The impact of YEC'ism

[Delta One]

then the YECists responds with the cry that uniformity is nothing more than an assumption. No, it is a conclusion from the data...

I have always maintained and been under the impression that the doctrine of uniformitarianism (the idea that all Earth's history was shaped by the same processes we see happening today) is an assumption that has incorrectly led geology for 200 years. As there is no global flood happening today, such thinking prevents most of today's geologists from seeing any evidence for the Flood - they try to explain the same evidence seen in the present by the processes seen operating only in the present. The Bible has a prophecy, in 2 Peter 3:3-7, regarding this wrong approach to geology that denies the miraculous creation and the Deluge.

It is an interpretation based on the non-literal reading or rejection of Genesis' account of our history. Anything that can't be proven true is an assumption. For example, Christians have to assume that the Bible is the inspired Word of God as we can't 'prove' it. What we can do, however, it test how reasonable the assumption is. Using the Bible example again, we can find prophetic, scientific verses (as well as other elements of divine origin, which I have pointed out on the GA forum several times - see The Updated and Expanded Answers Book for more information) we can see if they are consistent with the evidence. In the Bíble's case, this is a BIG 'YES'.

Similarly, is the uniformitarianism assumption can also be stacked up to see how consistent with the evidence and observations of today's world. We see that the concept of uniformitarianism is contradicted by many natural events, particularly volcanoes.

Take for example the effects of Mt Saint Helen's erruption. Here is just one thing what it did in a relatively short period of time; the uniformitarianism assumption would say that such geological structures would have taken millions of years to produce!

Erosion during volcanic eruptions at Mount St. Helens was accomplished by scour from steam blast, landslide, water waves, hot pumice ash flows (pyroclastic flows), and mudflows. Since the eruptions, the erosion process has been dominated by sheet flooding and channelized flow of water, with occasional mudflows. About 23 square miles of the North Fork of the Toutle River Valley was obstructed by two-thirds cubic mile of landslide and pyroclastic debris, which has been rapidly eroded since 1980. Jetting steam from buried water and ice under hot pumice reamed steam explosion pits with associated mass-wasting processes at the margins of pits, producing rills and gullies over 125 feet deep. Photographic documentation assembled by ICR scientists demonstrates that very pronounced rills and gullies had formed at the margins of seam explosion pits before May 23 - less than five days after the pumice was deposited. The rills and gullies resemble badlands topography, which geologists have usually assumed required many hundreds or even thousands of years to form.​

Mudflows, from Mount St. Helens, were responsible for the most significant erosion. A mudflow on March 19, 1982, eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep in the headwaters of the North Fork of the Toutle River Valley, establishing the new dendritic pattern of drainage. As ICR scientists surveyed this new terrain, they began to contemplate the processes which may have formed the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River. The little "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon. The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! Geologists should learn that, since the long-time scale they have been trained to assign to landform development would lead to obvious error on Mount St. Helens, it also may be useless or misleading elsewhere.

For more information, I would suggest that you read the article Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism by ICR at <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm>. This is a direct observation that destroys any hope of the uniformitarianism assumption being true. Since uniformitarianism is contradicted by the observations and evidence in the present, why should we believe it for things we can't observe? Doing so makes no sense logically.

a last obervation. TE's are a diverse lot ... there is no party line or group like AiG to propose a single set of guidelines to believe.

So I see. AiG recognises the diverse interpretations on Genesis. They, however, usually state which group they are referring to when they refute them, e.g. Refuting Compromise is aimed directly at Dr Hugh Ross' beliefs and those who have similar beliefs.

 

[gluadys]

Creationist attempts to explain the fossil record continually fail because they don't pay attention to the details. An example from your post.

Also, water plants would tend to be buried before land-based swamp plants, which in turn would be buried before upland plants.

This is an example of speaking in generalities. You have three groups--water plants, swamp plants, upland plants. But what happens when you look at them in detail?

For example, would water-lilies be a water, swamp or upland plant? You can make a case for all of these. They grow in water, but they are not a marine plant. They often grow in low-lying areas, but can also grow in a pond well above sea-level. So let's call them an upland plant (which fits well with the fossil record as they are not found earlier than the Cretaceous, if that early).

Now what about ferns? Generally, although they like damp, cool soil and are often found in low-level areas, they don't grow in water. They can grow in higher altitudes if the conditions are suitable. In short, much like water-lilies, they are upland plants.

Yet unlike water-lilies which are found only since the Cretaceous, fossil ferns go right back to the Paleozoic, being found in the Carboniferous rocks.

If ferns are found in Carboniferous rocks, why not water-lilies? Why is there, by scientific reckoning, over 300 million years between the first appearance of ferns and the first appearance of water-lilies? What is there about a flood that would keep water-lilies from being fossilized along with ferns from the Carboniferous on up?

Here is another plant conundrum. Willow trees tend to grow by fresh water, often in low altitudes, certainly in low altitudes relative to trees which cling to mountain sides up to the tree line. At highest altitudes, trees tend to be coniferous (one sees the same with latitudes as well, conifers dominating northern regions, while deciduous trees like willows prefer warmer climes.) This distribution would suggest that conifers would be found later in the fossil record than willow trees. But the reverse is true. Fossil remnants of conifers, cycads and gingkos go back to the Triassic and are found all through the Jurassic. But not a single deciduous tree is found earlier than the Cretaceous. How can one account for this using a flood scenario?

One last example: no grasses are found earlier than the Eocene---after the demise of the dinosaurs. If God created all plants more or less simultaneously, how is it that no grasses are found along with the earliest mosses and ferns, or even the earliest conifers and deciduous trees? Grasses, by the way, include such water-loving plants as cattails, not just plants adapted to a drier climate.

