Christians: Does age of earth matter?

I don't find any part of science to be either irreverent or immoral. We as a culture have decided not to allow the teaching of religion in public schools. This is due to the Establishment Clause, which was never meant to be applied to the states. Read the Constitution. Congress shall make no law....

I think there should be reverence to God in state, though not federal, schools if that is what the states want. I think taking this out of the schools is a failed social experiment at least as responsible as the welfare state for the collapse of the US family and of traditional moral values. And it saddens me.

I would like for creationism to be understood. But for it to be understood as religion, not as the accepted scientific basis of the origin of life. In other words, it shouldn't be with evolution in the biology texts. But it might be discussed in a theology class.

Of course, what I want doesn't matter all that much unless I'm on the Supreme Superlegislature (Court).

I don't think that science and the scientific method must show reverence to any theology. It is a different way of seeking truth. One that fully admits it might be wrong all the time. And one that tests the predictive value of hypotheses.

Why is the teaching of science immoral?

 

If Creationists can demonstrate that there are various problems with various dating methods, that is scientific enough. If Creationists can demonstrate that fossils are formed ONLY under very limited conditions, that is scientific enough.

If evolutionists cannot demonstrate that species are progressive or transforming into different types of species, that is UNscientific enough. If species can ONLY be shown an adaptability to survive a deteriorating environment, that doesn't constitute evolution.

 

CalvinG you wrote;

"You have given us your conclusion without the reasoning, cotton. Perhaps you can give me the reasoning so that your conclusion follows logically from your premises."

The TaNaKh is an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im (Prophets) and K'tuvim (Writings).
The Torah is the foundation of all scripture. Genesis (B'resheet) is the foundation of Torah.

The Brit HaChadasha (renewed covenant) writings are the "icing on the cake" the "roof on the house", so to speak, of scripture. It is the witness of the fullfullment of the Messiah.

If the foundation is "on shifting sand" it cannot stand, does not bear up under close scrutiny.

Y'shua believed in creation: Mark 10:6, However, at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.

He also implored based on this belief: John 5:46. For if you really believed Moshe (Moses) you would believe me; because it was about me that he wrote. But if you don't believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?

Perhaps you've heard the saying," the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed."

I doubt your pastors would agree with me much, since I follow Messianic Judaism. Doubtless they would consider me a legalist. But we share common ground in that we both know if God's word (in Genesis) is a lie (or subject to extremely wide interpretation other than what it says), then the rest, by default becomes suspect. My faith that Y'shua is Messiah is greatly strengthened by my understanding of Torah; the rest of the writings of scripture support and are based on Torah.

I have learned through personal experience that faith and understanding of Gods purpose(s) comes first through obedience to God's word. It is our "conduit". Without it, we will follow anything. If you believe you will get closer to God by going away from His word, I fear you are mistaken. I believe this is how people end up following a false messiah or false god.

Cotton

 

That is interesting, AC. You don't think that the dating methods have to be demonstrated to be "generally unreliable," only as having "various problems."

I don't get your point about fossils being formed only under very limited conditions because I don't think this is a proposition with which evolutionists disagree. By the way, did you know that there both are and have been creatures which take their nourishment by eating bones? Maybe that is a better response to your objection.

I think the whole neo-Darwinist theory of evolution is that species "adapt" genetically over time to survive deteriorating or changing environments. Done well enough over a sufficiently prolonged period of time, the formation of a new species (which can't breed with a prior species to produce viable progeny) is evolution.

 

Fossils seem to be formed in water and mud. There are bugs in resin and animals in tar; however, the main thing involves water with great speed. Dino sinking to the bottom of a lake isn't good enough.

If the dating of the fossils is called into question, the possiblity of new specices is greatly undermined. Dino didn't become a bird if dino can be shown to have changed into a fossil a few thousand years ago.

 

"If Creationists can demonstrate that there are various problems with various dating methods, that is scientific enough."

Can they? I have yet to see it.

What are the major problems with dating?

"If Creationists can demonstrate that fossils are formed ONLY under very limited conditions, that is scientific enough."

