Christians: Does age of earth matter?

Frank

First, let's take the case of astronomy. Light takes a finite length of time to travel across the universe. Therefor we can make direct observations of the past just by looking out into space. By looking various distances, we can directly observe how things were 1000 years ago, a million years ago, a billion years ago, upto over 13 billion years ago. These are direct observation, done in the present, with results that can be validated and repeated by others. What objection do you make to astronomy establishing the great age of our universe? (If you want to make one of the "How do they know that ..." type objections, you may want to choose something that you can offer some evidence that they may be getting it wrong.)

Now, let's consider a fossil. What can be learned from a fossil that we dig up? Can we determine that the fossil really is of something that once was alive? Can we get an idea of what the fossil was? That is if you find a lion fossil do you think we really can tell that it was a lion and not a buffalo? Can we sometimes tell how the animal died? Can we sometimes tell under what conditions the organism was preserved in order to be allowed to be fossilized? That is can we tell if it was buried rapidly or slowly? In turbulent water or still water? Was the water stagnant or not? Was it scavenged? Can we tell something about the life of the organism from the fossil? Can we look at the teeth and jaws and get an idea of what it ate? Can we look at the skelton and where the muscles attached and get an idea if it was fast or slow, how it walked or flew, whether is was muscular or thin or fat? Can we look at the bones and see if they have more in common with, say, warm blooded creatures or cold blooded creatures? Can we sometime even look at the stomach contents to see what it last ate? Can we learn about the ecology the organism lived in from what other fossils are found with it? Are these not all observations? Are they not all done in the present? Can other scientists not examine the same or different fossils and validate or invalidate the results?

Let's take a look at geology. In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the seafloor is spreading apart. We can measure how quickly this takes place. Observations in the present. We can look at the seafloor and see that the same process has been happening in this general way since the Americas began splitting apart from Africa and Europe. If has taken roughly 100 million years. (I'd have to it up if you want a better number.) Recorded in the rocks are many reversals of the magnetic field of the earth. Since we have never seen a field reversal, it is safe to say that they are not frequent occurances. More interesting, you can pull up rocks at different distances from the middle and date them. The dates agree with the date you would estimate by the rate of spreading and the distance from the fissure. If both the measures of age are so flawed, why do they agree? Take a look at the Hawaiian Island chain. There is ample evidence that an area has been passing over a hot spot, causing a succession of volcanic islands. The only currently active volcanoes are at the far south east of the chain. These are also the youngest "looking" islands. They are rocky and sharp. There has been little softening due to erosion. They also date the youngest. As you move towards the west, the islands begin to show signs of erosion. They become softer and more lush. As you continue to move west, they also become smaller as erosion has had more time to wear the islands back into the sea. These date as older. I have seen this with my own eyes. Does this count as an observation? Perhaps some of you have been there and can repeat the observation. Look at rocks formed from magma. It is quite possible to calculate how long it took the rocks to cool. Heat transfer calculations are not that hard. It can be in the millions of years. We have a way to check this. As magma cools, it chemistry is such that different minerals form at different temperatures. The crystals from these minerals also grow at a given rate. So we can verify our cooling curve from the chemistry of the rock. They both agree that these rocks take many more years to form than 6000 years. If fact, 6000 years is so short in geology that such rocks do not form any crystals at all! The magma also makes changes in the surrounding rocks due to the heat it gives off. This let's us know for sure that these rocks were formed after the other. All these things show considerable evidence of having taken more than a few thousand years. Much more. How do you explain them? These are observations in the present.

I think it is clear that we can make observations about hte past in the present.

 

Ut:
You assume that change rates have been constant since the beginning. How do yo know this is the case?
The geologic time table and fossil record have many flaws. For example, according to evolutionist, man appears at the top of the Quarternary Period. His history, therfore, represents but a minute fraction ( approximately 1/1000th ) of the geologic table. To an evolutionist it is absolutely inconceivable that evidence of human habitation could exist in earlier periods. However, ther are many such examples.
1. A fossilized human skull, presumably from the Tertiary Period, was discovered more than a century ago. This skull should have predated mankind. Otto Stutzer, Geology of Coal ( Chicago: university of Chicago Press 1940), pg. 27.
2. The excavation of a marble stone in Philidelphia contained carved letters. The slab was supposed to be 60 million years old according to evolutionists. However, humans were not available at this time to carve such markings, that is, if you accept the geological timetable of the evolutionist. J.B. Brown The American Journal of Science( 1:19:361, 1831 ).
3. According to evolutionists dinosaurs became extinct some 70 million years ago before man's appearance on earth. However, human footprints and dinosaur tracks were found in the same stratum in the Paluxy River bed in Glenn Rose, Texas. Roland T. Bird " Thunder In His Steps," Natural History ( May 1939, pg. 255-257).
These examples represent just a few of the problems the evolutionist has with the fossil record and the geological time table.
Again, one cannot establish time and origin unless he has observed it. The above evidence stands opposed to the idea one can know past time and origin simply by present day observation.

