Young Earth looking Old

[Critias]

I think I know where fossils come from, it is obvious that the are the imprints in the rock of something that was organic. But the time span of 6,000 years for a complete fossil record is nowhere near long enough

Really? By who's authority is this statement backed by?

Some YECs state that fossils were put there by God to decieve people. On this I disagree, its just not in God's character to do that.

Anyone who states God is a liar/deceiver if they are wrong in their understanding is taking the place of God's judge.

Yes, because God's word explains "why" and not "how". The reverse applies to Evolution; otherwise life would have no meaning. Theistic evolution acknowledges God as creator and that man is the pinnacle of his creation. Genesis also emphasises the special relationship man has with his creator.

The fossil record clearly shows there has been continuous change in fauna and flora over millions of years and contimuous change in environment. I find it exciting that even though we are but a blink of an eye in the timeline, God sent Jesus to die in my place so I can have a relationship to him!

The Bible says how, yet TEs disagree that what it says is how. Instead, you as a TE advocate for a Theory that speaks of God, gives God credit to be replaced with a Theory that neither speaks of God nor gives God any credit.

Explain why you support the Theory where God is not glorified what He has done.

 

[Critias]

I'm sorry for misunderstanding your question. (Do I post like someone for whom English isn't a first language? ) But define what you mean by judging God, and be careful to show that it does not apply to creationists too before you condemn it. Remember the "Irreconcilable Conflict" thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t2257087-irreconcilable-conflict.html nobody has shown that creationists do not, in fact, limit God either.

1. Your English is quite good. My point is that even native English speakers don't understand the language very well either. We often see here when questions are posed, people assume it isn't a question even when a question mark is present. They take it as a statement against them.

2. Anytime you take a position where you place your understand above God's. Example: A TE says if they are wrong in their understanding it is God who is the deceiver. Notice how the blame is shifted off themselves for misunderstanding and onto God. That is becoming God's judge.

3. TEs are not the only group to have judged God. Many different groups, in fact all groups, YECs included, have taken the place as God's judge. It may or may not be in this debate, but in others such as end time prophecy.

4. Believing what God says is in no way limiting God. If you disagree then show me how it is.

I am assuming that evidence is important to this discussion. And with the evidence, there is no scientific interpretation that allows for an age of less than a billion years (a gross underestimation) for both the universe and the earth. Imagine if I had instead stated my argument as:

A: God created the earth with billions of years' appearance of age, because
B: millions of years' appearance of age is necessary for the survival of life.

Wouldn't that be a complete non-sequitur? The "because" in statement A would have fallen and the whole theory would fall apart. Now, I'll admit that I don't know much about biogeology and what is entailed in supporting life, and I'll admit that science is still far from a complete understanding of everything, though not all that far. But let me reiterate: nothing outside a 6000-lightyear radius can causally affect a 6000-year-old planet in any way. And for that to change, to widen the causal radius to a billion lightyears, is going to be a sea change equivalent to finding that atoms don't exist, genes aren't encoded in DNA, and gravity pushes away from mass. Logically speaking, nothing more than 6000 lightyears away need be created because none of it would interact with a young planet to be needed by it or to endanger it. Unless, of course, this so-called "young" planet was actually a lot older.

So let's give the creationists the benefit of the doubt and say that everything within a 6,000-lightyear radius, which will interact with the earth within the course of its existence, is necessary for life. Fine. Now, to refine the non-sequitur-ness of the "appearance of age required for life" argument:

A: God created a universe anywhere from 13.7 to 156 billion lightyears wide, because
B: Life requires a universe that is 6,000 lightyears wide.

Simply stupendous.

What you are doing is in fact what your previously stated, limiting God. You assume God cannot create light in an instant that when measured would be X amount of light years away. You assume that you know the purpose of the light as God sees it. Yet, we can read the purpose for this light in Genesis.

You seem to go at this argument as if God cannot create a planet that in six days will sustain life, let alone a universe for the planet to be within. The fact is, there is no natural process known to man that can deliver such a result, therefore catergorizing Creation as a miracle.

We have YECs who say creation is a miracle and we have TEs who say it must be a natural process. TEs will often argue that because YECs believe it was a miracle they state YECs don't believe God works within the natural. This is a baseless arguement that really is a strawman to divert the issue.

It is the TE who want the Creationary Theory out the window. The Theory that points to God as the Creator. It is the TE who wants the Evolutionary Theory to replace it. It is the TE who supports the Theory that refuses to glorify God.