A flood scenario cannot be taken seriously until it starts dealing credibly with this sort of detail.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I have always maintained and been under the impression that the doctrine of uniformitarianism (the idea that all Earth's history was shaped by the same processes we see happening today) is an assumption that has incorrectly led geology for 200 years. As there is no global flood happening today, such thinking prevents most of today's geologists from seeing any evidence for the Flood - they try to explain the same evidence seen in the present by the processes seen operating only in the present. The Bible has a prophecy, in 2 Peter 3:3-7, regarding this wrong approach to geology that denies the miraculous creation and the Deluge.

It is an interpretation based on the non-literal reading or rejection of Genesis' account of our history. Anything that can't be proven true is an assumption. For example, Christians have to assume that the Bible is the inspired Word of God as we can't 'prove' it. What we can do, however, it test how reasonable the assumption is. Using the Bible example again, we can find prophetic, scientific verses (as well as other elements of divine origin, which I have pointed out on the GA forum several times - see The Updated and Expanded Answers Book for more information) we can see if they are consistent with the evidence. In the Bíble's case, this is a BIG 'YES'.

uniformitarianism in geology is a conclusion, not an assumption.
you can see this best in historical terms, trace the rise of modern geology from the early flood geologists studying in England. There are things assumed about time, its smoothness, its continuity etc that can be called uniformitarian but these aren't the kind of things YECists are referring to when they label describe uniformitarianism as an assumption.

Anything that can't be proven true is an assumption.

not just no but xxxx NO!
people have to be careful with both their use of words and in their thinking. I think the best way to get a handle on the complexity of the issues surrounding: presuppositions, assumptions, shaping principles, data, theory, conclusions etc is to look carefully at geometry. Partly because geometry was discovered so early in human thought/history, partly because it exists in the mathematical/idealistic world yet is drawn out of the real world in a very specific way.

axioms, roughly equivalent to assumptions/presuppositions are not just things that are unproved, or can not be proved, but are the minimal set of basic principles that are necessary to set up the system.
there are lots of things that can not be proven: statements about the future, propositions of taste or of value, contradictions and paradoxes, almost all scientific propositions based on induction etc etc.
that doesn't make them assumptions, the mere act of being unproven.
most of the presuppositions of science come under the heading of critical realism, things like there really is a universe out there, it is a good thing to look at it scientifically, etc.

grab an introductory text on the philosophy of science, i really like the _arch of knowledge_ but it is hard to obtain. See what the philosophy of science is saying about these things, not just AiG.


....

 

[SBG]

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"

THis is exactly what I mean! Again, do you think origins is what brings people to faith or Jesus Christ?? You seem to want to keep on the issue that origins has everything to do with keeping and bringing people into faith. You are wrong! Jesus Christ is the only One who does such a thing.

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.

How many times would you like a YEC to keep telling you that we do not create a strict literal reading of Genesis? Have you not read what Remus has said or what I have said concerning the Tree of Life in Genesis or 'breathe' in Genesis?

This is the classic example of a TE who plugs their ears and goes 'lalalallalalalala' because they don't want to hear what any YEC has to say.

And you make further comments in this post of your accusing YECs of thinking their interpretation is exactly God's reading. Look at what you say, 'TE reads scripture in proper context.'

We say the same, and you accuse us of claiming our reading is = to God.

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.

Yes, I get that impression that TEs think it is ok that they create continuing theological problems. As you point out, TEs seem more concerned with the physical.

Do we need a theory for creation, or can we just let God speak of it? It seems to me that God's Words are good enough. Yet, just as the pharisees asked for more signs, so do TEs ask for more theories from YECs to prove their position. Personally, I don't need to prove anything, God has said what He has done and I can leave it at that. If TEs don't like it, call Him a liar as many of you have stated you would if He indeed created in six days!

oh really

Yes, really.

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.

No one is saying my interpretation of Genesis is the only one. Take for example Remus and myself. We differ in interpretation of the Tree of Life, and that is ok!! So your statement here is refuted!

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.

Actually, it is not YECs who make this claim. It is TEs who make this claim, such as you are doing right now, calling God a liar if you are wrong in your understanding of how He created.

But you won't see this and you will push on to denouce God as sinner, to claim He is of Satan if you are not correct!

* Not a piece of legitimate scientific evidence supporting a young earth.

You want human scientific evidence of a miraculous event that only God was a witness of. All I can do is point you to the Authority on this matter, God Himself. He has given inspiration to the author of Genesis and Exodus to write that He created in six days.

You don't like this world being created in six days; if this conflicts with how you want to understand it; if you choose not to accept this and rather continue to denouce God, then you will have your moment on judgement day to call God out and tell Him He is a liar.

* Automatic assumption that "my reading = God's reading"; no acknowledgement of multiple interpretations of scripture.

No one has stated this. And, by your own ignorance, you have failed to see that even Remus and I differ and have multiple interpretations of Scripture. We both acknowledge each others as possibilities. This again falsifies your statement.

I apologize for my harshness in this post, but I have grown tired of your constant instance that God is a liar if your understanding is wrong. I would suggest that you ought to really think about this and see if you really want to challenge God like this. If not, all who make this claim (God is a liar if I am wrong in my understanding) about God ought to repent of it.

You have also made false claims about YECs that have been discussed and correct a million times, yet you continue to make these accusations. This does not help further any talks between TEs and YECs. So if any TEs wish to build relationships with YECs and visa versa, we all should stop with these accusations and ask questions instead.

