Theistic Evolution vs. creationism

[California Tim]

Do you not find it odd that the only people who believe that there is evidence for a young earth are those who not only already believe that the earth is young, but absolutely insist that it be the case, and have already decided that any evidence to the contrary must be false?

No I do not find that odd at all. What I find is that within the YEC community there is an unadultered, wholehearted trust that the word of God is available to all, that it is understandable and that it is the final authority on issues that it addresses- and the age of creation happens to be one of those issues.

But what happens in scientific community is that such biases and preconceptions can not mandate conclusions when the evidence as a whole does not fit the preconceptions. Not to mention the fact that not everyone in the scientific community has the same preconceptions or motivations. That is why it works, and how it is the best method to discover how the natural world works.

Of course they (scientists) cannot mandate conclusions on the unknown. They are working with incomplete data - from the bottom up. We are comparing apples to oranges here. The difference is that, for whatever reason, God appears to have wanted us to know beforehand how the world was created. Once that is established, we have a conclusion that can be worked in reverse to more fully discover and understand His creation (from the top down). You seem to have a general abhorance to the thought that a conclusion can logically direct a series of hypothesis leading back to itself. Ironically, however, the very essence of our faith in Christ is based in large measure on that very concept. I see no reason to dismiss that possibility here.

 

[Vance]

No, the problem is not starting with an idea and seeing how the evidence fits that idea. Scientists will often say "ok, if we think this is likely, then what would happen is this. So, let's look at the evidence and see whether that is what happens." But, if the evidence DOESN'T show that, they will realize that their initial idea was incorrect and then develop a new one based on what the evidence ACTUALLY says. That is science.

It is starting with a CONCLUSION, from which you will not be moved, and then only considering the evidence that fits that conclusion and, by definition, dismissing all the other evidence, even if that is otherwise completely overwhelming, which is completely and utterly unscientific. This is simply not a good way of figuring out how things work.

And, no, God did NOT tell us everything about how the world was created, even if you read it literally. He just gives glimpses and snippets, at best.

And our faith in Christ is based on the moving of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and a spiritual connection and, yes, FAITH. It has nothing to do with emperical truths. That is why you can not logic your way to God. This is what separates our spiritual life and beliefs with our understanding of how God made the universe and how it works.

And personally, I also have "an unadultered, wholehearted trust that the word of God is available to all, that it is understandable and that it is the final authority on issues that it addresses". I just do not believe that the HOW and WHEN of God's Creation is one of those things. And, of course, understandable without study only on the matters of salvation, as you have agreed. All other areas are NOT so clear and obvious, like the Creation accounts.

And even for those that do, when the evidence of God's Creation conflicts with the evidence of your reading from Scripture, why in the world would you have more trust in your own interpretation of Scripture than what the evidence from God's Creation can tell you? If you accept that you are just as likely to be incorrect in one as the other (which is the simple truth), why not review both with equal objectivity? Why do you assume your interpretation of Scripture is correct and THEN go and read God's OTHER book, nature itself, only to find out how it fits your Scriptural interpretation?

 

[Vance]

Tim, here is a link to a thread which, itself, links a wide variety of threads disproving a worldwide flood. You will see that these falsifications cover a wide range of scientific disciplines, and none of them have adequate rebuttals.

http://www.christianforums.com/t95378

 

[California Tim]

It is starting with a CONCLUSION, from which you will not be moved, and then only considering the evidence that fits that conclusion and, by definition, dismissing all the other evidence, even if that is otherwise completely overwhelming, which is completely and utterly unscientific. This is simply not a good way of figuring out how things work.

When the conclusion is founded on scripture, I see no reason to change the heirarchy or water down the strength of its effect as the final authority and guide on interpretation of the evidence.

And, no, God did NOT tell us everything about how the world was created, even if you read it literally. He just gives glimpses and snippets, at best.

Perhaps. But he does give us a general time frame of when the earth was created in relation to mankind. I know this because the account is delivered with a reliable geneaology. That fact seems to escape most TE'ists, and is a thorn that must be dealt with if one is to claim the story is all warm and cuddly spiritually, but not historically reliable. If this time frame is accepted, then naturally the methods used to conclude otherwise must be scrutinized prior to acceptance as "factual" evidence that the interpretation of the Bible is in question.

That is why you can not logic your way to God.

You're beginningto grasp the concept after all.

