The impossibilities of YEC

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
If only one person had interpreted the data and then pronounced it as accurate, you would be right. These data are checked and rechecked, leaving little room for error. Even so, sometimes they do change, I'm not denying that.

You are continuing to evade my point. Accepted rules and practices exist within any field of study. The "philosophy" of modern secular science precludes the pursuit of theories that reject the "common knowledge" that the world is billions of years old. Even folks who are not atheistic evolutionists are governed by rules of interpretation and analysis that acquiesce to evolution.

In other words, "If you want to believe in God or theistic evolution or something of the kind- fine. Just don't try to explain things in terms that contradict the assumptions necessary to support evolution."

What I'm saying is just hoping against hope that the data is wrong is a little dishonest in my opinion.

... and for the nth time, I am not hoping against the data. I am arguing against secular/evolutionary (or evolution respecting) interpretations of that data.

I have predetermined answers??? That's the pot calling the kettle black. I'll have you know that I was a firm YEC believer a few years ago.

Several years ago, I was taught evolution as assumed fact. The mention of God in the subject was mocked. I struggled to reconcile the Bible to "science." With old earth ideas and limited acceptance of an allegorical rather than literal meaning, I achieved an acceptable tension.

Later, I read the works of several creationists. Whether you accepted their explainations, and some I don't, or not, they do exist within the legitimate realm of options.

You might not think it reasonable, that is your prerogative. However, when science regularly changes its interpretations of natural history while of course maintaining its bias against a young earth and creationists (often with degrees of disagreement between themselves) can post legitimate theories (OE or YE), I am called to ask... Why?

The logical thing to do at that point is to take the next step back from analyses and conclusions and look at methods/assumptions. Secular science, like creationism, makes many assumptions. The further away from actual observation we get, the more assumptions provide the degree of improbability. At the core, evolution is philosophical in nature and not scientific.

The third rail of scientific academia is that you cannot introduce an idea or concept that does not fit in some way into the evolutionary model. Why? Because there must be a naturalistic/materialistic explaination for everything to preserve the philosophical underpinnings of evolution.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with meteors.

As noted above, it does.

I'm asking for an explanation to the meteors in the 6-10k age range.

I gave some possible starting points to include the idea that God simply chose to make the world that way and scientists are completely misinterpretting what they see because it looks like something else. I think you in the abstract accept God as a Creator, right? If so, and you accept the biblical attributes of God, then the above is just as realistic as any manmade explaination one might conjure up.

We know the power of the impact of meteors this size, one hit jupiter (IIRC).

... and assuming a uniformitarian model and assuming we really know what we think we know about the earth in the past and Jupiter in the present and assuming the extrapolations and assumptions all hold true...

You want to make this all appear as though it's guess work, it isn't. Physics explains the impacts, we've witnessed meteor impacts, and we've witnessed *big* meteor impacts.

Not on Earth and not as they supposedly occurred on Earth. Therefore, your interpretations are completely dependent on the naturalistic bias and uniformitarian natural history. These are assumptions, not facts.

Why should I just assume something supernatural happened when there is *no* evidence of such??

The biblical evidence is in Genesis and virtually every other book of the Bible. The scientific evidence is just a biased interpretation of relevant data and facts.

Also, neither really conflict with evidence in the world.

Neither does special creation unless you assume a bias toward the naturalistic.

I would have to be an incredibly credulous person to accept a YEC, even though the evidence doesn't support it.

Ah... so now we aren't as discerning and as intelligent as you? Why? Because I choose to give preference to the Word of God the Creator rather than the changing, biased interpretations of men. God's account is first person. Yours is not.

In order to accept YEC, I have to explain the meteors.

The first step to explaining meteors is to drop the assumptions of secular science and naturalism/modernism.

The problem with that is their isn't any biblical scripture that can account for the meteors.

The Bible never claims to record every natural or historical event. This is not a legitimate argument against creationism.

You reject it because you *have* to reject it in order to satisfy you limited paradigm.

My paradigm is limited by the Bible... but not ignorantly. I made an evaluation (that I am still testing) and chose to believe the Bible and the account of natural history that in my opinion agrees best with the Bible.

I don't automatically discount OEC. I disbelieve it when I consider the creative power of God. It is no more difficult for me to believe that God created everything in six days than if the first day was 4.3 billion years long.