 

[gluadys]

The Bible says how, yet TEs disagree that what it says is how. Instead, you as a TE advocate for a Theory that speaks of God, gives God credit to be replaced with a Theory that neither speaks of God nor gives God any credit.

Explain why you support the Theory where God is not glorified what He has done.

You really miss the point Critias.

Evolution is a fact. It is true that we evolved. The theory of evolution explains how evolution happens to the best of our ability, using current information. And there is overwhelming evidence that it is true to a very high level of confidence.

How does truth not point to God? How does truth not glorify God? How does truth not give credit to God?

 

[Critias]

You really miss the point Critias.

Evolution is a fact. It is true that we evolved. The theory of evolution explains how evolution happens to the best of our ability, using current information. And there is overwhelming evidence that it is true to a very high level of confidence.

How does truth not point to God? How does truth not glorify God? How does truth not give credit to God?

Alright, then tell us how Evolution speaks of God as the Creationary Theory does. That is what you want replaced and dismissed, the Creationary Theory that points to God and speaks of God. So, please tell us how the Evolutionary Theory points to God and speaks of God for those who don't know God.

 

[gluadys]

Alright, then tell us how Evolution speaks of God as the Creationary Theory does. That is what you want replaced and dismissed, the Creationary Theory that points to God and speaks of God. So, please tell us how the Evolutionary Theory points to God and speaks of God for those who don't know God.

By being true.

 

[Critias]

By being true.

So those who don't of God will know of God because of the assertion that evolution is true? Explain how the teaches them of God and what He did as the Creator.

 

[Didaskomenos]

So those who don't of God will know of God because of the assertion that evolution is true? Explain how the teaches them of God and what He did as the Creator.

Why is it necessary that the TOE speak of God as much as YEC? Explain how the way you got to work yesterday teaches others of God. Just because you'd like the method of creation to point unequivocally to the Creator doesn't mean that God thought it necessary. It would be nice if the sound of a stream spoke the name of its Creator to all who listened in their own respective languages. It would be very evangelistic, indeed. But God didn't think it necessary. You don't have a problem with this, do you?

 

[Critias]

Why is it necessary that the TOE speak of God as much as YEC? Explain how the way you got to work yesterday teaches others of God. Just because you'd like the method of creation to point unequivocally to the Creator doesn't mean that God thought it necessary. It would be nice if the sound of a stream spoke the name of its Creator to all who listened in their own respective languages. It would be very evangelistic, indeed. But God didn't think it necessary. You don't have a problem with this, do you?

Here is the problem. We have the Creationary Theory that speaks of God, points to God and declares God as the Creator. It has been an effective evangelism tool for many people to learn about God Almighty.

Now, you want this Theory that gives God the glory to be removed. You want the Evolutionary Theory to replace it. Tell me how this Evolutionary Theory will do what the Creationary Theory does; speaking of God, pointing to God, declaring God as the Creator.

The heart of the issue is that in one Theory God is declared, the other, God is silenced. Tell me why you as a Christian support silencing any talk of God as the Creator within the public arena of these Theories.

 

[random_guy]

Here is the problem. We have the Creationary Theory that speaks of God, points to God and declares God as the Creator. It has been an effective evangelism tool for many people to learn about God Almighty.

Now, you want this Theory that gives God the glory to be removed. You want the Evolutionary Theory to replace it. Tell me how this Evolutionary Theory will do what the Creationary Theory does; speaking of God, pointing to God, declaring God as the Creator.

The heart of the issue is that in one Theory God is declared, the other, God is silenced. Tell me why you as a Christian support silencing any talk of God as the Creator within the public arena of these Theories.

I really don't get this reasoning. Originally, people thought that planets were moved by angels. They gave credit to God for the innerworkings of our solar system. Then Kepler came up with his Laws of Planetary motion. Does this mean that Kepler's Laws somehow silenced God and took away God's glory?

What about gravity, germ theory, atomic theory? Does learning how the world works take away from God glory, or does it add to it by allowing us to understand how the universe works? To me, I find it amazing that God maintains life through an amazing process such that nothing short of a Sun going supernova, life will remain on the Earth.

 

[Critias]

I really don't get this reasoning. Originally, people thought that planets were moved by angels. They gave credit to God for the innerworkings of our solar system. Then Kepler came up with his Laws of Planetary motion. Does this mean that Kepler's Laws somehow silenced God and took away God's glory?

