The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[mindlight]

#3 YEC is my position. My basic view is that science cannot be used with any degree of reliability to establish the truthes or otherwise of remote cosmology, origins, important features of human nature including that of thought and spiritual reflection, love etc

Since there are no experiments that can be done to conclusively demonstrate Old Universe ,macro-evolution, ubiogenesis etc. and since an argument from analogy is not a proof, the only honest scientific view is to say I don't know and cannot say.

Given this view of the science and a high reverence for the truth of scripture, a miraculous reading of life and established church traditions, Young earth creationism seems like the most honest position to take. Though I do get annoyed at some Creationists who assert that science supports their view. I am interested in the questions that Creation scientists raise more than their conclusions or arguments because it is also my view that the science cannot by its very nature support their conclusions either.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Since there are no experiments that can be done to conclusively demonstrate Old Universe ,macro-evolution, ubiogenesis etc. and since an argument from analogy is not a proof, the only honest scientific view is to say I don't know and cannot say.

Wrong. The motion of the physical objects in the visible Universe, the heat of the Universe and the various 'mapping' experiments of the Universe ALL agree with the calculated age of the Universe. As do any number of geological experiments around the world.

The biological stuff I'll leave to someone else, not being very interested in that field and claiming very little knowledge.

Given this view of the science...

You can have any view you want. Upon what do you base that view?

...it is also my view that the science cannot by its very nature support their conclusions either.

As I have demonstrated, that 'view' of yours is very shaky.

 

[mindlight]

Wrong. The motion of the physical objects in the visible Universe, the heat of the Universe and the various 'mapping' experiments of the Universe ALL agree with the calculated age of the Universe. As do any number of geological experiments around the world.

Trigonometry based on electromagnetic signatures is hardly conclusive when 97% of the mass of the universe cannot be mapped in this way. Even if dark matter proves a myth or we improve our theory of gravity to explain what we can see another way then it is still clear we are only guessing when it comes to remote cosmology. There is no certainty there on which you can base biblical scepticism.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

mindlight, you have no certainty to dismiss scientific exploration.

And before you want to defend that aspect of things, the English language account in the King James Bible is not totally adequate for any theory. Too many of the words in the Hebrew are errantly or inadequately translated.

 

[GBTG]

Mindlight are you a scientist? I am... While I agree that that neither theology nor science can show absolute proof of their perspective position, one cannot dismiss facts. We are typing on key boards that utilize energy, we understand how this energy works, we do not know how it was created. I am in direct opposition to you in regard to science. I believe science is the discovery of natural laws God created. We could not be here if it were not for gravity. Is gravity then biblical or scientific? Because scientists try to understand how something works does not make it any less a creation of God. In regard to where I fall on the post topic, #5.

Regards, GBTG

 

[mindlight]

Mindlight are you a scientist? I am... While I agree that that neither theology nor science can show absolute proof of their perspective position, one cannot dismiss facts. We are typing on key boards that utilize energy, we understand how this energy works, we do not know how it was created. I am in direct opposition to you in regard to science. I believe science is the discovery of natural laws God created. We could not be here if it were not for gravity. Is gravity then biblical or scientific? Because scientists try to understand how something works does not make it any less a creation of God. In regard to where I fall on the post topic, #5.

Regards, GBTG

I do not dismiss facts but there is a difference between experimental science which can demonstrate what it says and speculative science which rates itself by its explanatory power but has little relevance and may be entirely wrong.

 

[GBTG]

I do not dismiss facts but there is a difference between experimental science which can demonstrate what it says and speculative science which rates itself by its explanatory power but has little relevance and may be entirely wrong.

So what is wrong with applying the science which can be proven to the factual events of the Bible? This supports or bolsters the validity of the Bible, does it not? Again supporting evidence if you will... As a #5, I will not state the actual timing or age of the Earth. However I also understand that most of the none "speculative science" can surely demonstrate an Earth older the ~6000 years. Just as the rings of a tree, so does geology demonstrate age to some degree. The existence of fossils also demonstrates an observable bookmark if you will to an age. Now this is where I have a hard time with YEC belief...

I will not limit God and would agree that if he wanted to make everything appear old he certainly could have, that said why would he? I believe this to be illogical. If we can agree God is perfect, and therefore infallible, does this also demonstrate that he would be perfectly logical? Or to put it another way would God write or inform the human race in an illogical manner? To my mind then, we humans have erred in the intended message getting hung up on "Days" or "Yom". We are fallible God is not. Just because the notion is popular or accepted does not mean it is accurate. For centuries man thought the world was flat, for centuries man thought the world was the center of the universe, for centuries man has believed that "Day" was an actual 24hr day in Genesis... I believe there is enough provable science to account Genesis accurate if we can get past the "days" argument. That is my 2 cents.