And seriously, stop calling God a liar if you are wrong! You have no idea the implications of such a statement.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

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

My own experience has been that many YECs don't want to deal with this issue in-depth, but rather want to assert over and over that animal death could not occur before sin entered the world without dealing with Scripture's full testimony on this issue.

In the thread Death before the Fall? I outlined my own position based on a number of passages in post #33 and received only one YEC response which only dealt with about half the verses I mentioned. Based on that thread and others like it, I really don't think it's the TEs who have an aversion to studying what the Bible says about this issue.

 

[Delta One]

rmwilliamsll,

You have not shown how uniformitarianism (as I have defined it) is a conclusion from the evidence. It is an assumption that says that natural processes have gone on just as they are now today for billions of years that goes against many observations that we can see happening today, take for example the Mount St. Helens erruption that I brought up.

When I refer to uniformitarianism, I refer to the belief that natural processes have been going on for billions of years the same as they are today. The belief of uniformitarianism can be summarized as 'the present is the key to the past'. The thing is, we don't and can't know the conditions of the past. As such, we make assumptions (or guesses) about the past and what kind and type of processes were operating. Hence the belief of uniformitarianism.

Notice what the article on the site: <http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~engelder/geosc20/lect21.html> says about the nature of science: Science is explaining things that are observed! More interesting still is that I believe that this article was not made by creationists. If you dispute my definition of the uniformitarianism belief, then do a Google search and check the results. This particular article says:

Uniformitarianism Þ This is the geological principle which says that the geological processes operating at present are the same processes that have operated in the past. "The present is the key to the past".

As pointed out above, we cannot possibly know the conditions of the distant unobservable past from which we have no accounts -- the only way we could know the conditions is if we were there, or if we had an eye-witness account that informed us of the conditions and so on at that time. The fact that we have neither implies that any attempt to describe the conditions of the past and what may have happened during the past is based purely on assumptions.

people have to be careful with both their use of words and in their thinking. I think the best way to get a handle on the complexity of the issues surrounding: presuppositions, assumptions, shaping principles, data, theory, conclusions etc is to look carefully at geometry. Partly because geometry was discovered so early in human thought/history, partly because it exists in the mathematical/idealistic world yet is drawn out of the real world in a very specific way.

An interesting way of going about it...

axioms, roughly equivalent to assumptions/presuppositions are not just things that are unproved, or can not be proved, but are the minimal set of basic principles that are necessary to set up the system.
there are lots of things that can not be proven: statements about the future, propositions of taste or of value, contradictions and paradoxes, almost all scientific propositions based on induction etc etc.
that doesn't make them assumptions, the mere act of being unproven.
most of the presuppositions of science come under the heading of critical realism, things like there really is a universe out there, it is a good thing to look at it scientifically, etc.

Yes, I understand where you are heading, but you still have the same problem in your examples that the whole proof some geometry is based on assumptions. If these assumptions are wrong, then the conclusion that is based on them will also be in error.

For example, in physics we just recently studied 'Kinetic Theory'. Now, kinetic theory is based on several 'prepositions' and assumptions. In kinetic theory, we talk about an 'idea gas'. This gas is just a starting position, but in itself we assume that all gases that we talk about act in the same way as an 'idea gas' - the problem is that they don't in reality. We assume that they do. This makes kinetic theory, as we have been taught in first semester of the year of the course, based on several assumptions (definition: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn).

Even in geometry, there exists assumptions that are not proven true. Read the following Web definition for 'axioms':
Axioms: propositions selected as the foundations of a field - classically geometry - which, together with methods of proof, allow other propositions to be proved in an ordered way.

BUT, lets read the rest of the sentence:
The axiomatic method has powerfully influenced philosophy, although each feature of the method has been criticized as inappropriate for philosophy.

Hmm, I wonder why each feature the axiomatic method has been criticized by philosophers. Possibly because it invovles circular reasoning...

Given those presuppositions and by applying reason, if the presupposition makes sense at the end, then the conclusion is believed to be true only if the inital presuppositions are true... Unfortunately for the uniformitarianism belief, the presuppositions cannot be proven true, so the conclusion is equally unprovable.

Tis pretty obvious that this isn't really going anywhere , so I'll end my participation now and save some time - unless your response is something extremely special. If this keeps on going we'll just basically be repeating the same thing, which may irritate us both and so on. It just seems to me, you have presented no real evidence as to how uniformitarianism is not an assumption. Axioms, as proven above, are just circular reasoning dressed up that proves the conclusion to be true if and only if the assumption is true. The fact that we can't prove the assumption means that the whole belief of uniformitarianism is unproven and thus, an assumption. Looking on the bright side, at least now I can spell uniformitarianism pretty well now and as such I won't have to, in future debates, use the term 'geological principle'.

Kind regards,
Delta One.

 

[Delta One]

Happy B'day Mercury and may God Bless you!

 

[The Lady Kate]

THis is exactly what I mean! Again, do you think origins is what brings people to faith or Jesus Christ?? You seem to want to keep on the issue that origins has everything to do with keeping and bringing people into faith. You are wrong! Jesus Christ is the only One who does such a thing.

But Jesus did say that we would know them by their fruits. Clearly, if someone sees what Creationist organizations are willing to stoop to, they will quite reasonably want no part of them.

If they believe that these organizations are typical of the faith, well, then...

How many times would you like a YEC to keep telling you that we do not create a strict literal reading of Genesis? Have you not read what Remus has said or what I have said concerning the Tree of Life in Genesis or 'breathe' in Genesis?

Heard it, then see a super-literal reading of Genesis applied...often by the very same people.