And personally, I also have "an unadultered, wholehearted trust that the word of God is available to all, that it is understandable and that it is the final authority on issues that it addresses". I just do not believe that the HOW and WHEN of God's Creation is one of those things. And, of course, understandable without study only on the matters of salvation, as you have agreed. All other areas are NOT so clear and obvious, like the Creation accounts.

Again, this is the point we differ on. I believe among other things, the addition of literal historical geneaologies presents a strong case for the intent of the author that the Genesis creation account is literal.

And even for those that do, when the evidence of God's Creation conflicts with the evidence of your reading from Scripture, why in the world would you have more trust in your own interpretation of Scripture than what the evidence from God's Creation can tell you? If you accept that you are just as likely to be incorrect in one as the other (which is the simple truth), why not review both with equal objectivity? Why do you assume your interpretation of Scripture is correct and THEN go and read God's OTHER book, nature itself, only to find out how it fits your Scriptural interpretation?

I do not see a contradiction in creation with what the Bible says. I see an erroneous doctrine of secular science being elevated to the status of infallibility and becoming the de facto standard by which scripture is interpreted. Science becomes the litmus test for acceptance of the Bible in this case and is entirely backwards IMO. In fact, if creation itself were so "obvious" and conclusive, based on how God declares his invisible attributes are plainly seen through it, then one would logically conclude there would be no agnostic earth scientists on the planet. The fact is, science is ever changing, rarely complete and far from developed enough to confidently guide scriptural interpretation.

 

[Vance]

But Tim, you are still begging the question of whether the "conclusion is based on Scripture". Your entire position is based on the presumption that your personal interpretation of Genesis is not just the most likely interpretation, but MUST be the ONLY possible one. Only such dogmatic faith in your own interpretive ability would prevent you from reviewing all the evidence and allow them to factor into your approach. This is extremely prideful, in my opinion, and contrary to the humbleness exhibited by St. Augustine on these issues. He says that we should not take any such position regarding what Genesis says dogmatically, and should be willing to consider alternatives when the evidence compels it. You don't do this. You refuse to even consider the possibility that your interpretation might be wrong. You might say that "anyone can be wrong", but have you ever just sat down and said to yourself, "you know, my reading of Genesis 1 and 2 really might be entirely incorrect."

Think about it, you are denying tons of evidence from the natural world, clinging on to a position that is contrary to that evidence, all for the sake of YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture. Your entire view of our earth's history is based NOT on some indelible and undeniable message from God, but on your human and fallible reading of God's Holy Scripture. This entire conversation can go nowhere until you comes to grips with the fact that this is NOT a battle between God's Scripture and Man's Science, but instead between Man's interpretation of both. As long as you remain convinced that this is a choice between God and Science then you will, of course, choose God. But that is a 100% false dichotomy. It is the stumbling block that standing in the way.

Tell me why you would assume that Man is more likely to be correct in His interpretation of Scripture than he is in his intrepretation of God's Creation itself?

And, of course we can not logic our way to God. Do you think TE'ism is an attempt to do this? If so, you still have a LOT to learn. God's spiritual truths are reached only through faith and the moving of the Holy Spirit and the study of God's Holy Scripture. You can NOT use logic and reason to reach these truths. But you can, and God expects us to, use our intellect and reason to figure out how His Creation works, and has worked in the past.

Further, it is entirely false, and you know it, to say that TE's use science as a litmus test for acceptance of the Bible. You say outrageous things like this and then turn around and say that YEC's never make such comments. You know it is NOT a matter of whether we accept the Bible, since we DO accept the Bible to the same extent you do, we just don't think it is meant to be read literally. You continually use this "lack of trust in Scripture" as a red herring when things get dicey for your position, as a quick escape hatch when all else fails.

And, we have discussed the genealogies many times. They present no problem for me at all. What you have failed to do is address the scientific evidence and show how it can actually work in a young time frame.

If science is not sufficiently advanced to be able to inform our interpretation of Scripture, then why do you let it alter your OWN interpretation?

 

[California Tim]

Vance,

Our exchange is bordering on becoming personal. As for my part in that, I am sorry. I, much like you, do not feel enamored to have false accusations and insinuations thrown my way. The one that always jumps out at me is the "prideful" remark made by a worthy opponent equally sure of his interpretation who claims I am the guilty one for sticking to my guns. I prefer to stick to the issues and when I deviate from it, I find the end result is always the same - undesirable for all involved. So I feel it best if we both take a breather. In that spirit I will leave your last post unanswered as the questions raised are of a personal nature rather than focused on the topic at hand.