What about gravity, germ theory, atomic theory? Does learning how the world works take away from God glory, or does it add to it by allowing us to understand how the universe works? To me, I find it amazing that God maintains life through an amazing process such that nothing short of a Sun going supernova, life will remain on the Earth.

This is about the sum total. The Creationary Theory spoke to those who don't know God, who have never read the Bible that God is the Creator. Now, you want this to be removed. So, how will the Evolutionary Theory speak of God to those who don't know God and have never read the Bible?

Paul teaches that Creation itself points to a Creator. Creationary Theory studies Creation and points to the Creator. Evolutionary Theory studies Creation and does not point to a Creator.

Show me how the theory you support will point someone who doesn't know God to God.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Here is the problem. We have the Creationary Theory that speaks of God, points to God and declares God as the Creator. It has been an effective evangelism tool for many people to learn about God Almighty.

Now, you want this Theory that gives God the glory to be removed. You want the Evolutionary Theory to replace it. Tell me how this Evolutionary Theory will do what the Creationary Theory does; speaking of God, pointing to God, declaring God as the Creator.

The heart of the issue is that in one Theory God is declared, the other, God is silenced. Tell me why you as a Christian support silencing any talk of God as the Creator within the public arena of these Theories.

I almost can't believe I'm reading this. It's what I've felt was the heart of the issue for so long, now confirmed. If I could win people to Christ using the Bible codes, would you argue as vehemently for the authenticity of them? Or would you regard the conversions as flukes, God's grace working despite our ignorance? You want to believe the creation accounts are historical because you feel such an interpretation has practical uses. But even a bad hammer can sometimes get a nail in. You jump up and down because other Christians dare to remove a faulty tool from your workshop.

Conversely, you seem to be outraged that what TE's believe doesn't knock people over the head with the Gospel. It appears you would prop up a lie to save souls, whereas TE's believe that all truth is God's truth, whether or not it appears to be a "stumbling block." Powerful good it did the Gospel for people to see Jesus crucified. But the end of the story was that He rose again! We haven't seen the end of our story yet, either, so don't count God out just yet. You cannot simply choose which doctrine you think God would like best and declare it Truth.

 

[Mikecpking]

Really? By who's authority is this statement backed by?

Many scientists, geologists, myself who did field geology and common sense.

Anyone who states God is a liar/deceiver if they are wrong in their understanding is taking the place of God's judge.

I agree. But still some christians maintain they were put there by God to decieve people.

The Bible says how, yet TEs disagree that what it says is how. Instead, you as a TE advocate for a Theory that speaks of God, gives God credit to be replaced with a Theory that neither speaks of God nor gives God any credit.

Explain why you support the Theory where God is not glorified what He has done.

Excuse me, but are you saying I don't give credit for God's creation? I give him full credit and so does every TE advocate there is. You and I are meant to be brothers in the Lord!

In your own opinion, you state that the theory does not get give glory to God. Unfortunately, I could say your opinion brings christianity into disrepute. I fully agree 100% with God's word, especially the creation account. But the difference is I am in a position where it does not conflict at all with my old earth views.

On this point, we can discuss this!

 

[Critias]

I almost can't believe I'm reading this. It's what I've felt was the heart of the issue for so long, now confirmed. If I could win people to Christ using the Bible codes, would you argue as vehemently for the authenticity of them? Or would you regard the conversions as flukes, God's grace working despite our ignorance? You want to believe the creation accounts are historical because you feel such an interpretation has practical uses. But even a bad hammer can sometimes get a nail in. You jump up and down because other Christians dare to remove a faulty tool from your workshop.

Conversely, you seem to be outraged that what TE's believe doesn't knock people over the head with the Gospel. It appears you would prop up a lie to save souls, whereas TE's believe that all truth is God's truth, whether or not it appears to be a "stumbling block." Powerful good it did the Gospel for people to see Jesus crucified. But the end of the story was that He rose again! We haven't seen the end of our story yet, either, so don't count God out just yet. You cannot simply choose which doctrine you think God would like best and declare it Truth.

Instead of answering my question you decided to go off on a tangent.

Explain to me how the Evolutionary Theory will point people to God as the Creator.

You want the Creationary Theory that does this to be removed and not talked about in a public arena.

The Creationary Theory leads people to the conclusion that God is the Creator, so how does the Evolutionary Theory do so?

 

[Critias]

Many scientists, geologists, myself who did field geology and common sense.

Ok, so is their authority superior to God's?

I agree. But still some christians maintain they were put there by God to decieve people.

This is the most common TE assertion: if TEs are wrong, God is a deceiver.

