six day literal creation?

Charles, when Barry and I have spoken before college crowds especially, and young adults, we are often deluged afterwards by literal crowds of them coming up and thanking us for helping them REGAIN the trust they had before college professors began ridiculing their faith. Contrary to the theory you present, our experience shows just the opposite.

And drive people away? Only if they WANT an excuse to refuse Christ. It is not science that draws them to Christ, but a combination of their own knowledge of their sinfulness and the compassion of God, often through other Christians (which attitude is severely lacking in some who ridicule other Christians and their work). Science can help affirm or deny what they believe, but it does not make them believe or disbelieve. Faith -- especially the Christian faith -- is much too personal for that.

All that said I do have to add that the Hovinds of the creation world drive me nuts. They do not separate fact from opinion and often try to include a socio-political gospel with the real thing. In the meantime, they are quite lacking in their real science and can not only make fools of themselves, the wrong way, but cause their listeners, who believe what they have heard, to be made fools of when they try to repeat the evidence they thought was real.

But those are the popularizers. The actual creation scientists, including my husband, tend to be much more careful with what they present and much more conservative with what they say is 'pretty sure'. These men I respect highly and am glad so many others do, too. I would include in this group I think deserves respect men like Andrew Snelling, Kurt Wise, and Mark Armitage -- names not nearly as well known as many of the popularizers, but men who really do know what they are talking about and whose work can be trusted to be honest and accurate.

These men attract people to Christ.

Petrel, the universe does NOT look old, and that is part of the problem the old-agers face. They must deal with coherent galaxies, intact rings, internally active meteorites, etc. They try to solve their old age problem by inventing black, or dark, matter. It must be there because the universe is old! However, if the universe is young, there is suddenly no need for this made-up stuff!

 

In response to the particular line above, I do not make that association. Young earth creationists make that association. I'm glad you at least reject the "appearance of age" argument.

 

How old do you think Adam/Eve would have appeared on the 7th day (the day after they were created)?

I'll admit that I'm reading into the scripture here, but I really don't think that either one would have "LOOKED" 1 (one) day old. I'm guessing that they would have appeared between 20 and 40 years old!

Just as that first Bristlecone Pine would have appeared to be "X" years old when in reality it was only a few days old.

Just like theMilky Way would have appeared to be "10x" years old, when in reality it was only a few days old

God is/was not trying to fool anybody, or lying, He just created and told us the basics, and man has taken off on these rabbit trails to "prove" that God was not necessary!

 

See, it's the same argument again.

Adam and Eve looked adult, assuming that people usually start as babies.

Bristlecone pines appear old, assuming that trees usually start from seeds.

The universe appears to be old, assuming that universes usually start as big bangs.

The argument leads to the conclusion that a big bang is the normal method of creation.

 

Can you give any evidence that this is not the normal routine? I really don't see your point in these comments; please expound a bit!

Totally different topic; a one time event, not being repeated in nature OR creation. Oh, No assuming the big bang for me. I accept exactly the scenario God gave for the beginning!

Yeah, right! Just how many creations are you basing this on?

 

Petrel, you are pushing far past what she was talking about. Why? Adam and Eve and the original creation did not start as spores and seeds. That much we know from what God told us. But He also created the natural order so that 'nature' took over from there.

She did not mention Bristlecone pines, by the way. The ones we have would have been from after Noah's Flood anyway, so your comment is just a red herring.

And the universe simply does not appear to be old! Nor do we know what is the 'usual' method for universes to start, since there is only one and God told us He created it from nothing and then stretched it out.

Your post is simply a form of ridicule. But it is also very flawed in terms of what she was saying and simple logic.

 

Umm, why don't you go and read the post that I was responding to before insulting me.

 

I apologize. I didn't notice the part about the pines. Nevertheless, you are pushing the envelope in your response.

 

I never said that it wasn't the normal routine, in fact, my point is that it is. With instances of appearance of age, the object appears to have a history and origin consistent with its class.

The evidence that we have in the appearance of age can be used to make a coherent theory of the origin of the universe billions of years ago. A created fish appears to be consistent with the natural origin of fish. But if we assume a young universe, that is inconsistent with what seems to be the natural origin of universes. Why would God create the universe with evidences that it had an origin that is completely false?

Just the one that we can know about. But would you say it is possible that God might make others via a big bang and billions of years? That could rescue the appearance of age argument! But if so, it would also make me wonder what all the fuss is about.

IRT Helen: I really don't know what you mean.

 

Nice theory, Helen, but where is Scripture backing up Scripture that you like to talk so much about?

Genesis 1:1 - God created the universe.
Yes. He stretched out the heavens and founded the earth (Zech. 12:1). That means the sun, moon, stars, galaxies were created out of nothing and began to exist. Genesis 1:1 describes this fact!

