Christians: Does age of earth matter?

You should be a story teller Paul, that was quite nice!

I admire Luther, despite his very real and terrible flaws (his position on heliocentrism being only a small flaw).

Rob

 

Paul,

I agree that history is being repeated before our very eyes. And what is worse about it this time is that the various denominations are coming to terms with science at different rates. Eventually, it is likely that most folks will believe modern science, just as most folks today have a Copernican world view. It will be quite sad if some of our brightest young people are lost to the Kingdom because the science for which they see reliable proofs is found to completely invalidate an interpretation of Genesis that folks are insisting to them is the only valid interpretation.

Gina,

Let me show you a 1987 Nature article relating to mitochondrial DNA. I'm not that good with links, but: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~landc/html/cann/

This doesn't have the actual tree I've seen in molecular biology books, but it gives you some idea of the science and what science shows.

Originally posted by Gina:

No...I don't think this is too drastic a statement. I think it clearly relates to a statement in another thread that bemoans how naturalists less than twenty decades ago saw evidence for the great flood of Genesis and now interpret what they see differently from that.

You are right that man's interpretation can be flawed. That is the whole basis of the scientific philosophy which defines as non-science anything that cannot be falsified.

I think you are right...the first assumption should be that we are interpreting the Bible incorrectly if the Bible doesn't fit with present scientific thought. Of course, one must also consider that the scientific thought might be wrong...but scientists consider that every day. And it is the falsifiability of the scientific thought that makes it science. I do not think that we should ever say of falsifiable science that "this is going too far" when science seeks to explain the natural universe. (Though it is fine with me if a new scientific technique...not explanation...such as "human cloning" is viewed by those who make value judgements as going "too far" and prohibited. Science deos not make the value judgement that human cloning is "good" or "bad," only that it is "possible.")

I also agree with you that looking at the raw data...the data that support the science and trying to find another EQUALLY GOOD explanation for the data...starting with no preconceived notion other than finding the best explanation for the data...is a very good way to approach science.

Gina, it would be deceit only if we can make sense of it. And the best, most consistent sense we can make of all of our observations contradicts what some claim to be the irrefutable and inalterable word of God in their literal interpretation of Genesis. I think most scientists in the fields which say evolution occurred and which say that the earth is old would say that any notion that "we just can't make sense of it" is inaccurate. The biological sciences are consistent with paleontology, archeology, and climatology.

And Gina, I make no assumption that something is a lie just because it isn't agreed upon by scientists who agree with me. The nature of science is that any scientific assertion must be falsifiable. If there are creationist scientists who have alternative explanations of the data, let them subject their data to the scrutiny of other scientists. This is the peer review process. And modern science makes all of its data available for anyone with a literal interpretation of Genesis to come along and, by reference to the natural world, show them where they have gone wrong.

Coming up with and testing falsifiable theories about the natural world is not an attempt by man to become his own creator. Because man is not saying that man can replicate what God has done here on earth. Science can't create any truly new species of organism as yet (that I know of).

Gina, modern genetics serve as a "proof" of the still-falsifiable scientific theory of evolution because evolution predicts certain things will be in the genomes of creatures who share a common ancestor. These predictions can be tested. What is found in the genome (including the gene for Vitamin C as UTEOTW stated earlier) is what would be expected if evolution were true and not what would be expected on the basis of a perfect creation which degenerates from perfection. Because if that were the case, one would not expect that primates would degenerate in exactly the same way.

 

You said;

I agree that history is being repeated before our very eyes. And what is worse about it this time is that the various denominations are coming to terms with science at different rates. Eventually, it is likely that most folks will believe modern science, just as most folks today have a Copernican world view. It will be quite sad if some of our brightest young people are lost to the Kingdom because the science for which they see reliable proofs is found to completely invalidate an interpretation of Genesis that folks are insisting to them is the only valid interpretation.