This is the classic example of a TE who plugs their ears and goes 'lalalallalalalala' because they don't want to hear what any YEC has to say.

And you make further comments in this post of your accusing YECs of thinking their interpretation is exactly God's reading. Look at what you say, 'TE reads scripture in proper context.'

We say the same, and you accuse us of claiming our reading is = to God.

Forgetting, of course, that God is not a liar. The proper context of Scripture should match up with God's own creation. Which context does that without twisting the facts?

Yes, I get that impression that TEs think it is ok that they create continuing theological problems. As you point out, TEs seem more concerned with the physical.

Because that is what our reading of Scripture must match up to. We know that nature is the unaltered, direct product of God's hand, every bit as inspired as the words in Scripture.

Do we need a theory for creation, or can we just let God speak of it? It seems to me that God's Words are good enough.

Give or take an interpretation...

Yet, just as the pharisees asked for more signs, so do TEs ask for more theories from YECs to prove their position. Personally, I don't need to prove anything, God has said what He has done and I can leave it at that. If TEs don't like it, call Him a liar as many of you have stated you would if He indeed created in six days!

Well then, what then can we learn from this position?
What predictions does it make?
What use, then, is it to science?
What purpose, then, is there in presenting it as science in, shall we say, a classroom?

No one is saying my interpretation of Genesis is the only one. Take for example Remus and myself. We differ in interpretation of the Tree of Life, and that is ok!! So your statement here is refuted!

So you strain at the gnats after swallowing the camel.

Actually, it is not YECs who make this claim. It is TEs who make this claim, such as you are doing right now, calling God a liar if you are wrong in your understanding of how He created.

But you won't see this and you will push on to denouce God as sinner, to claim He is of Satan if you are not correct!

Not so... there are more than two possibilities. "The TEs are wrong" doesn't necessarily mean "the YECs are right."

It may very well be that neither of us have it right. Let us look at not two, but three options:

1: The YECs are right.
2: The TEs are right.
3: Neither are right; the answer is something else.

TEs will tell you that if #1 is true,God is a liar. You're trying to claim that #2 is wrong implies the same thing, when you haven't considered #3...

You want human scientific evidence of a miraculous event that only God was a witness of. All I can do is point you to the Authority on this matter, God Himself. He has given inspiration to the author of Genesis and Exodus to write that He created in six days.

Writing to a group of people who never would've understood it any other way...communicating an entirely different message.

You don't like this world being created in six days; if this conflicts with how you want to understand it; if you choose not to accept this and rather continue to denouce God, then you will have your moment on judgement day to call God out and tell Him He is a liar.

I know I've never called God a liar...I've learned to accept that the "It's all literal" reading of Genesis is not the right way to read it, because God would be a liar if it was.

It is because God is not a liar that TEs reject a literal Genesis. Most YECs don't seem to have a problem with that.

No one has stated this. And, by your own ignorance, you have failed to see that even Remus and I differ and have multiple interpretations of Scripture. We both acknowledge each others as possibilities. This again falsifies your statement.

So perhaps TEs have been painting YECs with a brush that is slightly too wide.

I apologize for my harshness in this post, but I have grown tired of your constant instance that God is a liar if your understanding is wrong. I would suggest that you ought to really think about this and see if you really want to challenge God like this. If not, all who make this claim (God is a liar if I am wrong in my understanding) about God ought to repent of it.

As I said, God is only a liar if Genesis is literal. "TE being wrong" is not the same as "YEC being right."

ANd there's no need to threaten us with the wrath of God on this one. Personally, I believe God forgives every sin...including ignorance.

You have also made false claims about YECs that have been discussed and correct a million times, yet you continue to make these accusations. This does not help further any talks between TEs and YECs. So if any TEs wish to build relationships with YECs and visa versa, we all should stop with these accusations and ask questions instead.

Ok then, in the spirit of cooperation, I'll ask a question:

Let's forget about evolution for a second...
How do you reconcile a young Earth with the vast amounts of geological, zoological, paleontolocial, and astronomical evidence which says otherwise?

Have all these researchers in all these unrelated fields been coming to the same similar incorrect answers all these years by coincidence, or do you believe that there's something more sinister afoot?

And seriously, stop calling God a liar if you are wrong! You have no idea the implications of such a statement.

Ignoring the inherent misunderstanding in such a statement for a moment, what exactly are the implications you speak of?

 

[SBG]

"Ignoring the inherent misunderstanding in such a statement for a moment, what exactly are the implications you speak of?"

You tell me what you think the implications are when you claim God is of Satan, as you have with this statement, if it is true: "As I said, God is only a liar if Genesis is literal."

 

[The Lady Kate]

"Ignoring the inherent misunderstanding in such a statement for a moment, what exactly are the implications you speak of?"

You tell me what you think the implications are when you claim God is of Satan, as you have with this statement, if it is true: "As I said, God is only a liar if Genesis is literal."

What implications? It's the first step in a deductive process:

First Premise: If Genesis is literal, God is a liar.
Second Premise: God is not a liar.
Conclusion: Genesis is not literal.

The second premise is implicit in our faith, and so is largely unspoken. Haven't you figured out that TEs don't think God is a liar?

 

[SBG]

What implications? It's the first step in a deductive process:

First Premise: If Genesis is literal, God is a liar.
Second Premise: God is not a liar.
Conclusion: Genesis is not literal.

The second premise is implicit in our faith, and so is largely unspoken. Haven't you figured out that TEs don't think God is a liar?

You did not even answer the question, nor did you come close to it. You have claimed God is a liar, if you are wrong in your understanding of origins. Here are your own words:

"As I said, God is only a liar if Genesis is literal."