Genesis 1:2 - God describes the earth's condition at its creation in Genesis 1:1.
Job 38:1-9 contain the words of God himself as he questions Job. Light existed in the universe but did not reach the earth's surface because of massive thick clouds that wrapped the earth's core.

Unspecified time identified. The Holy Spirit hovered.

Genesis 1:3 - God called for light to reach the earth's surface so that day one could begin on earth! Light called day, darkness called night. The first day.

I've backed up my interpretation with Scripture. You've given us nothing but theory.

The unformed and unfilled earth of Genesis 1:2 is fashioned and filled during the six days of God fashioning the earth's biosphere to make it habitable for man (Isa. 45:18).

It is so simple, even a child can understand it. And I will always accept the simple explanation of Scripture over the complicated explanations of man.

 

BTW, I'm not arguing for an old universe. I'm arguing for an unspecified age for the universe.

Science, logic, or common sense may inform how old we think the universe is. Example, the speed of light. If it is constant and has always been constant, then the universe might be billions of years old, since we see the light from distant galaxies. But if it can be proven that the speed of light isn't always a constant, then the universe might not be as old as we might deduce from a constant speed of light.

But you know all this already.

 

If you don't believe the universe really is billions of years old . . . you must realize at least that some of us do believe that. We do that because it seems that the evidence is so overwhelming in the favor of an older universe that we are psychologically unable to reject it; its just something we see in the same sense that others see that the sky is blue.

Now those of you who don't just see the age of the universe as we oec's think we see it - perhaps you can at least understand what happens as we go back and read the scriptures, which we believe to be the word of God.

When I read this verse . .

there is no literary clue in there to tell me that Christ means this to be anything but literal. Brothers and sisters, I want you to know that in direct defiance of the literal teaching of this verse I continue to love my mother, not hate her, and to love my brother and sister, not hate them and to love my earthly father, although he is now passed away.

I choose to interpret this verse in non-literal fashion. I decide it is legitimate to do that based solely on the fact that to believe otherwise will contradict reality as I know it.

Because I am psychologically incapable of denying the reality (as I percieve it) of the ancient age of the universe, I similarily interpret the first chapters of Genesis in non-literal fashion. It is what we all do when faced with a verse such as Luke 14:26.

 

Light existed in the universe but did not reach the earth's surface because of massive thick clouds that wrapped the earth's core.


Let's look at the verses you referenced.

Job 38:4-15 (I am going farther for a specific reason

Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions?
Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone --
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

At this point there is no disagreement that this is talking about creation.

But if you look at the following verses, I think you will find they are referring to two other things, and not creation. First of all, here are the verses:

Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt?

When is it that the sea BURST forth from the womb? That verb is exactly the verb used to describe what happened at the onset of Noah's Flood in Genesis 7:11. It was after the Flood when limits were fixed for the seas.

Now, take a look at the following verses for another catastrophe:

Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal'
its features stand out like those of a garment.
The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.

There were no wicked at the time of creation! This is obviously a later catastrophe. The identification is made by "the earth takes shape like clay under a seal" and by the previous reference to showing the dawn its place in conjunction with taking the earth by the edges to shake it. This is clear reference to the axis tilt and the continental division that took place at the time of Peleg.

In other words, you cannot group all your catastrophes together to claim there were clouds around the early earth. Not if you let Bible explain Bible, anyway...

You will notice at the end of the part I quoted that the wicked are DENIED their light. So there had been light.

You cannot claim the clouds apply to creation unless you can show evidence that the sea burst forth from its womb then. For the two are connected there in Job. What the Bible indicates is that creation was in a liquid form at the beginning (not gas, as 'science' claims), and thus there was no 'womb' for those waters to burst out of.

But they did burst at the time of Noah. Radioactive heating from the interior of the earth had driven the water out of the serpentine (13% water), turning it into olivine and heating the water in massive underground aquifers which finally reach a critical point of heat and pressure and burst forth at the time of Noah.

This is not guesswork. We know that there were no radioactive materials on the surface of the earth at the beginning. That is standard geological knowledge. We also know that the short and long half-life elements were all decaying at the same time in the beginning. The heat build-up in the earth was enormous. Evidence of this is seen in Genesis 2:5-6 where we are told that waters seeped or fountained up (depending on your translation) from under the ground and watered the whole earth. Water does not come up unless it is under pressure and pressure means heat. The heating had already started before day 6 when man was created.

So there was one time when the waters from under the crust all BURST forth -- at the initiation of Noah's Flood. The heat of those waters would have indeed formed enormously thick clouds which condensed and poured down as a rain the earth has never seen since. The earth, during the Flood, was indeed wrapped in thick darkness. Thick because of the pulverized material which came up with the bursting waters and which would have clogged the clouds and rain for some time.