Are you kidding?! You have already "won". As I put forth in my posts on my experience as a child, the estabilishment ALREADY TEACHES EVOLUTION! Most folks DO believe it. So you have nothing to fear from us bad ole Bible believers.

And young people are lost to the Kingdom (as I was) because they cannot make a connection between evolution/old earth and Genesis. One or the other must give.

And as for the Copernican view, after I read a few biographies it turns out most critics were advocates of Ptolemaic astronomy and Aristotles Earth centered views. After all they could SEE BY OBSERVATION and COMMON SENSE that they were right. As a matter of fact Copernicus' views were published with the Vatican's approval (partically because Luther didn't agree).

Also, in order to answer critics objection that Venus and Mercury should be visible to the naked eye in the course of their revolutions, Copernicus had to advance the erroneous explanation that these planets were transparent and the sun's rays passed through them.

So do I have to believe EVERY thing I hear? Were there hoaxes in attempts to prove missing links?

There are plenty of churches who deny literal interpretation of scripture. I would say most do. You have nothing to "fear", though you make it sound as if Bible-believers are in the vast majority and are somehow endangering the minds of your youngsters! Trust me, in this day and age we're the LAST thing youngsters have to worry about!!

So if our interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, what is the correct one?
Cotton

 

Both Atheists Evolutionists and Christians who choose to find accuracy in the Word of God - agree on one thing. Evolutionism does not fit with the Gospel -- not even remotely.

Not surprisingly - they both find that the Word of God is opposed to the humanist principles of naturalism and evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

God said "God Spoke and IT WAS He commanded and IT stood FIRM".

But humanism says "no it did not".

God said "For IN SIX days God made the Heavens and the Earth the Seas and ALL that is in them and RESTED the 7th day"

But humanism says "no He did not".

And as Dawkings said "The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable"

They already "have their god" it is humanism - it is human speculation it is "bad science" abandoning the scientific method itself.

But the Gospel (on the other hand) demands that the sinless, bloodless, peaceful creation model be the one and only model. (see Romans 8 and Romans 5)

In Christ,

Bob

[ March 25, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

BobRyan,
Some of your charges are opinions. But your charge that evolution and old earth theory is "bad science" which abandons "the scientific method itself" is something I consider a serious charge. On what basis do you believe this? Evolution makes certain predictions which are falsifiabile. This makes it science. Its greatest test lay in modern genetics, which was not known at the time evolution as a theory was propagated.

cotton,

I do not feel victorious that evolution is taught to our young people and all too often the Word of God is not.

And yes there have been hoaxes in science. Just as there have been hoaxes in journalism. And just as some pastors today (if polls are to be believed) don't even believe in God. There are hoaxes from all sorts of places. Fortunately, the scientific method is fairly good at ferreting out hoaxes. Mormonism, on the other hand, which I consider to be a demonstrable hoax, is still quite alive and well.

BobRyan, I agree that evolution is a self-sufficient explanation for life on earth if you start with the first cell.

Now, go ask those molecular biologists how they got their first cell. And ask them, with respect to each step along the way, whether the particular step is consistent with laws of thermodynamics, and where the energy required for the energy-requiring steps came from. It is the difficulty science has in explaining the first cell that is a fairly good reason to posit that there was a Creator behind the whole process after all.

cotton,

Do you not think that reputable scientists would falsify evolution in peer-reviewed biology and anthropology journals if they could?

 

"Do you not think that reputable scientists would falsify evolution in peer-reviewed biology and anthropology journals if they could? "

I'll answer.

Yes, of course! They would be famous. Their names would be up there with Newton and Einstein.

 

This is a false statement. The Scriptures teach nowhere that death spread to all of creation through the sin of man. In fact whereever the Bible speaks of the curse of death as the result of sin, it is ALWAYS in relation to man.


