Debate Proposal - YEC vs. OEC

[Michael52]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Before the debate begins - can someone tell me what they mean by OEC?

I think I understand YEC - but what in the world is meant by OEC if an evolutionist is using the term?

In Christ,

Bob

Bob

I think all Theistic Evolutionists (TE) believe in an old earth (OE), as opposed to a young earth (YE). On the other hand, Old Earth Creationists (OEC) believe the current scientific findings almost irrefutably point to an OE, however they don't believe the scientific findings are as persuasive that evolution (currently defined) is necessarily correct scientifically. Thus, I think a Christian who believes in evolution, would better be described as a TE. Some would rather use the term Theistic Naturalist, because of the "nasty" connotation associated with evolution. I think it is interesting that many who advocate Intelligent Design are OE. Some of these are not totally against macro-evolution (Behe for example).

OEC's believe that the truth of God's special revelation (Bible) and general revelation (science) must be reconcilable. To the extent they seemingly contradict, the problem is due to our fallible interpretation of the Bible or science, or both. For a person who is scientifically inclined, their objectivity and personal integrity keep them from becoming too dogmatic. For me, the wonders of God's creation have always caused me to tend toward humility (sort of a "shock and awe" effect).

I am personally gratful that God's grace and mercy is extended to me in spite of my ignorance in these matters. If there is one petition for which I ask God for myself, it is that He will grant me the wisdom to understand the position He would have me take on these matters (ie YE, OE, origins, Bible interpretation, etc). Thus far, He has led me to take the Creationist position. That is - God created everything. Amen!

 

[blackbird]

I would love to see a debate on this YEC vs OEC---personally I am a YEC---

If Jason Gastrich wants to debate---lets let the Moderators(Gina & Co.) set the rules down----first one to start "slingin' mud" and "Trashin'" and talk "Smack"----is O-U-T OUT! And is locked out of the debate!

Blackbird

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by blackbird:
I would love to see a debate on this YEC vs OEC---personally I am a YEC---

If Jason Gastrich wants to debate---lets let the Moderators(Gina & Co.) set the rules down----first one to start "slingin' mud" and "Trashin'" and talk "Smack"----is O-U-T OUT! And is locked out of the debate!

Blackbird

Thanks for wanting this debate to happen. I hope it does and I'm pretty sure it will.

I agree that the moderation needs to be a little more strict. At the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, they delete inappropriate parts of debate posts and give warnings. I'm sure that would do the trick.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Michael52:

I think all Theistic Evolutionists (TE) believe in an old earth (OE), as opposed to a young earth (YE). On the other hand, Old Earth Creationists (OEC) believe the current scientific findings almost irrefutably point to an OE, however they don't believe the scientific findings are as persuasive that evolution (currently defined) is necessarily correct scientifically. Thus, I think a Christian who believes in evolution, would better be described as a TE. Some would rather use the term Theistic Naturalist

Now "that" makes sense!

What then is meant in the debate with OEC?

Originally posted by Michael52:

OEC's believe that the truth of God's special revelation (Bible) and general revelation (science) must be reconcilable.

True - but I think that is true whether you are OEC or YEC. YEC saysv that the Bible and "real science" (as in science that does not speculate in favor of an atheist evolutionist bias) are in agreement.

Originally posted by Michael52:
To the extent they seemingly contradict, the problem is due to our fallible interpretation of the Bible or science, or both.

Bible interpretation is primarily a matter of exegesis - it is not based on taking the "current thinking of science" and inserting it into the text. Science prides itself (at least REAL science does) on changing its views as its data is more complete and theories adjust to the data. You can't keep changing the Bible because your view of science changes.

Exegesis takes into account the view of the author and the intended meaning for the primary audience.

So what is OEC? Life on earth that is millions of years old? (i.e. no divine creation at all according to the Genesis text?)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"You can't keep changing the Bible because your view of science changes."

No? It does happen. Or are you a geocentrist?

Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?

John Calvin in his Commentary on Genesis.

This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

Martin Luther

This just sounds so much like what you hear today about evolution. Were Calvin and Luther wrong in their interpretation of Scripture? Do you not think that they were more learned in the Bible than most of us?

Yet you have no problem today telling us that there is no problem believing in the earth orbiting the sun. However, you cannot articulate for us why you take some passages non-literally based on scientific evidence but yet you do not do the same for others.

And just as Calvin and Luther were wrong on their interpretation, so may we all be. It is not a matter of letting scince tell us how to interpret Scripture. As shown, we already do that. This is a search for the truth. And you want to ignore all the evidence available to us because it contradicts your preconceived notions of how God should have done things.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I agree that the moderation needs to be a little more strict. At the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, they delete inappropriate parts of debate posts and give warnings. I'm sure that would do the trick."

Maybe we should start by censoring some of your name calling. Maybe beginning about here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2794/9.html#000123

If you had acted like an adult, we might could have had something going.