This is what I mean by saying that the data (no radioactive materials at the beginning on the surface, the presence of a tremendous amount of olivine -- the result of dewatered serpentine -- in the earth's crust, the fact that short and long half life elements were all decaying at the same time, producing enormous heat, etc.) fully supports what the Bible says about a very young creation. Six days, start to finish.

The Bible emphasizes this exact time twice after Genesis:

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them; but he rested on the seventh day.
Exodus 20:11

and

Observe the Sabbath because it is holy to you...For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord...The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.
Exodus 31:14-17

So if you are going to change the meaning of Genesis, you will have to take on both those parts of Exodus, too...

 

Paul, the word 'miseo' in the Greek which is translated 'hate' by the translators, also means 'to love less'. We do have Concordances, you know...

 

In response to the particular line above, I do not make that association. Young earth creationists make that association. I'm glad you at least reject the "appearance of age" argument. </font>[/QUOTE]They simply point out that both are instances of creation ex nihilo. It is you that said since there is a repetitious process of fish procreation then the creation of the world must have had some natural process as well. This simply does not follow.

Is there a natural process for resurrection since Christ rose from the dead?

If you want to compare on that level then compare the first fish to the universe.

BTW, I reject the "appearance of age" only in the respect that "appearance" is a matter of perspective and often one's paradigm. There have been tests to study the phenomenon of people being unable to see things they don't expect to be there.

Evolutionists and OEC's have predetermined that evidence for a young earth does not exist... therefore they are unable to see it even when it is right under their noses. These things are often dismissed as anomolies like when fossils are found in layers where according to evolution they shouldn't be.

 

Scott,

Evolutionists and OEC's have predetermined that evidence for a young earth does not exist... therefore they are unable to see it even when it is right under their noses.

The problem is that this "evidence" is usually not what the YECers think it is. Most scientists don't see that any real challenge has been offered against the old earth view.

It seems like evidence to those who are not experts.

 

This brings us to perhaps a very important point. The evidence does not "prove" any age for the earth or universe. Theories regarding age either conform to the evidence or they don't.

When they don't, honest people will revise them. The problem is that any of us can be honestly wrong.

Most scientists "don't see"... you could have stopped right there and been accurate. They "don't see" causes outside of nature. The "don't see" possibilities and alternatives for the age of the earth that don't allow enough time for biological evolution. They "don't see" the arbitrary and artificial limits placed on the pursuit of scientific truth by the presupposition of naturalism.

BTW, one doesn't have to be an expert to look at someone's arguments and see contradictions, incongruencies, and fallacies in them. I still cannot get off of block number one with evolution. It presupposes naturalism without a single reason for doing so except that of Darwin- to build a system where God is not necessary.

I don't know if you have read the "Case for a Creator". It isn't a YEC book but it is very interesting. One thing that I found fascinating was a brief discussion on "mind" studies. Researchers have gathered significant evidence that the mind is not limited by brain function and chemical processes.

This research demonstrates that the "immaterial" is real and has a direct relationship with the "material". In fact, the immaterial even in human thought appears to take precedence over the physical, natural processes.

Scientists in evolution draw inferences. That's fair. They may not be accurate but they improve the probability.

So let me draw one (even as a lay man). Information is present in dna. Dna is ordered and functional and very much gives indication of design. We know that the probability of information occurring by chance or natural processes is absurdly low (not impossible but close to it). So even if the chemicals could have somehow self-formed, the coding is still a major difficulty.

Earth science from the basics of physics and chemistry all the way to geology, cosmology, and zoology also reflect order and balance. I suggest that since order is shared so is the presence of information and coding. This is demonstrated by the fact that physics and chemistry can be categorized and divided into rules. They obey and can be studied by mathematics.

If I understand correctly, this a basically what ID proponents argue. Once you agree that a designer is a possible cause for data collected from nature... then the only thing left is to determine whether that Designer is smart enough and powerful enough to have done what Genesis 1 and 2 say God did.

 

These supposed experts haven't established their premise to the point where I would be willing to argue evidence with them even if I could.

With a slight twist- It's like someone asking you if you have stopped beating your wife yet... even though you've never been married. First you have to give a valid premise. Evolutionists haven't. In fact, I can say with great certainty that their presmise is "false". We know that there are things that are immaterial while both true and REAL. This in and of itself disproves the naturalistic presupposition.

 

No Charles. The evidence is what it is. As I said before, YEC's give alternative explanations based on the paradigm and limitations they operate under.

The evidence in and of itself proves nothing. Explanations of it are either consistent with it or not. I am honest enough to say that "very unlikely" does not equal "false". Are you?