 

Paul:

Funny, science has been wrong about many things. When does one listen to them? When they use the scientific method or when they do not?

My friend so called science allowed George Washington to be bled to death believing it would cure him of his illness.

However, had the scientiist simply read Leviticus 17:11, he would have avoided his mistake. By the way, Leviticus 17:11 states that the LIFE OF ALL FLESH IS IN THE BLOOD.
The Bible contains many scientific facts long before science could get it right.
Again, when does one listen to them.

My friend the validity of the D. N. A. test has been established by observation and testing. The judge simply reads the results of the test, which by the way, is not always accurate.

However, origin and time are not subject to the scientific method. They must be established through prima fascia evidence. The Evolutionist wants it both ways. When their methods and conclusions, or the lack there of, are exposed as falacious, they are quick to evoke the use of prima facia evidence or as they call it " historical science" to make thier point. However, when they use this method, they fail. The Bible has presented the irrefutable evidence for the origin of man, universe, and all that is in it.

Funny, the case for creation stands on the irrefutable prima facia evidence of Genesis 1. It always has and always will.


As for your suggestion to examine the evidence, I would recommend you take your own advice.

 

Hello Frank!

"You assume that change rates have been constant since the beginning. How do yo know this is the case?"

I answered this in my last post. I'll go over it again. Light travels at a given speed. When we look out a certain number of light years distant, we are looking back in time that many years. For example, light reaching us today from a star 1000 light-years away left the star 1000 years ago. We see the star not as it is today but as is was 1000 years ago. Some stars, when they reach the end of their lives, collapse violently and explode as a supernova. During a supernova, a lot of heavy atoms are fused together from lighter elements. Some of these are radioactive and some of the radioactive isotopes are very short lived. These very short lived radioisotopes give off a lot of energy. So much in fact, that the light curve of a supernova is dominated by the effects of the decay. The light curve is simply a plot of the light intensity with time. Now, no matter how far out we look in space, the light curves for a given type of supernova always decay at the same rate. This is direct observational evidence that the decay rates have not changed. And we have observered supernovae out to distances of billions of light years. The decay rates are the same.

"A fossilized human skull, presumably from the Tertiary Period..."

Why exactly would this be a problem? Quite a few human ancestors lived in the Tertiary period including a few of the genus Homo. From a YEC source on this I found the following quote on the object. "I have personally verified the existence of this object via correspondence with Prof. Dr R. Vulpius...He describes it as a petrified object which resembles a human skull, and indicated that wide-ranging scientific studies to elucidate its composition and origin were in progress." Now, this merely "resembles a human skull" and is not said to be an actual human skull. None of the YEC sites that reference this object bother to tell what the further studies showed. If the studies were favorable, don't you think they would have made mention of it. I doubt the authenticity. Since it was described in 1842, there should have been sufficient time (162 years) to decide that it was actually human.

"The excavation of a marble stone in Philidelphia contained carved letters."

1831! You're kidding. Oh. You're not. Well, I believe the title of the paper referenced is “Singular Impression in Marble." Cannot locate the text of the actual paper, but I would imagine the good man would have said "carvings" in his title if that was what he found. Do you have a copy of the paper for us to read or a picture of the carvings? This sounds like a fish tale of some sort.

"However, human footprints and dinosaur tracks were found in the same stratum in the Paluxy River bed in Glenn Rose, Texas."

Paluxy? John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research says of these tracks "In view of these developments, none of the four trails at the Taylor site can today be regarded as unquestionably of human origin. The Taylor Trail appears, obviously, dinosaurian, as do two prints thought to be in the Turnage Trail. The Giant Trail has what appears to be dinosaur prints leading toward it, and some of the Ryals tracks seem to be developing claw features, also...Even though it would now be improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution.." Answers in Genesis also recommends that this not be used.

They are not human prints.

 

"My friend so called science allowed George Washington to be bled to death believing it would cure him of his illness."

This is nothing but a red herring. What does mistaken medical practices from the 18th century have to do with evolution? Nothing!

"My friend the validity of the D. N. A. test has been established by observation and testing."

You miss the point. The DNA test allows for the determination of something that happened in the past without the need for someone to have been physically present. It is an example of observing the past in the present through the use of science.

"However, origin and time are not subject to the scientific method."

