The impact of YEC'ism

[SBG]

How about the belief that Jesus isn't God or that Jesus didn't raise from the dead? Do you think those are worse than YEC, invisible trousers?

 

[invisible trousers]

are those arguments being set forth by fundamentalist christians? no.

 

[Delta One]

rmwilliamsll:

doesn't the fact that God has no need for rest, the fact that the 7th day in Gen 1 is still continuing, that the pattern is a human one, etc etc all point to the fact that this is an anthropomorphism? do you actually believe God rested for 24 hrs. what about providence, lest God stop upholding the universe the elements themselves cease to exist.

God rested from His creative work. Of course God has no need for rest, but He did so to set an example for us to follow. God told the Israelities work for six [literal] days like He did in the creation of the universe and take a day of rest and a break from work like Him.


this is not true and has reach the frequency of a PRATT here.

Calling it a PRATT convinces no one of anything. How has it and how can it be refuted? Listen to what the Bible clearly says:

"I have provided all kinds of grain and all kinds of fruit for you to eat; but for all the wild animals and for all the birds I have provided grass and leafy plants for food" (Quoted God from Genesis 1:29-30).

Evolution is a ghastly process filled with death, suffering and bloodshed. Animals have been, according to evolutionary theory, ripping each other apart for millions of years before mankind came onto the scene. Thus I was indeed correct in claiming that the evolutionists who believe the Bible have to reject what God says in His Word in order to accomodate for man's fallible theory.

wrong, evil are moral catagories, sciences says NOTHING about morality, about values, about good and evil. it is descriptive never prescriptive in these realms. that is the naturalist fallacy at work, overtime.

You just totally missed my point. I wasn't referring to the above. Let me once again define my position:

The Bible speaks of a time when this creation will be restored - that is, put back to what it used to be. This itself indicates that something is dreadfully wrong with todays world. For Christians who accept evolution, Paul's words about the whole of creation groaning and travailing in pain are meaningless. The same is true when one speaks of the new heaven and new earth in which, as Scripture tells us, "righteousness dwells." Why is there need of a new heaven and new Earth unless there is something wrong with the old one? Isaiah 11:69 tells us what it will be like in the new heaven and the new Earth:

Wolves and sheep will live together in peace, and leopards will lie down with young goats. Calves and lion cubs will feed together, and little children will take care of them. Cows and bears will eat together, and their calves and cubs will lie down in peace. Lions will eat straw as cattle do. Even a baby will not be harmed if it plays near a poisonous snake. On Zion, God's holy hill, there will be nothing harmful or evil. The land will be as full of knowledge of the LORD as the seas are full of water.

Here the description indicates that animals will not eat eacho other, but will eat plants (vegetarian) - and that tere will be no violence or suffering. Revelation 22:3 tells us, "And there shall be no more curse." Revelations 21:4 states: "He will wipe away all tears from their eyes. There will be no more death, no more grief or crying or pain. The old things have disappeared."

The discription of what will happen in the restoration of all things can be summarized as follows: no death, no suffering, no bloodshed, no curse, vegetarian animals, no tears, no crying, no pain. This certainly is not a description of todays wold - yet it is a description of a restoration, of something that reflects its former state.

When we read Genesis 1, 2 we find a description of the original creation - no death, no violence, animals vegetarian. In other words, this present creation will be restored to what it used to be because there is someting dreadfully wrong with it at the moment. If a person accepts evolution, then what is the restoration going to be? Deaeth, struggle, and violence as we see today? Of course, this makes nonsense of the teachings of the new heavenand new Earth given in the Scripture.

I hope that this, from Ken Ham's book The Lie: Evolution you may now undertsand what I was talking about and where my argument was leading to. I thought that it was a pretty self-explainatory example myself...

bull, i think that the framework interpretation is how to approach Gen1, i think adam was a historical man, how is this rejecting 1/2 of the Scriptures? i deny that God is teaching us historical scientific order in the days of creation, i think that they are meant to be seen as 24 hr periods. where does this lead to ????

Obviously that was an over statement - I didn't expect you to take it literally (hey, what do you know, I made a joke out of that! lol )...

Then if God is not teaching us the order of creation in His book, then isn't He lying as He said that He made 'X' on day 'Y'?

Also, there are many different non-literalist interpretations on this forum that it is hard to keep track of who believes what and who doesn't. Sorry.

Using your set of beliefs, if you only reject the order of creation and believe everything else, then you would have a basis for the Gospel. When one destroys Adam and Eve and their sin and the direct consequences of that, i.e. death (physical and spirtual), they have just destroyed the very reason why Jesus' Earthly life was made necessary.

not in Gen 1 which is where YECists get all there young earth principles. i think gen2-5 are historical and happened 6-8K years ago, i am a providential evolutionist as well. you are simply unaware of the diversity of opinion on the issues and paint everyone with the same wide brush.

Although above answers some of this - e.g. my 'lack of knoweldge of the diversity of opinion' I feel that I have to say that one cannot know your specific beliefs if one is not told. You have never stated the above in blue before, at least not to me and not in any posts that I have read. It should be your duty to explain to people what you believe before you call them ignorant for not knowing your beliefs when they were not told. Um please forgive my ignorance, but how can you believe in evolution and yet still take Genesis 2 literally or as an 'historical event'? Genesis 2 tells us how God made man from dust and the woman from his side (which is totally contradictory to what evolution teaches about man evolving from animals over eons of years). I find that a bit contradictory...

Also, why do you not take Genesis 1 literally, but the few chapters as history? What Biblical evidence leads you to this conclusion? How is Genesis 2 written differently to Genesis 1?