Warm regards, GBTG

PS I am more than willing to concede my OEC view if a logical YEC view can be presented that accounts for a logical order of the book of Genesis.

 

[mindlight]

So what is wrong with applying the science which can be proven to the factual events of the Bible? This supports or bolsters the validity of the Bible, doe it not? Again supporting evidence if you will... As a #5, I will not state the actual timing or age of the Earth. However I also understand that most of the none "speculative science" can surely demonstrate an Earth older the ~6000 years. Just as the rings of a tree, so does geology demonstrate age to some degree. The existence of fossils also demonstrates an observable bookmark if you will to an age. Now this is where I have a hard time with YEC belief...

I will not limit God and would agree that if he wanted to make everything appear old he certainly could have, that said why would he? I believe this to be illogical. If we can agree God is perfect, and therefore infallible, does this also demonstrate that he would be perfectly logical? Or to put it another way would God write or inform the human race in an illogical manner? To my mind then, we humans have erred in the intended message getting hung up on "Days" or "Yom". We are fallible God is not. Just because the notion is popular or accepted does not mean it is accurate. For centuries man thought the world was flat, for centuries man thought the world was the center of the universe, for centuries man has believed that "Day" was an actual 24hr day in Genesis... I believe there is enough provable science to account Genesis accurate if we can gets past the "days" argument. That is my 2 cents.

Warm regards, GBTG

PS I am more than willing to concede my OEC view if a logical YEC view can be presented that accounts for a logical order of the book of Genesis.

There are no trees older than 6000 years. Regarding fossils the facts are that we see different fossils in different layers of what was probably sedimentary rock. The assumptions we make about radiometric dating and geological ages are speculative these could also have been laid down in a single catastrophic event. The YEC position best fits scripture.

 

[GBTG]

I beg to differ on the tree argument... http://http://www.scripture4all.org...osone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0008346 ~13,000 years old. I did not bring up dating in any fashion other than observable. Geological dating may be speculative... It does however demonstrate sedimentary layers containing fossils from vastly different eras. These time points do demonstrate greater than ~6000 years regardless of any measurement or calculation you want to discredit. This has been the crux of my argument. Why would a perfectly logical, perfectly good, all knowing God, need to trick us into a actual 24hr. period? To better demonstrate this point I want to skip any translation and go right to the Hebrew. I cannot read Hebrew and cannot speak the language! It looks like hieroglyphics to me... That said here is a direct English translation from http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen1.pdf

Genesis 1:1-2 "in·beginning, Elohim (God), created, the·heavens, and, the·earth, and·the·earth, she-became, chaos, and·vacancy, and·darkness, over, surfaces-of, abyss, and·spirit-of, Elohim, vibrating, over, surfaces-of, the·waters."

Genesis 1:3-5 "and·he-is-saying, Elohim, he-shall-become, he-is-becoming, light, and·he-is-seeing, Elohim, the·light, good, and·he-is-separating, Elohim, between, the·light, and·between, the·darkness, and·he-is-calling, Elohim, to·the·light, and·to·the·darkness, and·he-is-becoming, evening, and·he-is-becoming, morning, day, one"

In the Hebrew the "earth" I take to mean matter or atoms in Genesis 1:1-2 for what else could be vibrating through the will of God? It does not say spinning... or orbit... It also states vacancy, surface of an abyss (how deep is space?), why would a perfect God make the earth just to have it destroyed by the fall? This is illogical!

The literal scripture does not support a formed Earth, it is described as the opposite. Again the "earth" is vibrating... again is it possible that God spoke about atoms prior to Moses's understanding they could exist? Is it possible that God has just described all atoms and matter and not just the Earth proper? I believe man has more than demonstrated his arrogance in regard to his position in the universe. How is YEC any different? The Bible has to be true, and it has to be true for all time! If God is just separating light form dark and there is no Earth (chaos, vacancy, void, abyss) how can you have a 24hr. period? Lastly from who's perspective is the time given? As I understand it God is telling man the order and timing of creation, from His perspective... If that is true how long is a "day" to God, or is that too illogical, as God is outside of time?! The Bible itself does not literally support a 24hr. "day". Therefore a "day" in Genesis does not mean a 24hr. time period, but rather an unspecified time for those things that God has willed to happen to take place, before the next "day" of creation. This too is logical for God has shown that He created matter before gravity, gravity before time, etc.

