Why should I care about old earth vs. new earth creationism?

[Walguy]

There is no reason to think the Genesis 1 refers to anything other than a literal 6 day creation about 6000 years ago, UNLESS you decide for reasons completely unrelated to Scripture that it couldn't have happened that way, and then start to 'interpret' Genesis to fit what you have decided to believe instead of the simple statements of the Genesis account. When you look at the actual language used in the text, there is no room for any alternate interpretations. God clearly didn't intend to allow that. Only if one chooses to place the opinion of men on at least equal footing with the plain statements of God's Word is there any reason whatsoever to even consider the 'old earth' position.
Plus, of course, it always comes back to the question of death before Adam, which is unavoidable with any old earth scenario, and if death was not the result of and penalty for sin, Christ could not have paid that penalty with His own death, and we are all lost.
PLUS, it's not like the scientific evidence unambiguously supports an old earth. There is evidence on both sides, including much contrary evidence to an old earth. Those Christians who choose to accept an old earth are not even willing to give God and His Word the benefit of the doubt, and instead twist the simple statements of His Word into pretzels to try to accommodate something that contradicts the obviously intended meaning of the text.
If you really love someone, shouldn't you trust them?

 

[BobRyan]

Well when we speak of science there is at least some reason to hope for objectivity. So let's begin with objectivity when it comes to the text of scripture.

Step 1 -- what does the text actually say? Not what do we wish it said.

Step 2 -- is it reasonable to suppose that an all-knowing all wise God is not capable or interested in making sure His own Word is "accurate" and trustworthy?

Step 3 -- is it merely coincidence that both atheist evolutionists and Bible believing Creationists see a huge massive gap between the "Remember the Sabbath day...for in SIX days the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day" of the Bible -- vs the doctrines on origins found in evolutionism?

Step 4. When it comes to observations "in nature" made from science are we free to "Follow the data where it leads"? EVEN if it leads to a conclusion that does not support naturalism? And then are we free to admit that creating the world in a literal week does not fit a "if you leave everything alone and just watch -- you will see that eventually after billions of years of sitting around and watching living things will just so happen to come into being" kind of faith?

What observations in nature should we be looking for given the Bible statement on a world wide flood? What observations in nature should we be looking for given a 7 day creation week? Palonium radio halos maybe?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Anastasia]

I am sorry if I went overboard on my previous reply. I thought I read somewhere on this thread a discounting of science with a reference to it siding with evolution or something. Perhaps I read too late without checking before I finished replying.

Ah, this is what I meant to refer to.

I would question the "scientific" legitimacy of that background. For example, for nearly the past 150 years it is has been "scientific" fact that all current life forms developed from lower non-existent transition forms of life which in turn developed eventually in primorial soup from non-living materials.

To my knowledge, there has been no verifiable evidence to support the claim that macroevolution has actually occurred, at least to any significant degree of occurrence as would be necessary for this to be a valid scientific claim. To my knowledge, it is at best, a working hypothesis of either for naturalistic or theistic evolutionary views. Consequently, unless evidence can be presented truly to the contrary, this is an invalid point.

 

[DHK]

To my knowledge, there has been no verifiable evidence to support the claim that macroevolution has actually occurred, at least to any significant degree of occurrence as would be necessary for this to be a valid scientific claim. To my knowledge, it is at best, a working hypothesis of either for naturalistic or theistic evolutionary views. Consequently, unless evidence can be presented truly to the contrary, this is an invalid point.

So, you are in agreement with Dr. Walter.
This is why he said:

I would question the "scientific" legitimacy of that background.

Then he posted those things that are in question, those same things that you have said: "unless evidence can be presented to the contrary this is an invalid point."
Why then is it an invalid point when the point he makes is basically the same as yours?

 

[billwald]

Then the only reason I should care is to satisfy my own curiosity?
To win an argument? That's the purpose of most on these threads, isn't it? To win an argument? To appear smarter than the pack?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Then the only reason I should care is to satisfy my own curiosity?
To win an argument? That's the purpose of most on these threads, isn't it? To win an argument? To appear smarter than the pack?

Apparently that is what is on "your" mind! However, for many of us the Genesis question is really a question that affects inspiration of the Scriptures and the whole legitimacy of the Christian faith. No small matter.

1. The inspiration of the Scriptures - Is not Genesis one declaring that God Himself is the one speaking and providing this record? Isn't this a thus saith the Lord passage rather than some mythical cultural presentation?

2. If you can spiritualize what is explicitly stated to be thus saith the Lord why not the creation of man, the fall and if there is no literal creation of man in God's own image and no literal fall then why does anyone need a literal savior or salvation??

 

[nodak]

We seem to be stumbling over something:

Many old earth creationists do believe in a literal creation, literal reading of Genesis, literal Adam, literal fall.

That isn't even the question.

 

[DHK]

We seem to be stumbling over something:

Many old earth creationists do believe in a literal creation, literal reading of Genesis, literal Adam, literal fall.

That isn't even the question.

Here is the OP:

Why should I care about old earth vs. new earth creationism? Isn't the most important point that God made it? Does it really make a difference if the world was created in 7,000 years or literally 7 days in our earth hours? Either way, He made it and is in control.

Why should one care if the world is old or new?
It seems as if that is the question.

 

[BobRyan]

We seem to be stumbling over something:

Many old earth creationists do believe in a literal creation, literal reading of Genesis, literal Adam, literal fall.

That isn't even the question.

In my first post I stated that having a literal 7 day creation week where all complex genomes are created - but moving it back a few million years only amplifies the problem between creationists and evolutionism because there is no evolutionist argument that the complex life forms are "keeping up with the fishes" in terms of going back into deep time.

in Christ,

Bob