By focusing on animal death, and more specifically physical death, you ignore the whole point of the Gospel message. The consequence of being dead in our sin is an eternal, spiritual death. When Adam sinned, he and all of mankind to follow were already dead. This is what the Bible teaches. Your focus on physical death is but a triviality. It's meaningless.

Our death without Christ is first and ultimately a spiritual one, our life in Christ is first and ultimately a spiritual one.

 

This is a false statement. The Scriptures teach nowhere that death spread to all of creation through the sin of man. In fact whereever the Bible speaks of the curse of death as the result of sin, it is ALWAYS in relation to man.
</font>[/QUOTE]Interesting. So you think creation itself was subjected to death, disease, corruption, extermination, starvation, carnage, the-law-of-tooth-and-claw but man alone was living "death-free" and "sin-free" until finally he sinned?

REally?

And you "think" the Bible will back you up on that?

Since I already mentioned Romans 8 as a key part of the Gospel message of Paul that refutes such speculation - lets look at it.

The Bible message about the Gospel is that The Creator was wise and powerful enough to make a sinless, deathless, peaceful earth for mankind in 6 literal days. On the 6th day man was placed in this peaceful, paradise..

hmm "deathless - sinless, peaceful" paradise
or
"death, disease, corruption, extermination, starvation, extinction, carnage, and the-law-of-tooth-and-claw"

Which is the "starting point" described for mankind in the Word of God?

The Gospel tells us of the Perfect starting conditions, tells us of the fall, and tells us of God's plan to restore that Paradise ...(see Rev 2)

Your argument that we should ignore "death, disease, corruption, extermination, starvation, carnage, the-law-of-tooth-and-claw" thinking of it as merely "the perfect act of a loving God in creating mankind" - is 180% opposite of the Gospel description.

The Gospel NT writers tell us that the creation suffers under a system of death and corruption BECAUSE of the fall of man.

The anxious longing of creation itself is "freedom" from the very carnage you seem to want to embrace as "ok".

And yet Paul said

Your argument is with Paul.

Your argument is with a loving and Powerful Creator who say He did NOT Create via the humanists processess of "death, disease, corruption, extermination, starvation, carnage, the-law-of-tooth-and-claw"

Your argument is with a loving God that apparently DOES care about His Creation - suffering, and groaning and anxiously awaiting freedom from the corruption it endures due to man's fall.

Of course our atheist evolutionist friends don't have that argument to worry about - since they don't read the Word of God. Only a christian evolutionist will have your problem here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Obviously not.

In fact as has been pointed out in the Journal of NATURE they will do all in their power to obfuscate and corrupt science to promote their religion of evolutionism.

When 22 of the distinguished biologists at the British Museum of Natural History were attacked by hardliner evolutionist devotees they responded by saying that they were

They were later forced to recant in the form of altering their exhibit to suit the dictates of evolutionist clerics and high priests.

In an attempt to pacify the more clerically minded dogmatists within the evolutionist community Museum spokespersons later were quoted in an interview claiming to be among the faithful devotees covering up the blunders in evolutionism. They offered as proof “the exhibits did not refer to such problems as the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, the sudden explosion of life forms at the start of the Cambrian age, the difficult in explaining the origin of the genetic code, the limits to change demonstrated by breeding experiments, the “hopeful monster” controversy, the punctuated equilibrium controversy, or the importance of catastrophic extinctions” (Interview reported in Johnson in Darwin on Trial p 139)

Indeed - they did their "cover up" was done "well"

Bad science indeed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I wonder if they realized that some people are trading in their Bibles for the speculation known as evolution when they said "We have NO absolute proof that the THEORY of evolution is even true"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

What seems even sadder is the simple fact that is that if The Genesis creation story is just a moralistic tale, then there isn't much hope for the book of Revelation. Read chapter 21 and 22.
This reads alot more fantastic then anything we read in Genesis. If we cannot accept the original creation, why should we accept the "NEW"
creation story... Explain that one!

 

Bob, who exactly put it into those words and on what occasion?