Evolution teaches that for millions of years before man, things have lived and died. They have fought and struggled, killed and been killed. It was a world without mercy - 'nature red in tooth and claw'. The history of evolution is a history of death. Death has been 'from the beginning'. The Bible, however, clearly teaches that death, particularly the physical and spirtual death of man, entered the world only after the first man, Adam sinned.

In Romans 5:12 the apostle Paul wrote: "Wherefore, as by one an sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." In 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." In Genesis 3:22-23 we read: "And the LORD God said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever": Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." Adam was sent out of the garden so that he could not live forever. In other words, he would have to die.

Since there was no bloodshed before Adam sinned: everything was perfect and death was not a part of animal existence. However, Adam did sin; and God, in giving His covenant to Adam, had laid down the condition that death was to be the 'reward' of disobedience. We then read that God Himself was the first shedder of blood, because He gave Adam and Eve coasts of skin to cover their nakedness (Gen. 3:21). There is no specific command recorded, but we do know that Abel 'also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering' (Gen. 4:4). It is evident, then, that the requirement of an offering of blood was understood. The writer of Hebrews observes that 'without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins' (Heb. 9:22). God fulfilled two undertakings after the Fall:
a. that man should die as the penalty for his sin; and
b. that the seed of the woman will bruise the serpents head, and the serpent will bruise his heel.

So death and bloodshed are the consequences of sin; the penalty which Christ, the Last Adam, bore by His death and shedding of blood on the cross but triumphed over death in His glorious resurrection for the redemption of man. If death and bloodshed existed before man sinned, the redemption message is nonsense.

Evolution says that death and bloodshed existed virtually from the beginning. Millions of years of animals fighting for survival - shedding blood and eating each other - is part of the mechanisms of evoution which brought man into existence. It is completely contrary to the Biblical history of the world.

Evolution says death pluss struggle brought man into existence; the Bible says man's actions led to sin, which led to death. These two are totally contradictory. If evolution were true, then the reason Christ died on the cross has been destroyed.

the age of the earth is not a religious issue it is a scientific one.
specifically what religious belief from outside the scriptures are you refering to?

I never even referred to the age of the universe/Earth, so I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. By 'religious belief outside the Bible' that I was referring to was obviously what you believe about our origin, i.e. evolution.

I know that this is a pretty big claim to make for those who don't fully understand the nature of the debate, so let me extrapolate on this. It doesn't take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion, so this short proof should be suffice. Science, of course, involves observation using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world, and to be able to repeat the observations and experiment on them whenever possible. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the big bang that is supposed to have occurred 13 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. No scientist was there - no human witness was there t osee these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today!

All the evidence a scientist has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe - in fact, everything - exists now, in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only teh present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (i.e. fossils, animals, and plants, etc.) originated.

Webster's Dictionary defines religion as follows: "Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Surely, this is an apt description of evolution. Evolution is a belief system - a religion!

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But, the beliefs that these models are built on are not. The problems is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not science!

Lastly, I'm sorry if I've come across as being harsh when answering you. I don't mean to and I do try my best to treat people with respect. I guess it's apart of being human and it's very good to know that when we trust in Jesus, our sins are forgotten and sent to the 'ocean floor'.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, there is conterversy over what the Bible says about Jesus Christ and His resurrection. We have Mormons who don't believe the same about who Jesus is. Jehovah Witnesses do not believe the same. There are others who claim they are Christians and do not believe what is emphatically taught in the New Testament about Jesus.

But are they representative of Christianity? No. They are like the odd hold-outs and mavericks you find in science. For example, current scientific consensus---backed by much evidence---is that birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs. But you still have this Feduccia fellow--bona fide scientist--who continues to disagree. (He is still holding on to the alternate of a crocodilian ancestry for birds.) The disagreement of one or two individuals/sects does not mean there is no consensus if you define consensus as around 95% agreement.

I just don't agree that we need a consensus on what the Bible teaches before we can be dogmatic about what the Bible teaches. As far as Christians as a whole, there is not a consensus about who Jesus Christ is, yet I and you will be dogmatic about who He is.

I don't think we need a consensus to preach our convictions with passion, but where there is substantial difference of opinion among Christians, that passion should not go so far as to reject the possibility that those who disagree with us may be right. If one is preaching in favour of believer's baptism, for example, I find nothing wrong with amassing the scriptural support in favour of it and saying forthrightly:" I believe there is no question that scripture calls for believer's baptism." At the same time there should be acknowledgment that not all Christians agree on this and so this is one's personal interpretation (or the interpretation of one's denomination) and not a requirement of Christian faith.

IMO, that is the way literal 6-day creation should be taught.

I will also be dogmatic about the fall of mankind, how it happened, who was involved, and what the consequences of it are, because that is what Paul teaches dogmatically.

I have no problem with that. All of that fits into a non-literal interpretation of the relevant passages. Remember, a non-literal interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean it refers to non-literal events. I agree entirely with the literal reality of the fall, of sin and its consequences.

Sounds good. I see we can agree that scientific theories can begin with a belief. And if it does begin with a belief that belief can persuade people to find whatever evidence they are looking for.

A scientist who stopped with looking for evidence to support her hypothesis would not last long in the scientific world. A theory must explain all relevant evidence, including evidence that at first glance appears to be non-supportive or contradictory. It must also make correct and testable predictions about future observations.

In another thread I was explaining to someone why science must be public. This is the reason: so that it can be exposed to critique from other scientists in the field. There are all sorts of nine-day wonders that don't pan out (remember cold fusion?). The scientific theories with staying power are the ones which go beyond finding some supportive evidence to explaining--to the satisfaction of the vast majority of scientists in the field--all relevant evidence and successfully predicting new observations based on the theory.

