Debate Proposal - YEC vs. OEC

Huh? I am an OEC. Have been for some time. The evidence for an old earth is now in the no brainer territory.

Evolution? Possibly. Likely even. Not because I've given it all kinds of evaluation, but what I have seeen seems to makes sense. Really couldn't care less in the end however. It doesn't affect my salvation, and I know that God's Word is perfect regardless.

Point is: I would best be described as being an OEC rather than a TE.

 

And the evidence for your not being TE is???

In Christ,

Bob

 

I don't take a strong affirmative position on evolution. At a cursory glance it makes sense, but I don't know nearly enough about it to defend or oppose it.


The evidence for an old creation however is everywhere. Plate tectonics, astronomy, geology. You kind of have to train yourself to not think at all to ignore the evidence there. Either that or you have to think really hard and try to be as creative as possible with the data in order to fit it into a young earth position.

So like I said. Old earth, absolutely. No question about it. Evolution? Not sure, and not sure I have the energy to research all the information there is on it. I definately see the tactics used by YE's as unchristian though. Quote mining to take bits out of context that never were the author's intent, applying half truths. Deception at every turn. I see these things in many of your posts and I refuse to even bother with you, because you refuse to acknowledge them. You have no credibility. I don't know why UTE bothers with you. How long now has he been trying to get you to come clean about the prevailing attitude at that archy conference? How much evidence has he shown you that everyone he can find that was in attendance there considered archy to be a transitional? You don't address this stuff. In fact, I see UTE consistently researching, linking, posting, and explaining evidence for you, yet you never ever respond to the substance of his posts. It's all a big name calling game to you. Apparently you believe that the louder you shout, the more God is revealed to be on your side.

So it's attitudes and behaviours like that on the YE side that tend to sway me toward the evolutionary side of things.

Believe me on this: I'd like everything in life to be black and white, cut and dry. I'd get a real kick out of a young earther debating the actual evidence of creation to show that evolution is impossible and creation is young. Unfortunately it can't be done. We are forced to face the likely hood that creation is very old, and the possibility that evolution is true. Does accepting these things affect my faith in any capacity? Nope. In fact, whatever the mechanics used to bring about creation I say "Glory to God".

I know that my life in Christ is primarily a spiritual one. I know that my heart, mind and sould have been changed and conformed to His image. All of this other stuff about animals dying before the fall is just nonsense used by Satan to divide God's people, and you have fallen prey to it. The Gospel of salvation is concerned with man and his relationship to God, and you have forgotten that. I hope one day you will remember it.

 

I'm not talking about that passage at all.

We're talking about primarily old testament passages.

I submit that prior to the discoveries of Copernicus, Gallileo, et. al. the common belief of all mankind was that the Sun moves around the earth, as did the moon and the stars; the idea that it is the earth's rotation was a revolutionary new idea.

However much you may disparage the opinions of these great men, you have to admit their opinions represent evidence as to the various modes of thought prior to the introduction of modern scientific ideas.

Sound exegesis of the relevant scriptures shows that the moving of the Sun across the sky is literally stated and literally meant. It is only your scientific knowledge that this is not so that makes you interpret the relevant scriptures as not literally meant.

Just because the scientific knowledge is so deeply ingrained within you that you cannot question it does not mean the scriptures are not intended literally. Your own present confidence in the truth revealed by science is not a true guide to the opinions about the rotation of the earth in ancient times! Your mind has been contaminated by a modern scientific education, that causes you to interpret those parts of the Bible in a non-literal fashion. But history shows us the idea that the earth rotates, thus causing day and night, came along AFTER the Bible was written. It is for this reason that all attempts to say the original Bible verses about the Sun moving across the sky were not intended to be literal are disengenious.

 

I would agree... OEC is in the 'no brainer category' (how could I resist?).

But please read what I said regarding uniformitarianism. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2825/3.html#000033

Basically, ALL old earth evidence is interpreted based upon an unprovable assumption that everything has always happened as we observe it happening today. The Bible makes a very, very clear case that this is not so. So do you based your pre-suppositions on man's theories or on the infallible Word of God? Take into consideration that evolutionists and YEC have the same evidence, use the same operational science, yet arrive at very different conclusions. Why? Because our pre-suppositions are very different. Old earth starts with a uniformitarian pre-supposition, and YEC starts with the Bible as our pre-supposition.

No... he's pulling his passage from PSALMS... a book of POETRY!! This is his evidence that the Bible is not literal in Genesis... because PSALMS uses figurative language. It's so rediculous.

Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
Psa 19:5 Which [is] as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, [and] rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
Psa 19:6 His going forth [is] from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

You see, this is where you OEE and YEC differ. We think that man's opinion should never outweigh God's Word. God's Word is true yesterday, today, and forever. It takes a 3 year old to understand and believe that a fishy turned into a lizard which turned into a monkey which turned into a person. That is not the story God gave us. There would be no reason for God to lie to us. Moreover, there are prophecies in the Bible that are not yet fulfilled... therefore God was writing it from the beginning knowing who would read it. He made it understandable for all people in all time. He said what he meant and meant what he said. There is nothing new under the sun. If God knew that we would one day have the capability of understanding... why would he say something completely different? He wouldn't. He told us exactly what happened and how it happened.

You mean scientific knowledge like bleeding a man for a headache? Or perhaps you mean scientific knowledge like saying that the continents never moved. Because hundreds of years ago... that was the pervailing scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge changes from day to day... God's Word never changes. It is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It is just as true today, yesterday, and forever. Genesis 1-11 describe our origins - you would do well to read it and believe it. There is more scientific truth in Genesis 1-11 than in all evolutionary textbooks combinded.

 

That's not exactly true. Check into the gap theory.
Gina

 

Yes... famous OEC Hugh Ross and his gang. While it is a step in the right direction from evolution, it is a more dangerous position because it mixes in a greater ammount of truth with the lie... making the two harder to distinguish.

Gap theory basically says that each 'day' of creation was an extended period of time... 1000, 100,000... 1 million years maybe. They also believe that the earth was created in Genesis 1:1. They say that where it says "the earth was without form and void" means that the earth was destroyed.... that it 'should' read that the earth 'became' without form and void - saying that there were millions/billions of years of earth existance betweeen Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Basically, this is an attempt to use the uniformitarian framework AND special creation simultaneously.

It is a tenuous position indeed. It is an attempt to appease secular criticism while holding to Biblical exegesis. It is an example of a non-literal Biblical exegesis. However, it has it's own set of problems and inconsistencies.

 

Hey Gup, your mixing up your theories!

Those who advocate the gap theory say that the six days of creation week were literal days but they interpret them as days of recreation with God creating again the animals destroyed in the great cataclysm caused by Satans fall.

A new form of the Gap theory has been proposed by John Sailhamer in his book, "Genesis Unbound".

Sailhamer suggests that the word translated "earth" in Genesis 1 should really be translated "land" and that the 'heaven and earth' were created "in the begining" (lenght of time undefined) and a special "land" was the prepared for God's people in seven literal days.

Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) not a Gap theorist but is a Progressive Creationist, a form of the day-age theory. Progressive Creationists do not believe in 'atom to Adam" evolution.

Rob

 

I ask this because you claim to be ok with evolutionism (as if) an evolutionist would ever use the words of Creation to describe evolution.

Hmmm. Not really that hard a concept to "get" - just not scientifically valid.

Try - "from you to goo by way of the zoo". In essence molecule to human brain given enough time, destruction, disease, extermination, predation and suffering and carnage. (Is it clearing up?).

Contrast that with the God of Love and Life who SPEAKS and it comes into existence who merely COMMANDS and it is established fully. The God who looks and sees "that is is good - very good".

The God who does not impose death until after the fall of man.

The God who "creates" in 6 "evenings and mornings".

"For IN SIX DAYS the Lord created the heavens and the earth and the seas and ALL that is in them".

Hardly the theme song of athest evolutionism.

That is a very different argument than the doctrine of evolutionism of all life on earth.

You are talking about the age of rocks and stars and the idea that these could well have existed before God created life on this earth. Before God separated the water from the land.

That debate is very different than the one that denies the that savior actually "really" made everything that exists.

If you have a view of the Bible that is "take it or leave it " when it comes to the origins of life as the Bible states it - or as humanist evolutionists prefer to tell the story - then you can't possibly be considered a creationist.

The good news for you is that when the evolutionist believing Christians on this board bash creationists - they are not talking about you. (Old earth or not).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is the concept of a "Salient point in an argument" familiar to you?

Are you aware that I never argue that "atheist evolutionists quit being atheist or evolutionist" when their theories hit the rocks?

I can't believe that anyone but a die hard evolutionist could possibly be confused by UTEOTW's tactics! This is really amazing! I appreciate your sharing though.

The "salient" point is that EVEN evolutionists "admited" that this was a huge embarrassment for evolutionism.

EVEN evolutionists admit that Archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD.

EVEN evolutionists admit that the supposed link between Archy and lizards was a bit TOO fabricated (did you read the quotes? - I guess not - eh?)

EVEN evolutionists admit that TRUE BIRDS are found BEFORE THE OLDEST Archaeopteryx.

How much easier does it need to be???

