point.

As to the fall, there is no scriptural evidence that it fundamentally changed the nature of creation. There is no suggestion, for example, that thorns and thistles were not part of the original creation. Only that they had not been growing where humans were plowing and planting and so making it difficult to get a good harvest.

There is no evidence of a global flood in the first place, so to take that into account is itself turning a blind eye to the evidence there is, much of which is incompatible with a global flood, so again, you have to turn a blind eye to actual evidence and hold that it is illusory.

 

[gluadys]

I wanted to address this point further. I strongly disagree.

Genesis 1-11 is arguably the most important piece of Scripture. It's proper interpretation is necessary for a proper view on a number of topics.

The affirmation of man’s dignity; he is made in the very image of God. He is not an evolved beast.

How does the second statement follow from the first? I see no logical connection between them.

I fully agree with the affirmation of human dignity. I do not see any reason why an evolutionary origin has any negative bearing on that.

The religious and moral responsibility of humanity; i.e., the relationship of a “created” being to the “Creator” (cf. Psalm 100:3; Romans 9:21); man is required to obey his God.

The regulations regarding marriage — the exclusively male/female relationship that constitutes a valid marital union — along with the one-man for one-woman arrangement. These laws are grounded in this document.

The origin and consequences of human sin are here detailed.

The first glimpse of Heaven’s method of redemption is previewed in the Mosaic record (Genesis 3:15), together with the selection of the Hebrew nation as a redemptive instrument in Jehovah’s plan (12:1).

Again, I agree with the fact these matters are rooted in the Genesis account of our origins. But I am mystified as to why evolutionary history is seen to be a negative factor in respect to them. Christians who accept evolution accept our responsibility as created beings to the Creator, accept the institution of marriage and accept that we are creatures who have fallen into sin and bear the consequences of original sin in ourselves. We accept that God's plan of redemption is foreshadowed in Gen. 3:15.

Nothing I know about evolution tells me to reject these teachings. So I stand by my original statement.

"Nothing of importance theologically, or even as far as human history is concerned, is destroyed or dismissed using other hermeneutical views of scripture."

 

[miamited]

hi phil,

In the spirit of keeping it short you responded: Can you show me anything in there that addresses the question "what scientific evidence could you give him to change his mind and convince him that the universe had a beginning?"

I would give him the exact evidence that you can produce that explains even a single one of God's miracles.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[philadiddle]

hi phil,

In the spirit of keeping it short you responded: Can you show me anything in there that addresses the question "what scientific evidence could you give him to change his mind and convince him that the universe had a beginning?"

I would give him the exact evidence that you can produce that explains even a single one of God's miracles.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Just to clarify, are you trying to say that there is no scientific evidence the earth/universe had a beginning?

 

[Calminian]

That doesn't mean anything, it's like a word salad. So let me ask again in hopes of getting a reasonable answer; If you were talking to an atheist who thought that the universe was static and had no beginning, what scientific evidence could you give him to change his mind and convince him that the universe had a beginning?

This may be a unique position, but I would not offer scientific evidence to solve such a problem as that would entail circular reasoning. Science already has built in assumptions of an ongoing process. This is the essence of uniformitarianism. Processes remaining static to the point that you can predict the future and discern the past, by observing the present.

What I would do to convince the atheist would be to hit him with the problem of infinite regression. But this is a philosophical logical problem, not a scientific one.

BTW, is it you that believes the universe is static with no beginning? Just curious.