It was only declared a meteor a little while ago. Do you know why they disagree?

Declared? Not proven. Declared!

In fact, I doubt these scientists would ever declare it "proven" as long as this other explaination exists as a possibility. Operating within the naturalistic paradigm, secular scientists are often very honest with their uncertainty.

 

[Scott J]

Oh please, get over yourself. Look, you don't want to accept the evidence.

There really isn't any need for this kind of response. I accept the evidence. I reject as "fact" the notion that the only reasonable explainations are governed by naturalistic assumptions.

That's fine, that's your right, but seeing as you haven't refuted the science (only tried to refute 'naturalism'),

Apparently from your previous statement, it is not "fine." But it is also untrue as I stated above.

I have to ask you why you are participating in this thread?

So now not only science but also participation in this debate is subject to your presuppositions about what constitutes legitimate argument?

It sounds like to me that you are hinting at a conspiracy.

No. As much as I am sure that you would like to place me into some convenient grouping of the irrational, I don't think it is a conspiracy any more than the accepted truth of a flat earth was. It is a mindset, a paradigm... and it has its dogmas.

Sounds like to me you are close minded to anything that doesn't fall within your biblical paradigm.

Yes and no. I am not unreasonable and I didn't reach my current opinions lightly. Time and observation have certainly caused me to look at least as critically at "science" as I do at the Bible though.

With that in mind, the Bible was directly inspired by God. Scientists are not. The Bible is consistent in its message and contains no irreconcilable contradictions. The explainations of secular scientists frequently do. (It is considered academic freedom/intergrity to allow disagreements within the paradigm). The Bible has not changed. Science is constantly changing, often overturning what it taught as absolute truth in the very recent past.

You weren't there when the bible was written, nor when Jesus rose, yet you accept those.

Yes I do. The scriptures make claims of divine inspiration for themselves. Over 5,000 manuscripts, 12,000+ early church father witnesses, and 12,000+ early translations testify that the Bible we have now is the one God gave.

For your YEC paradigm Genesis has to be literal. For mine it does not.

At least we have gotten this far...

Since neither of us can have a complete lock on bible interpretation, then whose to say that I'm not right?

Honesty demands that I acknowledge that your viewpoint exists within the cosmos of legitimate possibilities. However, IMO, accepting the Bible as a book with a single Author that is to be its own primary interpreter by comparing scripture with scripture... you are simply wrong.

Furthermore, whose to say that *both* of us are interpreting it wrong?

That may very well be the most significant possibility.

Why do you have such strict demands of science (it must be observed) but not such demands of religion

I do have strict demands of religion. In fact, far more strict than my demands on science. But in the end, both must be biblical for me to accept them.

(IMO salvation is vastly more important)?

That would be one of the areas that my expectations for religion are the most strict.

Same place where God says that Genesis is literal.

I didn't find any hint that the Genesis account of creation is allegorical in John 1, Rev 4, Romans 5, Romans 8,... These scriptures assume direct creation. Romans 5 makes Adam just as historical as Christ. Romans 8 tells us that all of creation was made subject "to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God." This scripture assumes the lack of decay in the pre-fall world. It does not allow for degradation of any kind.

Oh please, just because you don't agree, doesn't make it "educated speculation".

Your right. What makes it educated speculation is that their theories are not, nor can be, proven with 100% certainty even within the naturalistic paradigm. Someone may come out in 5 years or 10 years or 100 years with a new discovery that explains these craters and their timing in a way more acceptable to secular science. New discoveries are made all of the time that disprove past "truths" of science.

Do you trust doctors or the computer you are working on? You seem to pick and choose what you find 'appealing'.

Not in the least. Medicine and computers are applied sciences as are some branches of geology. None of these are dependent on the earth being old or young. They are dependent on observed, predictable results in accordance with the laws of physical science.

Interestingly, geology is based on probabilities, not ironclad rules, in its real life applications. It seems strange to me that you would choose to put unrelenting faith in theories regarding pre-historic natural events made by people in a field that cannot predict with certainty what we will find under the surface at any given location. If even applied geology were an exact science, companies wouldn't spend (or lose) millions in their efforts to find natural resources. It would be as simple as finding the right conditions.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why I would say that scientists operating under a modernistic philosophical paradigm might even be subject to allowing feelings like fear of rejection or embarassment or castigation to cloud their reasoning at a very basic level.

