Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

Papias said:

Um, it's called "establishing credibility". It also shows that you are interested in having a rational discussion, where each side actually tries to understand the other. I'll have to take your refusal as an admission that you are clueless about the actual evidence.
**********
What part of theological not scientific is lost on you?


OK, then, show us a reason to give you the time of day by please listing 8 different dating methods, and the assumptions behind each that you think are unreasonable? If you don't even know what they are, then how could you think they are unreasonable?
**********
Who is "us"? Do you claim to speak on behalf of all other posters?
*sigh* I can see you truly do not understand the point behind this thread, so:
Carbon 14
Uranium 238
Uranium 235
Thorium 232
Rubidium 87
Potassium 40
Samarium 147
Chlorine 36
the basic flaw in the methods: you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history, so you must assume the decay has been constant, and the same across all geologic strata. Considering some have supposedly millions or billions of years in half life, that would be impossible to know for sure.

The rate of decay is confirmed by other methods, so it isn't an assumption. The atmosphere being in equilibrium isn't an assumption because it's known that it hasn't always been at the same concentration. You really don't understand C14 dating, do you?
**********
Again, you would have to know how much was in the specimen to begin with. If said specimen died with only 1/2 the expected amount of c14 then your test would be off by an entire half life from.the start.

If you intentionally misuse the method, as the RATE people have been shown to have done, then of course their numbers are wrong. Other dates that don't match are due to assignable causes, like sources of old carbon, as has been shown repeatedly. Hey, if you think you have a solid, repeatable example where the radiocarbon date was wrong without an obvious misuse of the method, then you want to publish it right away. Millions of scientists have been looking for exactly that, there could be a nobel prize in it for you.

Some understanding, sure, but not arrogant ignorance. You take what "that day" too, all the time. You have the sense to take the medicine a doctor prescribes, to follow legal advice from a lawyer, and to do what the dentist says. Unless you are living in cave, you are singling out one field (well, several) for your arrogant ignorance, while respecting the opinion of experts in other fields without any more justification.
**********
It's common sense and provable fact that medicines help, and a consistent track record and proper references help you to determine legal advice. Evolution is not testable or demonstrable.

God is outside the realm of testable science. Indeed, science tells us of the glory of God by studying His creation.
**********
Absolutely! On this you and I are in 100% agreement.

So you think there is significant disagreement over whether or not smoking causes cancer? You really don't understand what a "scientific consensus" is, do you?
**********
Scientific consensus proves nothing. As I said, the scientific consensus used to be that larger objects fell faster than smaller ones. That the sun moved around the earth, and that blood letting cured diseases.

So are these some of those "people with an atheistic bent"?
BioLogos

I'm still waiting for your list of methods and assumptions.


Accusing a professed and active Christian as being an atheist is a pretty low blow. I'm still waiting for evidence that all the millions of scientists in the National Academies are atheists.
**********
Did you read the article at all? It showed that at least 93% of members are professed atheists.
And as for claiming your an athiest, I never said any such thing. You may be misguided, but I'm not doubting your faith.


Sure. So now you admit that your claim that evolution is only supported by atheists is a bogus claim?
*********
I'm sorry if you got that impression. Sarcasm does not translate well in text form.

So you won't say where it is coming from? Do you think that reflects well on your credibility?
**********
It is in no way relevant to this conversation.

Why should I believe you when you said that before and then didn't do it? So far you have repeatedly written long responses on scientific topics, then said you weren't going to do that in the same post.
**********
Only because people like you and NGC6712 continue to force the issue, and according to you not responding is the same as conceding correct?


If I have to explain to you why cutting a pasting from some webpage without showing any reason to think you understand it is poor netiquette, then you are beyond help.

You have your theological discussion. I can add nothing to Shernren's excellent theological explaination.

Papias

Click to expand...

shernren said:

Both Luke (1:1-4) and John (20:30-31) make explicit claims to be historical records. All similar literature of the period also aspire towards historicity, whether it is achieved or not. Furthermore, the Apostles testified to be witnesses of the Resurrection.

By contrast, Genesis never claims for itself to be a historical record; all parallel accounts of creation are poetic (in the Psalms or Job, for example); all similar literature of the period is patently mythological in nature and function; nobody ever claims to be a witness to creation and the Flood, or even to revisit any physical artefacts originating from them.

