Old Earth Creationism

[Job 33:6]

I accept that evolution is the most rational and scientific explanation for the fossil record. But fossils don't prove that ToE accurately describes the process responsible for that evolution.
"

The evidence indicates that it's true and it's the most rational scientific explanation for what we see, but it's a theory and therefore is unproven and innacurate - said no scientist ever.

This is like saying that nuclear fusion is the most rational explanation for heat generated by the sun, but because it's "just a theory", it's therefore unproven. Because no one has ever been inside the sun to truly know of course. Maybe there are a billion hamsters running on wheels inside it. Yes, that's it.

No one has ever been to the earth's mantle before. Evidence indicates that it consists of molten rock, but it's not proven and perhaps is actually made of cottage cheese.

I mean, if that's how you view the world around you, where perhaps you feel that all theories are simply unproven and perhaps even unknown or uncertain, that's fine, but I wouldn't follow that line of reasoning.

Flat earthers doubt heliocentric theory. Because it's just an unproven theory of course. And who knows, maybe in a thousand years we will realize that the sun does in fact orbit the earth over a solid dome with waters above.

But to be fair, the more rational explanation is more likely to be true than these odd alternate thoughts.

 

[Job 33:6]

The evidence indicates that it's true and it's the most rational scientific explanation for what we see, but it's a theory and therefore is unproven and innacurate - said no scientist ever.

This is like saying that nuclear fusion is the most rational explanation for heat generated by the sun, but because it's "just a theory", it's therefore unproven. Because no one has ever been inside the sun to truly know of course. Maybe there are a billion hamsters running on wheels inside it. Yes, that's it.

No one has ever been to the earth's mantle before. Evidence indicates that it consists of molten rock, but it's not proven and perhaps is actually made of cottage cheese.

I mean, if that's how you view the world around you, where perhaps you feel that all theories are simply unproven and perhaps even unknown or uncertain, that's fine, but I wouldn't follow that line of reasoning.

Flat earthers doubt heliocentric theory. Because it's just an unproven theory of course. And who knows, maybe in a thousand years we will realize that the sun does in fact orbit the earth over a solid dome with waters above.

But to be fair, the more rational explanation is more likely to be true than these odd alternate thoughts.

And one more thing too. It's more than just "the most" rational explanation. It is "a" rational explanation. More than just being on a spectrum where perhaps all scientific theories are innacurate, the theory of evolution does an incredibly good job of explaining why those matching cladistic/phylogenetic patterns exist. And indeed, there really isn't any other logical alternative beyond common descent at large.

It's like with the theory of plate tectonics. We might see magma coming up from the mantle out of volcanoes and conclude based on evidence that The most rational explanation for this is that the mantle is made of magma. It's not merely "the most" rational explanation for what we see, it is "a" rational explanation for what we see. And despite the theory of plate tectonics not being "proven" per se, for practical purposes, observations indicate that it is true, ie that there is molten rock beneath us and that this is where lava comes from when volcanoes erupt.

 

[Buzzard3]

The evidence indicates that it's true and it's the most rational scientific explanation for what we see

This is an example of the disingenuous double-talk I've come to expect from Darwinist scientists. They typically mix truth with baloney, so I've learnt not to trust them.

This part of your comment is true: ToE is "the most rational scientific explanation" for the fossil record.

This part of your comment is baloney: "The evidence indicates that it's [ToE] true". What tripe - no honest (or sane) scientist would ever say the evidence for a theory "indicates that it's true".

but it's a theory and therefore is unproven and innacurate - said no scientist ever

I can see what you've done here - you've built a strawman by mendaciously twisting my words.
You're implying that I said or implied something like, "If a theory cannot be proven, it is inaccurate."
But I never said or implied that - I said your claim that ToE is "accurate science" is nonsense because it's impossible to prove that ToE accurately describes the process that shaped the fossil record.
No one can prove that ToE is accurate or inaccurate science.

You've pulled this sort of mendacious stunt before - in a different thread some months ago, you claimed that in one of his articles, ID advocate Casey Luskin denied that evolution happened. He didn't state or imply anything of the sort - that was a lie you invented.

Evidently, you can't be trusted to tell the truth.

 

[Think...]