This is also why AiG, ICR, etc. fail to be scientific. They only look for supportive evidence and do not carry through to explain all the relevant evidence. When they come across evidence they can't explain, they bury it in silence, never referring to it. (See some of glen morton's threads in the open forum for evidence never mentioned on creationist sites.) This selective use of evidence is not permitted in science.

I think faith comes in, not necessarily for the scientists but for those who are not scientists that believe what the scientists tell them. Faith basically means trust. And I think it would be correct to say you that have trust in those scientists to be correct about the evolutionary theory. If so, saying you faith in them being correct and their theory being correct would be saying the same thing.

To some extent that is right, but it is really no different than having faith that when plumbers agree on what a plumbing problem is and what the solution is, they are probably right. Experts are not always right, but the probability that they are right about their field of expertise is greater than the probability that a randomly-selected group of people will be. We also have the example of science being flexible enough to change its theories to fit the evidence and that adds to its credibility. So it makes sense to me, as a scientific lay-person, to rely on science unless and until it gives me a reason not to. Just as I rely on a consensus of theological opinion to guide my explorations of scripture until I have a reason not to.

Yeah that is what I meant, dark matter. heh thanks for correcting me!

I admit I am not very knowledgable on dark matter. I had thought I had heard that there was no evidence for it, but it was a belief that it exists.

Here is a fairly simple, and fun, tutorial on dark matter and the evidence it exists.

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm0.html

I guess we then would disagree with this verse:

[font=ARIAL,HELVETICA,TIMES ROMAN]"And He gave unto Moses ... two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." "And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables." Exodus 31:18; 32:16.

The writer follows up what is written in Exodus 20:11: "[/font]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." with saying God wrote this by His own hand, and the writing was the writing of God.

Not at all. The tablets are not part of scripture and never have been. They are also long since lost.

Do you see any difficulties in taking Genesis mythically, even though the order of creation is out of line with your belief of how it happened?

No. None. I just see that an exact chronological order was not a priority with the biblical author. He had no way of knowing what the actual chronological order was, so he organized the events of creation logically and thematically and used a 6-day framework to press the theology of the sabbath, which was important to him.

Well it wouldn't be too hard for the author to just rewrite what God actually wrote on the tablets with His own finger. And I think Moses would have thought it a sin to not write exactly what was written on the Ten Commandments.

Yet, according to the thesis that Moses did write all the Torah, he did just that, because the wording of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy is not identical to the wording of the Ten Commandments in Exodus. This is especially noteworthy in reference to the commandment on the sabbath. There is no way that both records of the Ten Commandments are an exact transcription of what was on the tablets, and no reason to prefer the Exodus version to the Deuteronomy version.

I believe Exodus records the full written text of what is given by God in the Ten Commandments and Deut. is a reflection on what was written, not an actual transcription of what was written.

And what is the basis for this belief? I see no greater reason for Exodus being an actual transcription than for Deuteronomy being an exact transcription and vice versa. So to me this belief is illogical.

It was God who actual wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger on those tablets.

Agreed. But the question is who wrote Exodus and Deuteronomy.

I understand your position and I assume you understand mine. I see this evidence that you suggest is against my belief, as not evidence but an interpretation of evidence that has been based on a belief to not believe there is a Creator.

Yet, by now, you are certainly clear that I and other TEs do believe in a Creator. And that as Christian TEs we believe the God proclaimed in the bible is that Creator. So there is no motive or necessity to interpret the evidence according to an atheistic belief. Yet, the evidence is still there, and no other satisfactory interpretation exists at this point in time.

There are other interpretations to this evidence as well.

No, there are not. It is not just that I find them unconvincing; there are many instances in which another interpretation simply does not exist. Or for which the proferred alternative simply does not account for all the evidence. To take but one example, no alternative interpretation accounts for the geographic and stratigraphic distribution of fossil species.

May God continue to Bless you!

Thanks, and likewise.

 

[gluadys]

What you say here may very well be true. However, the important point, at least for me, is that AiG and others of their ilk place God's Word first and then attempt to have science support God's Word. TEs, IMO, do the opposite! Now, do AiG and others use only "good" science or selective science in order to bolster their positions? Probably so, but then again I think TEs do the same.

It is not the case that TEs use the same methodology as AiG, etc. See my response to SBG on the scientific necessity of dealing with all relevant evidence, not just supportive evidence, as AiG and other creationist sites do.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

reply to delta one's posting a few messages above.

no death before the fall is a PRATT, i won't bother to repost my essay on it from: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/deathfall.html you can read it there if you want.

the fundamental error that AiG and it's supporters make is that the death of animals is of no ethical importance. certainly the Scriptures make use of images and motifs, like the lion and the lamb lying down together etc, but these are anthropomorphisms that are teaching a lesson not a specific physical description of either heaven or pre-lapsarian existence. i see it as a dead horse. if i was unable to convince the YECists here that the breath of God in Gen2 is an anthropomorphism then persuading people that these images are not to be taken literally but are analogous to God's back and God's wings is impossible.

...................

There is a second idea in the posting that is interesting, it is embedded in this

I know that this is a pretty big claim to make for those who don't fully understand the nature of the debate, so let me extrapolate on this. It doesn't take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion, so this short proof should be suffice. Science, of course, involves observation using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world, and to be able to repeat the observations and experiment on them whenever possible. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the big bang that is supposed to have occurred 13 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. No scientist was there - no human witness was there t osee these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today!

