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

[Keachian]

I wonder if its possible that God created the universe with these contrary "evidences" as a way to show He is the Creator. That for all their theories, they still cannot nail it down to one or the other because He left evidence of both...just a bit of philosophic pondering...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Here's Rev. Charles Kingsley's response to Phillip Gosse's book which proposed the same idea:
"Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this — that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes Deus quidam deceptor [‘God who is sometimes a deceiver’]. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in the one single case of your newly created scars on the pandanus trunk, your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here... I cannot... believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind."

 

[Metal Minister]

Here's Rev. Charles Kingsley's response to Phillip Gosse's book which proposed the same idea:
"Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this — that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes Deus quidam deceptor [‘God who is sometimes a deceiver’]. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in the one single case of your newly created scars on the pandanus trunk, your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here... I cannot... believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind."

I find I can't buy into this line of thinking. That if God made everything with the appearance of age He is somehow a deceiver. Would that make Jesus a deceiver when he turned water to wine? Wine is an aged product, and he gave it age in an instant. How is creating Adam, fully formed a deceit? He said that is how He did, He hides nothing from us in this regard.

But in the first creation of the universe, as I have said already, God produced the whole race of trees out of the earth in full perfection, having their fruit not incomplete, but in a state of entire ripeness, to be ready for the immediate and undelayed use and enjoyment of the animals ..."13 Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 bc-ad 50)

"In a moment earth began by germination to obey the laws of the Creator, completed [in] every stage of growth, and brought germs to perfection. The meadows were covered with deep grass, the fertile plains quivered with harvests, and the movement of the corn was like the waving of the sea. Every plant, every herb, the smallest shrub, the least vegetable, arose from the earth in all its luxuriance."14 Saint Basil of Caesarea (c. ad 330-379)

John Calvin wrote, "... things which were not came suddenly into being... God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men...the light was before dispersed [Day 1], but now [Day 4] proceeds from the lucid bodies; which, in serving this purpose, obey the command of God."
( Mature creation and seeing distant starlight Don B. DeYoung)

How is a fully functional universe a deceit? It would be deceitful if God had not told us how He created all things, but He did, quite openly in Genesis. How are fossils "pretending to be bones"? In a catastrophic world wide flood would expect such fossils in abundance. We also have no idea if Adam had a navel, so this is just silly, and this whole stance falls apart in the light of a 6000 year old creation. It would only be a lie if God had used millions or billions of years.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Keachian]

I find I can't buy into this line of thinking. That if God made everything with the appearance of age He is somehow a deceiver. Would that make Jesus a deceiver when he turned water to wine? Wine is an aged product, and he gave it age in an instant.

No, the two are not comparable, the wine is a miracle in terms of it being something to proclaim Jesus' divinity and want to have relationship with us, on the other hand embedding age in things, there is no need for it and it serves more if true as a pointer away from God than a pointer to God, let's not say that God tests people.

How is creating Adam, fully formed a deceit? He said that is how He did, He hides nothing from us in this regard.

You miss what Gosse was arguing for, he said that Adam had a navel, and while I perfectly agree with you that if the fully formed Adam special creation from dust was totally necessary, (I see that particular bit as a huge condensing of evolutionary history, basically to the point where all it says is that Adam is a part of the whole of creation and isn't special from all other creatures physically cf. 2:19) that it wouldn't be deception, however Gosse's argument is that Adam would have had a navel, which is preposterous on many levels.

<snip>

How is a fully functional universe a deceit?

It's not, how is a universe that doesn't look like it does now non-functioning?

It would be deceitful if God had not told us how He created all things, but He did, quite openly in Genesis.

Yes God created by divine fiat and getting his hands dirty, that is how Genesis describes how God creates, I fail to see how this means that God is lying when we find out that this means that the history of the universe is longer than 6000 years.

How are fossils "pretending to be bones"? In a catastrophic world wide flood would expect such fossils in abundance.