Do you understand the implications of claiming God is actually doing the work of Satan?

I don't think very many TEs even understand this nor see this. Blaming God for your misunderstanding by saying if Genesis is literal God is a liar. There is no responsibility taken here by a person who makes such a statement.

What basis do you have to call God a liar if Genesis is literal? Who are you to judge God in any circumstance?

 

[shernren]

What basis do you have to call God a liar if Genesis is literal? Who are you to judge God in any circumstance?

Jeremiah and Job called God liars. If God allowed His Word to record men of faith calling Him liars ... we do not consider at all the logical possibility of God lying. Therefore any hypothesis that results in a logical conclusion of God lying must be false without question.

But can YECism be true and God be telling the truth? Yes ... a detailed analysis shows that there is a third assumption hiding behind the scenes:

1. God created the world in accordance with His character, as He is completely self-consistent and therefore everything He does must reflect His character in some way.
2. God created a world which as we understand it looks old.
Now, if we put in the assumption that the world is actually young, we get the logical conclusion that God's work of creating a false universe must reflect that one characteristic of Him is falsehood. However, there is a hidden assumption:

3. The world was created to be understandable by us.

If we reverse this assumption:

1. God created in accordance with His character.
2. The world looks young.
3. But, the world was not meant to be understood by us: in other words any logical conclusions we make about the world are meaningless.

then we find that statement 2 is meaningless and we can have a young earth that "looks old" and God a God of truthfulness.

But, although this is logically sound, it represents an alarming step backwards for Christianity. Christianity has always represented science as man made in God's image understanding the world: because God is rational, He has created us in His image and therefore made us rational as well. Although the Fall may have damaged this rationality, or surrendered it to sinful whims, the world still remains rationally analyzable. To say that the world is fundamentally irrational is to raise serious questions about (again) the character of a God who would create this world, or the character of God who would make such a useless image of Himself.

As for death before the Fall let's take it out of this thread. It doesn't belong here.

 

[CEV]

Vance,

Listen to these Salvation testimonies, changed lives and personal impact stories because of creation evangelsim recieved by AiG and published in the accurately named 'Victory Chapter' of Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium by Ken Ham:

To non-Christians, lying is neither 'right' nor 'wrong'. As Christians, we are told by God's Word to never lie and always tell the truth. I find it weird and some what disturbing that Christians would accuse fellow Christians of lying or purposefully misrepresenting the facts when we have a basis and a command to tell the truth - you're obviously just repeating the rhetorical unsubstantiated garbage that non-believers enspouse over and over again without proof.

And take this jackass' response for further consideration:

This is hypocritical of you.

In addition, for every conversion story, I could give you 10 more from people who rejected Christianity, or who stay away from it, because of YECism. Just do a google search for them--there are many.

“Considering the sheer absurdity (and the dishonesty routinely used to promote that nonsense) of "scientific" (ha!) creationism, anyone who starts to insist on any kind of creationism has a very good chance of making me reject fully whatever faith he tries to "sell" to me.”

I would agree with this person.

He has just shown beyond all reasonable doubt that he does not understand creation, the nature of the creation/evolution debate, what science is and how it can be applied to the debate. This person is what I mean by hardcore. He is so wound up in his bias that nothing will change it.

Actually, I'll bet many of these people that were polled are x-christians with a YECist background. So, it's really fundamentalists dealing with their own problems: x-fundies.

I am willing to bet anyone on this forum my computer, all the pc games, and all the money that I have - which isn't much - that this gentle cannot:

a. give any examples of creationists being dishonest in their promotion of truth.

In my deconversion process from fundamentalism--which was and is and will continue to be painful for me and my family--I saw many of these examples. Some were so outrightly absurd that it was not even funny.

b. why creation is not science, yet evolutionism is (that stands up to scrutiny).

YECism has no scientific evidence except for distortions and willful ignorance of opposing evidence. I know that isn't what you want to read, but it's the truth. I have discovered it on my way out of fundamentalism.

Most said that while the TE option would be more likely to allow them to even consider Christianity, it would not likely be enough. Still, a crack in the door is better than the slamming shut that YEC'ism causes.


Vance, these people's hearts are cold to hearing the Gospel and the creation message that is foundational to it.

Yes, the Creation message is foundational to it. But that doesn't mean it is literal.

At these people we must move onto those who are willing to listen.

Willing to listen to what? That YECism is the only way? If that was true, you would be turning me away too.

They will ultimately be responsible for what they believe and they have chosen the punishment of unbelief, which is eternal death.

Why are you so quick to condemn? Belief in TE does not send one to hell.

To understand why Jesus came to Earth and why He gave His life for us, we must understand Genesis. Without Genesis, one has no foundation or basis for believing the Gospel message and it's message of Salvation and it's promise of there being New Heavens and New Earth.

You are correct...almost.

Obviously, since these people are hardcore non-believers we should all expect them to say the responses that they did. To those who honestly seek the truth, creation evangelism is an effective tool to use in bringing people to Christ and further advancing His Kingdom.

Creation evangelism is based on the lies that I turned away from. This is very difficult for me. I am sure that you will come back here and respond and claim that I am deceived or something like that and I'm not a true Christian like you are, or that I am comprimising. What you need to realize is that there are other ways of reading Genesis than the way you read it, and that these ways are just as valid as yours. Once you realize that then we can all get along better and actually try to do what we are supposed to be doing.

 

[Delta One]

CEV,

This is hypocritical of you.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion; some are obviously more valid than others.

