Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and The Young Earth.

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Wow thanks for all the replies! I haven't had the chance to read through them thoroughly yet but I will.

One thing really quick I noticed that in some modern versions the word "day" in the KJV was changed to "age." I have also heard some Christians say that they may have been really long days not just the regular 24 hour days.

In any event, as someone who isn't a Christian, I think the question of the age of the Earth is the least important part about Christianity. I just find it interesting how differently people see these things.

 

[Hieronymus]

Just so you know, I don't presume that Adam was not literally made in moments (or however long, minutes, doesn't matter the time length of course) from literally the dirt of the ground, right there.

Let's be clear that the story is not a scientific summary, at all.
Exactly how God created man is unknown.
But it 'strongly suggests' that man did not evolve from an animal, but was specially made in God's image (representing God).

God could, indeed! Very possible. I don't even need to know precisely, but rather I must listen and then I get the key meaning to me later in chapter 3, in this verse, and it's the true point to me of the meaning of "dust" --

"....for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

There's profound meaning.

It means we're physical beings.
This was after the fall though, when death was introduced by the events of Genesis 3.
The serpent there had his own fall from grace too.

Also, it's profoundly meaningful when I read with real hearing that Eve comes from Adam's very rib!

Not earth, or dust, or mud, or some combination of stuff.

She is from his rib!

She is integral to Adam, in their relationship, like for him even more deeply than his own skin, as a rib, protecting his heart and breath.

That's not an accident.

It isn't like....bone marrow from his thigh, for instance, or whatever other alternative thing could have been used.

Deeper. She's from close to the heart.

That's marriage. Under the skin. It's a profound connection.

Definitely.
We can read Adam was extatic about Eve, a flesh from his flesh.

This is the way the text seems to me. It's not about surface history, but about utterly profound things, of first and central importance in life, here and now, on Earth, as we live it. So, it's far more important than some unalike other text not the Word, which might have read so differently, unlike the treasure we have, and only said a much less informing detail like only the mere-history 'then Eve showed up to be his wife' or whatever. Instead of that, we have profound things. Praise the Lord!

I can agree with most of what you say.
It's how i looked at it in the beginning.
Eventually i grew into believing Genesis 1 to 3 in a more literal way on top of the symbolic meaning (not in stead of it).
This is because of the case that can be made for practically all of the Bible, including the historical chronology.
It is basically a history book as well as a spiritual book.
I was thrilled to learn that the genealogy in Genesis 10 (table of nations) is apparently considered authoritative in Ethnology.
As some say: "It's history: His-Story", which seems to be reality to us, but more like a metaphor to God.
Our reality (God's creation) is a metaphor of God's reality (God's heavenly Kingdom, or God's timeless reality), or something to that effect.
But i agree it's all about the deeper meaning behind the historical events.
But it would be 'weak' if the historical events were not actually historical.

 

[Hieronymus]

Exactly. We should be in awe of the discipline and honesty of those did not allow their traditional understanding of scripture to reject what the world wide evidence was telling them.

That's just regurgitating the propaganda.
What they didn't tell you is that they allow their philosophical beliefs to reject other views themselves.
We should not be in awe, we should be realistic and acknowledge that it's all a human endeavour, and people have viewpoints to work from.

 

[Hieronymus]

Wow thanks for all the replies! I haven't had the chance to read through them thoroughly yet but I will.

You'd better!

One thing really quick I noticed that in some modern versions the word "day" in the KJV was changed to "age." I have also heard some Christians say that they may have been really long days not just the regular 24 hour days.

It's "yom" in Hebrew, which means day.
And added to that is "and it was evening, and it was morning", so it simply means "day".

In any event, as someone who isn't a Christian, I think the question of the age of the Earth is the least important part about Christianity. I just find it interesting how differently people see these things.

Yes, i is interesting, but it's frustrating for YECs who are convinced by / with the help from scientific evidence that most people seem to be wilfully ignorant of their findings, or otherwise refuse to consider the validity of their case.
Sometimes makes me feel like crying like a little kid: "It's not fair!".