You continue to assert this. I showed you previously how we could make observations about the past in the areas of astronomy and geology and paleontology right here today. You have not even attempted to refute any of this. You simply ignore the points and reassert your original position. Why don't you instead demonstrate to me how a fossil is not evidence of something that previously lived? If you allow a fossil to be evidence that something was once alive that made the fossil, you have then allowed an observation of the past in the present.

I think you admitted, indirectly of course, in your other post that we can observe the past in the present. Your references to the skull, the carved letters, and Paluxy all indicate that you think that we can actually make observations about the past in the present. Otherwise, you would not have posted the information. The information was wrong, but you still tried to do what you say cannot be done. It even shows us that other people can come along, observe the same thing, and come to different conclusions. Sounds like science at work to me.

"As for your suggestion to examine the evidence, I would recommend you take your own advice."

We can look at any advice you wish. I ask the same, however. I have shown you how we know decay rates have not changed. I have shown you how we make observations of the past in the present. Discuss.

"Funny, the case for creation stands on the irrefutable prima facia evidence of Genesis 1."

I have seen no reason why I should have to agree with your interpretation that it must be taken literally. In fact, it all points towards the opposite.

 

Ut:
Your explanation about light is an unsubstantiated assertion. Who was around as you say millions of years to know these facts? How do yo know light did not travel at a different rate in the beginning? It is simply guess work. I will agree it fits in the same category as evolution. It is simply wishful thinking.
Where did D.N.A. begin? How do you know? Can you prove scientifically that light has always traveled at it's current rate?
I tell a number of things by viewing past events. I can know a fire destroyed a house. However, I can not scientifically provide the exact date or time required for the house to burn. I can see a smoking 38 inthe hands of a man standing over a dead body and know he comitted the crime. However,one cannot empirically prove he did it. My conclusion he comitted the crime was not based on observation and testing, but is simply a deduction made from the evidence. I can look at a D.N.A test and most of the time know the parent. However, the D. N. A. test is not capable of answering when and how this took place.
I have many other problems with evolution that are documented by scientist. I guess you expext me to assume you know more than they do?

Dr. Bert Thompson has a large volume of research available about this subject. By the way, he is not as you evolutionist think one who has a degree in honoraria. He has a PHD. in Microbiology. He has many books in recent publication about the fallcy of evolution.

 

The point was to "deal with the argument" not the ad hominem approach. IF you can show some fact on his web site where the "proof" for a given point is "his degree" then fine - that is certainly questionable.

So far --- no takers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul of Eugene

Bob quesitons - the idea that evolutionism is "exegesis" or that it has anything to do with integrity of the text.

In fact Hawkings and Darwin seem to have the story "correct" about what it does to the Bible.

Is it your claim that Darwin, Hawkings and others "describe" evolution with these terms?

Or can your belief in evolutionism's stories still allow you to "see" that the terms used above are those used by YEGF Christians who accept the Creator's own "Account" in Genesis 1-2:4??
</font>[/QUOTE]As already posted.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Indeed. Because He IS "The way the TRUTH and the Life".

Not because He is "the untrustworthy, unreliable, unbelievable, naive source giving a bogus account of His OWN act as Creator of Creating us".

I guess its a difference of perspective.

Hello!

The People of Moses' day were "not in the habbit of creating worlds in 6 days".

The People of Christs day did not "have that as their habbit or even their preference".

And "oh yes" God came before the Babylonians - so also did Adam and Eve and the flood, and Noah.

You idea that ignorant mankind was telling God how He did it - is not compatible with any part of scripture.

But we do see evolutionists trying that stunt. Interesting that Hawkings and Darwin both see the point.

In Christ,

bob

 

"Your explanation about light is an unsubstantiated assertion. Who was around as you say millions of years to know these facts?...Can you prove scientifically that light has always traveled at it's current rate?"

Then show this to be the case. We have measured the speed of light. We know how fast it goes. We can measure how far away things are. Therefore we know how long the light has been traveling. You are the one making the unsubstaniated assertion. You assert that decay rates may have changed or that the speed of light may have changed without offering any support. I have supported the assertion that decay rates have not changed with observable evidence. Where is your evidence for decay rates changing?

I'll now support that the speed of light has not changed. First, a recent paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301184 You'll see in the last sentence of the abstract that they can show that the speed of light has been constant to 1 part in 10^32 for the last several billion years.