In addition, for every conversion story, I could give you 10 more from people who rejected Christianity, or who stay away from it, because of YECism. Just do a google search for them--there are many.

Why don't you do the Google search and display any links.

I would agree with this person.

Then it's obvious that you didn't even pay any attention to what I said in reply. That's your opinion, of course, to bad you cannot back such accusations up with hard evidence that stands up against scrutiny...

Actually, I'll bet many of these people that were polled are x-christians with a YECist background. So, it's really fundamentalists dealing with their own problems: x-fundies....Creation evangelism is based on the lies that I turned away from. This is very difficult for me.

Try reading Isaiah 18 and search for any parallels. The evil one has blinded many people's eyes, sadly, even Christians. Most people turn from their faith at college - this is little wonder considering all the secularism that they recieve. Typically, during this stage they typically ask pastors what to do and most times they'll get responses like 'don't worry about it' or 'you can believe both'. What we need to do is get answers to these people on why what they are being taught is wrong and how they can defend their faith from the very frist verse.

In my deconversion process from fundamentalism, which was and is and will continue to be, painful for me and my loved ones, I saw many of these examples. Some were so outrightly absurd that it was not even funny.

???? Why should it be 'painful' for you and your loved ones?? Also, it is noted that you have not provided ANY examples which is what I challenged be done. You are, at the moment, just enspousing the usual rhetoric without any evidence.

YECism has no scientific evidence except for distortions and willful ignorance of opposing evidence. I know that isn't what you want to read, but it's the truth. I have discovered it on my way out of fundamentalism.

Actually, creation is an interpretation of the evidence just as evolution is! Until you come to recognize this, we will get no where and it will be pointless debating you any futher. But note, to say that 'there's no evidence for creation' is illogical and denies reasoning. We both have the same evidence, but we come to different conclusions about it, these are based on different starting faiths or presuppositions. I wrote a bit about this on one thread, I think it quite possibly was in one of the GA threads. I can't remeber, but I put it so simplistic that even a child could understand and say, 'That's pretty logical'.

Its the 'truth' in your eyes because you so much believe evolution to be 'fact' that anything that goes against it is 'lies'. You have provided no evidence as to why it is wrong. Do you believe that people believe something without having evidence for it? Provide me with some evidence that creation is wrong.

Yes, the Creation message is foundational to it. But that doesn't mean it is literal.

Destroy Adam and Eve and their sin, you destroy Christianity. Why else do you think that sceptics attack Genesis the most? They are smart enough to realise that without its foundation, the Gospel message of Salvation through Jesus Christ also crumbles. I find it distrubing that fellow Christians would help the sceptics and humanists in achieving their task of destroying Christianity...

The only reason that Jesus came was to redeem us from sin through His death. Death is the way that redemption was to come - if one adds millions of years of death then the message of redemption through His death is meaningless. I have explained this elsewhere before many times (possibly even on this thread if not one of the other new threads.


Willing to listen to what?

Why are we sinners? What is sin? How do you know that? What did sin do the the creation? How do you know that?

Without the correct foundation, many of these questions cannot be answered in a logical manner as to explain to people why they are sinners and need to accept Christ to be redeemed. Creation answers the foundational and fundamental questions and gives people the fundamental knowledge that the Gospel directly relies on.

To what? The message of the Gospel.

Why are you so quick to condemn? Belief in TE does not send one to hell.

God says that if they have been informed of the Gospel and they reject it, then they will be eternally separated from Him. I was not talking about TEs either if you cared to pay attention you would have realised that. Atheists, we are talking about atheists... Of course, I am the judge, but I am just simply reciting what Revelation says.



You are correct...almost.

In what way am I incorrect?

I am sure that you will come back here and respond and claim that I am deceived or something like that and I'm not a true Christian like you are, or that I am comprimising.

No, not quite. While I believe that you are indeed being decieved by the evil one like what God was doing in Isaiah 18 to the prophets, you are indeed a Christian. I acknowledge that and am glad for you! In fact, I rejoice for your gain! However, I also am saddened that you would take man's ideas over God's Word.

What you need to realize is that there are other ways of reading Genesis than the way you read it, and that these ways are just as valid as yours. Once you realize that then we can all get along better and actually try to do what we are supposed to be doing.

I realise that everyone has different ways of reading Genesis and have always known that. To reject a literal Genesis is to ignore and reject many other parts of the Bible and to destroy the foundation for the Gospel message and many other important doctrines such as marriage. How does this stop us from trying to convert fellow humans to Christianity? I usually go on the non-Christian or everyone forums, especially GA and try to give reasonable answers for what I believe and the hope that I have in me. I have seldomly ever seen any TEs try.

Do you want to call it a 'truce' then and head out to call preach to the non-believers? I'm sorry that this may sound harsh, but yeah, that's how it goes sometimes.

 

[shernren]

Delta, I think you're a good speaker but I have one question:

Is it necessary for someone to accept YECism to be a Christian?

I don't want any half-way nonsense like "destroy the foundation" or "maybe weaken doctrines" - I want a clear "YES" or "NO".

If "YES", then you are saying that all of us TEs here are not Christian.
If "NO", then you should at least support TEism as a viable ministry that brings people to Christianity without forcing them to throw science out the door, even if you don't espouse such views yourself.
And if you don't dare to answer ... I refuse to make comments that will not edify.

 

[Delta One]

shernren,

Delta, I think you're a good speaker

Thanks, I think. I'm not as confident when I speak out in front of a large group of people, hence why I like talking over email or the forum. I'm getting better though, and I'll have to really improve by the time I start my first secondary prac teaching. They can smell fear...

Is it necessary for someone to accept YECism to be a Christian?