Do you have evidence of any of this?</font>[/QUOTE] Yes. You. As illustrated by your next response.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...must have a naturalistic explaination. Meatros asked how we could know something was true without testing or measuring it.

I'm not saying everything has to, only those things that *can* have natural explanations. </font>[/QUOTE]Why?

[ June 23, 2003, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Meatros]

You are continuing to evade my point. Accepted rules and practices exist within any field of study. The "philosophy" of modern secular science precludes the pursuit of theories that reject the "common knowledge" that the world is billions of years old. Even folks who are not atheistic evolutionists are governed by rules of interpretation and analysis that acquiesce to evolution.

In other words, "If you want to believe in God or theistic evolution or something of the kind- fine. Just don't try to explain things in terms that contradict the assumptions necessary to support evolution."

What you are operating under is a smoke screen. If there *was* evidence for a young earth and a viable theory that was supported by evidence (and not just biblical assertion) then it would be an accepted scientific theory.

You want to turn the scientific method into a philosophy (or if not, that's how it seems to me), I'm trying to see why and all I'm coming up with is that by setting it up as a philosophy you can then rationalize your paradigm as just another competing philosophy. That way you *don't* have to explain evidence, come up with theories, or participate in science (ie, create a body of knowable knowledge).

Or am I completely misreading you?

It would seem to me that your paradigm says that the true nature of the world is not knowable (in any sense). Is this true, or am I again misconstruing your paradigm?

... and for the nth time, I am not hoping against the data. I am arguing against secular/evolutionary (or evolution respecting) interpretations of that data.

But what you aren't doing, which was the purpose of this thread, is giving any sort of interpretation of the data, other then pure speculation (as in God did it). This leads me to believe that you would be content with ignoring the evidence, is this true?

You might not think it reasonable, that is your prerogative. However, when science regularly changes its interpretations of natural history while of course maintaining its bias against a young earth and creationists (often with degrees of disagreement between themselves) can post legitimate theories (OE or YE), I am called to ask... Why?

The problem (IMO) is that it seems that you are assuming that science doesn't change, that it never gets refined. This isn't true, of course, as you point out. Science is the accumulation of knowable knowledge based on evidence. The reason that YEC is typically thrown out is because the evidence against it is so overwhelming and the evidence for it, is nil.

The logical thing to do at that point is to take the next step back from analyses and conclusions and look at methods/assumptions. Secular science, like creationism, makes many assumptions. The further away from actual observation we get, the more assumptions provide the degree of improbability. At the core, evolution is philosophical in nature and not scientific.

What is the alternative to how science is operated? Belief? Science relies on checks and rechecks, on observations, theories, and laws. You may think evolution is philosophical, I do not, but that is neither here nor there. I would like to know why you (at least seemingly) can not argue the question of the meteors/or YE, without bringing up evolution? The earth was known to be old before Darwin, so I don't see how it follows that it is because of Darwin that the earth is not Young. If this isn't your position, please clarify for me.

The third rail of scientific academia is that you cannot introduce an idea or concept that does not fit in some way into the evolutionary model. Why? Because there must be a naturalistic/materialistic explaination for everything to preserve the philosophical underpinnings of evolution

It's not to preserve evolution. How do you scientifically measure the supernatural? You can not. That's why you have to study things based on nature and it's laws. If you can give evidence that requires little or no faith on my part for a Young Earth, that explains the mountains of data against it, please do.

As noted above, it does.

I still don't see how it does; your argument seems to be with how science conducts itself, not with evolution. As I am trying to point out, if you assume at the start that something is supernatural, how do you go about trying to study it, how do you go about trying to figure it out? How do you go about trying to know it? This is precisely the reason why God is not scientifically proveable (or at least I've never heard of a way), because God is the supernatural. If we are to start assuming that everything is supernatural then knowledge stops.

I gave some possible starting points to include the idea that God simply chose to make the world that way and scientists are completely misinterpretting what they see because it looks like something else. I think you in the abstract accept God as a Creator, right? If so, and you accept the biblical attributes of God, then the above is just as realistic as any manmade explaination one might conjure up.