Now let me show this a different way. Think of objects in orbit. Their period can be directly calculated from their masses and their distances. We can look out into space and see all sorts of things orbiting each other. From binary stars to whole galaxies. Now if light had traveled faster in the past, we would see these objects in slow motion. (Think about it. Let's suppose light once traveled ten times as fast as now. Something happens once per second. The light recording each occurance will then be 3000000 km apart since light would have been traveling at 3000000 km/s. As light slows, this distance will be maintained. So now, we would see this as [3000000 km / 300000 km/sec = ] 10 seconds apart.) We can look out across the universe and we do not see this kind of slowdown. More proof of the constant speed of light.

Let me give you one more practical example. E=mc^2. Now if you take c, the speed of light, and make it much bigger as you suggest, then nuclear reactions will give of more energy at the square of the increase in the speed of light. So, if you want to propose a time when light was a thousand times faster, then nuclear reactions would have been giving off a million times more energy. I do not think we would have survived. Radioactive deay would have melted the earth and nuclear fusion at those energies would have destroyed the sun.

We did not have to be around a million years ago. We can directly observe it today. That whole speed of light thing. Do you have anything to offer against this?

"I tell a number of things by viewing past events. I can know a fire destroyed a house. However, I can not scientifically provide the exact date or time required for the house to burn."

Have you ever watched any crime dramas? There may actually be ways to tell how long ago a crime was committed. There is a whole category of forensic methods to tell how long ago a body was murdered without anyone having to witness the crime. But that is getting off subject. Please explain to me why you cannot make the kinds of geologic and paleotological observations that I assert. You keep asserting that these observations cannot be made. I have given you a number of observations that I think can be made. You have yet to raise a substantial objection to any of them.


"I can see a smoking 38 inthe hands of a man standing over a dead body and know he comitted the crime. However,one cannot empirically prove he did it."

You can't? I think I could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Test the man's hands for powder residue to show that he was the one that fired the weapon. Pull the bullet out of the body and show that it was fired by that gun. Get an autopsy to show that the gunshot was the cause of death. I think I can convict without a witness. Don't you?


"My conclusion he comitted the crime was not based on observation and testing, but is simply a deduction made from the evidence."

And the conclusion of an old universe, an old earth, and of common descent is the only one that fits the evidence we have. You know the evidence that I keep showing we can gather and your only objection seems to be that we cannot know because there was not an eyewitness. Please, show us why we can learn nothing from a fossil, not even that something was once alive. Show us that we cannot look at geology and tell what happened. Show us exactly why dating methods cannot tell us when something happened. Tell us what is wrong with all those astronomical observations let allow us to DIRECTLY observe the past.

"I can look at a D.N.A test and most of the time know the parent. However, the D. N. A. test is not capable of answering when and how this took place."

You're not thinking hard enough. The test can establish the parent with a high degree of confidence. The kid's birth certificate can narrow when to a small window. No birth certificate, then get a doctor to examine the kid. I bet he can make a good estimate of age. Your window is larger, but it may still be enough to go along with evidence for a relationship between the alledged parents in a certain time frame.

" have many other problems with evolution that are documented by scientist. I guess you expext me to assume you know more than they do?"

Nope, I'm nothing but a layman here. My degree is in chemical engineering. But I do expect that the overwhelming majority of the scientists who have examined this in close detail know more than either of us. The solid conclusion is of an old earth.

"Dr. Bert Thompson has a large volume of research available about this subject."

Then I welcome the challenge. Make your best points that demonstrate a young earth, in your own words, and giving links to Dr. Thompson's work as references and we will examine the validity of his claims. BTW, be careful because I will be watching for more cases where you observe the past in the present. You have already given me a few examples. I think allowing you to post on such observations may be a good way to show that such observations are possible in contrast to your assertion.

 

Bob is still taking the side of the atheists without regard to the harm done. You have any proof yet for what you assert?

---------------------------------------

Saint Augustine said

"It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world -- respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement."

The sentiment was captured by Orson Scott Card in the following manner

"But my heart goes out to those well-meaning mamas and papas who send their children to the "God's World" [creation science] class. Now the stupid children are safe enough; they will just laugh at evolution and be happy fools for the rest of their days. But the parents of the smart children live in dread of the day that they know will come, when their child comes home from school and says: 'Today I learned what evolution really is and YOU LIED TO ME! If you lied to me about that, then what else did you lie to me about? Did you lie about the Resurrection? About Sin and Redemption? About loving my neighbor? Was it all just lies? How could I ever believe you again?"

You have no answer to an old earth other than to deny the evidence. What happens as people find the truth?

One more pair of quotes, this time from Glenn Morton.

"After receiving a B. S. in Physics I spent one year in graduate school studying the philosophy of science. I entered the oil industry as a seismic processer where I began to learn geology on the job. Before this education in geology was complete, I published 27 articles and notes in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, presented a paper at the first International Conference on Creationism, and ghost wrote the evolution section in Josh McDowell's book Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity. During this period I switched sub-disciplines within geophysics and began to interpret seismic data. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems.