No, it is not necessary. I have never claimed that one has to accept creation to be a Christian.

I don't want any half-way nonsense like "destroy the foundation" or "maybe weaken doctrines" - I want a clear "YES" or "NO".

Just briefly, it's not nonsense. If it were silly, you could have and would have refuted such ideas long ago as you appear to be very intelligent. The fact that you have not implies, to me anyway, that you have no such proof.

If "NO", then you should at least support TEism as a viable ministry that brings people to Christianity without forcing them to throw science out the door, even if you don't espouse such views yourself.

They would, however, have no basis for what they believe - which is what I've been trying to get you all to realise for many months now. They would not have to 'throw science out the door' as many great creationary scientists have proven, e.g. Newton, Joule, Kelvin, Werner von Braun, Thompson, among many others. SBG, remus and myself do not have to reject science to believe creation. If I was as against science as you imply and assume that creationists are, why am I doing science subjects? Why do I want to be an astronomer once I've done teaching for several years? I have been fasinated by science since I was young and have developed an 'attachment' to studying the stars and space over the years.

I, different from you, realise that evolution is just a belief system that tries to explain how all the evidence of the present originated. I also realise that this view is based on a non-Biblical view. Similarly, it is not hard to realise that the Bible also says how all the evidence of the present originated! Obviously, they cannot both be right as they contradict each other! So, upon realising that we both have the same evidence, same science, yet we came to different conclusions about the origin of the same evidence I discovered that the only difference, therefore, is the starting assumptions or faiths that the conclusion is based on! Basically it comes down to: sinful and fallible men who weren't there vs the Creator God who was there and who told us how He made everything. Obviously, its more reasonable to believe the Bible out of faith as opposed to believing evolutionism out of blind faith.

Those who make comments such as 'there's no evidence for creation' or 'there's more evidence for evolution than creation' are missing the point - we both have exactly the same evidence for both theories. The conclusions are different because of the different starting faiths. Come on people, this isn't a hard concept to grasp!

I suppose you have a point - converting those to Christ is the primary purpose of us all.

That said, I'm sorry but I just simply cannot bring those to Christ through a fallible man-made belief system that is not justified nor even supported by the Bible (in fact, it condtradicts it and as such is a 'lie') and claim that one can believe both - that's called being 'decietful'.

 

[shernren]

But TEism hasn't weakened my doctrines. I am as strong a Christian after converting. I see no reason to question the Bible at all. I just think Genesis 1 is a little hard.

You mentioned creationist scientists - did they have the evidence we have at hand? If I showed Newton an isochron, what do you think he would have said?

You can say that evolution is just a belief system, and creation is just a belief system, but I have the following problems:

1. Nowhere in the Bible do I see evolution as a belief system being refuted.
2. Nowhere in the scientific evidence do I see creation as a belief system being supported.

(Please note how I am defining those terms:
"Evolution" - the idea that the universe and the earth are billions of years old, and that mutation and natural selection were used by God as His mechanism of making life
"Creation" - the idea that the universe and the earth are 6000 years old, and that God did not use mutation and natural selection to create the current diversity we see)

Now you can say that creationism uses the same evidence to arrive at a different conclusion. I'm sorry, though, I'm too stupid to get it. I don't see any scientifically self-consistent creationist model of the origins. Right now:

evidence + scientific presuppositions = old universe + old earth
evidence + non-scientific presuppositions = young universe + young earth

The whole problem is that to you, evolution and creation are theories on equal footing to begin with because we don't know what happened. But to me, creation has been shot in the foot from the start because it is not a scientific theory. Is it necessary to have a scientific theory? Only if we assume that the universe was made to be rational. If you don't then serious problems with the character of God and the purpose of our rationality would arise.

What "non-Biblical view" is evolution based on? If it is methodological naturalism, I would remind you that your "creation science" is also based on this "non-Biblical view" ...

And when God dictated Genesis 1, was He telling us how He made, or why He made? Because if it was Him telling us how He made the universe, isn't it a bit irresponsible of Him to not have told us how also He made it look so gosh darn old ...

 

[The Lady Kate]

You did not even answer the question, nor did you come close to it. You have claimed God is a liar, if you are wrong in your understanding of origins. Here are your own words:

"As I said, God is only a liar if Genesis is literal."

Do you understand the implications of claiming God is actually doing the work of Satan?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "If"?

I don't think very many TEs even understand this nor see this. Blaming God for your misunderstanding by saying if Genesis is literal God is a liar. There is no responsibility taken here by a person who makes such a statement.

So Genesis must be literal? TEs have "misunderstood" it?

What basis do you have to call God a liar if Genesis is literal? Who are you to judge God in any circumstance?

What basis? The basis of reason; One of God's many gifts to us.

God gave us the means to figure it all out, and I, for one, will not be intimidated out of using it.

The physical evidence of an old Earth cannot be reasonably denied, and indeed, it is not.

Taken with a literal Genesis, The implications are quite clear: God made a young Earth and then went out of His way to trick us into thinking it's older.

This simply cannot be. So the conclusion is quite simple.

 

[Delta One]

Hi shernren (again ),

But TEism hasn't weakened my doctrines. I am as strong a Christian after converting. I see no reason to question the Bible at all. I just think Genesis 1 is a little hard.

Well you are one of the lucky ones.

You mentioned creationist scientists - did they have the evidence we have at hand? If I showed Newton an isochron, what do you think he would have said?

He, like many scientists today, was totally convinced of the Bible's infallibility. TEs, obviously aren't as convinced.