If God simply created the world as it appears, and it is 6-10k years old, then why is their evidence against this?
I do accept God as a Creator, I accept those biblical attributes which make sense to me, and I do not take what I believe to be allegory as a literal Genesis history. To do so would be to deny logic (IMO).

... and assuming a uniformitarian model and assuming we really know what we think we know about the earth in the past and Jupiter in the present and assuming the extrapolations and assumptions all hold true...

Of course their are other factors, I didn't say their weren't. However we can in fact make observations from the Jupiter impact and apply them here. Why couldn't we?

Not on Earth and not as they supposedly occurred on Earth. Therefore, your interpretations are completely dependent on the naturalistic bias and uniformitarian natural history. These are assumptions, not facts

What would cause the impacts to very *so* radically from those that we have actually witnessed?

The biblical evidence is in Genesis and virtually every other book of the Bible. The scientific evidence is just a biased interpretation of relevant data and facts.

This is a dodge in my opinion, as I think you know I am aiming for specific biblical evidence for these meteors and not for a "young earth".

Ah... so now we aren't as discerning and as intelligent as you? Why? Because I choose to give preference to the Word of God the Creator rather than the changing, biased interpretations of men. God's account is first person. Yours is not.

No, not intelligence, credulousness does not mean intelligence. It means "apt to believe on slight evidence". I believe that God gave us enough intelligence to interpret the world around us. I also believe that God would not lie to us by presenting evidence to the contrary of what he has revealed. I also believe that the bible, was written by men and that it is fallible if you take it literally. I believe God gave us wisdom, and through this wisdom (with the help of prayer) we are able to discover the truth.

The Bible never claims to record every natural or historical event. This is not a legitimate argument against creationism.

I believe it is, because these are no ordinary historical/natural events. The power of these meteors is enough to destroy all life (or most) on the planet. Everytime that God destroyed the planet (or a town, what have you), it was recorded. The fact, IMO, that these meteors are not so much as a blip on the biblical timeline is very telling IMO.

 

[Meatros]

My paradigm is limited by the Bible... but not ignorantly. I made an evaluation (that I am still testing) and chose to believe the Bible and the account of natural history that in my opinion agrees best with the Bible.

I don't automatically discount OEC. I disbelieve it when I consider the creative power of God. It is no more difficult for me to believe that God created everything in six days than if the first day was 4.3 billion years long.

I find your stance on this matter a little confusing; it would seem to me that you are somehow objecting to God creating the universe in such a long time, because God could have created it sooner. I'm probably off in this regard, and I think you know where I'd go if this regard were correct.

Declared? Not proven. Declared!

In fact, I doubt these scientists would ever declare it "proven" as long as this other explaination exists as a possibility. Operating within the naturalistic paradigm, secular scientists are often very honest with their uncertainty.

No offense, but you are playing semantics. Nothing in science is "proven", as that is a term for math.

There really isn't any need for this kind of response. I accept the evidence. I reject as "fact" the notion that the only reasonable explainations are governed by naturalistic assumptions.

I agree and I admit to frustration with what I perceive as your handwaving. This is the only reasonable explanation (ie, an old earth) that I've heard, if I'd have heard another one then I'd present it.

No. As much as I am sure that you would like to place me into some convenient grouping of the irrational, I don't think it is a conspiracy any more than the accepted truth of a flat earth was. It is a mindset, a paradigm... and it has its dogmas.

I'm not going to lie to you, at the time, I did want to place you in that sort of irrational group. It's not fair for me to do such things, and I now apologize for them; I wrote them because I can not understand how you are, IMO, ignoring the evidence.

I don't understand how you can think that the truth is knowable (or at least enough to discern that Christianity is the correct path), yet discount the attempt of science to know that truth through the scientific method.

With that in mind, the Bible was directly inspired by God. Scientists are not. The Bible is consistent in its message and contains no irreconcilable contradictions. The explainations of secular scientists frequently do. (It is considered academic freedom/intergrity to allow disagreements within the paradigm). The Bible has not changed. Science is constantly changing, often overturning what it taught as absolute truth in the very recent past.

Science changes due to the accumulation of knowledge, it is based on the constant accumulation of knowledge. In order for YEC to be, even a remotely competing theory, it would have to adequately explain the evidence. Which it does not, which, IMO, is the reason why you reject the scientific method (because it does not agree with your faith assumptions).