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. Eventually my doubts about the reliability grew so large that I was driven to the edge of becoming an atheist."

and

"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

'From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,'

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, 'Wait a minute. There has to be one!' But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist."

That is the fruit of insisting on a young earth as the only possible interpretation. You side with the atheists and drive people from Christianity.

The quotes were taken from here.

 

UT:
I have made the best and only true argument one can make. Genesis 1 provides for me the answers science can never provide. Genesis one provides the following:

1. The origin of matter, universe and man. God in six days created all these things. Genesis 1. It has been proven by the word ( yom) and comparisons of other usages to mean a literal 24 hour period. You ignored the argument, but you did not and cannot refute it.

2. The power by which matter was created is revealed. God spoke the world into existence. This truth is buttressed by those closer to the origin than any other person on record. Moses and David ( Psalms 33:6).

3. Life produces after and only after it's kind. vs.11, 32. Again, even in A.D. 40 this was known to be a law ( I Cor. 15:39). The itenerate preacher Paul knew this truth. In short, the 13 species of finches on Galopagos Island reproduce finches, not apes, dogs or cats. While changes in species take place, they do not mutate into higher forms of life. This possibility is said to be 1 every 274 billion years. If the finch flaps it's wings for a million years, it will just be a tired finch!!

4. Jesus spoke of the events of the origin of man as literal ( Mat. 19:4,5;Genesis 1:26,27). Jesus is right or wrong. He cannot be both.

5. The matter that forms man is revealed ( Gen.2:7). Man is indeed comprised of the elements of the earth or dust. Again, this truth is affirmed by Solomon ( Eccl. 12:7).

My arguments are not scientific, but based on prima facie evidence. I have stated several times that origin, time cannot be proven empirically.


I affirm that God in six literal 24 hour days used his power create the universe and all that is in it.

 

Frank

I have given you my reason above for why I do not believe that the Creation is meant to be taken literally. God did not intend a book of science. The words He chose to give us are much more important than that. I find support for my position by looking at the inaccuracies that He never chose to correct that the people believed at the time. The idea of a flat earth, for example. Since I do not think that God intended a book of science, I do not consider these errors. God apparently was not concerned with telling us the details of such things. It does not matter to what is needed for salvation and to be a good Christian. I think that there is a key point, which Bob keeps going after in an odd way, that insisting that the Bible is inconsistent with an old earth is damaging to the cause. If you say my beliefs do not allow for an old earth but all the evidnece points to an old earth then you have weakened your postion considerably.

It is vitally important that you be able to conclusively demonstrate a young earth if you want to continue to insist that an old one is inconsistent with your interpretation of Scripture.

The good news is that it is possible to look directly at the Creation itself, read the evidence it has to reveal to us, and determine if the Creation is meant to be taken literally or figuratively. I assert that it cannot be literal. This agrees with all of modern science. If you wish to disagree, the burden of proof is on you to show that the current interpretations of science are wrong and to give a better interpretation of the evidence that indicates a young earth. That you are avoiding this requirement may say something about your own thoughts about hte evidence for a young earth.

There have been many lines of evidence presented in this thread. Take any of them you wish or introduce new one and demonstrate to us that the earth is indeed young. Else you are undermining Christianty itself by insisting that it is inconsistent with reality.

There are a number of subjects on the table and the ball is in your court.

 

Genesis is the foundation of the rest of the Bible. If it cannot be believed as the straightforward recitation of events which it purports to be, then there is no reason to take anything else in the Bible as a straightforward recitation of events either, including the virgin birth, miracles of Jesus, and the Resurrection. Genesis should be taken or rejected on its own terms, not on those foisted on it by those who have a hard time believing God has always known how to communicate clearly and simply to man.

Granted. But the science facts listed in the Bible are facts, not fiction or allegories or myths. God is the God of Truth, not fiction. The Bible is not a book of the history of the world, either, but those events which is does talk about are true history.

More important than the truth?

The idea that people believed in a flat earth at any time is a product of the imagination of a nineteenth century writer. There is no evidence that anyone believed in a flat earth or that the Bible supports that idea no matter where you look.

What a bizarre statement! An error is an error is an error, regardless of intention! However since there is no indication of a flat earth in the Bible, and since God is the God of Truth, your statement can only be considered ridiculous.

The Bible recites several 'scientific' things is rather precise detail. I guess this was an accident?

There is no such thing as a 'good' Christian. The only good in any of us is from and of Jesus Christ. Those who are Christian are not yet good on this side of death. We are still learning and following. The point of the Bible is to give evidence of the need to follow Christ and of His sufficiency. As for good, no one is good but God. Jesus said that.