Ask Gosse

We also have no idea if Adam had a navel, so this is just silly, and this whole stance falls apart in the light of a 6000 year old creation. It would only be a lie if God had used millions or billions of years.

Is it a 6000 year old creation though, I'd probably say that there is a 6000 or so year history of Homo Adamis there, there's also a 2000 year history of Homo Divinus, but I don't think it is possible to say all of creation's history is 6000 years.

 

[Metal Minister]

No, the two are not comparable, the wine is a miracle in terms of it being something to proclaim Jesus' divinity and want to have relationship with us, on the other hand embedding age in things, there is no need for it and it serves more if true as a pointer away from God than a pointer to God, let's not say that God tests people.1

You miss what Gosse was arguing for, he said that Adam had a navel, and while I perfectly agree with you that if the fully formed Adam special creation from dust was totally necessary, (I see that particular bit as a huge condensing of evolutionary history, basically to the point where all it says is that Adam is a part of the whole of creation and isn't special from all other creatures physically cf. 2:19) that it wouldn't be deception, however Gosse's argument is that Adam would have had a navel, which is preposterous on many levels.
2
<snip>

It's not, how is a universe that doesn't look like it does now non-functioning?3

Yes God created by divine fiat and getting his hands dirty, that is how Genesis describes how God creates, I fail to see how this means that God is lying when we find out that this means that the history of the universe is longer than 6000 years.
4
Ask Gosse

Is it a 6000 year old creation though, I'd probably say that there is a 6000 or so year history of Homo Adamis there, there's also a 2000 year history of Homo Divinus, but I don't think it is possible to say all of creation's history is 6000 years.

5

Darn, I keep running into this problem...I use my smartphone app and it won't let me differentiate between our posts. I'll do my best to answer point by point here, or we can choose one point and discuss it.
1) But my point is, doesn't the appearance of age there also make it deceitful? And if you look at it from a yec perspective the earth and heavens would have to have the appearance of age...otherwise what would Adam stand on? What would he eat?
2) Yes, the idea of Adam having a navel is silly. As far as evolution is concerned, I don't believe God used such a method to get us here, so its no hindrance to my faith.
3) perhaps not non-functional, but complete. If we use the big bang, and evolution, then the heavens would've been changing throughout the history of the earth. It would have been a very violent place if the big bang is true.
4) current scientific interpretation says more than 6000 years, but that is viewed through a view of some atheism.
5) again, this depends on your world view. Yec says the genealogy of the bible adds up to 6000 from the creation.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Keachian]

Darn, I keep running into this problem...I use my smartphone app and it won't let me differentiate between our posts. I'll do my best to answer point by point here, or we can choose one point and discuss it.

It's all good, I have the same problem

1) But my point is, doesn't the appearance of age there also make it deceitful? And if you look at it from a yec perspective the earth and heavens would have to have the appearance of age...otherwise what would Adam stand on? What would he eat?

I don't believe it does, especially when it is inline with God's nature of pointing us to himself, as I said the embedding of age to my mind does far more to point away than it does to point towards.

As far as evolution is concerned, I don't believe God used such a method to get us here, so its no hindrance to my faith.

But are you open to the idea that he could have?

3) perhaps not non-functional, but complete. If we use the big bang, and evolution, then the heavens would've been changing throughout the history of the earth. It would have been a very violent place if the big bang is true.

Ah, so you're worried about the question of prefall theodicy, I'm afraid I can't really help you there so much, but then I'm not that good with postfall theodicy either, if you have any recommendations for books on the subject I would be most obliged.

However I might possibly start with Job 38:39-41 for both

4) current scientific interpretation says more than 6000 years, but that is viewed through a view of some atheism.

I don't really see the reasoning behind this, or is everything which is atheistic-theistic neutral default to atheistic?

5) again, this depends on your world view. Yec says the genealogy of the bible adds up to 6000 from the creation.