I'm not quite sure what I believe about the days of Genesis. I have seen many arguments for the old earth perspective that the six days of the creation week are not meant to be literal 24 hour days, but rather long periods of time.

I do find old earth creationism compelling on the surface, but I find some difficulties in reconciling it with Scripture.

For example, Exodus 20:11 seems to reinforce the young earth view that it actually was six literal days.

I feel like if we were not meant to take the Creation Week as six 24 hour days, then I don't think it would have been reiterated in the 10 Commandments.

What are your thoughts?

It was SIX LITERAL DAYS. The entire Bible is a testament to that undeniable fact.

And yes, the 10 Commandments are one of many evidences of this fact in Scripture.

 

[GenemZ]

I'm not quite sure what I believe about the days of Genesis. I have seen many arguments for the old earth perspective that the six days of the creation week are not meant to be literal 24 hour days, but rather long periods of time.

I do find old earth creationism compelling on the surface, but I find some difficulties in reconciling it with Scripture.

For example, Exodus 20:11 seems to reinforce the young earth view that it actually was six literal days.

I feel like if we were not meant to take the Creation Week as six 24 hour days, then I don't think it would have been reiterated in the 10 Commandments.

What are your thoughts?

Exodus 20:11 does not say God created the earth in six literal days. That passage speaks of how He made them from what was already created. The Hebrew reveals that. In the beginning God 'created the heavens and earth.' The Hebrew is 'banah'. To create something out from nothing. Exodus 20:11 speaks of 'asah', which means to make something out of what is already created.

Old earth creationism to get a proper grasp requires gaining knowledge of the Hebrew.

 

[Think...]

Exodus 20:11 does not say God created the earth in six literal days. That passage speaks of how He made them from what was already created. The Hebrew reveals that.

Let's see:

" For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
Exodus 20:11

Nope. Doesn't say that at all.

Regardless of what He made them with, it is only speaking of Him making them in six days. The Hebrew says nothing at all about it NOT being literal days.

 

[GenemZ]

Let's see:

" For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
Exodus 20:11

Nope. Doesn't say that at all.

Regardless of what He made them with, it is only speaking of Him making them in six days. The Hebrew says nothing at all about it NOT being literal days.

Ironic.. because Jews based on what constitutes a day and a night upon Genesis One.

And, it also explains Jesus Jewish thinking when he said he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

If 'day' meant a thousand years? That would also mean that the nights would have to be very long as well. Meaning the earth would be burning up for one thousand years of day, and freezing for another thousand years of no light..... Not feasible considering what Genesis One tells us took place.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's see:

" For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
Exodus 20:11

Nope. Doesn't say that at all.

Regardless of what He made them with, it is only speaking of Him making them in six days. The Hebrew says nothing at all about it NOT being literal days.

Genesis 1 through 11 is describing ancient near East cosmology.

It's not describing geology or astronomy of the 21st century sciences.

 

[Think...]

Genesis 1 through 11 is describing ancient near East cosmology.

It's not describing geology or astronomy of the 21st century sciences.

I don't understand why you replied to me with that. It doesn't appear to be relevant to what was being discussed.

Having said that, there are a great many Christians right now, today, who believe in the Firmament. Just as the Bible describes it. And many others believed in it prior to the 20th century.

Whether that's near East cosmology, or accepted by science, it's Biblical. So it's western doctrine just as well.

It is also obvious, among those who are honest, that Tesla, whose father was a Preacher of God's Word, also subscribed to the doctrine of the Firmament as it was the basis for many, if not most, of his electrical experiments that involved long distance transmission of electricity, etc.

 

[Job 33:6]

I don't understand why you replied to me with that. It doesn't appear to be relevant to what was being discussed.

Having said that, there are a great many Christians right now, today, who believe in the Firmament. Just as the Bible describes it. And many others believed in it prior to the 20th century.

Whether that's near East cosmology, or accepted by science, it's Biblical. So it's western doctrine just as well.

It is also obvious, among those who are honest, that Tesla, whose father was a Preacher of God's Word, also subscribed to the doctrine of the Firmament as it was the basis for many, if not most, of his electrical experiments that involved long distance transmission of electricity, etc.