Excuse me, but are you saying I don't give credit for God's creation? I give him full credit and so does every TE advocate there is. You and I are meant to be brothers in the Lord!

Instead of answering my question, you instead try to turn this into a personal attack. I am not talking about anyone personally. I am asking how the Evolutionary Theory, not people, points to God as the Creator.

In your own opinion, you state that the theory does not get give glory to God. Unfortunately, I could say your opinion brings christianity into disrepute. I fully agree 100% with God's word, especially the creation account. But the difference is I am in a position where it does not conflict at all with my old earth views.

On this point, we can discuss this!

You could simply answer my question instead trying to turn this into something personal, when it is not. I have not stated anything about a person, I have talked about the Theory. Your response, as well as other TE responses, shows that the Evolutionary Theory is more than a theory to TEs, it's personal.

Can you answer my question? How does the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator?

 

[Mikecpking]

Ok, so is their authority superior to God's?

From your point of view, it underminds your literalist standpoint. From my point of view, it does not contradict anything God has said or done. Its a matter of interpretation.

This is the most common TE assertion: if TEs are wrong, God is a deceiver.

So, how in your opinion did the fossils get there?

Instead of answering my question, you instead try to turn this into a personal attack. I am not talking about anyone personally. I am asking how the Evolutionary Theory, not people, points to God as the Creator.

I responded, because you were implicating TEs, because we hold that view.

You could simply answer my question instead trying to turn this into something personal, when it is not. I have not stated anything about a person, I have talked about the Theory. Your response, as well as other TE responses, shows that the Evolutionary Theory is more than a theory to TEs, it's personal.

Can you answer my question? How does the Evolutionary Theory point to God as the Creator?

Quite straightford; the bible speaks of man being the pinnacle of his creation in day 6. We are made in his image. That means we are distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom by showing aspects of his image in creativity, morality, choice between good and evil. To control our environments (dominion) etc. This is what makes man unique and points to God.

Also, we share 96% of the same DNA from chimpanzees. There is a fossil record which shows contiuous change in species all through the ages.

The very fact we are debating this 4,000 miles apart or so shows how God has brought us to this place in creativity. To me, there is no such thing in this as chance, but God is doing his creative work even now. Even Stephen Hawking noted that the maths involved for the creation of the universe could not rule out a creator. Einstein even stated theat through physics (of the universe), he wanted to know G'od's thoughts'. This is what theistic evolution is about.

 

[Critias]

From your point of view, it underminds your literalist standpoint. From my point of view, it does not contradict anything God has said or done. Its a matter of interpretation.

It isn't by your or my interpretation, but by what God has said. You can interpret in a way that will suggest something is what it is not.

So, how in your opinion did the fossils get there?

Since I was not there, I quite fine with not knowing how for a definate fact. The flood is of course one way. But you and other TEs reject that as well.

I responded, because you were implicating TEs, because we hold that view.

I implicated nothing. You decided to tell me what I was saying, instead of answering my simple question.

Quite straightford; the bible speaks of man being the pinnacle of his creation in day 6. We are made in his image. That means we are distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom by showing aspects of his image in creativity, morality, choice between good and evil. To control our environments (dominion) etc. This is what makes man unique and points to God.

Also, we share 96% of the same DNA from chimpanzees. There is a fossil record which shows contiuous change in species all through the ages.

The very fact we are debating this 4,000 miles apart or so shows how God has brought us to this place in creativity. To me, there is no such thing in this as chance, but God is doing his creative work even now. Even Stephen Hawking noted that the maths involved for the creation of the universe could not rule out a creator. Einstein even stated theat through physics (of the universe), he wanted to know G'od's thoughts'. This is what theistic evolution is about.

I am not talking about theistic evolution. I have been quite clear about what I am saying. Tell me how the Evolutionary Theory, not theistic evolution, points to God as the Creator.

 

[Mikecpking]

It isn't by your or my interpretation, but by what God has said. You can interpret in a way that will suggest something is what it is not.



Since I was not there, I quite fine with not knowing how for a definate fact. The flood is of course one way. But you and other TEs reject that as well.

Hi,
Because the rocks we see today do not correspond or show a single flood event. I would love to show you some geological sites which disproves this. This obviously opens up more evidence for an older earth.

I implicated nothing. You decided to tell me what I was saying, instead of answering my simple question.

OK, I am sorry I misunderstood you.

I am not talking about theistic evolution. I have been quite clear about what I am saying. Tell me how the Evolutionary Theory, not theistic evolution, points to God as the Creator.

