The impact of YEC'ism

[The Lady Kate]

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.

Only if we choose to read God's word as literal, word-for-word fact, something which even the original Hebrew authors wouldn't do.

Let us not forget that nothing in God's word can contradict God's creation, wrought by His own hands, without any possibility of alteration or tampering by human hands (something even Scripture cannot claim)

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.

Are YEC 'ages' built on assumptions any less shaky? No. More so, since they add the assumption of a literal Genesis, and thus, seek only results which arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

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.

I saw an implication of damnation, which I see all too often around here. Because of my beliefs about the physical world; My faith in God has been questioned one too many times for me to "chill."

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'.

You do realize that there's a rule around here about invoking Hitler.

Your anti-reason analogy assumes that Hitler actually believed what he said. I see it more likely that he reasoned that if he told the people a convincing enough lie, and kept telling it with a straight face, people would believe it.

That line of reasoning worked very well for him, IIRC. It works well today. Look at how much wrong information is being spouted by the YEC ministries...

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.

I'm assuming that God's word and God's creation must be reconcilable with each other.
I'm assuming that God is not trying to trick us.
I'm assuming that something need not be literal in order for it to be truth.
I'm assuming that over 400 years of physical sciences in unrelated fields has not drawn us to the same wrong conclusion.
I'm assuming that there is no sinister conspiracy in the scientific community to draw people away from God.

Which of my assumptions do you consider to be wrong?

 

[SBG]

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

Yes, I do, thanks.

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

Not all of Genesis is stricly literal. I believe almost every YEC here will tell you that, even if you don't want to believe any of us.

So yes, the better statement would be, if God did create in six days, then TEs have misunderstood. God is never a liar, not even in an 'if' situation. If it happened in way you don't believe it could have, then you were wrong, not God.

I do not understand why Christians have become so prideful to think that if their wrong, it isn't because of themselves it is because of God; hence the statement you made, 'If Genesis is literal, God is a liar.'

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

Oh, I see. God gave us reason, therefore it is ok if we judge God? Any Biblical support that says it is right to judge the Almighty? Or how about any Biblical support to say God is of Satan?

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

Yeah. It is called the Bible that tells us all we need to know, including how God created the universe.

Don't be intimidated out of reading the Bible.

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

An earth created mature, but yet is young.

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.

Again, an earth created mature, but yet is young. Just like Adam being created as an adult. He was created only seconds ago, but he looks 20 years old. The earth was created around 10,000 years ago, but it looks billions of years old. That is not very hard to understand.

Is God a liar if He created Adam as an adult? Even if you saw him a second after he was created and said he must have lived at least 20 years? Is God the liar because of your false deduction?

Upon futher investigation, you look into his genetic make up and notice that he has a liver, heart, lungs, and a brain among other organs. You know these take time to develop in the mother's womb. So is God a liar now because you know that the organs had to develop over time and could not have just been created fully functioning? Adam has fully grown hair and you know time was needed in order for that to be grown, is God a liar now?
You notice Adam has a nice physique, your experience tells you a man can only get that if they work out or do a lot of physical activities. Is God a liar now?

Is God a liar because He does things that you cannot understand? Like creating a world with mountains and volcanoes to produce islands. A world with layers of soil that are not even, rocks of different sizes, trees of different sizes, and the world contains oxygen for the inhabitants to breathe. Is God a liar because of this? Is God a liar if He choses to create how He wants? Is God a liar if He chooses to work how He desires? Even if you cannot understand, and because you cannot understand, does that make God a liar?

I think, if one is to answer yes to any of these, then he/she thinks somehow he/she is on the same level with God, not God being greater and Sovereign over all things.

This is a truly sad condition that Christians think they can judge the Almighty, that they can subject God to their authority, and call God a worker of Satan. This is what is done when one presents a statement saying, if I am wrong in my understanding, God is liar. This person who says such a thing, sees themself above God able to judge Him, able to tell Him how He is going to do things.

The difference between Jeremiah, Job and todays TEs who call God a liar? Jeremiah and Job repented.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Again, an earth created mature, but yet is young. Just like Adam being created as an adult. He was created only seconds ago, but he looks 20 years old. The earth was created around 10,000 years ago, but it looks billions of years old. That is not very hard to understand.