All the evidence a scientist has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe - in fact, everything - exists now, in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only teh present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (i.e. fossils, animals, and plants, etc.) originated.

perhaps can be summed up as 'science deals with the present and can not deal with the distant past'.

It is the brains in the vat problem, last thursdayism, Decartes demon etc, all manifestations of the same philosophic problem of time. It has been discussed at length in philosophy classes for several hundred years. Essentially all science is in the past, the present is but a fleeing moment, not to trust past observations at some particular point is falling prey to the 'brains in a vat' problem. What science does is to slowly discount the past as more inaccessible or more difficult to talk about. What YECists do is to challenge the idea of uniformity of observation and posit this radical change at circa 10K years ago, essentially proposing this fundamental discontinuity of creation as a miracle without any possible naturalistic explanations. Just as in last thursdayism there is no real reply to it only a pointing out that there is no discontinuity in either the fossil record nor in the geological data.

then the YECists responds with the cry that uniformity is nothing more than an assumption. No, it is a conclusion from the data, it was a conclusion 200 years ago when the depth of the geological record was first discovered, it is a conclusion today as 1000's of scientists investigate the distant past. But like the 'brains in a vat' there is no proof, only persuasion to cast your lot one way or the other. But like 'death before the fall' it is a well defined and understood philosophic problem that i see no reasons to get deeply involved in, again.

a last obervation. TE's are a diverse lot, even here there are 3 or 4 distinct groupings, there is no party line or group like AiG to propose a single set of guidelines to believe. You need to be mildly aware of who is writing and where they come from, something that naturally occurs either with time or broad reading of past threads. Vance and i are the right wing, glaudys represents a more liberal strain probably pretty much the center of the spectrum, arty-bloke is more to the left representing the most common liberal view. That is one of the strengths of _Perspectives on an Evolving Creation_ as it outlines the spectrum of TE beliefs.

 

[shernren]

Can I ask you something, Delta? If animal death is wrong, then perpretrating animal death is a sin, right? So if God killed an animal, wouldn't that make our holy and perfect God a sinner? Therefore animal death cannot be morally wrong. What do you have to say to that?

To vossler:

What you say here may very well be true. However, the important point, at least for me, is that AiG and others of their ilk place God's Word first and then attempt to have science support God's Word. TEs, IMO, do the opposite! Now, do AiG and others use only "good" science or selective science in order to bolster their positions? Probably so, but then again I think TEs do the same.

Granted. But we are not rejecting or emending Scripture per se, we are rejecting or emending interpretations of Scripture.

I'm not a scientist. I can't and won't even attempt to get into scientific discussions to a level such as someone like yourself. Therefore, I'm not in a position to judge what AiG and other YEC sites promote as the truth. I will only say that what they say makes perfect sense to me and my very limited scientific knowledge. To be perfectly honest that's all I really need, that and of course the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Trust me, I'm no scientist myself. I've never even handled radioactive material before Well, what do you think of talkorigins then? Do you disagree with them because they contradict what you know of science, or because their theological implications don't match yours?

Good points about Paul, couldn't agree more. If I was in any way disrespectful please accept my humble apology. I pray I'll do better.

Oh no, I've never seen you being disrespectful towards me, but I'm sure I've said things that may have sounded disrespectful to others. I apologize too. We all need to learn from him.

Ahhh, but the Holy Spirit is also the source of wisdom and knowledge. He brought the nourishment they so desperately needed: The Truth!

I do pray that it is indeed Truth they have gained, the Truth of knowing God and fearing Him, instead of just scientific "truth" about a young earth.

I'll give you that, at least to a certain degree. At least up until someone changes the definition of the actual words of Genesis to mean something entirely different.

Do we do that?

And invisible trousers, I'd have to disagree. I think you're referring to creation science. YECism - the belief that the earth is young - may be correct, but creation science is extremely suspect.

Besides, there's also Left Behind, Prayer of Jabez, Purpose Driven Life, the prosperity gospel and the megachurch . But those belong in another forum.

 

[SBG]

Can I ask you something, Delta? If animal death is wrong, then perpretrating animal death is a sin, right? So if God killed an animal, wouldn't that make our holy and perfect God a sinner? Therefore animal death cannot be morally wrong. What do you have to say to that?

And if I may, if murdering a man/woman is a sin, then God having men and women killed, wouldn't that make Him a sinner? Is it not God who can and has killed the body and can kill the soul?

IF we are of the belief that God is not a sinner, then we may be able to understand that God is Sovereign over all things.

And invisible trousers, I'd have to disagree. I think you're referring to creation science. YECism - the belief that the earth is young - may be correct, but creation science is extremely suspect.

Besides, there's also Left Behind, Prayer of Jabez, Purpose Driven Life, the prosperity gospel and the megachurch . But those belong in another forum.

This might be a sore spot, but of those books, some being from fundamentalist, lead a lot of people to Jesus Christ. Greg Laurie, who is a funadmentalist, who believes in a six day creation, has lead millions to Jesus Christ. So, if you want to talk about the impact of YECism, let us not keep only to one aspect of the whole YECists, but look at all YECs do.

Would you say that this impact of leading millions to Jesus Christ is a bad thing that YECs have done?

 

[vossler]

Granted. But we are not rejecting or emending Scripture per se, we are rejecting or emending interpretations of Scripture.

True, but some of it comes awfully close.

Trust me, I'm no scientist myself. I've never even handled radioactive material before Well, what do you think of talkorigins then? Do you disagree with them because they contradict what you know of science, or because their theological implications don't match yours?

I've read some of their stuff and, to be perfectly honest, most of it is over my head. The kicker to me is they're not Christians and AiG and others are.