I did agree with that, the question I posed basically boiled down to how long does the Bible say that creation took, this is where I part company with YEC, seeing Gen 1 as the poetic parallel to Gen 2 in much the same way as Exodus 14-15 and Judges 4-5.

 

[samaus12345]

Appearance of age. I am 'young' compared to a 90 year old who is 'old' compared to me. 6000 years is 'old' compared to 100 years, but 'young' when compared to billions. 'Appearance of age' says someone apriori believes x is x years old.

[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]"Science is a long history of learning how not to fool ourselves." Feynman (quote "mine")

&#8216;Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1&#8211;11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah&#8217;s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.&#8217; (quote "mine")

 

[Keachian]

Well Professor John H. Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College would disagree with you Jinx

 

[Metal Minister]

It's all good, I have the same problem

I don't believe it does, especially when it is inline with God's nature of pointing us to himself, as I said the embedding of age to my mind does far more to point away than it does to point towards.1

But are you open to the idea that he could have?

Ah, so you're worried about the question of prefall theodicy, I'm afraid I can't really help you there so much, but then I'm not that good with postfall theodicy either, if you have any recommendations for books on the subject I would be most obliged.3

I don't really see the reasoning behind this, or is everything which is atheistic-theistic neutral default to atheistic?4

I did agree with that, the question I posed basically boiled down to how long does the Bible say that creation took, this is where I part company with YEC, seeing Gen 1 as the poetic parallel to Gen 2 in much the same way as Exodus 14-15 and Judges 4-5.

5

1)I guess this again boils down to world view. I would say it shows the infinite power of God to create any way He sees fit. Again, though taking the flood into account would've radically changed the earth. The only appearance of age may have been that which is described in Gen. 1
2)I'm open to what scripture points me too. That being said, I don't think they say He did.
3)nope, sorry...I wish I did! (Might make it easier for both of us ; ))
4) no, but when I look at the history of the evolution movement, I see a good deal of its founders either are atheist, or turned atheist. Since then, the lens of billions of years and evolution has been left in place with any other theories being shut out.
5) I can appreciate that, but I've seen too much research to the idea that Gen. 1 is literal with Gen. 2 as a sort of more in depth look to think its any other way. Here I think we may have to agree to disagree but at least it shows its possible to do so with respect and a lack of animosity. I'll keep my eyes open for a good book on either pre and/or post fall theodicy and let you know!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Keachian]

1)I guess this again boils down to world view. I would say it shows the infinite power of God to create any way He sees fit. Again, though taking the flood into account would've radically changed the earth. The only appearance of age may have been that which is described in Gen. 1

Yes, God has the infinite power to create as he sees fit, I'm not arguing against that, in fact if I felt it was absolutely theologically necessary that God create in 6 days 6000 years ago then I'd be arguing on your side, as it is I think that the theology of God as creator is far more important than how long or when God created.

2)I'm open to what scripture points me too. That being said, I don't think they say He did.

Neither do I. However might I suggest a look into the differences between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, because I think that's where a bit of our differences come from.

3)nope, sorry...I wish I did! (Might make it easier for both of us ; ))

I've heard Lewis' problem of pain is quite good, I have been meaning to read it, but just haven't gotten around to it, Job is one from the Bible but it can be quizzical in some ways.

4) no, but when I look at the history of the evolution movement, I see a good deal of its founders either are atheist, or turned atheist. Since then, the lens of billions of years and evolution has been left in place with any other theories being shut out.

I'd point you instead to the history of geology, a lot of proponents of old earth from the beginning of geology have been churchmen iirc. Not only that but there are proponents of evolution from the beginning of that movement who were churchmen, Charles Kingsley and Gregor Mendel come to mind, Georges Lemaitre was the one who first proposed the Big Bang cosmology and he was a Catholic Priest. I think part of the problem is that Christians have been more interested in piety, scared off from science because they have been taught that studying scripture gets one closer to God than studying the universe, but in my mind God created both and so study of both is most beneficial.