Is God a liar if He created Adam as an adult? Even if you saw him a second after he was created and said he must have lived at least 20 years? Is God the liar because of your false deduction?

we have discussed this at length, the problem of the creation with the appearance of age is analogous to the difference between adam created with a omphalos versus scars. scars imply a history, like memories they imply having gone through a process of development.

tree rings, ice cores, are equal to scars, they imply a historical process. to duplicate them in a creation with apparent age is deceptive for it implies a history that did not occur. it is equivalent to fake antiquing, drilling fake wormholes and trying to deceive an antique buyer into thinking it is old when it is in fact not. adam's belly button is a similiar but not exactly the same problem, since all humans have them, you can argue that is is a necessary feature, adam having the equivalent of an appendictomy scar and the memories of it would be deceptive and an indicator of a trickster God not God as taught in the Scriptures.

btw
if God created with apparent age then science is investigating that apparent age, just add the word apparent into the front of all scientific statements about the age of the earth. it is there already because of science's epistemology, so make it explicit. it doesn't change the facts, the earth is apparently 4 billion years old. not 10k....you have NOT gained anything for the YECist team and have left yourself open to the claim of Godly deceptiveness with the argument of creation with apparent age, something AiG itself recommends not doing.....
....

 

[invisible trousers]

SBG you've been doing a superb job of creating straw men and misrepresenting arguments that myself and others have made (oddly another defining component of YEC- the staw man). It looks like you're arguing against what you want us to say, not necessarily what we've said. I've been too busy studying for finals to post a lot (which i'll do in a few days), but this stuck out:

Again, an earth created mature, but yet is young. Just like Adam being created as an adult. He was created only seconds ago, but he looks 20 years old. The earth was created around 10,000 years ago, but it looks billions of years old. That is not very hard to understand.

bad news.
Christian scientists: hey look at all this evidence of how the earth is billions of years old
God: HAHA suckers it's not, I sure fooled you huh

Once again showing God lying to His followers. Bad theological implications you continue to ignore.

If we're going to play "apparent age" then we might as well all quit and go home. It's a terrible argument to make. In fact, I think your apparent age interpretation is wrong. The earth was created 50 years ago with the appearance that it was old. Actually, wait, no, the earth was created last week with the appearance of being old. Nah I don't like that idea either, the earth was created this morning right before I woke up. It looks old but God didn't mean that, he's really trying to fool me.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Not all of Genesis is stricly literal. I believe almost every YEC here will tell you that, even if you don't want to believe any of us.

I see. Sounds like YECs do the same kind of pcking and choosing that they often accuse TEs of.

So yes, the better statement would be, if God did create in six days, then TEs have misunderstood. God is never a liar, not even in an 'if' situation. If it happened in way you don't believe it could have, then you were wrong, not God.

But then it's not just me, it's 300 years of physical science which have somehow come to the same mistaken conclusion... after all, you never hear about any kind of dating error which makes the Earth seem younger than it actually is...

So perhaps I didn't make it clear when I didn't detail that third possibility, improbable as it may be, that the sum total of human knowledge on this matter of the age of the Earth is incorrect.

Or is it a conspiracy? There's certainly no shortage of paranoia about that possibility.

So, to review.... we have the following possibilities:

1: YEC is correct, and God has deceived us (which we both agree is not an option)
2: YEC is correct, and 99% of history's scientists have been making the same mistakes over and over for the past few centuries (YECs would like us to accept this one)
3: As #2, but it's a deliberate conspiracy to drive people away from God. (tinfoil hat theology)
4: TEs have it right, Genesis is not literal, but no less true. (My personal favorite, as you've probably guessed by now)
5: None of the above (maybe the Atheists are right, or maybe the Truth is still out there...)

I do not understand why Christians have become so prideful to think that if their wrong, it isn't because of themselves it is because of God; hence the statement you made, 'If Genesis is literal, God is a liar.'

No more prideful than the notion that God, who designed this universe with such clockwork precision and rationality, turned the whole thing on its ear to conform to a particular reading of one Book of his Bible, and then concealed the evidence so that only hisfollowers (and a small percentage of them, at that) would see through the trick.

Oh, I see. God gave us reason, therefore it is ok if we judge God? Any Biblical support that says it is right to judge the Almighty? Or how about any Biblical support to say God is of Satan?

When have I said that was the case? Does YEC science forbid the use of hypotheticals?

Yeah. It is called the Bible that tells us all we need to know, including how God created the universe.

Don't be intimidated out of reading the Bible.

I've read the Bible, thank you. I won't be intimidated out of reconciling it to God's creation...as opposed to reconciling God's creation with a particular interpretation.

An earth created mature, but yet is young.

IOW, an Earth that looks like something it is not.

Sounds deceptive to me.

Again, an earth created mature, but yet is young. Just like Adam being created as an adult. He was created only seconds ago, but he looks 20 years old.

He looked 20 years old (an arbrary figure, but that's not important now).

He looked 20 years old because he had all the signs of age, history, maturity, wear and tear that we would expect to see on a twenty-year-old...

...none of which ever happend.

Still sounds deceptive to me.

The earth was created around 10,000 years ago, but it looks billions of years old. That is not very hard to understand.

And why does the Earth look billions of years old? It's not like anyone walked up to it and asked its age...