Fossils are only formed under limited conditions. What is you point?

"If evolutionists cannot demonstrate that species are progressive or transforming into different types of species, that is UNscientific enough."

But they have shown this. I'll give you only one because I doubt you will read it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html?

There, the evolution of mammals from reptiles. Show us where the problems are. When you're done, there are many more.

"Dino didn't become a bird if dino can be shown to have changed into a fossil a few thousand years ago. "

Show me the evidence for this. I hope it is more of the dino blood. I am still waiting for you to justify Weiland's conclusions based on the paper YOU posted.

"the main thing involves water with great speed."

No, many fossils can be shown to have formed in extremely calm areas. Let me give you an example of how they can tell. The size of the particles that fall out of suspension is proportional to the velocity of the water. In fast moving water, only large particles fall out. Water has to be extremely still for very fine silt to deposit around a fossil. So the fossils we fine the were covered with fine silt were laid done in very calm water.

I think you need to do some work to prove your assertion that most fossils "involves water with great speed." I do not believe that to be true.

 

Cotton,

I never said that I believe that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 will get me closer to God. I don't think it gets me further away, either, but that is subject to debate I suppose.

In your quotes of Yeshua Messiah, you state nothing that I do not believe. I of course believe that God made mankind, male and female. Jesus does not say how He made mankind.

I agree that the New Covenant builds on the Old. But I don't think that OE evolution necessarily places big cracks in the foundation or puts it on shifting sands.

Your argument, if I may restate it, appears to me as follows.

1. Genesis, specifically its literal creation account, is the foundation of everything that follows.

2. Genesis is specifically the foundation of the Old Testament Covenant.

3. The OT Covenant is the foundation of the new testament Covenant.

4. If the OT covenant is "denied" or altered as OE evolutionists are doing, then the foundation is changed such that it will no longer reliably support either the OT Covenant or the NT Covenant which follow. They are thereby placed on "shifting sand."

I don't see creation as all that foundational. And there are parts of the Genesis account which tell us more than science could figure out until quite recently. Such as all the water being in one place, implying that all the land was likewise together.

I see God's relationship with mankind and with the Jewish people as far more foundational than exactly how God went about creating the world, animals, or even the first humans with whom He chose to have a relationship.

I think the argument you make is subject to criticism with regard to propositions 1, 2, and 4. If we accept that God created the universe, that God is sovereign in this world, and that God desires to have a personal relationship with each individual human, then I don't see where it matters over what exact time God created the universe. Or whether God formed things from clay and breathed life into them, creating different species or caused species to evolve by guided natural selection.

I suppose you may have the problem that "the words in the book are not always 100% absolutely reliable in their literal sense." But that doesn't to me invalidate or cause there to be a question about anything that happened after the time of creation (during much of which mankind wasn't even around). Nor does it invalidate the sort of relationship God seeks to have with each of us.

Doesn't God have all the rights and majesty of Creator regardless of how exactly He chose to create? Regardless of how long? Regardless of the process used? I honestly can't make it matter, even examining the other posts in this thread. And I don't think that God's ways are any less far above our ways just because He allows us to have some limited understanding of the relationships between living things that does not come directly from Scripture.

 

What you are showing me is a listing of animals that have been grouped to show differences that you suspect of being related by a common ancestor. There is no absolute proof that all of these animals are not just different animals that GOD created to demonstrate HIS creative genius through variety. There is no DNA link between the animals. They are not even found in one layer directly above the other.

ALL the bodies that sank with the TITANIC are gone. They sank to the very bottom of the ocean and yet in less then 80 years NOTHING of them remains but a few pairs of shoes. They will NEVER be fossils. They were even killed in a catastropic event; however, there lacked something. The bodies were not eaten by sharks or whales or fish... Now you would suppose that dino had a stroke in a lake and sank to the bottom and that there were no organisms to consume him?

 

But when I show you fossil AND DNA links between humans and apes you deny that too. Though you really cannot give a reason.

You say we cannot give "absolute proof" that the series I gave you is true, yet you can offer nothing wrong with the series. I suspect no matter how many transitional series I gave you, you would continue to cry that they were all just different created kinds. You probably claim that there is no such thing as a transitional despite having them shown to you.