UTEOTW is simply trying to sidestep and obfuscate away from these undeniable salient points by arguing "YES but these atheist evolutionists STILL cling to the evolution of archaeopteryx AND enjoy pointing out the reptile similarities in that TRUE BIRD". Not unlike EXISTING birds with teeth, birds with webbed feet etc.

Never-the-less Atheists admit the bird Archaeopteryx has true flight feathers and and true flying bird and is NOT as old as the TRUE BIRDS preceeding it.

It just does not get any easier than that - and still those who will not come to the light remain in the shadows on this one - helped along by the obfuscations and misdirections of UTEOTW.

Good work!

In Christ,

Bob

 

That's not exactly true. Check into the gap theory.
Gina </font>[/QUOTE]That maybe true Gina, but that still doesn't change the fact that "I" have never met them.

 

"If by 'pre-conceived notions' you mean the scripture, than I would note that your interpretation of the data is wrong."

I mean his interpretation of scripture which he has done without considering all of the relevant facts.

"let the Word interpret itself... you will always come to the same conclusion"

Is that not what Luther and Calvin were doing? They came to the wrong answer.

"What possible benefit to you would an natural evolution have over the Bible's account of creation??"

Knowing the truth. Being intellectually honest. Using all the resources that God has put at my disposal.

" It seems to me that the only reason someone would be a christian and vote for a democrat, for example, is because that democrat would make it easier to sin... or would justify sin. "

While I do not vote Democratic, I think that you are making a fallacious argument, specifically a false dilemma. There could be plenty of other reasons someone would vote Democratic than because they want to have an abortion or because they want to be a practicing homosexual. Maybe they vote based on environmental issues. Though I vote Republican, I do not believe taht the Republican party is doing a very good job of upholding our responsibilities to take care of the earth God gave us.

"From where I stand, it seems like you have fallen for the 'elitist peer pressure'."

I was YE until I looked at the YEers own evidence. People like AIG and ICR changed my mind on their own. No peer pressure involved. For that matter, I do not know very many people who are OE. Most of the people I know are YE and so the pressure is in the other direction from what you suppose.

"Indeed we have come close to addressing this in the past. For example, if you remove the uniformitarian assumptions that have gone into nearly all OE interpretation of evidence, then Old Earther's have no case. You see... the strongest evidence - that which evolution balances so delicately upon - is an unprovable (and un-disprovable) assumption of uniformitarianism."

Fallacy of equivocation. Uniformitarianism is a part of geology and not evolutionary biology. And for that matter it is ONLY a part. Geology certainly recognizes the role of catastrophe and other processes. Whether you accept uniformitarianism or not has no bearing on whether the twin nested heirarchy, for example, is factual or not.

 

"Come on guys quit beating around the bush, which one of you OEC's are gonna step-up to the plate and take Jason up on his offer?"

I bet if the good "doctor" proposed

"The best interpretation of the physical evidence given by Biblical young earth creationism."

then I think he would have his door beaten down both here and at IIDB by people willing to take the challenge. But he also knows that it would be a debate he would be unlikely to win and it seems that he is most interested in padding his debate resume than anything else.

 

"The evolutionists here have been very explicit in their opposition and debate against creationists - surely you are not now going to call the evolutionists "creationists"?!"

Sure I consider myself to be a creationist. I will rarely use the term because it usually connotates young earth creationism. But of course I believe God created the universe and is reponsible for all we see. Even if I think He did it in a manner different than what you think.

 

"Galleleo [sic] had good science to back him up. Evolutionists must dwell in the shadow lands of junk-science, myth, speculation and conjecture."

I will ignore your second, false sentence there.

Why don't you articulate for us how you arrive at the conclusion that the earth circles that sun and how that then allows you to conclude that Galileo was practicing good science?

Then, does this mean that you would accept an old earth given the proper documentation?

 

"The phrase the four corners of the earth is a figure of speech. Isaiah said this in reference to the totality of the earth. One must interpret any piece of literature in view of language usage."

That was not what Calvin was referring to. He was referring to Psalm 93:1. "The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."

 

"Basically, ALL old earth evidence is interpreted based upon an unprovable assumption that everything has always happened as we observe it happening today. The Bible makes a very, very clear case that this is not so."

Since this a part of geology, tell us what geological processes in the past resulted in different evidence then than the same occurance would give us today. And how you know this. And some bit of evidentiary support.

 

"You are talking about the age of rocks and stars and the idea that these could well have existed before God created life on this earth. Before God separated the water from the land."

But those hundreds of millions of years old rocks have fossils of LIFE in them.

Besides, are you now saying that God did not create EVERYTHING in six days? This is a mighty big departure from mainstream YEC. So there was light before God said "let there be light" in verse 3?