It looks billions of years old because we have found all the signs of age, history, maturity, wear and tear that happens on a planet billions of years old.

...except that it never happened.

God created this world one way, then planted more than enough false evidence to make us believe (as He knew we would), that it was something it was not.

That sounds very deceptive to me.

Is God a liar if He created Adam as an adult? Even if you saw him a second after he was created and said he must have lived at least 20 years? Is God the liar because of your false deduction?

He is if he expected me to believe Adam was 20 years old...but this is not the case. I doubt that God was trying to fool Eve...

Upon futher investigation, you look into his genetic make up and notice that he has a liver, heart, lungs, and a brain among other organs. You know these take time to develop in the mother's womb. So is God a liar now because you know that the organs had to develop over time and could not have just been created fully functioning? Adam has fully grown hair and you know time was needed in order for that to be grown, is God a liar now?

What about that scar on Adam's forehead? Adam clearly remembers falling down a hill when he was 5 years old...

How about that burn on his hand? He shouldn't have wandered too close to the fire... and he did get too close, or else where did the burn come from?

How about that limp he walks with? Adam stepped on a sharp rock last week... at least, he thinks he did...

Is God a liar now?

Don't you see? "Age" is more than a number, and "appearance of age" even more so.
How do you think we study the planet? We look at the cracks, the flaws, the marks, and see what has happened.

This planet has scars as clear as the scars on a body...every one tells its own unique story.

..and if YEC is right, it's all fiction.

Is God a liar now?

You notice Adam has a nice physique, your experience tells you a man can only get that if they work out or do a lot of physical activities. Is God a liar now?

But Adam did work out...just ask him. he's been running five miles every day since he was a boy. He must have...he remembers it.

Don't you see? A false age on Adam may not mean anything, but the false age of the Earth carries with it false memories...memories of things which never happened.

Is God a liar now?

If your analogy is true... YES HE IS.

And that cannot be. So YEC with the "appearance of age" cannot be true.

Is God a liar because He does things that you cannot understand? Like creating a world with mountains and volcanoes to produce islands. A world with layers of soil that are not even, rocks of different sizes, trees of different sizes, and the world contains oxygen for the inhabitants to breathe. Is God a liar because of this? Is God a liar if He choses to create how He wants? Is God a liar if He chooses to work how He desires? Even if you cannot understand, and because you cannot understand, does that make God a liar?

Actually, volcanoes, mountains, layers of soil... we've got a pretty good grasp of how these things work. We don't understand it all, of course, but we're workiing on it...we're patient, just as God was patient when he allowed these processes to form the Earth over billions of years.

No, God is not a liar at all. And he does choose to create any way he sees fit...even if that was does not conform to how men, even inspired men, understood it all those millenia ago.

I think you're finally catching on...

I think, if one is to answer yes to any of these, then he/she thinks somehow he/she is on the same level with God, not God being greater and Sovereign over all things.

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but since I'm a TE, I don't think God's a liar about anything...so I'm not really sure how your dilemma applies.

This is a truly sad condition that Christians think they can judge the Almighty, that they can subject God to their authority, and call God a worker of Satan. This is what is done when one presents a statement saying, if I am wrong in my understanding, God is liar. This person who says such a thing, sees themself above God able to judge Him, able to tell Him how He is going to do things.

How fortunate then that this is not the case, since as we all (most of us, anyway) know, YEC is not God.

The difference between Jeremiah, Job and todays TEs who call God a liar? Jeremiah and Job repented.

Are we reading the same thread? I haven't seen any TE call God a liar. I have presented a conditional statement (if...then) which would portray God to be a liar, which I then rejected.

Honestly, this is simple stuff:

If A then B
Not B
Therefore, not A.

You seem like an intelligent and articulate person, so I can't understand how you could be missing this simple difference. But if you're not going to debate what I have actually said, then I've wasted a good deal of time on these replies.

 

[CEV]

CEV,

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.

Your answer is that all the TE's in the world are blinded by Satan, and that the less than 1% of the world's population has the truth.

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.

It wasn't secularism that turned me away from fundamentalism; it was extensive research online and from books at the library. At College I never took a class with evolution or "secularism" in it. The only "secularism" there was, was in the campus culture.

And for you to say that people who are taught evolution is wrong, is to say, essentially, that the entire scientific process is erroneous and that science is basically screwed. Also, you are saying that all my online and library research was in vain, and in fact deceived, rather than educated, me--that the education was a tool used by Satan to deceive me. But I know that my research yielded the facts, and that the answer I arrived at was the truth. I know this will not convince you, because you have somehow made literalism and YECism a salvation doctrine. The only way to discuss this topic with you in an intellectually honest way would be to first divorce you from your idea of literalism being tied to salvation. But I know that won't happen right now. It might take time, and it might never happen. But you should strongly consider it, in case one day you discover the things that I did. You will become an atheist if you cannot divorce them.

