I do agree that is strong evidence of fraud. I also would love to see a defense of it.
1 Like
If and when he actually addresses the critiques of the 4 points I provided instead of scurrying the other way I’ll be charitable. 
1 Like
This is a big challenge.
I think we need to find new ways to divide up the debate, in a way that cuts orthogonally across the current definitions. For example, Kirk might be a YEC, but is also seeking peace, he is also honest, and he is also living in society with us. He is a better version of YEC than AIG, by far.
1 Like
Can you think of any Scriptural principle that can allow an old earth and take natural evil off of it being God’s making? I have totally wtitten off darwin’s theory bc too many ingredients that are not only scientifically illogical but radically unbecomming of good Christian theology. So now the old earth model…can a perfect loving, holy God directly create a paradigm of disease, suffering and death?
I believe that Wise addresses this in the video. Volcanic ash contains a stimulant that tree bark material under presure can lead to rapid production of coal. This is reproducible in a lab supposedly. Wise’s honesty about calling out bad science that subsidizes his very own theological stance suggests to me that his theory here can be one worthy of checking out.
There are too many x factors that humankind perhaps have never understood that may ultimately cause our science to never be capable of discovery of truth about the deep past. It is still interesting when there are snipets of information that confound the mainstream views…
Wise may personally believe in YEC but that “science” in his coal video was atrocious. It was the usual mixture of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright porkies. I see you still can’t muster up the courage to address the 4 points critiques I provided. I’m willing and able to defend everything I said in much more detail with cites from the scientific literature if need be. How about you? Don’t you want to put the Old Earth Evolutionist in his place?
What you mean is you, personally, are confounded due to your ignorance on the subject. That’s not quite the same thing.
1 Like
I’ve got you on my prayer list sir. I figure God knows your real name so i just pray for Tim. I figure that God also knows if you playing a role on this site, or if you are who you really depict. And regardless of any of that, i figure that He loves you with a love more profound than anything any of us have realized on earth from our fellow earthlings. I know that God and i know His love. I wish the same for you if you dont know Him already. Have a blessed evening sir.
You’d be much better served asking for God to remove your ignorance and arrogance when it comes to scientific matters you don’t understand. Of course you could remove most of the ignorance yourself by taking science classes and/or learning from people who know more than you. But you won’t.
This is a typical Christian threat. God is watching and will judge you and send you to hell for not believing in him. It is very juvenile. I may have worked during the Middle Ages to bring the fear of God into a poor ignorant peasant but today, you can’t even scare a 10 year old any more with these scare tactics.
Please tell us about this volcanic ash stimulant that can lead to rapid production of coal. So all the coal industry need to do is to get some volcanic ash and sprinkle it over tree bark and we will have coal. Wow. I see a billion dollar industry here.
1 Like
Great question! I used to have the same objection, but I now believe the answer is yes!
The first principle to consider is that God often uses suffering, not as a desirable thing in itself, but as part of a good plan that leads to something better in his ultimate perfect purpose. The most canonical example is the death of Jesus, but Scripture is full of others, such as allowing the Israelites to become slaves of Egypt, not in punishment for disobedience, as in their later exiles, but so that he might demonstrate his goodness and power and perfect purpose.
Now one might object, yes, Jesus’ suffering was part of a perfect purpose, but it was only because of human sin. Yes there is a connection there. However, there is not the same connection to the rest of creation. The curse was much more limited than YEC’s have made it out to be, and the Scriptures consistently proclaim the goodness of nature even with predators and the like (ex. In Psalm 104 God fills the lion’s mouths with “good things”). While there is a hope of a future where lions and lambs abide together, that may simply indicate - whether or not it’s a metaphor - that the future, in God’s perfect purpose, will be better than the past, not merely a restoration of it. (Some have also suggested that Satan, rather than God or man, may share some blame for “natural evils”)
I got much of the above from Mark Whorton’s excellent book Peril in Paradise. There is also a book by our own @jongarvey which I have not yet read called God’s Good Earth which I believe explores similar themes, arguing that Christian theologians did not regard the natural world as evil until recent centuries.