Evolutionary theory on its own from Godless perspective obviously does not from an atheist view does not show God as creator. We would argue with atheists otherwise!

 

[Critias]

Hi,
Because the rocks we see today do not correspond or show a single flood event. I would love to show you some geological sites which disproves this. This obviously opens up more evidence for an older earth.

And this is by mans speculation. I go by God's given message.

OK, I am sorry I misunderstood you.

It's ok, no worries.

Evolutionary theory on its own from Godless perspective obviously does not from an atheist view does not show God as creator. We would argue with atheists otherwise!

The Creationary Theory points to God without anyone needing to argue it.

The Evolutionary Theory does not. So, why do you support the Theory that refuses to point to God?

 

[gluadys]

So those who don't of God will know of God because of the assertion that evolution is true? Explain how the teaches them of God and what He did as the Creator.

First I didn't say because of the assertion that evolution is true. I said because evolution is true. No assertion would make evolution true if it were false. And no denial makes it false since it is true.

It teaches of God in the same way as the stars of heaven do. Psalm 19:1

When you gaze at the heavens on a clear starry night, or watch an incredibly beautiful sunset or take the opportunity to see the northern lights or an eclipse, what do they teach you of God and what he did as the Creator?

Why are some people capable of studying the celestial bodies and yet remaining oblivious to the existence of God?

When I first studied evolution I immediately saw the hand of God in it; others don't. The difference is not in what is studied but in the attitude of the student.

 

[shernren]

The Creationary Theory points to God without anyone needing to argue it.

The Evolutionary Theory does not. So, why do you support the Theory that refuses to point to God?

Go on, show me how Harun Yahya points to Jehovah God and Kenneth Miller points away from God.

4. Believing what God says is in no way limiting God. If you disagree then show me how it is.

How do you know that you heard God correctly?

Like I explained on the other thread, TEs dogmatically hold to a particular manmade interpretation of nature, while YECs dogmatically hold to a particular manmade interpretation of scripture. By saying that "God did not say Genesis 1 as a myth", aren't you limiting God? How do you know that God didn't have purpose for a myth?

What you are doing is in fact what your previously stated, limiting God. You assume God cannot create light in an instant that when measured would be X amount of light years away. You assume that you know the purpose of the light as God sees it. Yet, we can read the purpose for this light in Genesis.

I don't think I'm communicating my argument clearly enough. Let's look at two variants of the creationist argument.

A': God created a young universe that looks old.

A: God created a young universe that looks old, because
B: only a universe that looks old can support life.

Now, if creationists claim A', TEs cannot debate the truth of A' from a scientific point of view. You are absolutely right. God could have, for all we know and care. He had/has the power to do just that. Fine. But this can be debated from a theo-logical point of view (hyphen intended), asking what the purpose of A' is. In other words, what is the logic of God performing A'?

Now, you could always say "Whatever God does will seem stupid and useless to you! Go away, faithless heathen!" and then there would be no more discussion. But instead, you feel compelled to supply a logical reason for A'. To support A', creationists therefore come up with argument AB. In other words AB supplies the purpose of A', though not the truth of A'. I could demolish AB (as I have already, without refutation), and the truth of A' could still stand, though its purpose would not. God could still jolly well have created the earth with an appearance of 5 billion years of age. The question is, why?

Here's an analogy. Imagine this common argument:

A': My bedtime is earlier than my elder brother's bedtime.

A: My bedtime is earlier than my elder brother's bedtime, because
B: my father loves me less than my elder brother.

How does the father disprove this line of thinking? He does not attack A'. He does not magically say "Alright, you can sleep at 12am tonight." Instead he attacks the AB link, saying instead that "Your bedtime is earlier than your elder brother's (A) because you have less energy than him (C)." AB has fallen and yet A' still remains. The truth of A' would have stood whether or not AB was true; the purpose of A' changed from AB to AC, and thus reassured me that my father was indeed logical in performing A'.

It is exactly the same with the age of appearance theory. Sure, God could have created the universe to look old (A'). But why? Is it because that appearance was necessary for life (AB)? No! Appearance of billions of years' age is not necessary for life. A universe hundreds of billions of lightyears wide is not necessary for a civilization less than 6,000 years old. So, appearance was not necessary for life. (AB refuted). For all we know, God could have created the universe to look old (the truth of A' stands), but without any logical plausible reason (the purpose of A', AB, has fallen). I have not limited God's power: I have merely tried to understand His intentions. It is something the Bible itself tells us to do.