You can give me no reason why the rarity of fossils goes against TOE. You offer a Titanic story which I cannot figure out the purpose of.

You have done nothing to back your assertion that most fossils "involve water with great speed."

You did not take the opportunity to show me you have any shred of proof of young dinosaur bones.

 

CalvinG:

Okay, perhaps the question should be how literal is literal?

Or how liberal should our interpretation be?

How much can we water down?

Which verses do we choose?

Matth. 5:18 Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or a stroke will pass from the Torah-not until everything that must happen has happened.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days Adonai made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why Adonai blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it from himself.

Shabbat (Sabbath) is integral to Israel, and hence Messianic Judaism. It is a permanent sign between God and His people.

If the creation account of Genesis is not literal (or explainable using Gods words), then the rest of Genesis, the patriarchs, the Abrahamic covenant, the land of Israel and the promises of God to His people, and yes salvation become suspect.

I believe even the letters of the Hebrew have meaning.

I don't mind christian evolutionists believing what they want to-but several posts made it sound as if bible believers were in charge of "the system" and actually capable of stopping evolution from being taught in the schools (if only!). How can you put forth that bible believers have "stopped science"? Man, you've got "your way", its taught EVERYWHERE and even believed in many if not most churches! At the very least it should only have been taught as a theory and at the college level. We've got kids that can't read or write, but they know this "teaching" as fact!

As Y'shua said in Luke 7:35 "Well, the proof of wisdom is in all the kinds of people it produces."

The only reason I post at all about this, is the detrimental effect it had on me.

Cotton

 

Generally we all interpret the Bible as literally as we can, given what we know.

Of course, we look at ourselves and we say, I know this. We look at the other guy and we say, he only thinks he knows!

 

I think Paul has suggested an excellent compromise.

And did not Yeshua Messiah say that the Sabbath was made for man?

cotton said,

Why do these things become suspect? Is it because you think that denying the regular meaning of even one word means you must continue down that path. Not if we accept Paul's compromise. Do we know anything contrary to the Abrahamic covenant? No...I don't think so. Anything contrary to what transpired with Isaac? No...I don't think so. Anything contrary to the Jocobian Covenant? I don't think so. So why does this become suspect?

If only Yeshua could tell us what He meant by "wisdom" in this instance. Did He mean philosophy or life doctrine? If so, evolution really isn't that. And I would like to think that the folks who are made into an undesirable kind of people by bad beliefs have other un-Christian beliefs in addition to the scientific belief in OE-evolution.

By the way Cotton, how Jewish does one have to be to be considered a Messianic Jew. We 1/16 folks (by paternal lineage) would like to know.

 

Calvin;
I am not Jewish by birth, and to my knowledge have no Jewish ancestory. I think, but am not sure, that anyone who can trace his lineage to a Jewish ancestor can be considered Jewish. However, you need to ask a rabbi to be sure.

Messianic Judaism includes both Jewish an non-Jewish believers. We "have a heart" for the Jewish people and Israel. We mostly (but not all of us) keep the Torah which includes the food laws and feast days.

In reply to your answer:
Again, I am replying based on my experiences (as relating to the initial topic). You used the term "regular meaning". I'm not sure what you mean by that. And, we're not talking about one word change but a change to a whole meaning of a whole chapter, which all of scripture is built on; the quote from Exodus for Shabbat is integrally linked with the literal 6 day creation; its why we are told to rest on the 7th. If you change Gen 1 to a whole different meaning, then the sabbath is meaningless, and more importantly, if your premise is true God told two "fibs".

I could not reconcile both OE evolution and Genesis 1, and maintain my spiritual integrity. It may be that you can.

I used the "wisdom" scripture to show the change in my life; my fruits were indeed un-Christian; I believe it was from my un-belief of scripture which stemmed from the inability to reconcile OE evolution and scripture.

Cotton

 

For Cotten:

You mentioned earlier that you had done some translation for yourself out of Genesis.