5) I can appreciate that, but I've seen too much research to the idea that Gen. 1 is literal with Gen. 2 as a sort of more in depth look to think its any other way. Here I think we may have to agree to disagree but at least it shows its possible to do so with respect and a lack of animosity. I'll keep my eyes open for a good book on either pre and/or post fall theodicy and let you know!

Cheers!

 

[samaus12345]

I uploaded a new satan i mean Richard Dawkins video to the resources thread

 

[Keachian]

I uploaded a new satan i mean Richard Dawkins video to the resources thread

You do realise by calling Dawkins Satan you are by orthodox theological standards saying that he cannot ever by the grace of God be reconciled to God, out of respect that God can reconcile whom he chooses back unto him I'm asking you to stop

 

[Metal Minister]

http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Eby/Eby-Theodicy-a.htm

Wow, progmonk, you may find this fascinating. I've only just started reading it, and his premise is greatly flawed, but my heart breaks for his crushed faith...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Keachian]

The Problem of Evil and the Goodness of God 1 - Lloyd Eby

Wow, progmonk, you may find this fascinating. I've only just started reading it, and his premise is greatly flawed, but my heart breaks for his crushed faith...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Thanks, the historical background about the question is rather nice, however I do agree with you.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm slightly offended. I thought I came to Christian Forums. How can I poosibly be scorning people who affirm God as creator? That's my position!

Anyway, to say that you left me speechless is an understatement. I will respond to your post later when I have more time.

All Creationism is, is a belief in God as Creator. It was not Bible believing Christians attacking 'science' or 'evolution' that ignited the creation/evolution controversy. It was wave after wave of secular skepticism that disparaged and deprecated every aspect of Christian theism for well over a hundred years.

Then you come into a forum called 'Creationism' and blame the few posters on here for a controversy that has been ignited and prosecuted by atheistic and agnostics since it's inception. You want to blame Creationists for all of this but you have failed to realize two fundamental facts, Darwinism is a categorical rejection of the supernatural (God as cause) and all Christians are creationists. I am offended that you think you can make such a careless and scathing indictment against people of faith in defense of a philosophy that is clearly atheistic.

Now, as to 'proven' vs 'unproven' theories, Darwinism was never a theory:

In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. On the Origin of Species​

What is being passed of as science is the 'a priori' assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. That is a frame of reference that never allows for God as Creator and yet, instead of arguing for the Christian faith you are arguing against a core doctrine.

You should really give some thought to who is attacking who here.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Party animal its unfortunate that people perceive "evolution" as a "established scientific theory" (again that one word "evolution" has 5+ different meanings). Documentaries we see on t.v. are all big bang/evolution based "millions and millions" of years they will say, "thats just the way we evolved" (doctors say this one, i dealt a lot with them, they loveeee this phrase, a consequence of med school indoctrination), watch ONE documentary without a single reference to deep time or evolution. We are SATURATED in this materialistic atheistic God hating GARBAGE. IF you want to know how BRUTAL this creation/genesis battle is read one of Richard Dawkins books (please pray a lot first they are EVIL EVIL books) My experience-you will feel the EVIL as soon as you start reading (maybe ask the holy spirit first because millions are deceived by this one man/satan incarnate)...this topic is the battleground i believe and these quack atheists know it...or read origin of species and compare it to reality....i say this because it *should* when compared to reality destroy/start to destroy anyones faith in "EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT" (caps for dogmatic commanding overreaching tone)

It's unfortunate that Darwinism has become synonymous evolution and in turn, evolution with science. Frankly, I believe it's a perversion of the natural use of those terms. I have long held that a young earth creationist is a radical evolutionist for one simple reason. How long ago was the flood, how many living creatures (mammals, avians, reptiles) were on board, how many descendants alive today?

Not only do I believe that all Christians are Creationists but all young earth creationists are radical evolutionists. The only reason I don't defend that proposition more vigorously is because actual evolutionary biology is never at issue. This whole controversy is being generated as fallacious rhetoric, otherwise we would be discussing molecular mechanisms rather then fielding insults.