It is not a matter of position or belief. It is a matter of the truth. The truth is as God had it written.

Scripture does not need interpreting. It was written to tell us the straightforward truth. Nor it is important to 'conclusively demonstrate' a young earth any more than it is to conclusively demonstrate a virgin birth or the Resurrection. "Conclusive demonstrations" are a matter of human beings talking to each other. Much better to listen to God. And a simple, straightforward reading of Scripture proclaims a very young universe and earth.

I find it incredible that you or anyone who purports to be Christian would rather depend upon your extraordinarily limited human facilities rather than God's word. What we determine, when in opposition to what God says, is determined wrong. Man is not the measure of truth and error. God is.

That makes no difference whatsoever as far as the truth is concerned. Science has a history of being wrong, either in part or in full, more often than it has been right. Man's struggle to decipher the physical world/universe is nothing compared to God's simple declaration of what is true.

No, the burden is on you to demonstrate that God is wrong. The Bible is quite clear. The fact that science disagrees with it is neither here nor there. The crux of the matter is WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

And how do you know?

Because men have currently interpreted a bit of data that way?

The reason the age of the earth matters is because it is necessary to know if one can believe God's Word, start to finish. The answer is either yes or no. If it is no, then how do you determine what parts you will believe and what you have to 'interpret' except by placing your faith in your own abilities rather that God's Word?

Reality is what God says it is, not what humans think it might be.

 

On the "up side" at least your beliefs in evolutionism allow you to "admit" that the Creator's account - "as stated" is not compatible with evolutionism if you to believe it "as written".

Here you seem to be making a case for admitting to the Creator's "Creationist" language - even literal 7-day week language (Exodus 20:8-11, Gen 1-2:3) in his "account" Gen 2:4. (Though you claim that you don't know why He tells it that way since you don't believe what He is saying).

Indeed we differ on that point. And "you would think" that on a Christian message board we would have the ideal venue to "deal with that suggestion" (that it really does not matter "in a consistent reading of the text").

But you (like the other evolutionists here) seem willing to do anything "but" explore the evidence regarding your suggestion above.

I find that fascinating.

Circular reasong that assumes the point rather than proving it.

Nothing about the languge in Gen 1-2:3 can be "figurative" when you consider the very literal, and very real summary of Gen 1-2:3 given in Exodus 20:8-11.

This is so blatantaly obvious that even evolutionist-touting Orthodox Hebrew scholars admit it.

It is so obvious even our good evolutionist icons like Dawkings and Darwin - admit to it.

So the rule that you use "when I don't like what it says - it is figurative" simply fails as any kind of exegesis for Christians and now we see that it fails even for evolutionists like Dawkings.

Worse than failing to confirm your speculation that the clear explicit language of the Creator's "account" is merely figurative - His own Exodus 20:8-11 makes your speculation impossible to sustain.

This obscure reasoning is self evident. As the Bible speaks of the sphere of the earth - and you find even today references to "the four corners of the earth" by those who do not believe the world is flat.

In fact - the interesting thing is that you take a case where God is NOT saying in His Word "The Earth is FLAT" and contrast to a place in God's Word where God CLEARLY says "FOR IN SIX DAYs the Lord MADE...".

That fallacy of equivocation is "self evident" in this case.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Helen

Glad you're back. You have been missing for a while. I hope nothing has been wrong. I had started a new thread to continue a conversation we were having that got lost in the clutter while you were sick. Here is a link. I'll also bump it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2587.html?

In the end, I think we can determine whether a literal or other reading is required from the evidence in Creation itself. You agree, I think. Where we disagree is on what the evidence indicates. I maintain that you have the burden of proof of showing where science is wrong AND giving a better interpretation of the evidence. Both are lacking from those advocating a young earth.

"More important than the truth?"

Let's explore what the "truth" is on what Creation has to say about its age. You want to prove all of science wrong. The burden of proof is on you to show the errors AND give a better interpretation of the data.

"The idea that people believed in a flat earth at any time is a product of the imagination of a nineteenth century writer."

Job speak os the "circle of the earth." When I look up the meaning of the Hebrew word used it is a circle, or a flat disk, or a compass. Not a sphere. Daniel speaks of a tree so tall it could be seen in all the earth. The Gospels speak of Jesus being taken to a mountain so tall He could see all of the earth. The literalists must take none of these literally.

"The Bible recites several 'scientific' things is rather precise detail. I guess this was an accident?"