You've heard it before, I'm sure, but the bible is not a scientific textbook. The bible is about how to *live* properly.

Yes I do. The scriptures make claims of divine inspiration for themselves. Over 5,000 manuscripts, 12,000+ early church father witnesses, and 12,000+ early translations testify that the Bible we have now is the one God gave.

Each of those is on specific sections of the bible. I don't know if you are trying to imply that all of those witnesses witnessed the entire creation of the bible, but I'll state here that they did not. This statement above would seem to give the bible *no* room for error, even in the smaller details, and if this is the case are you actually going to state that the bible is free from error?

Honesty demands that I acknowledge that your viewpoint exists within the cosmos of legitimate possibilities. However, IMO, accepting the Bible as a book with a single Author that is to be its own primary interpreter by comparing scripture with scripture... you are simply wrong.

I'm not sure I follow you here; I do not think that the bible has a primary author, but then again I think this is where you would say I'm wrong-is that correct?

I do have strict demands of religion. In fact, far more strict than my demands on science. But in the end, both must be biblical for me to accept them.

But you didn't observe the events of the bible, you technically don't even know if your interpretation is correct. But you will deny the evidence of another interpretation (as in for example: Genesis is not literal based on scientific evidence). Which seems to indicate to me that you aren't as strict with the bible as you are with science.

I didn't find any hint that the Genesis account of creation is allegorical in John 1, Rev 4, Romans 5, Romans 8,... These scriptures assume direct creation. Romans 5 makes Adam just as historical as Christ. Romans 8 tells us that all of creation was made subject "to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God." This scripture assumes the lack of decay in the pre-fall world. It does not allow for degradation of any kind.

As you can guess, my interpretation is different. I don't see these as literal, I don't see the sin of one man (adam) as being the base sin for all mankind. I see it as mankind being inherently sinful, and as such God/Jesus frees us from this sin. Adam, IMO, is simply a metaphor for this action. The reference of decay, is to me one of spiritual decay.

Your right. What makes it educated speculation is that their theories are not, nor can be, proven with 100% certainty even within the naturalistic paradigm. Someone may come out in 5 years or 10 years or 100 years with a new discovery that explains these craters and their timing in a way more acceptable to secular science. New discoveries are made all of the time that disprove past "truths" of science.

The problem with this is, nothing outside of math can be proven 100%. Someone may come out in an alloted time frame, I won't deny that, however in order to accomplish this most of science would have to be rewritten. In other words the chance is improbable.

Not in the least. Medicine and computers are applied sciences as are some branches of geology. None of these are dependent on the earth being old or young. They are dependent on observed, predictable results in accordance with the laws of physical science.

Interestingly, geology is based on probabilities, not ironclad rules, in its real life applications. It seems strange to me that you would choose to put unrelenting faith in theories regarding pre-historic natural events made by people in a field that cannot predict with certainty what we will find under the surface at any given location. If even applied geology were an exact science, companies wouldn't spend (or lose) millions in their efforts to find natural resources. It would be as simple as finding the right conditions.

I don't put unrelenting faith into anything outside of Jesus's salvation. Geology, like most branches of science, rely on a lot of different factors, including other areas of science. Also, given enough information about the given location of natural resources, I would say that it wouldn't be much of a prediction. It seems to me as though you figure that geologists (as well as other areas of science) should know everything currently, you would give them no room for discovery.

Yes. You. As illustrated by your next response.

I don't know if I've misrepresented myself, if I have I'm not aware of it, but I'm not a scientist.

I again repeat, if we start with the assumption that something is supernatural, then how do we measure it? If something isn't supernatural and it can be measure and it goes against the paradigm *we wish* to be true, then what should we do? It seems to me that you suggest we disregard it.

Also, I wish to apologize for some of my tone in earlier posts, as I said, I was frustrated with what I perceive to be handwaving and misdirection. This may not be your intent and you may feel the same for me, however it is not my intent either.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
I find your stance on this matter a little confusing; it would seem to me that you are somehow objecting to God creating the universe in such a long time, because God could have created it sooner.