Oh no, I've never seen you being disrespectful towards me, but I'm sure I've said things that may have sounded disrespectful to others. I apologize too. We all need to learn from him.

I'm happy to hear I haven't been disrespectful. If it should ever be, please don't hesitate to point it out.

I do pray that it is indeed Truth they have gained, the Truth of knowing God and fearing Him, instead of just scientific "truth" about a young earth.

A big hearty amen to that!

 

[invisible trousers]

And invisible trousers, I'd have to disagree. I think you're referring to creation science. YECism - the belief that the earth is young - may be correct, but creation science is extremely suspect.

I suppose you're right, although creation "science" is what YEC tries to use to justify its' arguments.

Would you say that this impact of leading millions to Jesus Christ is a bad thing that YECs have done?

It might be offset by damage it's caused to the reputation of the rest of christianity. If I were not christian, I'd find it hard to convert when promeninent YEC groups and individuals are constantly misrepresenting arguments, practicing extremely unscientific principles, and outright lying about data.

 

[SBG]

I suppose then that is why faith is in Jesus Christ. That is why I have a hard time believing that the sole reason or the main reason people have left their faith in Jesus is not because of Jesus but because of origins.

To say such a thing, is to infer that origins has something to do with bring us in faith and keeping us in faith. That is not the truth. Only Jesus Christ can bring us into faith and keep us in faith.

That is like saying someone left the faith because David killed Goliath. What does that have to do with keeping someone in faith.

Faith is in Jesus Christ!! Not origins!

That is the problem that I think many are not seeing and thus are allowing people to leave the faith without speaking to them about their relationship with Jesus. Instead people focus on origins. Origins is not the one who keeps us in faith. It is Jesus Christ and if their is problem with someones faith, then it starts with their relationship with Jesus Christ, not origins. Origins is simply an excuse.

Unless anyone here can present Biblical verses that state Origins is the reason for our faith, that Origins is the one who keeps us in faith, then Origins is not the reason for losing faith.

This really should not be hard for any Christian to understand that Jesus Christ is the One who brings us into faith, Jesus Christ is the One who keeps us in faith. When losing faith becomes an issue, one ought to start looking at their relationship with Jesus Christ.

If the choose to blame it on Origins, rather than on their own sinful nature, then read my signature.

 

[vossler]

Well said, SBG. I think that covers this thread about as well as anything has.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i believe that you, SBG, miss the force of the statement that Vance often quotes from Augustine.

if someone with a scientific education, who is knowledgable about the issues of the age of the earth, for example, encounters YECism. What s/he sees is something that they know about-science, mixed with something that they are interested in learning about-the Gospel. They have no way to determine the truthfulness of the Gospel, so they judge it from the truthfulness of what they know something about-science. And cease their studies of the Gospel-YECism package for they know that the YECists are lying about the science regarding the age of the earth, therefore it only stands to reason that they are equally wrong and deceptive about the Gospel message.

Conversely, someone who is knowledgable about both the Gospel and about the particular Biblical interpretations unique to YECism tries to separate the Word of God from a specific interpretation, so that the outsiders' mistake of judging all Christians by their encounter with YECists minimizes the damage caused by this mis-interpretation of Gen1. But the YECists continue their program to draw a void, to empty the middleground between them and all other Christian voices so that the world believes that two things are linked together: young earth and Scripture so that there is no way that you can untangle them in many people's minds.....what is most curious about the politics is that the radical atheists are more than happy to work hand in hand with the YECists to conflate these two things. So you have Dawkins and his ilk agreeing that the Bible teaches and must be interpretated as supportive of YECism and not TE or even OEC, since the YECist are easy debate partners for Dawkins. Where someone like Marty Hewlett (author of Perspectives of an evolving creation) calls Dawkins to task for his misappropriation of science in the service of a metaphysics of atheism.

btw
the error of YECists conflating their creation science with their theology is the logical error of composition. in fact, there is no way to determine the age of the universe or of the earth from Genesis. but tying the two unlike things together "age of the earth" and the Gospel they bring upon themselves the logic of those who reject the Gospel on the grounds of the errors of creation science.
....

 

[TheBear]

Many attend congregations who drill it into their heads. They are also extremely fearful of being open-minded, trying to understand, and perhaps, having a change of view on occasion. They seem pre-conditioned to fighting off anything and everything foriegn and new. Some even go as far as claiming that science is the work of Satan, to decieve us.

How do I know this? I attended some of those same congregations, for years.



It takes a lot to try to get through to these individuals, but we must be patient. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[SBG]

Many attend congregations who drill it into their heads. They are also extremely fearful of being open-minded, trying to understand, and perhaps, having a change of view on occasion. They seem pre-conditioned to fighting off anything and everything foriegn and new. Some even go as far as claiming that science is the work of Satan, to decieve us.

How do I know this? I attended some of those same congregations, for years.



It takes a lot to try to get through to these individuals, but we must be patient. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Being open-minded is a two way street that again many here don't want to believe or understand. As a TE says YEC are closed-minded about science, YEC can equally say TEs are closed-minded about theology. An example of this is that TEs do not want to deal with the theological implications of death before the fall of mankind. And Mr. Williams I will respond to your essay on this subject when I have the time to, because this is a critical point. Many TEs rather stand on the side that portrays God as God who enjoys watching mankind suffer and feel pain. Also, many either have not read or understood that sin just doesn't effect mankind, but eveything in this world, including animals, plants and the entire planet. It all groans to be set free.