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.

Because, if you read one of my other threads, it is causing tension and confusion.

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.

As for evidence for what I am saying, just look around you. It's everywhere. One day I woke up and looked around and saw it. It was the stuff I had been rejecting all along as "ungodly rhetoric of the damned and of the god-haters."

And as for accepting "man's reasoning" vs "god's reasoning," this is not correct. If I see an apple right in front of me, and I say that it is red, I am accepting "man's reasoning." I realize that conclusions in science are not as direct and obvious as this example. However, those who have understanding and knowledge (maybe deception and foolishness?) in science can see these conclusions more obviously than we can. And when I did the research and wrote about my findings, I, too, could see why they were right.

Now, on the other hand, if I accept that your interpretation of the Bible--your views on how it is to be red and understood--I would also be accepting "man's reasoning." The way in which you read the Bible seems so very obvious and correct, but it is because that is probably the way you were taught for years how to read it. I was, so I know where you are coming from. It is still difficult for me. I am going through a lot of confusion right now.

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!

You are correct.

But note, to say that 'there's no evidence for creation' is illogical and denies reasoning.

Incorrect.

We both have the same evidence, but we come to different conclusions about it, these are based on different starting faiths or presuppositions.

Note where I mentioned willful ignorance of opposing evidence.

Its the 'truth' in your eyes because you so much believe evolution to be 'fact' that anything that goes against it is 'lies'.

I so much believe evolution to be true because I have examined, and used to believe for years, the arguments that went against it, and have found that they are lies and distortions.

You have provided no evidence as to why it is wrong

The evidence is everywhere. It's at the local College, it's on National Geographic, it's in science journals and textbooks, it's online, it's readily accessible at any time anywhere. It's at your fingertips. You've just been ignoring it, like I had done for so long.

Do you believe that people believe something without having evidence for it?

Yes, we do it all the time. It's called faith.

Provide me with some evidence that creation is wrong.

I don't know if I want to get into a debate here. Probably not in this thread. I will make another thread.

Have you ever been to the C&E thread? They have lots of information there.

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.

They might have existed, but the earth is not 6,000 years old, and there was no special creation. There is no reason to think that because of the old age of the universe, Adam and Eve did not exist. Maybe they existed around 6,000 years ago after all, but they were certainly not specially created.

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...

Actually, in my research, I found that the atheists/humanists/whoever, who discredit all of Christianity on the basis of a literal Genesis, are discredited by other thinkers and intellectuals. These people disregard all other interpretations and just target the one that is the easiest to target, in hopes to destroy God and scream that they've killed him. Reminds me of Nietzche (sp?). I don't take such people seriously; they're also intellectually dishonest.

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.

If Adam and Eve were not specially created, why does that make the sin-salvation issue irrelevant?

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.

But have you ever really educated yourself on other ways of reading the Bible and interpreting it can work, rather than assuming they don't, and assuming that only yours can? Maybe TE's can teach you a thing or two about their take on theology. Obviously they remain Christian while accepting evolution/old age of universe, etc. So, to them, science and theology do not conflict. Maybe they know something you don't, or something you just haven't taken a good look at yet.

And yes I see them try.

 

[shernren]

Well since Delta is away I won't shout at him just yet.

SBG:

Well, if the earth was created young to look old, then you should go inform AiG and ICR that they are simply barking up the wrong tree! An Omphalos assertion about the evidence at hand disqualifies that evidence from scientific analysis since such an assertion cannot be proven, cannot be replicated and makes no falsifiable scientific hypotheses.

 

[The Lady Kate]

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.

Can you name a single "unlucky" one?

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.

Well, Newtonian physics doesn't run afoul of any particular interpretation of the Bible, so Newton's faith is irrelevent.

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.

The problem is that the pattern we "followed" was already well-established before Genesis was written! The Sabbath tradition is mentioned in Exodus, for example, and Biblical scholars know that Exodus was written before Genesis.

Its seems more of a case of details added to the Genesis story to explain a tradition already in place.

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.

Except that Genesis is a part of the Old Testament...How much mercy and love did God practice before Christ?

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.

What lack of transitional forms?

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.

Also consistent with the notion that life cames from the seas.

Many of these fossils are fish still eating their meals and even giving birth - which implies rapid burial that is consistent with the Flood.

Link, please?

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,

WHAT????

the fact that the continents have not erroded, etc.

The continents do erode.

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.

So you demand proof of anything which refutes your theory, but accept support without evidence....Double standard, anyone?

These are just a few evidences in which creationary theory is consistent with the evidence.

PRATT list.

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.

You had a conclusion, and you cherry-picked the facts to arrive at it. yes, very simple.

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.

But this is a scientific discussion, not a Biblical one.