 

[Hieronymus]

Except when you do, right? I mean if you drive somewhere or use the lights in your home (or turn on your computer) you are relying on old earth Geology which provides the materials and the energy sources. If you need to use nuclear medicine you are relying on the same kind of understanding of radioactive decay that underlies the measurement of the earth at 4.5 billion years old.

O, look, another one who doesn't know the difference between natural science and technological development and naturalistic beliefs and models regarding the origins of things.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's just regurgitating the propaganda.

That's rather offensive.

I don't do propaganda. I read scholarly works on the subject. I read some of the original works. I explore these resources with a critical mind. I reached a conclusion after careful consideration. I did not stop there, but continued to probe, exploring the evidence and assertions from multiple perspectives over a period of decades.

And you characterise this as "regurgitating the propaganda". That is a slur on the integrity of my character and it is unwelcome. Please think more carefully before you make similar accusations.

 

[Obliquinaut]

O, look, another one who doesn't know the difference between natural science and technological development and naturalistic beliefs and models regarding the origins of things.
Nice going bud!

Really? What did I get wrong? I'd be interested. I have spent my life as a research scientist so it would be nice to know where I went wrong in my statement.

 

[Obliquinaut]

That's just regurgitating the propaganda.
What they didn't tell you is that they allow their philosophical beliefs to reject other views themselves.

Science doesn't work like that. Science is a discipline that doesn't allow for one to hypothesize "miracle" or "magical event" as an explanatory variable. The goal of science is to assess the evidence dispassionately and as free of bias as humanly possible. It is never perfect but it is the best we can do.

Would you prefer that scientists allow people to say "This reaction didn't go as I thought it would in the lab so I will assume God reached in and changed the fundamental chemistry."

OR would you prefer that they investigate the strange results over and over and over again until something is found that is quite natural?

This is dangerously close to "God of the Gaps" which most theologians don't even think is a good idea. If we see things we don't understand and simply assign it to "the supernatural" then one day later on someone usually finds a perfectly natural reason for the data and suddenly the "Supernatural" gets a bit smaller.

If I find something strange in the lab and I hypothesize "God did this" and later on someone else reruns my experiment and finds a perfectly natural reason, it makes God smaller. Which is theologically problematic.

We should not be in awe

Speaking as one who has spent the larger portion of his life as a research scientist I have to say we should be in awe. Science has produced some amazing breakthroughs and in most cases the best things arise when we set aside our pre-conceived notions as best we can and investigate-investigate-investigate and never let "miracle" be our explanation.

 

[Hieronymus]

Really? What did I get wrong? I'd be interested. I have spent my life as a research scientist so it would be nice to know where I went wrong in my statement.

You're comparing the assessments humans can make about the origins of things, like the universe and living nature, with natural 'real time' science which is necessary for technological advancements.
The first is historical and not observable, the second is here and now and observable and testable.
For the first the (popular) scientific consensus is naturalism (the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.) but that's obviously not the only way to look at things.
Actually, God has much more explanatory power than ambiguous naturalistic models with plenty of holes and problems of their own, when it comes to assessing the origins of our fine tuned universe and the most complex phenomenon of all, which we call 'living nature'.

 

[Hieronymus]

Science doesn't work like that.

Correct.
PEOPLE work like that.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's rather offensive.

Sorry..

I don't do propaganda.

Propaganda does you, if you're not careful...

 

[Hieronymus]

I edited my posts a little, because i think i was 'goading' maybe.
sorry 'bout that..

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm sympathetic to what young earth creationists are trying to do. They have more confidence in the Bible than in the scientific method as a source of truth, and they believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is young. I can understand that.

I disagree with them. I think that setting aside the scientific method has uncomfortable epistemological consequences. There are also some theological difficulties involved. But mostly I'm willing to politely agree to disagree.

I sometimes run into people who proclaim that a person has to be a young earth creationist to be a Christian. In those cases, I speak up and voice my objection, because this belief unnecessarily drives scientists away from Christianity (or drives Christians away from science, which is also bad).

My view has always been that all we know about the creation of the heavens and the earth is that it was 'in the beginning'. The doctrine of creation is about the creation of life in six days, Cosmology and geology are irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You're comparing the assessments humans can make about the origins of things, like the universe and living nature, with natural 'real time' science which is necessary for technological advancements.
The first is historical and not observable, the second is here and now and observable and testable.