No. That is not the source of my objections. It is the source of my assertions. God is capable. The Bible says He created in six days. It does not say nor imply that these were anything but six days as we know them.... and I really haven't seen anything approaching concrete proof that shows the evidence demands an old earth much less evolution.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Declared? Not proven. Declared!

In fact, I doubt these scientists would ever declare it "proven" as long as this other explaination exists as a possibility. Operating within the naturalistic paradigm, secular scientists are often very honest with their uncertainty.

No offense, but you are playing semantics. Nothing in science is "proven", as that is a term for math.</font>[/QUOTE] I don't think I am...

And without trying to rub you the wrong way, this is one thing I have been trying to get your assent to for awhile now. The thread began with the argument that YEC was impossible because these craters catagorically disproved it. One of my major objections was that what you cite as proof are interpretations of data that may or may not be true.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No. As much as I am sure that you would like to place me into some convenient grouping of the irrational, I don't think it is a conspiracy any more than the accepted truth of a flat earth was. It is a mindset, a paradigm... and it has its dogmas.

I'm not going to lie to you, at the time, I did want to place you in that sort of irrational group. It's not fair for me to do such things, and I now apologize for them; I wrote them because I can not understand how you are, IMO, ignoring the evidence. </font>[/QUOTE] Thank you. If I offended you, I apologize as well.

I don't believe that I am ignoring evidence as much as I am refusing to undertake consideration of the evidence until agreeable ground rules are established.

I don't understand how you can think that the truth is knowable (or at least enough to discern that Christianity is the correct path), yet discount the attempt of science to know that truth through the scientific method.

Because I hold that not all truth can be discerned by the scientific method. A significant portion can be but the modernistic view that all of it can pervades academic science.

In order for YEC to be, even a remotely competing theory, it would have to adequately explain the evidence. Which it does not, which, IMO, is the reason why you reject the scientific method (because it does not agree with your faith assumptions).

I don't reject it. I reject it as a final or superceding authority. From what I have read, I disagree with the premise that YEC cannot explain the evidence. It has not explained all evidence I agree. But "has not" and "can not" are not the same thing. Secular science "has not" forwarded probable theories for many things but we would not say that it "can not." As has been frequently noted, more scientists with vastly more funding are pursuing the evidence under modernistic assumptions rather than YEC assumptions.

You've heard it before, I'm sure, but the bible is not a scientific textbook. The bible is about how to *live* properly.

And you have heard the response... the Bible is true on every subject it addresses: scientific, historic, spiritual.

...all of those witnesses witnessed the entire creation of the bible,

By witness I mean a citation by an early church father that serves as a proof for a section of scripture.

This statement above would seem to give the bible *no* room for error, even in the smaller details, and if this is the case are you actually going to state that the bible is free from error?

Being God inspired, the originals were without error of any kind. Being providentially preserved, the Bible we have now has no error in the message it communicates.

I do not think that the bible has a primary author, but then again I think this is where you would say I'm wrong-is that correct?

If you are saying that the author is not God then yes we would disagree. Scripture is God breathed. Men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

But you didn't observe the events of the bible, you technically don't even know if your interpretation is correct.

I am convinced by the evidence that the text of the Bible has not changed. Much of it is first person with regard to the writer.

But you will deny the evidence of another interpretation (as in for example: Genesis is not literal based on scientific evidence).

I deny this notion because of evidence from other parts of the Bible, notably NT. Once again my argument is that what you denote as "scientific evidence" is not the evidence but the interpretations of that evidence. The dimensions of a crater do not prove nor disprove the biblical account of creation- it is only the interpretations of that data that can be said to support or undermine the Bible. These interpretations as you already acknowledged are subject to change therefore they can never be a proof against a literal Genesis.

I don't see these as literal, I don't see the sin of one man (adam) as being the base sin for all mankind. I see it as mankind being inherently sinful, and as such God/Jesus frees us from this sin. Adam, IMO, is simply a metaphor for this action. The reference of decay, is to me one of spiritual decay.

Earlier you ascribed to me the act of making God a liar because He allowed natural phenomenon that "proved" an old earth. Yet here, you say that Adam is a metaphor and deny that this passage is literal. I have to ask and I am not trying to be hateful but doesn't what you wrote above make God very dishonest in this respect? According to your proposition for at least 1800 years of Christian history, God let Christians believe a lie, a fabrication. Worse yet, Paul believed that the Spirit was leading him to write about a literal person.