This is empty rhetoric. It is as senseless as saying "I wonder of some people know they are trading in their brains for the speculation known as religion when they say I will accept the bible over all other evidence."

Alternate parties might cheer or boo the statements, but there is no persuasive power here. How about some logic or some evidence somewhere along the line?

 

Paul;
Bob's post was no where near as caustic as yours:

you said "This is empty rhetoric. It is as senseless as saying "I wonder of some people know they are trading in their brains for the speculation known as religion when they say I will accept the bible over all other evidence."

See? you mock bible believers (trading in their brains?) because they don't accept your CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.

And yes, I did give God everything, including my strong will (which you refer to as 'brains'). And yes, I believe the Bible is God's word.

Just because a minority of people don't see things your way, is no reason to get angry and twist other's words. This is a typical "elitist" mindset.

Cotton

 

Pay close attention, Cotten, I did NOT mock bible believers, I count myself among the bible believers. I said that saying the bit about "trading in your brains" would be senseless to say.

 

Bob posted

Paul asks

Well - "Not me". I am merely reporting the news - not making it up the way our Evolutionist friends often do with "stories about what might have -- maybe -- possibly happened in history".

The volume of the British journal of Nature given in my post gives the details.

However - in a nutshell - it is a reference to the British Museum's exhibit on evolution done in 1981 as part of the Museum's centennial celebration.

The scientists tried to avoid "evolutionISM" and just present "evolution" as a possible solution. They came under attack by what THEY called "the more clerically minded" evolutionists (read - devotees).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well I am glad that we find a question which you will take seriously. Now lets watch and see "how long" you do it.

Oh - but Nature and Karl Popper must be "bad ol' Bible Believ'n Christians" to have said such a thing about nice/good/pure evolutionism -- "right"?

Or is the problem that the evolutionist king really has no clothes on?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Paul, brother(and I mean that sincerely!) I implore you, unless I seriously misread your post, the thought that bible believing takes a back seat to APPARENT or CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is prevalent among christian evolutionists. Bible believing is a joke to athiests and agnostics.

My Dad cannot believe I take the Bible seriously, much less literally. It infuriates him! And he was raised IFB.

See, why does it make non-believers angry??! If it isn't true WHO CARES?? This is about FREEDOM. Literal bible believers are relatively few (probably even in the "church"), evolution IS the predominant belief. We are no threat to the 'establishment'.

Again, how would you 'translate' Genesis (Just the creation account)?

Cotton

 

As Karl Popper notes - this theory attempts to "Explain everything" and in so doing "proves nothing".

Genetics is a good example of the failings of evolutionism's doctrines its predictions and the degree to which it can appeal to the objective mind.

Evolutionism "needs" multiple starts for ANY new class rather than one shot-in-the-dark "hopeful monster" that fails to find a mate.

But mtDNA shows that males go back to "one" parent and females all go back to "one and only one" parent. This is the "classic prediction" of the Creator's view given to us in Genesis 1 and summarized for us in Exodus 20.

It is NOT what evilutionism "needs". So the anti-Gospel model must "struggle in SPITE of the data" to assert "multiple starts". It must "invent" scenarios whereby we get an end-result that LOOKS like ONE parent for males and another for females but - in fact multiple genetic starts are "the believed case anyway".

Again - faithful belief in evolutionism exists "in spite of the data" and not "because of it".

Just as has been already noted -- belief in evolutionism exists "in spite of the text of scripture and not because of it".

Evolutionism thrives where its speculations are not testable.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So the question this raises for our evolutionist brethren is -- what does "Science" do to the list above IF it is used consistently with the Bible-corrupting method that some choose to use in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20? Do we delete that entire list above - while deleting the clear statements in the Creator's word about Creation week?

How do you "get back" to "trusting the Bible" when it CONTINUES to be out of step with the science of its readers in the cases listed above even in the NT?

In Christ,

Bob