What was your take on the translation of the story in chapter two of the creation of Adam? I'm thinking of the part where there were no companions fit for Adam and God formed out of the ground all the beasts.

The timing, when translated that way, contradicts the timing from chapter one, where the beasts were created first and man created last, as male and female at that.

How did your own translation present the details about the animal creation in 2:18 and following?

 

Cotton,

I know that 1/16 isn't enough to have a "right of return" to Israel. Not that I'm unhappy in the USA.

By "regular meaning," I meant the literal meaning usually attributed to words that are not considered symbolic.

Personally, I think that God doesn't experience time the same as we do. So that there isn't really a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2...God knew the characteristics of mankind before God made man.

What "fibs" do you think I say God told? I don't deny that my interpretation changes the meaning of certain text. But I would ask you to be specific.

I don't think the Sabbath is any more meaningless than God's command that Adam not eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Sabbath is a command of God. It needs no further basis for validity. Moreover, if God experiences time significantly differently from how we do, it may well be that He took the Sabbath off as He describes. One need only posit that God exists in more dimensions than this world, which, since we don't see heaven in the atmosphere, doesn't sound that un-Scriptural to me.

I hope that it is not conceit for me to think I can reconcile OE evolution with Scripture and maintain my spiritual integrity.

 

Paul of Eugene;

Unfortunately I didn't get past Chapter 1! Translation (especially for me, not knowing Hebrew but striving to learn) was an enjoyable but time consuming process; so I can't begin to answer your question; looking at it just now, my translation does appear to contradict the timing in chapter 1. I will definitly have to study up on that one!

Thanks,
Cotton

 

For Cotton: Yes, do study up on that one. It is a classic part of the discussion about ultimate origins, and anyone who goes very far into this discussion needs to be aware of that issue, and how they choose to handle it.

I take the disagreement between these two passages, interpreted literally, as further evidence of what I might call "Divine Permission" to intepret the creation narratives as non-literal for scientific purposes.

 

CalvinG;
What I mean is that Sabbath and creation are linked; if the creation account is untrue, then God's commandment to sanctify the sabbath becomes untrue because its based on creation.

Yes, I believe God is "outside of time". And yes, I do believe he is multi-dimensional. And yes, there MAY be a way to reconcile what we see (what I consider circumstantial evidence) with what God did. Some new ideas (and please don't take my words to literally, because I don't understand their theories well)from physicists consider time to be elastic (I think its called slip stream?), which could explain why evidence has the appearance of old age.

However, I don't believe this means we re-write Genesis to fit OE evolution, but re-write OE evolution to fit Genesis!

Still, Paul of Eugene put forth an intriguing problem I have to study.

Also, UTEOTW provided a very interesting site on evolutionary creationism; I think its under the how old is the earth topic. I read through it once and it seems to provide answers to questions from a modern rabbinic perspective. Also it provides perspective that there may have been 10 dimensions prior to the fall of man. Still, the article was leagues over my head, and based on theory so take it for what its worth.

So, in light of this I still lean towards the literal interpretation. I think scripture remains true, though our perspective can change.

Most of my rambling is conjecture, and to some I could be waffling; what I mean is I don't know the answers to OE evolution; I no longer pursue it. I don't argue how old the earth is. At one time in my walk, it was a huge hurdle for me to overcome because I had been immersed in OE evolution since grammar school. Then, God convinced me I had to choose faith in Him or faith in man. I applaud those like the Setterfields who have the knowledge base to counter OE evolutionists, because it gave me just enough faith (and doubt in man) to actually question "the scientific establishment". Once I realized that many of their methods (and certainly their motives) could be questioned, it was the 'mustard seed' of faith I needed to rely on God's word. Finally, I didn't have to have all the answers to every question before I could trust in God! It was quite a weight off my shoulders.

Cotton

 

I've had my share of debates with Helen and even Barry Setterfield and I have concluded their motives are not questionable, they are very sincere in their motives. Of course, that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with them!

 

cotton, here is that link again.

http://www.orot.com/ec.html#Anchor-TORAH-9779

I am enjoying the conversation you guys are having, BTW.