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!

As opposed to your own conscious refusal to see anything you haven't already decided is "truth"?

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.

On spiritual matters, not scientific ones. I trust the Bible for moral guidance, but should my car break down, I take it to a mechanic.

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.

By that criteria, evolution is the more logical and reasonable choice, isn't it? It is more in line with the physical evidence, and doesn't require a miracle every 20 minutes to make it work.

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*...

*cough, killing every living creature with a flood*, *cough, killing every first-born child of Egypt*

God seems to have no problem getting his hands dirty when the need arises.

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

Because Creation science relies on a pre-determined conclusion...Biblical Literalism... and seeks only to include evidence with supports it, ignoring or dismissing the rest.

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).

Charles Darwin was a Christian. Try again.

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.

Take off the Old-age glasses and put on the preconceived conclusion blinders? Easier said than done, but still a bad idea.

 

[shernren]

Ehh, Lady Kate, part of your post is repeated? By the high and squeaky voice thing, I think he means that there should be far more helium in the atmosphere if the earth was 4.55 billion years old. Another PRATT.

 

[BlackSaab52]

Charles Darwin was a Christian. Try again.

He was? I thought he was a Deist. Do you have a source for this?

 

[gluadys]

The problem is that the pattern we "followed" was already well-established before Genesis was written! The Sabbath tradition is mentioned in Exodus, for example, and Biblical scholars know that Exodus was written before Genesis.

Its seems more of a case of details added to the Genesis story to explain a tradition already in place.

It's not quite as simple as Exodus being written before Genesis. There are three authors whose writings were combined in both Genesis and Exodus. So it is true that some parts of Exodus were written before some parts of Genesis. It is also true that some parts of Genesis were written before some parts of Exodus.

The references to six days of creation in Genesis and in Exodus were both written by the same author, and so at the same time. This writer was the last of the three authors whose compositions contributed to Genesis & Exodus, so you are correct in saying that what was written referred to a custom already established. The point was to explain the existence of the custom. Neither of the earlier authors (nor the author who wrote Deuteronomy) connected creation with the six working days of the week. In the latter case, not even in the Deuteronomist's version of the Commandment to observe the sabbath.

 

[SBG]

Gluadys you mind posting a link - if you have one - to where you are understanding that the first five books of the Bible had different authors?

For what I have read and studied there is very little evidence of this.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys you mind posting a link - if you have one - to where you are understanding that the first five books of the Bible had different authors?

For what I have read and studied there is very little evidence of this.

You are probably reading from sources that have a vested interest in downplaying the evidence. Of course, supporters of the theory obviously have a vested interest in promoting the evidence. So the truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle.

I am not conversant enough with the primary literature to provide good references. Suffice it to say that it is solid enough to convince the majority of biblical scholars, both Christian and Jewish, and place it in the curriculum of most theological schools.

It is also difficult to describe the evidence because it depends heavily on linguistic analysis, and that requires a background both in linguistics generally and ancient Hebrew linguistics in particular.

However a good lay-persons introduction is Richard Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?

Below is a link to the first 10 chapters of Genesis colour-keyed as to author.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm

Here is a graphic description of the time-line showing who wrote when.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html

And here is an interesting interview with Friedman.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13986_1.html

 

[SBG]

Thanks Gluadys!

 

[The Lady Kate]

It's not quite as simple as Exodus being written before Genesis. There are three authors whose writings were combined in both Genesis and Exodus. So it is true that some parts of Exodus were written before some parts of Genesis. It is also true that some parts of Genesis were written before some parts of Exodus.

The references to six days of creation in Genesis and in Exodus were both written by the same author, and so at the same time. This writer was the last of the three authors whose compositions contributed to Genesis & Exodus, so you are correct in saying that what was written referred to a custom already established. The point was to explain the existence of the custom. Neither of the earlier authors (nor the author who wrote Deuteronomy) connected creation with the six working days of the week. In the latter case, not even in the Deuteronomist's version of the Commandment to observe the sabbath.

Fascinating... Certainly worth checking into. Thanks!

 

[jasperbound]

I want to post this, and where better than to post it on the thread that spurred the revelation?
There's one thing I agree with TEs on: we should not be so dogmatic about relatively trivial issues. That includes the TEs, who are also quite dogmatic in their interpretation. Disagreement is fine, but division and demonizing is quite un-Christian. Heck, when not everybody even agrees on historical matters, such as the existence of Jesus, it'd be quite pompous for any of us to say we know without reasonable doubt what happened before we existed.

 

[Delta One]

Hi The Lady Kate,

This message is a reply to one of yours a week or so ago. I will admit from the start that it is quite long, but I truly hope that you do get something out of it.

Only if we choose to read God's word as literal, word-for-word fact, something which even the original Hebrew authors wouldn't do.