I'm just pointing out that it's a pre scientific concepts that a solid dome exists in the sky with an ocean over it, as described in Genesis. It's not reasonable to conclude that Genesis is speaking of modern 21st century scientific concepts. Example:

 

[Think...]

I'm just pointing out that it's a pre scientific concepts that a solid dome exists in the sky with an ocean over it, as described in Genesis. It's not reasonable to conclude that Genesis is speaking of modern 21st century scientific concepts.

There's no argument that it's NOT speaking of 21st century scientific concepts.

Christians should embrace what God teaches in His Word above and beyond all that is taught by man today.

Let God be True and every man a liar.
Romans 3:4

 

[Job 33:6]

There's no argument that it's NOT speaking of 21st century scientific concepts.

Christians should embrace what God teaches in His Word above and beyond all that is taught by man today.

Let God be True and every man a liar.
Romans 3:4

There is an argument that the description of the Genesis days are pre-scientific polemic. Which is what you aren't addressing.

Let's look at some more verses on the raqia:
And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Genesis 1:6

God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Genesis 1:7‭-‬8

And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
Genesis 1:14

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 7:11

the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Genesis 8:2

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the dome of the sky.”
Genesis 1:20

And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And the Lord stood beside him [or stood above it] and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring;
Genesis 28:12‭-‬13

and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Exodus 24:10

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Job 37:18

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, Which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18

can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
Job 37:18

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;
Isaiah 40:22

Over the heads of the living creatures there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads.
Ezekiel 1:22

And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.
Ezekiel 1:26

when he established the heavens, there I was, when he drew a circle upon the face of the deep, when he made skies from above, when he founded fountains of the deep, when he assigned his limits to the sea, that waters shall not transgress his command, when he marked the foundations of the earth,
Proverbs 8:27‭-‬29

And I looked, and look! On the expanse that was above the head of the cherubim something like a stone of sapphire, and like the appearance of the shape of a throne it appeared above them.
Ezekiel 10:1

He made firm the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed, When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
Proverbs 8:27‭-‬29

The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.
Revelation 6:14

 

[Think...]

There is an argument that the description of the Genesis days are pre-scientific polemic. Which is what you aren't addressing.

Of course they're pre-scientific. There's still no argument here. Address it all you like, you'll get no resistance from me.

Just understand that if you're making the case that the Genesis events, in their entirety, are in question based on their pre-existing science, there's no difference in that claim and claiming that the entire Bible is in question based on that fact.

As a professed Christian - you might want to re-think making that case.

I don't agree with that.

It is just the opposite for True Christians.

We believe that all of science, that disagrees with the Bible, is what is in question.

Not the other way around.

 

[Job 33:6]

Of course they're pre-scientific. There's still no argument here. Address it all you like, you'll get no resistance from me.

Just understand that if you're making the case that the Genesis events, in their entirety, are in question based on their pre-existing science, there's no difference in that claim and claiming that the entire Bible is in question based on that fact.

As a professed Christian - you might want to re-think making that case.

I don't agree with that.

It is just the opposite for True Christians.

We believe that all of science, that disagrees with the Bible, is what is in question.

Not the other way around.

If it's pre-scientific then why present scripture as if it's teaching scientific things? Such as the age of the earth?

In ancient near east cultures, they thought the earth was flat. And it's described right there in Genesis. So if you know that earth is not flat, then you know that the Bible isn't describing scientific concepts about scientific origins. Not accurately.

If Job says that the sky is hard like cast metal, and you know that the sky isn't actually a solid dome, then why argue that scripture is giving a scientific description of the sky? If you know that it's not.

And it's not about anything being "in question". The Bible just isn't a book of science. If a little girl walks up to you and says "God made my baby brother", you wouldn't say "everything this girl says is brought into question". Rather you could say "yea that little girl is right", it's just not scientific because obviously babies are made through biological means. But that's not what the little girl is describing. Just as the Bible isn't describing science.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here's another example:

The Bible isn't talking about dinosaurs when it describes the Leviathan. The Bible isn't teaching paleontology.

So if you walk up to someone and you tell them that the Bible is teaching them that dinosaurs walked with mankind because that's what the Bible says, then obviously that's a misrepresentation of scripture. Because it's not a science textbook.