Now you may well choose to assume that Genesis is historical, and you may well be right, but you cannot claim that this assumption comes from the text. When I say Luke and John (and by extension the parallel gospels of Matthew and Mark) are historical, I am taking them at face value; when I show reticence to claim Genesis to be historical I am doing the exact same thing.

If God is three-in-one, then why not say so? Ask any Christian who has given the matter the slightest thought and they will quickly tell you that the Trinity is the most important theological distinctive of Christianity. There are many monotheistic religions, and some even with a notion of substitutionary atonement, but none have the Father, Son and Spirit.

And yet there is not a single passage you can point me to which will tell me straight out that this is so. Don't get me wrong. I believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and am in agreement with the ancient creeds about it. What I am saying is that Paul, say, never spends five or six verses telling us in full detail about the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit, in the same way that he will revel in justification by faith or the use of spiritual gifts in worship or the conduct of believers.

Could it be that God is simply not obliged to tell us things we would not understand without great effort and which are not necessary for our faith? Could it be that the Bible was written, instead of to pander to our intellectual curiosities, to save us?

Click to expand...

Papias said:

Ouch. MM, just doing a cut and past from the AIG website is hardly an argument, and doesn't help your credibility.

Click to expand...

Papias said:

MM wrote:

Sure. I can't point to one source - I heard that often growing up from Catholic Sunday School, and as an adult saw it in Protestant writings too. Perhaps the most clear and recent source is in the writings of Pope Benedict, in the "ITC: Humans persons created in the image of God", 2002 document (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p80.htm), though there are many others too.
**********
The reason I asked, is because I grew up Catholic, and the bulk of my very large (my maternal grandma had 16 kids! Their own town we like to joke) family is still Catholic, and none of them have ever heard of this before. I don't doubt that its out there, but I guess it only work if one believed God used evolution to bring us about. I must ask, how does this mesh with all the times in Genesis where God refers to making man "in His image"? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the premise of "ape" as opposed to human. Do you mean we lived like apes but looked similar to now, and simply had no soul and God gave us one?

Maybe, instead of posting a link, pick a point you think is valid, start a thead on it, and explain it your own words? As has been pointed out, just pasting a website address, or a cut and paste from someone else, means little.

Thanks, and may God bless you-

Papias

Click to expand...

Papias said:

MM wrote:

Yes. I think it makes a number of both logical and factual errors. Foremost is probably it's assertion that Gen 1 -11 is "written as a historical narrative" and lacks metaphors. Reading Gen 1 -11 shows puns, alliterative language, and a reflective structure of a poem, not to mention obvious logical problems like there being day and night before there was a sun. Even early Christians noticed this and wrote about it being figurative.
**********
In terms of being day and night, the Earth would have been spinning so there would be a time when God's light was shining on one side of the world and not the other as today we have sun during the day while the other side of the earth is at night.

They must have had different sunday school teachers than I!
**********
I understand, but you made the point of saying tens of millions of Catholics were taught this.

Well, sure, just as one would only think that a literal talking snake would work if one were taking the snake part literally, and so on.
**********
The snake was Satan, come to earth to cause man's downfall. Remember, Satan was envious of our place in God's sight, believing he was superior and deserved that place. He was God's most anointed cherub until man hit the scene. He used the snake because if he came in his angelic form Adam and Eve would have had an out so to speak on eating of the tree. However sneaking down as he did as a snake made Adam and Eve responsible for there own actions.

Well, surely you don't think that "in His image" refers to a physical body anyway, right? I mean, if that's the case, then who's image? What race? What gender? What obesity level? What age? So then is a young child not as close to "God's image" as an adult? Or is a white caucasian closer to "God's Image" than an overweight, African American woman? Is a person born with no feet farther from being in "God's image" than someone with feet? See the problem? Is it not clear that this is a spiritual image, one that means the ability to love, feel compassion, and think, not a physical one? I think that's a much richer meaning to "in His image" than the idea that Adam had this or that physical body feature.
**********
While those are good points, remember Adam would have had perfect genes from the creator himself. And He said His "image" which I think also speaks to what you see. We are not copies of God, but poor reflections from a muddy pond because of sin.