I don't put unrelenting faith into anything outside of Jesus's salvation.

By what means? If certain parts of scripture are not true as written while giving no indication that they should not be taken as literal truth, how do you determine what is reliable? Our hope as Christians is based on a supernatural event- the bodily death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as declared by scripture. It contradicts the common knowledge of naturalistic science. How can you derive hope from a book that might be allegorical in nature without any warning?

But this goes once again to ones presuppositions. I believe that the Bible is a supernaturally created book providentially preserved.

It seems to me as though you figure that geologists (as well as other areas of science) should know everything currently, you would give them no room for discovery.

Not at all... and given that their hit rate for finding oil is still very low... I would give them alot of room for discovery.

Also, I wish to apologize for some of my tone in earlier posts, as I said, I was frustrated with what I perceive to be handwaving and misdirection. This may not be your intent and you may feel the same for me, however it is not my intent either.

No big deal. We disagree. I disagree with alot of people on many things. I don't consider it personal.

 

[Meatros]

No. That is not the source of my objections. It is the source of my assertions. God is capable. The Bible says He created in six days. It does not say nor imply that these were anything but six days as we know them.... and I really haven't seen anything approaching concrete proof that shows the evidence demands an old earth much less evolution.

Didn't you say earlier that you would (I think, at least) consider the earth to be older (as in, a day to God could be more then 1000 years)? How does this line up with your personal Genesis account?

I don't think I am...

And without trying to rub you the wrong way, this is one thing I have been trying to get your assent to for awhile now. The thread began with the argument that YEC was impossible because these craters catagorically disproved it. One of my major objections was that what you cite as proof are interpretations of data that may or may not be true.

So your object stems from the use of "impossible"? I admit to using hyperbole, impossible is the wrong word, improbable is a better phrase. For example: It is possible that Satan wrote the bible, however it's highly improbable.

Thank you. If I offended you, I apologize as well.

I don't believe that I am ignoring evidence as much as I am refusing to undertake consideration of the evidence until agreeable ground rules are established.

Thank you as well. What ground rules are you willing to accept?

Because I hold that not all truth can be discerned by the scientific method. A significant portion can be but the modernistic view that all of it can pervades academic science.

And where does this truth end? With how old the earth is? My argument is that religion isn't in the same sphere as science; you can't use science to assertain 'the meaning of life', 'morals', etc. But you can use science to assertain the age of the earth. Do you think it can not? If so, why not, if not, then what evidence is their of a young earth (scientifically)?

I don't reject it. I reject it as a final or superceding authority. From what I have read, I disagree with the premise that YEC cannot explain the evidence. It has not explained all evidence I agree. But "has not" and "can not" are not the same thing. Secular science "has not" forwarded probable theories for many things but we would not say that it "can not." As has been frequently noted, more scientists with vastly more funding are pursuing the evidence under modernistic assumptions rather than YEC assumptions.

You are right "has not" does not necessarily mean "can not", but in my opinion YEC hasn't offered anywhere near the amount of evidence (actually I'm not sure their is any YEC evidence, but I'll suppose their is at least a little) needed in order to revolutionize science.

And you have heard the response... the Bible is true on every subject it addresses: scientific, historic, spiritual.

I disagree with that; primarily because whether you think the small errors are important or not, it does show that the bible *isn't* true on every subject. Not to mention, I'm not aware of any/many scientific areas it addresses. If you are going to say Genesis, then my response will be that Genesis (if a true literal account) isn't very scientific. It doesn't explain how God did this, what exactly happened, etc. You might argue that it was historic, but not scientific.

By witness I mean a citation by an early church father that serves as a proof for a section of scripture.

I suppose this is where we differ; perhaps only in this thread and not in real life: I don't believe that eyewitness accounts serve as proof that the biblical accounts happened. Eyewitness accounts can be radically different from actual events. I rely on my spiritual experiences in order to lend authority to scripture; Two things that I want to mention: One, I'm not saying that you *haven't* experienced spiritual events to justify your religion, and I'm also not going to claim that my spiritual accounts supercede anyone elses-they are important for *my* belief only.

Being God inspired, the originals were without error of any kind. Being providentially preserved, the Bible we have now has no error in the message it communicates.