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[Dan Brooks]

I am a number 3 for various biblical, doctrinal, and theological reasons. I'm even ok with number 2 if that's the way it is. I just don't see the Bible teaching that. But I'm ambivalent about it. What I don't like is when geocentrists say that if you're not a geocentrist then you don't believe the Bible. Because it isn't about belief, it's about interpretation when it comes to that.
As for my reasons for being number 3, I have a few.
1. It really is the most reasonable reading of Genesis 1 and 2. How can the evening and the morning being a day be interpreted to be millions of years? Where else in Scripture is an evening or morning equated with an eon of time? And it also says that God called all His creation very good. Would God call it very good after millions of years of death and carnage and disease brought on by the evolutionary process? And also it says that God formed Adam out of the ground, and actually breathed the breath of life into him. So how can that be interpreted to mean that Adam came from a long line of animals, then semi-humans, then pseudo-humans, and then finally, a completely sentient being with a soul, called Adam? I mean, feel free to believe that's what happened, but that's not what the Bible teaches.

2. The Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 reiterate the six days of creation.
God speaking:
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

3. The Bible clearly teaches that death was the direct result of sin. By sin, death came into the world. But evolution requires death to have come about long before sin, since there was no sin on earth until Adam sinned. So the evolutionary process defies one of the most fundamental doctrines of Scripture.

There are other reasons as well, (more biblical reasons and scientific reasons) but those are the three main reasons I have.

 

[Dedication]

I tend to find myself somewhere between #3 and#4, yet not fully agreeing with either position.

I do believe the Genesis account of earth's creation took place in six literal days about 6000 years ago. Yet there was history previous to those six days. Hosts of angels were already in existence. Sort of in the line John Milton's "Paradise Lost", one third of these angels rebelled against God's authority, led by Lucifer. (Texts Rev. 12, Isaiah 14). Rev. 12 says there was war in heaven. 1/3 of those thousand times 10 thousand, and thousands of thousands of angels, went to war against God. --
What happens in war? Destruction, violence.
Sin is the cause of destruction, violence and death. There is no destruction, violence and death in a perfect world.
But when rebellion broke out with its sinful passions, there was destruction, violence and death. When those angels went to war against Michael and His angels it wasn't just verbal. This earth, in whatever condition it had been in before, was left in utter chaos, and probably a lot of other planets, moons.
But Lucifer and his angels "prevailed not" -- limits were placed upon them. Jude 1:6 says they are chained.
Notice in Genesis 1:2, the earth was already there prior to the first day of creation -- it was in a state of chaos.
God created it perfect in those six days and entrusted it to the newly created humans (Adam and Eve) . Satan (Lucifer) was not allowed to harass them but he was only allowed access to the tree of knowledge of good and evil -- for he is the originator of evil -- he's the one who teaches evil. As long as Adam and Eve believed God's words and stayed away from the forbidden fruit, they would never have to know evil.
Destruction, violence, and death is the result of sin and rebellion and disbelief in God. And when Adam and Eve believed Satan's words of doubt on God's character and commands, they opened the door for rebellion and for the author of rebellion to sweep across the earth and bring destruction and all the evil we see today.

So yes, I believe the universe is much, older than six thousand or so years -- yet the six days of creation of a perfect world, recorded in Genesis are six literal days which took place about six thousand years ago.
I do not believe that God used any part of death and destruction cycles to create.

 

[YahwahIsTheWay]

I believe in a young Earth and believe that science actually supports that position more than people give credit for. When we look at how time actually flows throughout the universe we see that it isn't static. In some places it flows faster and in others it moves slower dependent on gravity, space, mass, etc. A good example of that 'locally' is how the atomic clocks in Greenwich and (I believe) Colorado are different times but they are both 'right.' One happens to be far higher above sealevel than the other which is why the difference occurs. Now, if we extrapolate that theory back over time and think about the geological changes that the Earth has gone through that we know about, it is completely feasible that radiocarbon dating is both accurate and misleading. Sure, we can measure the half-life of the atom accurately, but if time flowed differently over time can we be sure of the billions (or even millions) of years theories? Use that over the universe, throwing in mass and gravitational changes we see occurring every day, and we are even less sure of the billions/millions of years theories. If we are to believe in a 'Big Bang' (which can easily be used in science OR the Bible to describe creation), wouldn't time move much, much faster in those first few moments when gravity and mass is exploding out from the point of creation? We may perceive it as millions/billions of years through our current understanding of the universe based on our current set of physics laws, but those things change and have in the past.

 

[BobRyan]

4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old Earth Creationism) - Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the "young earth" time frame. <snip>
.