Red herring. He may have chosen to given us some scientific facts correctly. The OT laws regarding diet may be a good example. It does not mean that He was intending a blow by blow scientific account of the history of the earth.

"There is no such thing as a 'good' Christian. "

Are we not taught to act in certain ways? Are there not people who do a better or worse job at these things? Of course we all are imperfect when it comes to the standard of Christ.

"It is not a matter of position or belief. It is a matter of the truth. The truth is as God had it written."

If the truth is of a young earth, then Creation itself will demonstrate this. It does not.

"Nor it is important to 'conclusively demonstrate' a young earth any more than it is to conclusively demonstrate a virgin birth or the Resurrection."

Sorry, you are incorrect. You maintain that Scripture is inconsistent with am old earth. All of the evidence points to an old earth. If you do not show that the earth is conclusively young, then you are undermining all of Christianity. If you say that what we believe is inconsistent woth an old earth yet you cannot demonstrate that the earth is young, you are arguing the side of the atheists. We have no possible proof dor the Virgin Birth or for the Resurrection, We take that on faith. We can check the age of the earth to see if we should use a literal intepretation or not.

"What we determine, when in opposition to what God says, is determined wrong."

Who is saying God was wrong? I am just trying to see what kind of interpretation was meant. The evidence points to an old universe, an ols earth, and common descent. That tells me it is a mistake to interpret literally.

"Science has a history of being wrong, either in part or in full, more often than it has been right."

Red herring. This has no bearing on whether it is right on the topics at hand.

"No, the burden is on you to demonstrate that God is wrong."

I am not saying God is wrong. I am saying your interpretaion is wrong based on the physical evidence. You want to say that all of modern science is wrong. Prove it. You have the burden of proof. This is not something you can shed by paining me in a light that is inaccurate.

"Because men have currently interpreted a bit of data that way?"

Show the interpretation is wrong AND a better interpretation of the data.

 

Actually - I have much more respect for that argument than the one that states that the BIBLE argues for evolutionism's teachings or that the BILBE is indifferent on the subject of whether we take the Creator at His Word.

It is MUCH more "well reasoned" to make the case "The Bible does not agree with my beliefs in evolutionism so I believe evolutionism instead - because I find the evidence for evolutionism stronger than evidence for the Word of God".

And I agree with you that the positions Darwin and Dawkings take a very much the natural and logical conclusion of embracing the religion we know of today as "evolutionism".

No complaint at all about that argument.

Believe me - I see the "noble goal" in what you are trying to do.

But eisegesis is simply "making the Bible say what you NEED it to say" for reasons that have nothing to do with a clear and precise reading of the text.

I have never felt comfortable with that model of Bible interpretation.

IF (a big IF in this case) you could find a way so that the evolutionists and the Word of God - were all saying the same thing - THEN you only have to do battle with all the Christians that are taking the Creator at His word - along with all the evolutionists that see clearly there is no "logical" room for compromise here.

And clearly you have chosen that path.

My point is NOT ONLY do these other two groups offer far more consistent arguments from BOTH science and scripture than the eisegetical approach you "need to find", but the gospel itself stands compromised by abandoning exegesis - for now the text truly says "whatever you need it to say" no matter how explicit it is.

Your atheist evolutionist friends do NOT believe that the very real, and very physical facts of the incarnation are "scientific" or the ressurrection is scientific or that the 2nd coming is scientific or that the lake of fire is "scientific" - none of the Gospel is any more "Acceptable" to them - than anything else the Creator has said.

In fact - you only show that you "need" evolutionism and the Creator to "agree". Both the atheists and the Christian Creator-trusting Creationists see that.

You are right again - on the point that by saying that the Creator MUST be correct or else His Word is false - is making this a "falsifiable" religion.

But this is also the case with the incarnation, the world wide flood, the story of Abraham, the miracles of Christ etc. ALL them "unwelcome" by atheists. All of them "physical" events. All of them "accurate" or the Word of God is suspect along with its religion -- Christianity.

BTW - St. Augustine had more than "one problem" in his theology.

Does Card address the issue with the Palonium radio halos?

Does he address the issue with banded iron in basement rock?

If not - I think he has fallen of the truck.

The upside to your entire post is that you are admitting that the Bible DOES NOT adopt evolutionist points - rather you believe them IN SPITE of the Word of God - not "because of it".

That is a big step forward.

Though you identify your noble goals for taking that position - I maintain that you are simply being sloppy with the details and fearful of a fair and open hearing for the Word of God.

Since evolutionists themselves are sloppy with the details - "once you swallow their conclusions anyway" - you are now in the "fearful" condition of contradictng the Word of God on the bases of "bad science" and sloppy assumptions.

Notice that for evolutionists "God is never the answer" to any problem because "there is no God".