I agree, but perhaps differently. I don't think the bible is in error in it's message, but I do think if certain things are taken literally then the bible *is* in error.

If you are saying that the author is not God then yes we would disagree. Scripture is God breathed. Men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

I suppose I somewhat agree, ie, scripture was inspired by God. Where we disagree is probably in the accuracy of the men who wrote the bible. My belief is that the message got through, but certain specific things did not, which could be a result (and was, IMO) of ancient man's inability to understand what God was showing. In terms of salvation, why is it important if Genesis is literal or not?

I am convinced by the evidence that the text of the Bible has not changed. Much of it is first person with regard to the writer.

So what is your opinion of the evidence where the text has been altered or added to: Such as the book of Job?

I deny this notion because of evidence from other parts of the Bible, notably NT. Once again my argument is that what you denote as "scientific evidence" is not the evidence but the interpretations of that evidence. The dimensions of a crater do not prove nor disprove the biblical account of creation- it is only the interpretations of that data that can be said to support or undermine the Bible. These interpretations as you already acknowledged are subject to change therefore they can never be a proof against a literal Genesis.

They are subject to change, but not so radically to assume that they would not have effected the early earth if it were 6-10k years old. If the earth is 6-10k years old then the amount of meteors that have hit the earth, both large and small, are forced into that time span. This creates an impossible life problem.

Earlier you ascribed to me the act of making God a liar because He allowed natural phenomenon that "proved" an old earth. Yet here, you say that Adam is a metaphor and deny that this passage is literal. I have to ask and I am not trying to be hateful but doesn't what you wrote above make God very dishonest in this respect? According to your proposition for at least 1800 years of Christian history, God let Christians believe a lie, a fabrication. Worse yet, Paul believed that the Spirit was leading him to write about a literal person.

Not in my opinion, as God did not write the bible, nor did God let the bible come to man inerrant. I think the (what you might consider) *small* errors in the bible serve to justify the assertion that the people at fault here are the early writers of the bible. IMO the message (or main theme) of the bible has survived. I also think that errors in the bible (and in early thinking) are some of the reasons that Jesus came to earth. I do believe that Jesus was a literal person, and that he was at least part God and part Human (to tell the truth, I'm not entirely sure, because how can you be part God? You'd have to be entirely God, in any event, this is a totally different discussion). I'm not saying that Jesus did not exist, their is some evidence from writers outside of the bible to substantiate his existence. I will admit that I could be wrong, he might not have existed, but this is where my faith comes in.

By what means? If certain parts of scripture are not true as written while giving no indication that they should not be taken as literal truth, how do you determine what is reliable? Our hope as Christians is based on a supernatural event- the bodily death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as declared by scripture. It contradicts the common knowledge of naturalistic science. How can you derive hope from a book that might be allegorical in nature without any warning?

Ultimately faith, IMO, is a very personal thing. Each of us has issues to work around, areas where we accept and reject certian beliefs. If the bible was truly inerrant then faith would not be required. I have faith that Christ rose after death, I do not have proof of it-do you?

But this goes once again to ones presuppositions. I believe that the Bible is a supernaturally created book providentially preserved.

Then why are their even small errors in it? Why are their other religions? Certainly other people of other religions believe that their book is the holy book and that Christians are wrong; what makes you certain that Christianity is the correct faith? If the bible is a truly supernatural created book, then how could their be any room for any biblical interpretation other then the correct one?

No big deal. We disagree. I disagree with alot of people on many things. I don't consider it personal.

I appreciate your words; it wasn't personal as you say, but it was still rude.

Cheers to you and yours.

 

[Peter101]

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You are continuing to evade my point. Accepted rules and practices exist within any field of study. The "philosophy" of modern secular science precludes the pursuit of theories that reject the "common knowledge" that the world is billions of years old.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

I think you are mistaken here on several points. The view that the earth is very old was accepted only after long and exhaustive studies that considered the question and that considered very carefully the alternative explanation that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The ancient age was not assumed and it is based on far more than a vague idea of "common knowledge". I also think you are wrong in saying that evidence pointing to a young earth would be ignored. The problem with such evidence, as presented by modern day creationists, is that it is quite easy to see that it is not good evidence. It is put forward by those who are incompetent to evaluate such evidence.