"Ape" is any of the groups of primates including orangutans, gorillas, and any of the three types of chimps, which are common chimps, humans, and bonobos.
**********
I have a problem here, because this type of grouping is done outside of the bible. God makes no mention of our having any relation to apes of any kind, and this grouping is done based on mostly superficial observations.

I don't know at what physical point along the transitional continuum from something like a common chimp to a modern human Adam was, and as pointed out above, the physical shape doesn't matter anyway. At some point, God gave Adam a soul. That may have been around the time that God's work evolving the brain reached a point where the early human could realize God's presence, and reject obedience (original sin). I'm interested in any problems you see with this model.

All the best-

Papias

Click to expand...

Papias said:

MM, could you please use the quote tags? It is a pain to try to sort out what you have added without the proper formatting.

MM wrote:



No, as I pointed out, the text itself includes numerous indications that that it is poetry and metaphor.

Genesis 1:27 reads as hebrew poetry. if all of the creation in genesis 1 is poetic, why would this stand out? in point of fact, genesis 1 is not set up poetically. that being said, if the first 11 chapters of genesis are poetry, or methaphorical, where does it stop? which person is metaphorical? Adam? Noah? Abraham? and if they are metaphorical, then what about the table of nations and shem, ham, and japheth?


Similarly, what indication do you have that Ex 19 is a metaphor - or do you not consider it a metaphor?

yes, the use of eagles wings is metaphoric. if you read futher on, he calls them his treasure. obviously it is a metaphor.






First, you didn't say why it would the non-historical language I mentioned.

Secondly - for the light idea, are you saying that after the sun was created, that God got dim so now we only see the sun? Or that there were then three lights (God, the sun, the moon)? Or that God got dim sometime since then? This seems like an idea inviting atheists to ridicule us, asking us where in the sky we should look today to see the glowing God.

no, god created the light, and then a source for the light. otherwise he would have to be visible to mankind.


Another similar problem would be that without the sun, the Earth would just be flying through space, not in an orbit. So are you saying that God made it to be flying through space, then made the sun in the right place ahead of it to capture it, like playing cosmic baseball? and so on.

Again, no. god held the earth in place as he does all the heavens now. the fact that he uses gravity (something we cant explain yet) is simply science proving his exisitence.

In addition to hearing other catholics, both in my experience and in national discussion (such as Julia Sweeney, you can buy her discussion of this yourself), it's in the Pope's writing as I gave a link to. Being that there are 80 million Catholics in the US, another 200 million in Europe, and 1,000 milllion worldwide, tens of millions is a pretty small claim. I don't have data, but I'd have to guess that tens of millions is pretty low estimate, don't you think?

i wasnt saying it wasnt being taught, only letting you know it wasnt a universal catholic teaching



How would that give an out? After all, any angelic being would be unsurprising to them, since they had just talked with God anyway.


no, but if they told god an angel told them to do it, they could be excused, as angels are god's messangers. also, god knew that satan had taken the snakes form, and used the incident to foreshadow christ's coming.


And they wouldn't have been if spoken to by anything else? I don't follow. On the other hand, why wouldn't they be surprised by a talking animal - they certainly would have seen that animals don't talk before that.

**********
remember matt. 10:16. it shows that snakes or serpents were considered wise. what better form to take then that which is considered wise? (much like secular scientists today?)




You didn't answer the questions. Do you seriously think that God has a body, with literal feet, a literal appendix, and a literal rectum? Saying that "God made man in God's physical image" seems to be inviting ridicule from atheists, who sometimes claim that we Christians believe in some white bearded guy who flies around the clouds in a levitating chair, like the lawn chair balloonist.