Still quite interesting that you feel so certain about the evidence showing a young earth yet you go and challenge a bunch of atheists to Biblical interpretation instead of offering to debate the physical facts with them.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"You can't keep changing the Bible because your view of science changes."

No? It does happen. Or are you a geocentrist?

Hmm this is where you compare you current views of evolutionism to "the flat earth" and then claim that you are advancing with the times when you give up evolutionism just like the church of the dark ages??

The whole point is that exegesis does NOT consist of inserting your views of evolutionism "into the text - no matter what it says".

UTEOTW
Yet you have no problem today telling us that there is no problem believing in the earth orbiting the sun. However, you cannot articulate for us why you take some passages non-literally based on scientific evidence but yet you do not do the same for others.

Pure obfuscation and misdirection to "pretend" that you feel it is ok to butcher the text of Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 JUST because you choose to "Believe the weather channel" when it gives you times for sunrise but then "doubt God" when HE describes the SAME event with SAME frame of reference being the observer on the ground!!

You could at least offer a serious response UTEOTW instead of pretending that this is some kind of real problem for you.

The problem in the dark ages - was that they were trying to marry their junk-science ideas to the Bible and exegete the text according to their junk science, you hide behind their appron strings as you boldly claim to do the same!!

Amazing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Frank]

Paul:
You live in your own little corner of the world.
LOL!!!

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

Look closely.

Calvin and Luther were throwing the same sort of condemnation at Copernicus and for the same reasons as what you and the other YEers throw at those who accept an old earth.

Calvin and Luther based it on their interpretation of the Bible. Which they knew could not be wrong. Luther even called Copernicus a "fool" which is a very common name thrown at the OEers by the YEers. ([rhetorical]Why don't we ever see the level of name calling by the old earthers as we do by the young earthers? I guess when you have nothing else to say...[/rhetorical])

Calvin said that people who were not geocentric were putting the opinion of Copernicus above that of God. Does this not sound the least bit familiar to you?

To complain about "obfuscation and misdirection" you sure did expend a lot of energy dancing around what I accually posted.

There is a chance, just a chance, that you could have your interpretation wrong. Luther and Calvin (they were not alone, either, these just happen to be prominent names) were way off base. But they were so sure. They just knew what the Bible was saying. They did not need to listen to those "fool" scientists. They were clearly going against the Word of God. They just knew it. After all, they were smart guys and they just knew what God meant and they knew that what He meant was that the earth does not move.

Yet you are not a geocentrist, are you? Yet you accept the findings of science on this matter and take a different meaning of these passages than Calvin and Luther. Are you smarter than Calvin and Luther, too? (Since you seem to know more about thermo that Asimov, your expert!)

And I have not yet seen a good articulation of why it is OK to not follow Calvin and Luther's interpretation because of science you accept, yet I am not believing God if I do the same thing. I have yet to hear any one present a good case for why it is OK in one circumstance and not in a parallel circumstance.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Frank:
Paul:
You live in your own little corner of the world.
LOL!!!

Don't we all?

As Ute posted above, the world awaits with baited breath the posting of a justification for accepting science over sound scriptural exegesis in the matter of the earth's rotation and denying it in the matter of evolution.

It is obvious as a psychological phenomenon, of course, why it happened. All the posters have accepted from childhood that the earth rotates. They did not live through the period of history when the science was struggling with the literalistic theologians. Hence, having accepted from their own childhood the non-literal interpretation of scripture in regard to the sun going across the sky, having a place of habitation at night, stopping the SUN'S motion for Joshua, and so forth, they believe their current non-literal interpretation was ordained from the beginning.

 

[john6:63]

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?

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by john6:63:
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 think just as soon as Jason quits beating around the bush, steps up to the plate, and demonstrates a willingness to debate the actual evidence for an old earth. He's already stated that he believes creation reveals itself to be young, so why not present the evidence in a formal debate? We all agree that a plain text literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account favors a young earth. The question is whether the scientific evidence justifies a non-literal interpretation in the same way that scientific evidence justifies a non-literal interpretation of the relationship between the eath and the sun.

 

[Gup20]

Regarding my rhetorical comments - they were said in a humorous tone, and I apologize if you were offended. I have a good friend who is very politically active, and he likes to make the case that Democrats = satan worshippers... it's a bit of joke we have between us because i think he's got such an extremist personality... there is no 'gray area' with him... I was trying to lighten the mood by rhetorically pointing out that we had really not needed a lot of moderating in the past debates on the subject.

Yes, that's the one. The "doctor" made it clear that he was not interested very much in such. All those citations of published data might not fit his preconceived notions.

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

Calvin and Luther were throwing the same sort of condemnation at Copernicus and for the same reasons as what you and the other YEers throw at those who accept an old earth.