Open-mindedness is not a one way street. And I will take pride in Jesus Christ for Him giving me strength to follow Him and His Word, even when others will and do ridicule me for doing so. That includes following Jesus Christ's Words, by Him being God Himself, who inspired the author to write about Creation in six days.

 

[SBG]

i believe that you, SBG, miss the force of the statement that Vance often quotes from Augustine.

And you are welcome to your opinion. Let it be reminded that Vance is the one who started this thread that shifts the blame on YECs, solely, for many souls being lost to God. This shifts the responsibility off those who actually made the choice, onto the ones who hold to sound doctrine.

if someone with a scientific education, who is knowledgable about the issues of the age of the earth, for example, encounters YECism. What s/he sees is something that they know about-science, mixed with something that they are interested in learning about-the Gospel. They have no way to determine the truthfulness of the Gospel, so they judge it from the truthfulness of what they know something about-science. And cease their studies of the Gospel-YECism package for they know that the YECists are lying about the science regarding the age of the earth, therefore it only stands to reason that they are equally wrong and deceptive about the Gospel message.

Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that those who don't know Jesus Christ, but do know about science will judge Jesus on the accounts of origins? They won't look to the claims of Jesus Christ, they won't read His Words, they will rather spend time on origins instead? Whoever is the one witnessing to them, is not witnessing to them correctly because it should be based on JEsus Christ crucified and resurrected, not origins.

Now, you make an accusation that YECs are lying about the age of the earth. So let me ask, if the age of the earth is not 4.6 billion, but say 6 billion or 10 billion, then you also are a liar because you were not correct about the age of the earth, right? I am stating this because of the way you assume what a liar is. You assume we truly believe that the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old, but we rather say it is less than 10,000 or so. For that would make us liars, but if we truly do believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old or so, then we are not liars when we say this is what we believe. We have not actively deceived anyone from what we truly believe.

Now, let me educate you, since you don't seem to understand this, that when a YEC witnesses to someone, we don't talk about origins. We talk about Jesus Christ crucified and risen. That is our sole focus because we believe that that is where the power of conversion lies, in Jesus Christ, not origins.

There are ministries out that that do focus on origins, such as AIG. These are not primarily to witness to non-believers. These are used to combat the dogmatic teaching of evolution. Ever wonder why people are ridiculed into the ground for questioning evolution? You would think that would be a good thing to do, for it would help it grow. Instead, anyone who questions evolution, will be ridiculed. If you don't believe this is so, take a few clicks and head over the open C&E forum and watch how many people will be ridiculed for questioning the validity of evolution. Look at how many YECs are just pummeled there, and many TEs will jump right in with atheists, hand in hand, to ridicule a YEC in any way possible. TEs have even admitted here that they do this and enjoy it.

Is that what Jesus taught to do to fellow Christians? To ridicule them in front of non-believers if they do not accept teachings from the world? Teachings that are used to reject God. The same teachings that TEs think are so wonderful.

Conversely, someone who is knowledgable about both the Gospel and about the particular Biblical interpretations unique to YECism tries to separate the Word of God from a specific interpretation, so that the outsiders' mistake of judging all Christians by their encounter with YECists minimizes the damage caused by this mis-interpretation of Gen1. But the YECists continue their program to draw a void, to empty the middleground between them and all other Christian voices so that the world believes that two things are linked together: young earth and Scripture so that there is no way that you can untangle them in many people's minds.....what is most curious about the politics is that the radical atheists are more than happy to work hand in hand with the YECists to conflate these two things. So you have Dawkins and his ilk agreeing that the Bible teaches and must be interpretated as supportive of YECism and not TE or even OEC, since the YECist are easy debate partners for Dawkins. Where someone like Marty Hewlett (author of Perspectives of an evolving creation) calls Dawkins to task for his misappropriation of science in the service of a metaphysics of atheism.

Here is something for all who read to ponder on. Satan always counters God with a teaching that is the opposite to God's, and Satan will present it in a very attractive way. Creation and evolution are opposites. So to see this relationship with atheists and YECs is actually rather telling.

btw
the error of YECists conflating their creation science with their theology is the logical error of composition. in fact, there is no way to determine the age of the universe or of the earth from Genesis. but tying the two unlike things together "age of the earth" and the Gospel they bring upon themselves the logic of those who reject the Gospel on the grounds of the errors of creation science.
....

And there is no way to actually determine the age of the universe and be absolutely correct, with science. Even dating methods have a +/- X amount of years.

And again, you make the mistake that origins brings someone to faith in Jesus Christ. I do not understand how any Christian can think that origins actually has something to do with keeping or bringing people in the faith with Jesus Christ. That is shifting the power of Jesus onto origins and man's presentation of them. Therefore committing a prideful act of sin.

This thread is completely refuted because Jesus Christ and Him alone holds the power to keep and bring people into faith with Him, not origins.

 

[TheBear]

Being open-minded is a two way street that again many here don't want to believe or understand.

True. Open-mindedness applies to all who want a better understasnding of our natural world and universe. Why it exists, is where people differ in views. You and I, for example, agree on the 'why' question. How it works, is where science comes in. The fossil record, which has supported evolution for years, is being upstaged by genetic records of evolution. Everything is verifying the previous, fine tuning, eliminating the erroneous, and progressing. The end result is - diseases which were 100% fatal, up to a mere 200 years ago, are today either erradicated altogether, or 100% curable. Other research has increased the odds of a longer, and healthier life. I could go on for hours. This is the ultimate test for science - Has it improved life and contributed to the betterment of mankind?

The Gospel of Christ speaks to the heart. The 'wisdom of man' is refering to different philosophies and teachings on life, not science studying our physical and natural world.