I’ll assume that we are still talking about Genesis here, as some parts of the Bible, like Psalms, are not meant to be taken literally because of their poetical descriptions that David uses to describe his amazement of God’s grace and Glory.

Just as a general question, how do you know what the ‘Hebrew authors’ took and did not take seriously or literally? Do you have any sources?

Let us not forget that nothing in God's word can contradict God's creation, wrought by His own hands, without any possibility of alteration or tampering by human hands (something even Scripture cannot claim).

Using my own logic against me; impressive, most impressive. So true. The Bible, however, says over and over again that it is the Word of God; as such it is therefore infallible. The evidence can be interpreted in many ways and still be consistent with it as this creation/evolution debate illustrates. The Bible really only has one way of interpreting it in such a way that it is consistent from verse one to the end of Revelation as has been shown to you all many-a-times.

Are YEC 'ages' built on assumptions any less shaky? No. More so, since they add the assumption of a literal Genesis, and thus, seek only results which arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

The creation date is based on the infallible Word of God, not long age assumptions. In fact, evolutionary scientists also seek the results that only arrive at a predetermined date; listen to the following comment by Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC, in the article “Secular catastrophism” from Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p. 21:

‘The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such “confirmation” may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.’

Although this reference is slightly old, the situation hasn’t improved any for the evolutionists! Dr Mauger, former associate professor of geology from East Carolina University said the following on the type of dates that get published in reputable scientific journals:

‘In general, dates in the “correct ball park” are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.”

How do they know what ‘the correct ball park’ is? They have to have an initial belief at to how old a rock is. Sometimes, however, the age of a rock is initially assumed to be around a given age depending on the remains of organisms that are in them; but as Rastall (former lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University) concedes in 1956 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol.10, p. 168, such methods for dating are circular in their reasoning:

‘It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.’



I saw an implication of damnation, which I see all too often around here. Because of my beliefs about the physical world; My faith in God has been questioned one too many times for me to "chill."

I’m sorry, but I don’t think that SBG made any such implications. I’m not being biased here, for once. He made no such comments about ‘damnation’ for not believing in a literal Genesis. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe anyone has. I’ve brought up and stand by my belief that you have no real foundation for what Christians believe if you self destruct Genesis, but I have never said that ‘if you don’t believe what the Bible says you will go to hell’. No, of course I know that you and other Christians, no matter what they believe about our origins, already have a place in heaven that Jesus has prepared for you and I am really glad for your gain!! As always, I am sorry for any time that I may sound harsh, rash, or even arrogant – I don’t mean to, but it just happens when I’m debating some people.

If you don’t mind me asking, how has your faith in God been questioned? If you don’t want to answer, that’s cool too. That said, I’m really happy that you still have your faith and may God continue you Bless you and help you grow it!

You do realize that there's a rule around here about invoking Hitler.

Hmm, actually I didn’t. If true, then I don’t believe that I have broken that as I wasn’t supporting his beliefs or his actions. I brought him up simply as an example to illustrate how a person’s reasoning can be logically flawed – and he’s probably the most well known example. Would it be better for you if I were to bring up say, Pol Pot or Stalin? There are a number of other wackos in history that I can point to who have shown how reason can be flawed and illogical.

Your anti-reason analogy assumes that Hitler actually believed what he said. I see it more likely that he reasoned that if he told the people a convincing enough lie, and kept telling it with a straight face, people would believe it.

He was a staunch evolutionist (and believer in the Darwinian philosophy of survival of the fittest and so on) and I dare say that he did actually believe what he said. Sir Arthur Keith also admitted that Hitler was also being consistent with his evolutionary philosophy. Hitler’s death camps grew out of his desire for the ‘Aryan race’ to win the battle for ‘the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life’. If, as you suggest that he didn’t believe what he said, and he didn’t write anything about it, we can only judge him from his actions and hate filled speeches. Although we know that his reasoning was logically flawed, he stated what he believed to be true, even though we know it to be a lie, and the people did indeed believe it.

That line of reasoning worked very well for him, IIRC. It works well today. Look at how much wrong information is being spouted by the YEC ministries...

I’m not too familiar with what the particular term ‘IIRC’ means – could you please explain it? I was also about to bring that second sentence up too in support of my case! It seems like almost every time I turn on the television on ABC and other channels with shows like ‘The World Around Us’ – here in Australia – we are being indoctrinated into the lie of evolution. Every time you go to the zoo, the museum, in fact almost everywhere now a days we are being force fed the lie that evolution is true and a scientifically proven ‘fact’. This however is a lie and a very big misconception.

For example, listen to what L. Harrison Matthews has said on whether or not evolution is a fact or faith:

‘The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is this in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.’