 

[dqhall]

Here's another example:

The Bible isn't talking about dinosaurs when it describes the Leviathan. The Bible isn't teaching paleontology.

So if you walk up to someone and you tell them that the Bible is teaching them that dinosaurs walked with mankind because that's what the Bible says, then obviously that's a misrepresentation of scripture. Because it's not a science textbook.

The Bible condensed the story of the creation of the world into a few verses. It is not an unabridged resource about plate tectonics, isostacy, normal faulting, reverse faulting or other structural geology. It is not a source for economic geology describing the occurrences of copper deposits in Arizona or coal deposits in Wyoming. Those who wrote the Bible did not report finding fossils of megladon, a sixty foot shark.
How big was megladon shark?

 

[Think...]

If it's pre-scientific then why present scripture as if it's teaching scientific things? Such as the age of the earth?

Not sure how I've presented it AS IF it's teaching scientific things. Some things are simply True whether science agrees, or can measure, or has even detected them, or not.

And all the physical aspects of the earth that the Bible describes are detectable by science.

In ancient near east cultures, they thought the earth was flat. And it's described right there in Genesis. So if you know that earth is not flat, then you know that the Bible isn't describing scientific concepts about scientific origins. Not accurately.

You are trusting in science without any empirical evidence of your own to support that faith. You are making science your religion by doing so. Anything you have faith in without proof, is a religion. It is a Faith. Science IS a religion for much of the world. And it is YOUR religion if that is how you see it.

I don't KNOW that the earth isn't flat and neither do you, but you TRUST science blindly.

I do not.

I trust the Bible. And the Bible has been proven to be correct over and over again for millennia.

Science has been proven to be wrong over and over again throughout the centuries, and even ADMITS to being wrong about absolutely everything multiple times in a decade.

If Job says that the sky is hard like cast metal, and you know that the sky isn't actually a solid dome, then why argue that scripture is giving a scientific description of the sky? If you know that it's not.

I don't know that at all, and neither do you. But again, you take it on faith because science, your god, tells you so and you believe it blindly.

If Job says the sky is like cast metal, you'd better get up there yourself, personally, and prove that it isn't before you go around informing the world that God's Word is incorrect or you'd better renounce your profession as a Christian.

Because a Christian does NOT diminish God's Word and certainly doesn't go around preaching AGAINST what God's Word teaches.

If the God of the Bible is your God, you'd better think twice before speaking out against what that Bible states plainly.

Your hang-up on science is a dead-giveaway of where your faith truly lies. And it doesn't lie with God and His Word.

Science is of man. The Bible is of God.

Let God be the Truth ... and every man a LIAR.
Romans 3:4

 

[Job 33:6]

If Job says the sky is like cast metal, you'd better get up there yourself, personally, and prove that it isn't before you go around informing the world that God's Word is incorrect or you'd better renounce your profession as a Christian.

Are you one of those people who denies that the moon landing ever happened? I'm pretty sure the sky is not hard like metal. Can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
Job 37:18

 

[Job 33:6]

The Bible condensed the story of the creation of the world into a few verses. It is not an unabridged resource about plate tectonics, isostacy, normal faulting, reverse faulting or other structural geology. It is not a source for economic geology describing the occurrences of copper deposits in Arizona or coal deposits in Wyoming. Those who wrote the Bible did not report finding fossils of megladon, a sixty foot shark.
How big was megladon shark?View attachment 324188

I agree

 

[Think...]

Are you one of those people who denies that the moon landing ever happened?

Are you one of those people who lives, and works, on Internet Discussion Forums, railing against any and all opposition to the mainstream media's explanations of all things?

I'm pretty sure the sky is not hard like metal.

I'm pretty sure you have no rock-solid proof of that and that you've never been there.

That's pretty naive.

How do you justify your profession as a Christian if you cherry-pick its teachings? That's not faith, nor submission to something greater than your self.

That's making up your own god and your own religion that you feel comfortably coincides with all mainstream sentiment so that there's no challenge, or endurance, in your walk at all.

If you're walking with the world, ... you are the world.

And the God of the Bible's not too fond of the world.

1 John 2:15