According to the Bible, the first man was perfect, made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Luke goes so far as to call Adam the Son of God (Luke 3:38). In his allegorical novel, Voyage to Venus, C.S. Lewis1 paints a word picture of the dawn of history. He makes Adam resemble Jesus Christ. This is not far-fetched, for just as Christ, on earth in human form, was sinless, so Adam for a time, was sinless too. Lewis writes,
‘It was a face which no man can say he does not know. You might ask how it was possible to look upon it without idolatry, not to mistake it for that of which it was a likeness. For the resemblance was, in its own fashion, infinite, so that almost you could wonder at finding no sorrows on his brow and no wounds in his hands and feet. Yet there was no danger of mistaking, not one moment of confusion, no least sally of the will towards forbidden reverence. Where likeness was greatest, mistake was least possible. Perhaps this is always so. A clever waxwork can be made so like a man that for a moment it deceives us; the great portrait which is far more deeply like him does not. Plaster images of the Holy One may before now have drawn to themselves the adoration they were meant to arouse for the reality. But here, where his living image, like him within and without, made by his own bare hands out of the depth of divine artistry, his masterpiece of self portraiture coming forth from his workshop to delight all worlds, walked and spoke, it could never be taken for more than an image. Nay, the very beauty of it lay in the certainty that it was a copy, like and not the same, a rhyme, an exquisite reverberation of untreated music prolonged in a created medium’.
Man in the image of God; what does this mean in practical terms? It cannot refer to bodily, biological form since God is a Spirit and man is earthly. But while it may be true that the body does not belong to the image, since God does not have a body, yet somehow we would like to see man’s body (which is a very real part of man) included in the image. Language and creativity,—two important parts of the image, are impossible without a body. And God the Almighty agreed to share with man dominion and authority over the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:28), an activity in which the whole man, body as well as mind, is involved. Furthermore the Son of God honored the human body by becoming flesh and dwelling among men (John 1:14) (Hebrews 2:14). Lewis suggests that before the Fall, the first man, Adam mirrored Christ the man of Galilee even more nearly than Christ would have resembled his own half-brothers. If this is so, it seems almost blasphemy to consider Adam sired by a shambling ape.


Could you please tell me which chapter and verse says that Adam had perfect genes, or even a verse that mentions genes at all? If not, might it be that the "perfect genes" idea is a non-biblical speculation of humans?



Humans use visual metaphors all the time. I could be describing the love of God for us, and the listener could say "yes, I see what you mean!", and of course they aren't saying that they literally see the words I've spoken form a visual image of God's love in the air in front of him.



Was not Adam made before sin? So if Adam was made in God's literal physical image, then are not males more Godly than females?

I wouldnt touch that with a 10 foot pole!
**********



Do you have a problem with using computers, because their invention is extra-biblical? Or do you oppose germ theory, because it contradicts the Bible? Or Modern medicine, or the use of aspirin, or internal combustion engines, or DNA, or most other aspects of our modern understanding of the world that aren't explicitly in the Bible?

no, you misunderstand. the bible does not catagorize man with apes, we today do. trying to force that in is what i disagree with.




Have you read Ecclesiasticies?



You mean, like practically any part of our bodies, including nearly all of our DNA? If that's superficial, than what makes your think a Down's Syndrome person is human?



Perhaps God's plan was so he could show his glory by showing that he could not just create, but create a creation so wonderful that it allows his creation to be ongoing? How do you know that's trial and error, as opposed to it being God's plan from the start?

this might almost work, if evolution wouldnt require god's constant intervention to make it possible. if he was going to put that much effort into a creation, then why would he be so wasteful? actually a better question is can god be wasteful?



Why would he have to wait around for 6 days? Why not create everthing instantly? Was he getting tired after each day, and was thus limited?

he didnt have to wait 6 days, he couldve created everything in less than a second. however, we as humans (since the fall) need structure, and god created that with his 7 day creation. remeber god does not neeed rest, and the hebrew word translated as such also means cease.



Um, you are aware that Jesus often used parables and metaphors, right? Besides, I'm not sure which ones you see as a problem. Which words of Jesus do you think support a literal 6 day creation?

In His name-

Papias

Click to expand...

Papias said:

MM wrote:

Mark 10:6 : "But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female."3 In Luke 11:50–51, Jesus also says: "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias … ". And in Romans 1:20, the Apostle Paul says of God: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.". also, jesus generally uses key words to tell you he is using a parable. this is absent from mark 10:6
Sorry this is a little sluip shod, but i had only a liuttle time and wanted to get this too you! thanks for being patient!
May God Richly Bless You! MM

I'm very familiar with those verses. Could you explain why you see them as suggesting a YEC interpretation of Genesis instead of the idea that God used evolution to create over millions of years? They seem to me to support the idea that God used evolution to create over millions of years as much or more.

Thanks-

Papias

Click to expand...

miamited said:

Whew, you guys still going at it, huh? Who thinks who will change who's mind?

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

Click to expand...