Wow, what a statement to make! If only more evolutionists think like he did! This was in the Introduction to Darwin’s The Origin of Species, 1971, p. xi.

Creationists have no such time in the spotlight and rarely ever get invited to comment on television shows, and when they do they are often misrepresented and the information that they state is often re-worded in such a way that they do not resemble what was originally said; see The Correction the NY Times Refuses to Print at the link: <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0213nytimes.asp>.​

​

 

[Delta One]

I'm assuming that God's word and God's creation must be reconcilable with each other.
I'm assuming that God is not trying to trick us.



As do I.


I'm assuming that something need not be literal in order for it to be truth.



What if it contradicts or goes against or is inconsistent with (three ways of stating the same thing) the rest of the Bible?


I'm assuming that over 400 years of physical sciences in unrelated fields has not drawn us to the same wrong conclusion.



This is what I mean by ‘vague’ (further down in the message). If you’re referring to evolution as that ‘conclusion’ then I would disagree. Much of the research from the physical sciences over the past 400 hundred years, especially before the 1850s, had nothing at all or very little to do with evolution or our origins! In recent years, the physical sciences have also had very little to do with our origins. They have advanced the way in which we live and the quality of our lives, e.g. medical technology, cars, planes, computer technology, and so on. Very little has actually happened that has actually directly or indirectly related to the topic of origin.


I'm assuming that there is no sinister conspiracy in the scientific community to draw people away from God.



I believe that they are trying to justify their unbelief of God. If you reject the Flood then you have pretty good reason that the next judgement of fire will also never happen and is a myth. Many reject God because they don’t like the fact that they will have to respond to Him and give an account of their lives and the way that they live them to Him, i.e. they don’t want to be held accountable to God. Also, the fair majority of scientists are not Christians.



It’s also called rebellion against God and His truth as revealed through the Bible – it’s a part of human nature as a result of Adam’s sin. Since Adam was the head representative of mankind and represented each of us who are his descendants. When he rebelled against God, all humans, through Adam had forfeited their right to live. Paul also says that we all sin ‘in Adam’, or in the likeness of Adam – if Adam didn’t sin (if Christians say that he exist), do we? If so, why? Anyway, back on to the topic at hand, man’s nature tendency is rebellion against God and His authority and evolution is a prime example of doing this. Just to prevent you from crying ‘He’s an anti-science person – get him!’, I don’t believe that this applies to all. Anyway, consensus doesn’t count to make a theory more valid or not – remember back to Galileo, it was an up hill battle against Aristotelian supporters to prove his heliocentric model true. He was probably one of the only few people who believed it while all the others believed a lie. One could draw parallels... Besides, it was the minority that survived the Flood – not the majority.

Which of my assumptions do you consider to be wrong?



And these are all of the things that you assume? I think not. Also, your ‘assumptions’ are very vague as it is obvious to me you are trying to limit the level of refutation that I am able to give. Try to be more specific next time.



For example, I assume the following when approaching the Bible:



1. That the Bible is the Inspired Word of God and thus is infallible.



2a. That Genesis is foundational to the Christian belief and it’s doctrines and message of Salvation; thus is meant to be taken literally as written (Exodus 20:11 is in support of this literal interpretation) otherwise there is no basis for Christianity. As such, the age of the universe is around 6000 years old as calculated from the genealogies throughout the Bible.



2b. God created in distinct kinds with massive ability for variation within that particular kind and that no kind could change into a different kind (Genesis 1:25 for example).



2c. God pronounced judgement on the ungodly and sinful Earth about 4,500 years ago and destroyed all the birds, animals by sending a global Flood (Genesis 7:19-20 for example). Only Noah and those on the ark with him survived.



2d. God created the different languages were made when God separated mankind from Babel for not following His command to ‘fill the whole Earth’.



When approaching science I assume and believe:



1. The evidence cannot ‘speak for itself’ and as such it has to be interpreted by people for it to make any sense and any conclusions to be derived from it about its origin (in the case of creation/evolution origin debate). As an appeal to authority, Stephen Jay Gould said in ‘The validation of continental drift’in his book Ever Since Darwin, in 1978 on the nature of the facts:



‘Facts do not “speak for themselves”; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation.’



...which is essentially what I have been saying all along!



2. These interpretations are based on initial or preconceived beliefs (or unbelief) of the person looking at the evidence.



3a. Science cannot deal directly with the past and is limited because we cannot do experiments directly on past events, we cannot observe the past and history can certainly not be repeated. With reference to evolution, Professor Witten in 1980 Assembly Week address said that:



‘Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoveries will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.’



If you’re an anthropologist, you don’t ask, ‘Did man evolve from primitive ape-like ancestors?’ You ask, ‘Which ones of the ape-like creatures did man evolve from?’ Otherwise, you will have trouble getting and maintaining research grants as Professor Witten described above. Professor Witten’s first comments are similar to that of what I have said in both 3a and 3b.