2 Likes
I think i am going to have to disagree w you on this. My disagreement is not bc i desire to save face or to support any yec parachurch. I disagree bc i dont believe that your argument is thinking through biblical theology logically.
First about Jesus suffering. The suffering Jesus endured was God taking on the suffering that we deserved. This has no indication that God is a creator of suffering for no reason at all besides He just wanted it this way as integral part of His very nature. Darwin watched his 10 yr old daughter (birthed to Darwins wife who was his first cousin) suffer from tuberculosis before she died. I cannot attribute this to God’s character but to a direct result of the fall of man. Only God is good. Suffering is bad. Suffering cannot be attributed to God’s nature.
Secondly, suffering as part of a good plan towards our betterment: Again, i just cannot buy this argument as justification that suffering and death is part of God’s nature that He would cause this for there own sake. I believe that God allows the very bad fruits of our fallen natures which occurred AFTER THE FALL to be used in a way towards His purposes. But this in no way justifies the suggestion that these are akin to His nature either. God allowed the Israelites to be enslaved. But God does not approve of slavery in His nature. God allows suffering. But God does not create suffering for its own sake as a result of His nature… it will be imposed as a punishment for sin as He is perfectly just…but never invented for its own sake. Your argument has to conclude that God is a God who literally creates a paradigm of suffering and slavery for no other reason than it aligns w His nature. This is impossible.
The main reason i disagree is because this stance waters the centrality of the gospel and God’s redeeming purposes that we see threaded thru the entire Bible. This gospel glorifies a God who is Love and a God whose hatred, wrath and vengence towards sin is of the utmost. If God is good and suffering is bad but we can attribute suffering to Gods nature, then He is not quite as good. If He is not quite as good and suffering is more aligned with God’s character and less a cause of sinfulness of man, then God is not quite as good, sin in not quite so bad and the goodnews of the gospel just dropped two notches to the so so gospel.
I shared this w some here on this site not too long ago by Al Mohler. I checked a number of theologians on the topic and he seemed to communicate best. Enjoy
Even if true, that doesn’t tell us WHEN that coal formed.
You wouldn’t have to say that if the scientific evidence pointed to a young Earth.
1 Like
Wait, Al Mohler? Doesn’t Calvinism require for God to be author of evil? So he could show off his ‘just’ nature and all that bull?
2 Likes
I have never witnessed nor seen the evidence in other planet creations to know how to accurately process the data surrounding the creation of this one. 
I think there are true problems for both views of obviously differing sorts that need to be thought through. Ultimately, Im w Dr. Wise: the earth has evidence that seem to point to it being old, but i choose go against my perceptions about such a unparalleled event and side with what God seems to suggest about it being a lot more juvenile. So i guess that it is safe to say that to all the smart people out there, im just a dumb dumb.
There’s a difference between being dumb and being ignorant. Ignorance is curable but first you have to want to learn.
1 Like
You didnt read what i wrote, did you? Didnt watch the video either i take it either. I understand not the reading part asi use too many words, so i guess i cannot blame you. I wish i could explain in short versions but these can be too easily misunderstood for something foreign that i have to get wordy
New rocks are continually being made here on Earth. So why can’t we use this knowledge to determine how old other rocks are?
I actually have a lot of respect for Dr. Wise’s position. He admits that the evidence is there for an old Earth, but he states quite clearly that he believes in a young Earth because of his religious beliefs. All that we can ask is that people be honest with both the evidence and their beliefs.
2 Likes
Im quite informed about how science processes the earths age. Biologos has put out stuff on this i have read thru several times. But i choose to be as a fool in the eyes of the world and trust that perhaps God, whom i believe in and who exists outside of time, is more of a trustworthy source than the science of man. Some say i misread and misinterpret Scripture. I have tried really really hard to get a sense where i err…reading and rereading in context w the rest of Scripture coupled with commentaries etc and just cannot sway myself in another direction. Like i said, im just going to have to remain a dumb dumb.
Once again what you claim and what you demonstrate are diametrically opposite.
If you choose willful ignorance over learning I’ll have to agree.