God gave us brains to use. The results are - medical advancements, environmental improvements, agricultural advancements, storm-tracking and satellite imagery, and so on. None of this would have occured if the science community was made up of people with closed minds. Think about it. By default, science is open-minded.

So, that's not where the problem lies.

 

[TheBear]

One more thing. Can you reel off a list of 'applied creation science' achievements? Just a few off the top of your head.

 

[invisible trousers]

I do not understand how any Christian can think that origins actually has something to do with keeping or bringing people in the faith with Jesus Christ. That is shifting the power of Jesus onto origins and man's presentation of them. Therefore committing a prideful act of sin.

Someone on the fence about becoming christian: "Why should I be a christian? Look at these organizations who claim to be christian yet they lie and completely make stuff up. It doesn't make sense that people who follow God would do something like that it"

Being open-minded is a two way street that again many here don't want to believe or understand. As a TE says YEC are closed-minded about science, YEC can equally say TEs are closed-minded about theology.

I disagree. YEC creates strict literal readings that contract the physical nature of God, while TE reads scripture in proper context; literal history, parables, metaphorical stories, and so forth.

An example of this is that TEs do not want to deal with the theological implications of death before the fall of mankind.

I think that's been answered previously, but I might be wrong.

That's ok though, YEC creates a dilemma where the story of creation contradicts the physical evidence of creation, which makes God a creator who deceives his followers and lies do them. But, both scripture and nature are from God and must be consistent with eachother. They cannot contradict. None of you YEC people have been able to address that issue. Sure you can argue "oh yeah but people interpret nature wrong" but that won't help because YEC has shown time and time again an inability to come up with legitimate physical evidence that supports their theories.

Many TEs rather stand on the side that portrays God as God who enjoys watching mankind suffer and feel pain.

oh really

And I will take pride in Jesus Christ for Him giving me strength to follow Him and His Word, even when others will and do ridicule me for doing so. That includes following Jesus Christ's Words, by Him being God Himself, who inspired the author to write about Creation in six days.

And again with the implicit "my literal interpretation of Genesis is the only correct one and nobody else is right and they're not of God". I swear I call people out on this like every other post of mine.


This reply in a nutshell is why I think YEC creates problems with modern christianity.
* It makes God deceitful by Him lying to His followers about the creation of the earth.
* Not a piece of legitimate scientific evidence supporting a young earth.
* Automatic assumption that "my reading = God's reading"; no acknowledgement of multiple interpretations of scripture.

 

[Delta One]

Hi rmwilliamsll,

I've got your essay link in my favourites list so I can look over it later on.

the fundamental error that AiG and it's supporters make is that the death of animals is of no ethical importance.

I'd just firstly like to point out that there is certainly no proof or evidence for stating such a point (i.e. 'that the death of animals is of no ethical importance'). God says in Genesis 1:26 that He put us humans in charge of His creation and that we are to care for all the animals, both great and small. If they were of no ethical importance to God, why did He tell us to care for them. Even more interesting still is that God Himself cares for the animals. Take, for example, Matthew 6:26: "Look at the birds: they do not plant seeds, gather a harvest and put it in barns; yet your Father in heaven takes care of them!" That said, I believe that we are much more important to God than birds as the rest of that verse states: "Aren't you worth much more than birds?"

In Australia recently we had a few youths brutely attacked and seriously wound a little defenseless kitten. The stoned the poor kitten, rode over it with their bikes several times, kicked it and when they were done with it they threw it onto the train track - the kitten remarkably survived and the bandits were caught. Would you consider this bashing of an defenseless kitten to be 'ethically unimportant'?

There are a number of reasons why literalists believe that animal death, as well as human death, did not occur before the Fall:

a. Could the animals have died from old age? Before the Fall animals could not have died of old age because Romans 8 reminds us that corruption and decay entered the world only with sin. Death by old age would have meant that animal bodies would have been wearing out and corruption would have existed. This would not fit with teh description that before sin everything in God's creation was 'very good'. Isaiah 51:6 tells us that after sin "the Earth shall wax old like a garment." In Romans 8:22 we read that because of sin "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." Thus, it is obvious that the whole of creation, which must include all living creatures, has been subject to 'the bondage of corruption' (Romans 8:21) only as a result of the curse because of Adam's sin. Death from old age, therefore, only began with the curse.

Of course as we live in a world where everything wears out, it is difficult to understand how aging could not happen in the pre-Fall world. However, we are shown a glimpse of the solution in Deuteronomy 8:4. God reminded the Isarelites that during their wanderings in the wilderness their "raiment waxed not old" upon them, "neither did thy foot swell these forty years." Clearly this was an unusual, supernature preservation provided by God for His people's particular circumstances. When God sustains something totally, this natural 'weaing out' does not happen. It is therefore obvious that before the Fall everything had been created "very good" and nothing would have worn out.

b. Could animals have died when Adam or the other animals ate them for food?Again the answer is no. Not only animals, but man and woman were told they were only to eat plants (Genesis 1:29). Animals could not have died from eating each other; Genesis 1:30 tells us that their food was also to be only plants. Also, as God created everything "very good", animals could not have killed each other for the sake of killing. This would be opposite in meaning to "very good". God, being a good God, would not create animals so that the stronger tried to eliminate the weak in a fight for survival (further consider that God is a merciful God - He protects and stands up for the weak and those who can't do it themselves, God has a special place in His heart for widows and orphans - so if you pick a fight with them expect God to stand in their defense). Also, as everything was created very good, there could not have been disease to kill off animals or man. Diseases today contribute to our bodies' wearing out - this is refuted above.