So no matter how obscure the logic, or remote the odds, or contradictory the data supporting a hopeless conclusion it is STILL better than the non-existent Creator for an evolutionist.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Did I say evolutionists are "sloppy with the details"?

Guess what - ALL science is not opposed to the clear teachings of the Word of God - though you assume it is.

In fact science is actually debating/refuting/rejection evolutionism.

It is science that opposes the atheistic and humanistic assumptions of evolutionism.

But the "bad science" and "sloppy assumptions" of evolutionists demand that "any excuse" they find to ignore the data is "sufficient excuse" and they go back to "all science is evolutionist".

In Christ,

Bob

 

UTE, thank you for your welcome back. I won't be here much for awhile, which is why I resigned my moderator status. We are in Oregon half of every week and here in California, 300 miles south, every week, getting ready to move while working with builders on our own home's remodel up there and also on the finishing of construction for a home we are helping our daughter and son-in-law get. As he is paraplegic, we are making sure the house they will have is handicapped-friendly. We are mostly exhausted most of the time now. Our open house was last Thursday and we have been swamped with people interested since then. So that's the personal side.

Now, about your response. It takes no interpreting at all to understand what Genesis is saying. It takes a massive amount of 'interpreting' to get an excuse for an old earth or universe out of it!

You are interpreting so that it will fit with what some scientists have perceived as true. It is not at all a red herring, however, to state that science has a history of being wrong, either all or in part, most of the time! That is simply another way of stating that it is perhaps not the wisest choice to choose 'science' over and above a clear, straightforward, simple reading of Genesis, which is God's Word.

You say Creation does not give credence to the Bible with its evidence. You are quite wrong there. What does disagree with the Bible is men's interpretation of a very limited amount of data -- and purposeful ignoring of a good part of other available data. Please do not confuse interpretation with the data itself.

I would advise you, please, to know your Bible better before you criticized it or even referred to it. The quote about the circle of the earth is NOT in Job, but is in Isaiah 40:22. The Hebrew word used is 'hug' or 'chuwg', which is used only three times in the Bible. That one time it is translated circle. It is also translated once as 'horizon' in the NIV or 'compass'in the KJV (Prov. 8:27) and once as 'vaulted'in the NIV or 'circuit' in the KJV (Job 22:14). None of these uses indicates a flat earth! All indicate a circular horizon or vaulted heaven, however.

Daniel's tree was part of a Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Best you read for yourself: chapter 4.

The last temptation of Jesus, in the meantime, does NOT say that Jesus saw all the earth, but 'all the kingdoms of the world.' They did not all exist at that time, and therefore the words concerning that temptation would also include all the earth's past and all the earth's future -- and thus it is something we need to understand that we cannot understand.

Thus, to take the concept of circle, the vision of Nebuchadnezzar, or the last temptation of Christ which indicates time as much as space, and declare they show the Bible writers believed in or presented a flat earth is nonsense. In addition, we have history to show this would not have been a belief at any time then. Israel is in the middle of the ancient east-west trade routes from Egypt to the Orient. They knew perfectly well that much existed beyond the horizon and that the earth was not flat!

So much for YOUR red herring!

Continuing:

Behaving "like a good Christian" is not the same as being a Christian. The first is an actor. The second is a radically changed person.

As far as the evidence is concerned, you know very well that the evidence is ignored by you and others showing that the foundation or presuppositions upon which you base your declarations of old age have been shown to be wrong. Many atomic constants have been shown conclusively not to be constant and the speed of light has been shown to have slowed, and it is upon the denial of both of those that astronomical ages and radiometric dating are based.

 

Just thought I'd look at those verses - the Job passage is interesting

Job 22:12-14
12 "Is not God in the height of heaven?
Look also at the distant stars, how high they are!
13 "You say, "What does God know?
Can He judge through the thick darkness?
14'Clouds are a hiding place for Him, so that He cannot see;
And He walks on the vault of heaven.'
NASU

It would appear that this verse in Job is yet another witness to the way the ancients thought of the sky above us as a great vault or dome that was solid and could be walked upon by God.

Since the word is only used three times in the old testament, that raises the question as to whether we really know what it means. In particular, could it be a synonym for the firmament? This would make perfect sense in the Isaiah passage:

Isa 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle (I.E. the Firmament?) of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
NASU

Here is the Proverbs passage:

Prov 8:27-28
7 "When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
28 When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
NASU

It also involves the firmament. All three passages appear to relate the word we translate "circle" to the firmament on high.

It is, of course, not a view of what the heavens are that we can take literally today. Instead, we realize it is a literal description of how the heavens appeared to the ancients.