Do you believe forensic investigators can solve a crime that has already occurred?

That's the same thing with things like geology. We can very easily get an idea of what happened millions or billions of years after the events. Using much the same approach as forensic scientists use in solving crimes.

For the first the (popular) scientific consensus is naturalism (the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.) but that's obviously not the only way to look at things.

As I explained in great detail: you cannot really utilize "miracle" as an explanation, because the minute someone figures out a natural explanation it decreases the extent of the supernatural.

People used to think disease was caused by God's anger. Now we know it is germs.

Actually, God has much more explanatory power than ambiguous naturalistic models with plenty of holes and problems of their own, when it comes to assessing the origins of our fine tuned universe and the most complex phenomenon of all, which we call 'living nature'.

Not really. By your own assessment of "testability" God immediately fails. Not just because God commands people not to "test" him, but because there are so many differing conceptions of God that as an explanatory variable He ends up being nearly useless because no two observers experience Him the same way.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Correct.
PEOPLE work like that.

And, indeed, I explained that science works within its limitations based on human frailty. BUT that being said science is the best way to eliminate as much personal bias as is humanly possible.

In fact it is the only tool that is fit to do that.

Look at your desire to use God as an "explanatory variable" when assessing the origins or history of the earth. Which God? The creation stories of countless different societies can't all be right. So why is your preferred version in Genesis correct and their incorrect?

 

[Dawnhammer]

The creation stories of countless different societies can't all be right.

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

There are plenty. And really, if you look at those objectively some like Norse creation

“the world was empty until the sons of Burr lifted the earth out of the sea. The Æsir then established order in the cosmos by finding places for the sun, the moon and the stars, thereby starting the cycle of day and night. A golden age ensued where the Æsir had plenty of gold and happily constructed temples and made tools. But then three mighty giant maidens came from Jötunheimr and the golden age came to an end. The Æsir then created the dwarves, of whom Mótsognir and Durinn are the mightiest.”

are pretty close to genesis anyway.

World from emptiness. check.

Sun, stars, moon yadda yadda , check

Golden age all is well garden happy face yada yada. Check.

Three giant maidens or snake or whatever came from somewhere and messed everything up. Check.

Dwarves? Why didn’t our God create dwarves? Wonder if Tolkien got copyright to this stuff.

Only difference here is that nobody is trying to explain giant maidens are NBA transgender team and obviously this makes the story prophetic and every who disagrees should fear the wrath of All father Odin.

You can see the lightning and everything right? Repent, end is near.

 

[Obliquinaut]

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

There are plenty. And really, if you look at those objectively some like Norse creation

“the world was empty until the sons of Burr lifted the earth out of the sea. The Æsir then established order in the cosmos by finding places for the sun, the moon and the stars, thereby starting the cycle of day and night. A golden age ensued where the Æsir had plenty of gold and happily constructed temples and made tools. But then three mighty giant maidens came from Jötunheimr and the golden age came to an end. The Æsir then created the dwarves, of whom Mótsognir and Durinn are the mightiest.”

are pretty close to genesis anyway.

World from emptiness. check.

Sun, stars, moon yadda yadda , check

Golden age all is well garden happy face yada yada. Check.

Three giant maidens or snake or whatever came from somewhere and messed everything up. Check.

Dwarves? Why didn’t our God create dwarves? Wonder if Tolkien got copyright to this stuff.

Only difference here is that nobody is trying to explain giant maidens are NBA transgender team and obviously this makes the story prophetic and every who disagrees should fear the wrath of All father Odin.

You can see the lightning and everything right? Repent, end is near.

I prefer the Finnish creation myth with duck egg.

 

[Obliquinaut]

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

There are plenty. And really, if you look at those objectively some like Norse creation

“the world was empty until the sons of Burr lifted the earth out of the sea. The Æsir then established order in the cosmos by finding places for the sun, the moon and the stars, thereby starting the cycle of day and night. A golden age ensued where the Æsir had plenty of gold and happily constructed temples and made tools. But then three mighty giant maidens came from Jötunheimr and the golden age came to an end. The Æsir then created the dwarves, of whom Mótsognir and Durinn are the mightiest.”

are pretty close to genesis anyway.