 

[Vance]

I agree that we should not make this personal, but many of the statements you make about how TE's believe ARE personal because you are discussing the point WITH a TE, and what you are challenging is something very personal and very serious: whether a person takes the Scripture as true and Holy and whether they place Man's knowledge higher than this Scripture. This is a VERY serious statement, and one that you know is not true about me, or any of the TE's hereabouts for that matter. Yet you keep saying it.

As for being prideful, I do indeed see this as different than "sticking to your guns", since we are not in a competition here, but are seeking the truth. And it really is not the same as me believing I am correct. I am perfectly willing to concede, and have many times, that it is entirely possible that my interpretation is not the correct one, but just that it is the best interpretation given the totality of the circumstances. Were you or anyone else were to present a comprehensive interpretation of Genesis that fit all the evidence better, I would gladly consider it and, if I agreed, then I would accept it.

Your approach, based on all you have said, seems very different. Your entire position is based on an absolute assurance that your particular interpretation is correct. Every angle you view things from, every statement you make, every conclusion you reach, is based on that one simple fact: "my interpretation of Genesis must be correct". This is a human interpretation, and you seem to be raising your own interpretation to absolutism.

If this is not prideful, I apologize.

 

[grmorton]

As far as the time it takes to settle an enormous amount of sediment, I am not convinced there is a time constraint as profound as you suggest above. With an enormous amount of upheaval and sediment load in the water, it would take very little time for the heavier material to settle, while the lighter silt took more time.

But right there is another problem for the concept of a global flood. If everything were stirred up and settled out, we should expect big boulders at the bottom of the geologic column, followed by a covering of cobbles, followed by a covering of pebbles, followed by a covering of sand followed by a covering of shale. We don't see this in the geologic column. We see sediment layers intermixed with other sediment layer in all sorts of patterns.

Let's reduce the debate to this one issue for the moment. If we took a small sample of each of several consecutive strata layers in a bottle of water and shook it up, upon settling, would the layers return to the original sequence? If they did, the significance of this could be profound because the order of the strata layers might very well be defined by atomic weight rather than periods of time.

But we don't see that in the geologic column. Period. My second article in the Creation REsearch Society quarterly addressed this issue.

 

[California Tim]

But right there is another problem for the concept of a global flood. If everything were stirred up and settled out, we should expect big boulders at the bottom of the geologic column, followed by a covering of cobbles, followed by a covering of pebbles, followed by a covering of sand followed by a covering of shale. We don't see this in the geologic column. We see sediment layers intermixed with other sediment layer in all sorts of patterns.

Isn't it possible during a catastrophic flood that there were multiple upheavals over the year while the waters receded, resulting in many series of layers like those I described? It seems to me in order to dismiss the flood offhand, you must first assume ALL the material distributed by the flood had to have been unleashed at once in the water, which then remained calm to the end - settling in nice even and worldwide patterns. But that (a single worldwide upheaval) would be hard to conceive and improbable if such a catastrophic situation occured wouldn't it?

 

[grmorton]

Isn't it possible during a catastrophic flood that there were multiple upheavals over the year while the waters receded, resulting in many series of layers like those I described? It seems to me in order to dismiss the flood offhand, you must first assume ALL the material distributed by the flood had to have been unleashed at once in the water, which then remained calm to the end - settling in nice even and worldwide patterns. But that (a single worldwide upheaval) would be hard to conceive and improbable if such a catastrophic situation occured wouldn't it?

What do you do with the innumerable footprints(tracks and trails) found on almost all layers throughout the geologic column? In another forum I posted a picture of scorpiion tracks from the coconino sandstone. Scorpions don't live under water, they make a different set of tracks based upon the temperature of the sand and in the Coconino, there are high temperature tracks found. What do you do with the fact that the land dried out several times (many times in each geologic period)?

Take a look at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/droughts.htm

What do you do with termite and cicada burrows found in the middle of these supposedly flood deposited rocks. Attached is a pic of a termite nest which a mammal tried to dig into. The T is the termites the A is the hole the mammals dug. See also http://home.entouch.net/dmd/termites.htm
In the pic you can see that both the termites and the mammal dug into and truncated the previously deposited rock layers. What were these guys doing walking around in the middle of the global flood?

 

[Vance]

Tim, I would urge you to follow the link I gave you earlier and check out all the threads providing evidence that a global flood could not have occurred. It is not just little odds and ends here and there, it is just about everything we see around us today which speaks of the lack of such a flood.