c. Could animals have died accidentally? Again, this would go against the concept of "very good". Such a question overlooks the sovereignty and greatness of God. As we have seen, God can sustain things so that even clothes don't wear out. Before sin came into the world, death wasn't even a question - God had total control ofthe creation and sustained it 100%. There was no corruption and no decay. Hence, death wasn't even a possibility. Adam was made in the image of an all-caring God, and the animals were in his care. Death and bloodshed came into the world as a judgment from God for man's rebellion. But at that same time, death was the very means by which man was to be redeemed. So bloodshed could not have existed before man's fall, if so, then the message of salvation is meaningless.

certainly the Scriptures make use of images and motifs, like the lion and the lamb lying down together etc, but these are anthropomorphisms that are teaching a lesson not a specific physical description of either heaven or pre-lapsarian existence. i see it as a dead horse. if i was unable to convince the YECists here that the breath of God in Gen2 is an anthropomorphism then persuading people that these images are not to be taken literally but are analogous to God's back and God's wings is impossible.

I'm not so convinced that they are 'anthropomorphisms' that is not a specific physical description of the new heaven and new Earth. Do you have any Biblical evidence that once again supports this presupposition? Remember that the new heaven and new Earth is to be a restoration of the creation back to what it initally was like in the beginning. Also, the Bible says that there will be no death, pain or destruction in thew new heaven and new Earth because there is no more curse.

Where is a reference to 'God's wings' in the Bible? Just as I believe that God literally breathed in breath of life into Adam, I also believe that 'God's back' (depending on what context it is in) is meant to be taken literally, as Jesus (God the Son) walked with Adam and Eve before the Fall would have had a 'back' and we can safely assume that we resemble His form back then so thus we can also assume that we have physical characteristics similar to those of Him.

perhaps can be summed up as 'science deals with the present and can not deal with the distant past'.

I never said that science can't deal with the distant past; if you look carefully there should be a word 'directly', such that it could be summarised as:

'Science deals with the present and cannot deal directly with the distant past'. I included some of the proof from The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham to justify my making that statement.

What science does is to slowly discount the past as more inaccessible or more difficult to talk about. What YECists do is to challenge the idea of uniformity of observation and posit this radical change at circa 10K years ago, essentially proposing this fundamental discontinuity of creation as a miracle without any possible naturalistic explanations.

I'll talk about the geological principle a little while later on when you mention it; natural processes cannot possibly explain the events of the creationary week as:

a. we do not observe similar processes occuring today.

b. creationary week was the purposeful work of God showing His power and love.

c. it was all supernatural. Natural processes cannot make man from the dust, for example.

Just as in last thursdayism there is no real reply to it only a pointing out that there is no discontinuity in either the fossil record nor in the geological data.

Actually, one way of interpreting the fossil record makes quite a considerable amount of sense. Although the rock strata do not represent a series of epochs of Earth history, as is widely believed, they still follow a general pattern. For example, relatively immobile and bottom-dwelling sea creatures tend to be found in the lower strata that contain complex organisms, and the mobile land vertebraets tend to be found in the top layers. Consider the following factors as pointed out by AiG in their book The Updated and Expanded Answers Book:
Vertebrate fossils are exceedingly rare compared with invertebrate sea creatures. The vast proportion of the fossil record is invertebrate sea creatures, plant material in the form of coal and oil. Vertebrate fossils are relatively rare and human fossils are even rarer. If there were, say, 10 million people at the time of the Flood and all their bodies were preserved and uniformly distributed throughout the 700 million cubic kilometres of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock layers, only one would be found in every 70 cubic kilometres of rock. Thus you would be unlikely to find even one human fossil.

The Flood that began with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep would tend to bury bottom-dwelling sea creatures first - many of these are immobile, or relatively so. They are also abundant and generally robust (for example shellfish). As the waters rose to envelop the land, the land creatures would be buried last. Also, water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants, which in turn would be buried before upland plants. On the other hand, land animals, such as mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb. People would cling to rafts, logs, etc, until the very end and then tend of bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare.

Further, the more mobile and intelligent animals would tend to survive the Flood longest and be buried last, so their remains would be vulnerable to erosion by the receding floodwaters at the end of the Flood and in the aftermath of the Flood. Hence their remains would tend to be destroyed. The intelligence factor could partly account for the apparent separation of dinosaurs and mammals such as cattle, for example.

Another factor that must be taken into consideration is the sorting action of water. A coal steam at Yallourn in Victoria, has a 0.5 metre thick layer of 50% pollen. The only way such a layer of pollen could be obtained is through the sorting action of water in a massive watery catastrophe that gathered the plant material from a large area and deposited it in a basin in the Yallourn area.

These are just some factors that could account for the patterns seen in the fossil record, including the general absence of human fossils in the Flood deposits. Most of the fossil record does not represnet a hisotry of life on Earth, but the order of burial during the Flood. We would expect a pattern with a global Flood, but not an entirely consistent pattern, and this is what we find in the geological strata.

That said, there are problems in reconstructing any historical event that has no modern analogue and the Flood is no different. So creationists have problems imagining the precise sequence of events by which the Flood eroded and deposited material, creating fossils. It may well be that some enterprising creationist scientists will come up with a model tof the Flood that will fully account for the fossil and rock sequences. Of interest in this regard is the Tectonically Associated Biological provinces model of Woodmorappe. Dr Walker has suggested a model of the Flood that also seems to explain much of the data. The catastrophic plate tectonics model of Drs Austin and Baumgardner and colleagues also looks interesting in explaining much of the fossil distribution. Other models are being developed which may also be helpful in explaining the evidence.