"Are you aware that I never argue that "atheist evolutionists quit being atheist or evolutionist" when their theories hit the rocks?"

And this is you normal response when you are shown to be quoting out of context. Like Asimov. And horses. Start here for one series of horse posts. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/11.html#000163

"The "salient" point is that EVEN evolutionists "admited" that this was a huge embarrassment for evolutionism. EVEN evolutionists admit that Archaeopteryx is a TRUE BIRD."

What exactly was a huge "embarrassment for evolutionism." Do you have a citation for this one? No? Why am I not surprised?

Do you have a citation yet for your assertion that the conference decided it was just a "true bird?" No? Why am I not surprised?

I will post my evidence against your assertion. Take a look, again, at this list of paper presented at the conference. Remeber that this is a conference on archy and ask yourself if this sounds like the kind of papers that would be presented if they thought that archy was a mere bird completely unrelated to the reptiles.

They may all be found in The Beginnings of Birds. Proceedings of the International Archaeopteryx Conference Eichstätt, 1984. I am also only listing the first author.

Norberg, "Evolution of flight in birds: Aerodynamic, mechanical and ecological aspects."

Raath, "The theropod Syntarsus and its bearing on the origin of birds."

Schaller, "Wing evolution."

Peters, "Functional and Constructive Limitations in the Early Evolution of Birds."

Gauthier, "Phylogenetic, functional, and aerodynamic analyses of the origin of birds and their flight."

Bock, "The arboreal theory for the origin of birds."

Rayner, "Mechanical and ecological constraints on flight evolution."

Peters, "Constructional and Functional Preconditions for the Transition to Powered Flight."

Taquet, "Two new Jurassic specimens of coelurosaurs (Dinosauria)"

Rietschel, "Feathers and wings of Archaeopteryx , and the question of her flight ability."

Molnar, "Alternatives to Archaeopteryx; a Survey of Proposed Early or Ancestral Birds."

Now, do these really sound like the kinds of papers that would be presented at a conference where they decided that what we have is merely a unique bird and not any sort of transitional?

"EVEN evolutionists admit that the supposed link between Archy and lizards was a bit TOO fabricated (did you read the quotes? - I guess not - eh?)"

Give them again. I think you quoted Feduccia who has also said "Certainly, Archaeopteryx is a transitional form from reptile to bird." He also said "The creature thus memorialized was Archaeopteryx lithographica, and, though indisputably birdlike, it could with equal truth be called reptilian.... The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms--what has come to be called a "missing link," a Rosetta stone of evolution."

"EVEN evolutionists admit that TRUE BIRDS are found BEFORE THE OLDEST Archaeopteryx."

All together now. Archy is not on the direct line to birds. It is a descendent of a creature that wa on the direct line. This side branch preserves many of the features of that intermediate.

"Never-the-less Atheists admit the bird Archaeopteryx has true flight feathers and and true flying bird and is NOT as old as the TRUE BIRDS preceeding it."

Microraptor had true flight feathers. Let us see you make a case for it, too, being a true bird.

"UTEOTW is simply trying to sidestep and obfuscate away from these undeniable salient points by arguing "YES but these atheist evolutionists STILL cling to the evolution of archaeopteryx AND enjoy pointing out the reptile similarities in that TRUE BIRD". "

It is not just similarities. It is a long list of traits tht archy shares with NO BIRDS but that it does share with the theropods. Some of these traits are even shown to be in transistion between the two. You really should look up the definition for "obfuscate." I think you practice it when you try to point it out.

A few...

It lacks a beak! You claim a true bird that does not have a beak!

Just like the dinosaurs, its trunk vertebrae are not fused while in all birds they are fused.

Its pubic shaft is plate like just like the dromaeosaurs but unlike any bird.

Its head attaches to its neck in the rear just like the dinosuars but unlike any birds.

Its cervixal vertebrae are shaped just like those of the other archosaurs but unlike those of any bird.

It has a long tail with mostly free vertebrae just like in the reptiles while birds all have short, fused tails.

Its pelvic girdle is shaped just like the other archosaurs but completely unlike those of any bird.

Its sacrum consists of six vertebrae just like in the bird like dinosaurs while birds have 2 to 4 TIMES as many vertebrae in their sacrum.

Its nasal opening is in the same location as reptiles but not any birds.

Its fibula and tibia are of the same length just as in all reptiles but in birds the fibia is much shortened.

 

Ah... indeed. Thanks for shedding light on it. I do tend to get the gap/age/progressive/theistic titles mixed up. I choose to file them all under 'wrong' along with evolution for simplification purposes. I let the Word speak for itself as to the truth.