You can say that evolution is just a belief system, and creation is just a belief system, but I have the following problems:
1. Nowhere in the Bible do I see evolution as a belief system being refuted.

For one, Exodus 20:11. Why do you think that God took as long as six days to create everything then rest on the seventh?? It was a pattern for man to replicate and copy! If God worked for several million years (which cannot be obtained given that the term 'yom' can on mean a literal day or an indefinite period of time, e.g. in the day of the LORD, which makes even less sense!) and rested for several million years is He asking us to follow?? That is nonsense. The many theological issues created also cast a very big storm cloud over evolution's compatibility with the Bible.

2. Nowhere in the scientific evidence do I see creation as a belief system being supported.

One problem with your definition of 'creation': God did not create using natural selection [a very brutal and barbaric process that lacks mercy -- is this in constrast with anything you know?? Namely a few of the characteristics that we generally ascribe to God. Mercy *cough, cough* and *cough* love *cough* among others.] and mutation to create the original creatures in the beginning. Since the Fall mutations and natural selection have created the diversity that we observe today; the dog kind is evidence of this.

Creation is consistent with the evidence. For example, the lack of transitional forms (Raup, D. 1979, p. 25) that we have implies that creatures stay true to their kind as Genesis clearly says. The fact that something close to over 90% of the entire fossil record is marine life fossilized in sedimentary rock is consistent with the Flood. Many of these fossils are fish still eating their meals and even giving birth - which implies rapid burial that is consistent with the Flood. The fact that we are not talking in high pitch squeaky voices is irrefutable evidence that the Earth is less than the supposed billions of years, the fact that the continents have not erroded, etc. The fact that we still have commets in our solar system (there is no evidence for the existence of the Oort belt) implies that our solar system is less than the billions of years because after tens of thousands of years we would expect no commets would be left. These are just a few evidences in which creationary theory is consistent with the evidence.

Now you can say that creationism uses the same evidence to arrive at a different conclusion. I'm sorry, though, I'm too stupid to get it.

You said it...
Where's that little smilie that bashes it's head against a brick wall? The following one is about the closest that I can get to it:

I'm sorry but I can't really define it any simplier than what I have many times. I honestly don't see what's so hard about it not to understand.

I don't see any scientifically self-consistent creationist model of the origins. Right now:

evidence + scientific presuppositions = old universe + old earth
evidence + non-scientific presuppositions = young universe + young earth

Allow me to correct this:
evidence + non-Biblical presuppositions = old universe + old Earth.
evidence + Biblical presuppositions = young universe + young Earth.

Notice your own wording, you don't 'see'. That is because to you, your belief in evolution is so strong that you actually unconsciously consider it to be 'truth' while anything against this is 'lies'. It's no real wonder why you can't see any evidence for creation with such a mindset!

The whole problem is that to you, evolution and creation are theories on equal footing to begin with because we don't know what happened.

No, I believe that the Bible has the last word on the topic because of its Absolute Authority and revelation from God Himself. But yes, they are both different interpretations based on their indivdual presuppositions. Obviously, they can be examined with the evidence of the present to see which explains the evidence in a more logical and reasonable way.

But to me, creation has been shot in the foot from the start because it is not a scientific theory. Is it necessary to have a scientific theory? Only if we assume that the universe was made to be rational. If you don't then serious problems with the character of God and the purpose of our rationality would arise.

You don't think that God creating using evolution, by the brutal and barbaric processes where animals have been ripping themselves apart and shedding blood where the weak are eliminated, causes serious problems with the character of God?? *Cough, mercy*, *cough, love*...

Please answer how is evolution science and why creation is not.

What "non-Biblical view" is evolution based on? If it is methodological naturalism, I would remind you that your "creation science" is also based on this "non-Biblical view" ...

Evolution was popularized by an unbeliever who had rejected Genesis completely as a 'myth'. The whole religion of evolution is based on the rejection of the truth of [a literal] Genesis (then the entire Bible for most).

And when God dictated Genesis 1, was He telling us how He made, or why He made? Because if it was Him telling us how He made the universe, isn't it a bit irresponsible of Him to not have told us how also He made it look so gosh darn old ...

I think that it's very obvious that He was telling us how He created as there is no verse to suggest or say why He created. We do, however, know thanks to other verses that God created out of His love for us. The same love that was willing to sacrifice His life was the same love that fashioned us from the dust and formed us in His Image.

How does it look old? Take off the old age glasses and you'll see a different image. Of course, this is, for most, easier said then done.

Raup, Dr David (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50(1), January 1979, p. 25.

Btw, Stephen Jay Gould also made similar comments to Dr David Raup.

 

[Delta One]

The Lady Kate,

Nothing in God's creation can contradict what is written in God's Word (other wise God is a liar). Since evolutionism creates many theological problems and it contradicts many parts of the Bible (including Exodus 20:11), it must be incorrect.

The 'age' evolutionists recieve is just an interpretation based on various assumptions, such as assuming how much daughter element there was in a certain rock, the radioactive decay rate was constant and that no radioactive elements have escaped from or been added to the rock when the rock was formed till when the tests where done - for example, urianium ore washes out of rock much faster than lead does, hence stuffing up the dates; just to name a few assumptions involved in the radiometric dating methods.

God gave us the means to figure it all out, and I, for one, will not be intimidated out of using it.


Take a chill pill cuz no one is trying to 'intimidate' you out of using reason. Reason isn't as good as you think. For example, Hitler reasoned that once he eliminated all the Jews and the other minority groups that he would be able to get a 'master race'. See how some reasoning can be flawed logically?? If you assume the wrong thing, then your logic will also be wrong as will your reasoning that are both based on that assumption being true.