Oh UTEOTW - still sooooo ready to take man's word over God's word! If you go to the Word... let the Word interpret itself... you will always come to the same conclusion (the same conclusion we have). You seem unwilling to open your eyes to the possibility. Why I wonder? What possible benefit to you would an natural evolution have over the Bible's account of creation??

I got to thinking about this and politcal issues. 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. Take abortion or homosexual marriage for example. So then... what doctrine or world view are you protecting by refusing to acknowledge the Bible's direct account of creation? Is it simply a matter of trying to 'fit in' with the world? I simply don't understand WHY one would claim to be a christian and reject the events laid out by scripture. What benefit is it to you?

From where I stand, it seems like you have fallen for the 'elitist peer pressure'. For those who say you are unintelligent to believe the Word over 'modern science'. Yet origins science is not modern science... it is historical story telling. So what motivates you to affirm man's Word above God's Word and debate in favor of evolution?

As Ute posted above, the world awaits with baited breath the posting of a justification for accepting science over sound scriptural exegesis in the matter of the earth's rotation and denying it in the matter of evolution.

You and UTEOTW have both freely admitted that there is nothing whatsover supporting evolution in the scripture. So then, it is a strange statement to say that a scriptural exegesis would lead to an affirmation of such. In reality, all exegesis of scripture leads to contradict evolution.

Again, as Eve did in the Garden, you are are more apt to believe the lie over The Truth - where the Word of God is The Truth - and evolution is the lie that promises wisdom above God's wisdom.

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

 

[Gup20]

The question is whether the scientific evidence justifies a non-literal interpretation in the same way that scientific evidence justifies a non-literal interpretation of the relationship between the earth and the sun.

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.

We can show how replacing your primary pre-suppositions of uniformitarianism with God's Word will lead unequivocally to interpretations of the evidence that support a Young Earth. It is not the evidence that changes, but the pre-suppositions. This leads to an entirely different outcome or conclusion. Therefore, we can conclude that it is not evidence which must be compared, but rather our pre-suppositions of that evidence.

As this leads always to contrasting uniformitarianistic views with a sound exegesis of scripture, I would say that it would expedite the debate significantly to deal with the important question of which pre-supposition should be used, and why.

For example, I favor using Biblical exegesis rather than uniformitarianism because I believe the Bible to be Inspired Word of God. I believe the Bible to be absolute truth, and infallible (in it's original forms of Hebrew and Greek). The Bible describes significant biological and geological changes the world has gone through since it's creation and initial period between creation and The Fall.

Truely... uniformitarianism and scriptural exegesis are matters of Faith (scientifically, neither are absolutely provable). My Faith in God and His Word determine primarily which of these pre-suppositions I choose to accept by faith.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by john6:63:
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?

By OEC do you mean OEE "old earth evolutionists"?

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"?!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by john6:63:
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?

By OEC do you mean OEE "old earth evolutionists"?

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"?!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]You’re right Bob, I have never met someone who believed in an old earth who didn’t believe in evolution too. They go hand in hand. I guess that’s why Jason hasn’t had any luck finding someone to debate.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

When Galleleo went to Rome to face his ecclesiatical accusers, he felt that surely once the weight of evidence was properly evaluated he would be vindicated. The church clerics ignored all the evidence and declared him to be teaching contrary to scripture and forced him, under threat of torture, to recant.

Nobody is being threatened with torture around here, but otherwise we are having a repeat of that history!

 

[Gup20]

Well PauloE, it's really a matter of faith - do you have faith in the idea of uniformitarianism, or do you have faith in the Word of God?

If you have Faith in the Word, I suggest you go there for your pre-suppositional stance rather than the mind of man.

 

[Frank]

Paul:
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.
Calvin and Luther have many things wrong when it comes to the Bible. especailly the new testament. I have not made my argument based on some theologian's interpretation, nor would I. My argument is centered on language and the way it is used in context. The failure of anyone, no matter what educational level, to consider immediate, remote context in view of literary vehicles of thought, will insure the failure of that person,no matter how intelligent, of not getting it right.
I could care less what Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Williams or Smith pontificate. The Bible is the one and only infallible source of truth.

When you ignore the obvious use of various grammatical vehicles of thought, your argument is not to be taken seriously. I laughed because you made it in jest. At least, I thought you did. Now, I am not so sure.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
When Galleleo went to Rome to face his ecclesiatical accusers, he felt that surely once the weight of evidence was properly evaluated he would be vindicated. The church clerics ignored all the evidence and declared him to be teaching contrary to scripture and forced him, under threat of torture, to recant.

Nobody is being threatened with torture around here, but otherwise we are having a repeat of that history!

Wrong again.

Galleleo had good science to back him up. Evolutionists must dwell in the shadow lands of junk-science, myth, speculation and conjecture. Arguing out of the void of what they do not - and reaching into the rich depths of of what they purely make up to entertain themselves.

Now back to my statement - "OEC"?? What evolutionist here has not spent their time fighting against creationists - will they now claim to BE ONE??

In Christ,

Bob