World from emptiness. check.

Sun, stars, moon yadda yadda , check

Golden age all is well garden happy face yada yada. Check.

Three giant maidens or snake or whatever came from somewhere and messed everything up. Check.

Dwarves? Why didn’t our God create dwarves? Wonder if Tolkien got copyright to this stuff.

Only difference here is that nobody is trying to explain giant maidens are NBA transgender team and obviously this makes the story prophetic and every who disagrees should fear the wrath of All father Odin.

You can see the lightning and everything right? Repent, end is near.

If one looks at the collection of creation myths and finds any commonality then one is stretching by necessity. Is Genesis an accurate historical account of the creation of the earth? How far out do we take it? Duck eggs a la Kalevala?

The fact of it is that all these creation myths ARE common: they are humanity's attempt to understand its origins without any science or understanding of nature. As such they are allegorical to some extent and perhaps there were some that were literally believed but clearly nothing like an actual detailed explanation.

I feel most sorry for those who read Genesis for a literal explanation of the wonders of the planet we live on. Perhaps it is because of my geology training and degrees. It feels sad and pitiful to think of the earth as some sort of "Potemkin Village" cobbled together by fiat 6000 years ago in 6 days.

I understand a lot of people of faith feel they need to believe in a literal Genesis for their immortal soul's sake. And I guess it should be fine if they want to live like that. I worry more for when they get their myth story pushed onto the public education system and work to undercut the value science has brought to our society.

I am all for people believing as they wish. But they can't in any way force anyone else to believe their stuff, and they have no right to criticize science they neither care about nor understand.

 

[pitabread]

Why do my sources have to be "independent" and your sources are allowed to be naturalists?

By 'independent', I mean something not explicitly based on a Bible interpretation.

YECs derive the age of the Earth and universe based on their adding up of the genealogies in the Bible. I'm asking if there are any methods independent of that to corroborate their view and give a derived age in agreement with theirs. Thus far I have not seen a single example and so far you haven't provided me any.

Do your sources offer the same? no they don't.
Then why do you demand my sources do?

There are independent methods to derive the age of the Earth and solar system, which result in an age of ~4.5 billion years old. These include multiple types of radiometric dating and other methods like helioseismology.

But anyway, you ask for scientific evidence, and then i can refer to a couple of things.
Stratigraphy for example, genetics ("genetic clock" and things like that), demographics, helium diffusion, astronomy, the fact that human recorded history only goes back a couple of thousand years
and i probably forget various things...

This isn't an answer. I've read a lot of creationist literature and they never offer up a specific method to corroborate their age. At best, they try to give examples of things to demonstrate the Earth or universe couldn't be billions of years old, but they never actually point to anything that says it's only 6000 years old.

And a lot of times their responses are either based on flawed science (i.e. helium diffusion) or just plain lack any logical basis (i.e. human recorded history being only thousands of years).

I'm not an encyclopedia of creation science and young earth / young humanity apologetics, nor a teacher of these things, unfortunately.

Well, as one who has digested a large amount of creationist material, I can safely say I've never come across an independent dating method which reveals a 6000 year old Earth or universe.

Even ICR's RATE project resulted in the admission that there is at least hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity on Earth to account for. Which they do so by trying to invent ad-hoc ways (including blatant appeals to supernaturalism) to cram it into their 6000 year timeline.

 

[Obliquinaut]

But anyway, you ask for scientific evidence, and then i can refer to a couple of things.
Stratigraphy for example,

Stratigraphy does not support a young earth age. Just look at the varves in the Green River formation. Or how about shale layers that are many, many feet thick interbedded with thick limestones. Those things don't form "quickly". They require a LONG time to accumulate in very calm waters.

And the fact that you can find many of these stacked on top of each other amounting to hundreds and hundreds of feet of accumulated sediment indicates anything but a young earth.

I'm not an encyclopedia of creation science and young earth / young humanity apologetics, nor a teacher of these things, unfortunately.

Some of us have, however spent years and years studying geology.