That shortened version of your option 4 - the right one -- it fits the Bible but does not need to shoehorn all of the universe into that literal 7 day week in Genesis 1-2 because God made "two lights" on day 4 and not "a zillion and two"

 

[Dan Brooks]

That shortened version of your option 4 - the right one -- it fits the Bible but does not need to shoehorn all of the universe into that literal 7 day week in Genesis 1-2 because God made "two lights" on day 4 and not "a zillion and two"

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. <-- so there's your "zillion and two."

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

yet clearly "the stars" (ie the entire universe) are not included in "the two great lights made on day 4" -- as we probably both agree.

Where we differ is that the text says on day 4 he only made two lights -- we both agree that the universe was made by Him - but the text does not require that that be on day 4 where only two lights were made.

As a result -
1. The angels already existed before Earth existed
2. The fall of Lucifer had already happened
3. It is the devil, Satan, who used to be Lucifer - that is working through the snake in Eden to tempt Eve.

All of that pre-history in the already created universe - ready for the Genesis 3 fall of mankind -- on time and under budget so to speak

 

[Dan Brooks]

So what is wrong with applying the science which can be proven to the factual events of the Bible? This supports or bolsters the validity of the Bible, does it not? Again supporting evidence if you will... As a #5, I will not state the actual timing or age of the Earth. However I also understand that most of the none "speculative science" can surely demonstrate an Earth older the ~6000 years. Just as the rings of a tree, so does geology demonstrate age to some degree. The existence of fossils also demonstrates an observable bookmark if you will to an age. Now this is where I have a hard time with YEC belief...

I will not limit God and would agree that if he wanted to make everything appear old he certainly could have, that said why would he? I believe this to be illogical. If we can agree God is perfect, and therefore infallible, does this also demonstrate that he would be perfectly logical? Or to put it another way would God write or inform the human race in an illogical manner? To my mind then, we humans have erred in the intended message getting hung up on "Days" or "Yom". We are fallible God is not. Just because the notion is popular or accepted does not mean it is accurate. For centuries man thought the world was flat, for centuries man thought the world was the center of the universe, for centuries man has believed that "Day" was an actual 24hr day in Genesis... I believe there is enough provable science to account Genesis accurate if we can get past the "days" argument. That is my 2 cents.

Warm regards, GBTG

PS I am more than willing to concede my OEC view if a logical YEC view can be presented that accounts for a logical order of the book of Genesis.

Fossils don't indicate long age. They indicate quick burial.

 

[Dan Brooks]

yet clearly "the stars" (ie the entire universe) are not included in "the two great lights made on day 4" -- as we probably both agree.

Where we differ is that the text says on day 4 he only made two lights -- we both agree that the universe was made by Him - but the text does not require that that be on day 4 where only two lights were made.

As a result -
1. The angels already existed before Earth existed
2. The fall of Lucifer had already happened
3. It is the devil, Satan, who used to be Lucifer - that is working through the snake in Eden to tempt Eve.

All of that pre-history in the already created universe - ready for the Genesis 3 fall of mankind -- on time and under budget so to speak

It says that He made the stars also in the same exact verse as when He made the two lights. Why would we not assume that He made the stars on the same day as He made the two lights? That's why I posted that verse. It's pretty clear that He made the stars on the same day He made the sun and the moon. The text does not say that God ONLY made two great lights on day four. It says that He made two great lights on day four, and also the stars. There is no reason to disclude the stars from the 4th day of creation.

 

[BobRyan]

It says that He made the stars also in the same exact verse as when He made the two lights.

It says on day 4 "He made TWO great lights".

But after that - a parenthetical addition that God is the one who created the entire universe.

Both statements are true.

On day 4 God only made Two great lights.
But God is the one who also made the entire universe.

Why would we not assume that He made the stars on the same day as He made the two lights?

Some people do assume that... others don't since the number given is "two" for day four. And since going that route explains a lot of things that we see in Genesis 3.

 

[Percivale]

Fossils don't indicate long age. They indicate quick burial.

No matter what the age of the earth, fossils were buried quickly; the question is whether they were buried in one global flood or lots of little floods and hurricanes, etc. That's a testable question: if it was one global flood the quantities of each kind of fossils should roughly match the quantities of creatures alive today, while many local floods would result in a lot more fossils of creatures that live at the seashore or other places that flood often, which is what we see; it is one reason why index fossils are generally shells.

 

[BobRyan]

No matter what the age of the earth, fossils were buried quickly; the question is whether they were buried in one global flood or lots of little floods and hurricanes, etc. That's a testable question: if it was one global flood the quantities of each kind of fossils should roughly match the quantities of creatures alive today, while many local floods would result in a lot more fossils of creatures that live at the seashore or other places that flood often, which is what we see; it is one reason why index fossils are generally shells.

When in fact it is a combination of both. .Lots of local events - and one big global one.