The whole thing is upside down, young earth creationists must believe in accelerated evolution. It would have had to happen a rapidity that would have scared Darwin to death.

Just one more thing, Mendel started his series of experiments trying to overcome a major problem with hybrids. The tendency is always for the hybrid to return to the wild type and Darwin elaborated on these problems with hybrids at length, he even called it the bane of horticulture. It makes no sense for theistic evolutionists to be attacking creationism and creationists to be attacking evolution.

The whole strategy is to bury the issues, not resolve them. Just remember one thing if you don't remember anything else. Evolution is not the problem, evolutionary biology is the key to comprehending natural history from a Creationist perspective. That's why you should never let them confuse you into attacking science and evolution, it just effectively poisons the well.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[samaus12345]

Do you doubt the population of animals aboard Noahs ark could speciate into all or most of the species we observe today?

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you doubt the population of animals aboard Noahs ark could speciate into all or most of the species we observe today?

No I don't, the first problem you have to deal with is the logistics. Every ecological niche on the planet has to be occupied in a very brief series of generations. The arctic, Australia, African apes and tropical reptiles...etc. No, I do not doubt it but then let's throw in the possibility of amphibians becoming sea dwelling creatures.

Do you see what I'm getting at? That is evolution in no uncertain terms and the only difference between (at least the most important one) Darwinism and Creationism is the timeline and scale. What I would like to know is how arctic wildlife evolves from it's ancestors and the Australian wildlife developed species like marsupials and the platypus.

I am not on here looking for arguments against evolution. On the contrary, I am hoping to learn what the molecular mechanisms are that facilitate rapidly evolving speciation on a global scale in a remarkably brief space of time.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[samaus12345]

On the contrary, I am hoping to learn what the molecular mechanisms are that facilitate rapidly evolving speciation on a global scale in a remarkably brief space of time.

Evolutionary biology websites (like talk origins) will include speciation under Macro-evolution (micro/macro are evolutionary biology terms ). Macro or micro it still will not produce new functional proteins/information necessary to change one "kind" (great sea creatures with which the water abounded) into another "kind" (beast of the earth). Once genetics was somewhat understood the only new possible source of bp sequencing for new functions/proteins was if there was somesort of copying error which gave rise to new novel traits (this is a naturalistic philosophy so although the only thing that could actually yield proposed results would take a supernatural miracle, that cant be allowed and would be the anti-point of the philosophy).The type of mutation (which the neodarwinian delusion/hypothesis) is based on has never been observed. That is why in the literatures where they propose such a mutation that did give rise to a new novel protein (gene duplication), they must assign it off into the unobserved past. In reality when gene duplication is observed we see what is expected from a copying MISTAKE (down syndrome).

Speciation

Biology and Origins: An alternative Biological Revolution new biological clock and a new central theme in Biology

 

[PartyAnimal]

I am offended that you think you can make such a careless and scathing indictment against people of faith in defense of a philosophy that is clearly atheistic.

Scathing indictment? Here I thought I was just giving my opinion. You win mate, I'm a closet Atheist. I must be since I hold an Atheistic position which evolution definitely is. No really, it is.

 

[Keachian]

Scathing indictment? Here I thought I was just giving my opinion. You win mate, I'm a closet Atheist. I must be since I hold an Atheistic position which evolution definitely is. No really, it is.

Mark seems to think that because Darwin stated that evolution must be atheistic and without miraculous interpolation, that we as theistic evolutionists cannot disregard this philosophical position of Darwin's while taking everything else at face value, even though I'd largely take a Victorian English direction to the quote that he flaunts so happily, which would mean that miraculous interpolation becomes God acting outside of the norm of what he does. Naturalism in Victorian English did not mean Atheism, but merely those things which God did as opposed to those things which Humans enacted on the world. Language does change and where it does in regards to things of Deity we do need to be careful.