3b. The further in the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork (because of the lack of certainty of conditions, etc), and the more room there is for non-scientific factors to influence the conclusion.



3c. There is a difference in how science operates in process and historical science and as a result of that difference (a great amount of assumptions and guesswork, no observation and repeatability, etc, where there is more room for non-scientific factors to affect the conclusion) the level of authority that they hold is different.



4a. In a philosophical sense, some radiometric dating techniques are circular in their reasoning (I have explained this to you above in this message).



4b. The radiometric dating techniques are based on many fallible assumptions including how much daughter element there was initially, whether or not the environmental conditions have taken elements out or added it to the system, the rate of decay is constant, among others. Thus they should not be portrayed as ‘truth’ and be held too authoritatively as it may indeed be little more than the scientist’s own personal world-view or belief.



As you can see, I’m very open about my assumptions and I put them all out on the table for everyone else to see. This is just a quick example to show you what I was looking for – playing all the cards on the table not close to your chest, as such I may have missed out an assumption or two. Never-the-less, I think you get the general gist of it though.
​

 

[shernren]

I agree wholeheartedly with you about Scripture! About what Scripture says, though ...

3a. Science cannot deal directly with the past and is limited because we cannot do experiments directly on past events, we cannot observe the past and history can certainly not be repeated. With reference to evolution, Professor Witten in 1980 Assembly Week address said that:

Okay then. Did you eat your breakfast this morning? What your argument basically amounts to, is that because it happened in the past, I can say "Delta One didn't eat his breakfast this morning" and you can say "But I did!" and because it happened in the past and cannot be observed, our theories stand on equal footings. Even if there are crumbs on the table and a dirty bowl in the basin waiting to be washed and an open half-empty carton of milk in the fridge and remains of cereal and milk in Delta's digestive system (assuming he's willing to be operated upon).

Basically AiG is trying to say "We can believe whatever we want to believe regardless of whether or not we should be believing it - because you aren't seeing it happen with your own eyes! Hah!" Last I checked, relativism was an anti-Christian philosophy ...

3b. The further in the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more guesswork (because of the lack of certainty of conditions, etc), and the more room there is for non-scientific factors to influence the conclusion.

So I gather that one set of evidence can generate two conclusions because:

1. Diehard evolutionist looks at evidence, takes into account scientific factors, and comes to a scientific conclusion of evolutionism.
2. AiG looks at evidence, takes into account non-scientific factors, and comes to a conclusion of creationism.

Question: if it took into accound non-scientific factors, isn't it a non-scientific conclusion? So why are they trying their darndest best to prove it - by scientific means? It's like asking my dad to prove that he loves my mom by analyzing his blood chemistry!

3c. There is a difference in how science operates in process and historical science and as a result of that difference (a great amount of assumptions and guesswork, no observation and repeatability, etc, where there is more room for non-scientific factors to affect the conclusion) the level of authority that they hold is different.

What difference is there? In "process" science you aren't dealing with the material as it is, you're dealing with it as it was a few microseconds ago - because of the time it takes for the light to get to your eye, the time it takes your brain to process the signal, the time it takes for your brain to send the motor signal to stop the stopwatch / write the results ... a blatant example. Can you tell me what color sunlight is? You could answer "yellow" but I'd say you're wrong - that's the color of sunlight 8 minutes ago, because the sun is 8 light-minutes from the earth. So what you thought was "process science" is actually "historical science" ...

4a. In a philosophical sense, some radiometric dating techniques are circular in their reasoning (I have explained this to you above in this message).

Aren't you disturbed because the passage you quoted on dating was a little, uh, dated? I mean, 50 years have passed since rocks were (ostensibly) dated by the fossils in them as the passage describes. Is it possible that these advances have taken away the circularity of these dating methods?

4b. The radiometric dating techniques are based on many fallible assumptions including how much daughter element there was initially, whether or not the environmental conditions have taken elements out or added it to the system, the rate of decay is constant, among others. Thus they should not be portrayed as ‘truth’ and be held too authoritatively as it may indeed be little more than the scientist’s own personal world-view or belief.

I would concede only the second. The first is very little assumed in many modern dating methods, and the third can be experimentally shown to at least 10,000 years ago - far too long for YECs' liking.

 

[gluadys]

The Bible, however, says over and over again that it is the Word of God; ​

I will post a reply to the rest of your message later, but I really want to look at this assertion.

Where does the bible claim to be the Word of God? I know the bible refers over and over again to the Word of God, but where does it make any claim to be the Word of God?

This is a very touchy subject that has been debated here before. I want to start out by saying that I have no objection to calling the bible the Word of God. But I do think it is erroneous to state that the bible itself makes that claim even once, much less many times.​