No, you are guessing and hoping that there are two choices. God may think differently about inserting evolution into his Word.
I don’t get it…are you just trying to be contrary because you have no argument? I am guessing and hoping nothing in regard to the infinite number of possible truths regarding the origin of life.
Assuming that you know what God “thinks” is a red flag to both Christians and atheists.
5 Likes
First of all, it seems like you’re insinuating no one could know what Genesis 1 means because we don’t know the original language, or that those who don’t know Hebrew can’t understand God’s Word. That would be an “interesting” view of inspiration and preservation, so I hope that’s not what you mean.
Yes, it does matter. But I have to be responsible for my own thinking both to God and to myself. And appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
I came to a realization that Genesis 1 refers to steps of creating new things out of other “stuff” that was there before in most of the verses. Then I had the thought that maybe “waters” was all the matter in the universe. I looked up what a mash of matter would be and an article said scientists believed the universe started out as quark-gluon plasma. (Funny to find out months later that John Gill thought “waters” was also all the matter in the universe over a century ago). Yet I just assumed that “waters” maybe was just liquid, and maybe there wasn’t another word to use for liquid in ancient times. Then I kept getting farther into science and realized that the heavens were mostly made of dark matter, and we can’t see it exactly (transparent like water), and dark matter could be liquid. Then I realized the separation of the waters on the second day meant that some of the matter referred to on Genesis 1:2 is in the heavens. I looked up all the verses about “heaven of heaven” and many referred to the waters. Everything I was thinking about science and Genesis kept coming together. And since radiation and electromagnetism can be combined into the electroweak force, and electrons can be turned into photons and God creating light would “power” everything on, the “waters” of Genesis 1:2 could not contain electrons if they were also part of “light.” Therefore the waters in Genesis 1:2 could reasonably not be H20. It might even be ruled out.
To be sure I was being faithful to the Bible I looked up the word for waters. And considered various passages Strong's Hebrew: 4325. מָ֫יִם (mayim) -- waters, water I searched for the word liquid in the Old Testament to see if I was wrong and the verse should have included a different word - my assumption on inspiration being that the writer would use the word with the clearest possible meaning. None of the words translated “liquid” made sense there that I could tell.
And here is what the founder of the Protestant tradition had to say about reasoning:
“ Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
Is that your view of human reason?
2 Likes
Where does the Bible talk about varves?
I would be interested to hear what you mean by “clearly says”. For the vast majority of scientists, the science is very clear.
1 Like
It doesn’t. I didn’t say that it did. The Bible explains how long people lived.
Yes, I do understand the that science is very clear to scientists - yet at the same time, it gets overturned or modified all the time. Just like quantum mechanics and general relativity don’t go together but each seem to describe reality, the Bible also has some of those tensions that are part of our everyday experience.
But the Bible isn’t being added to by new discovery like science is. Science though can tell us if we were using a cultural lens to read the Bible in a certain way that wasn’t correct, perhaps seeing geocentric passages as meaning that the sun rotates around the earth, when perhaps those passages were just focusing on our everyday experience in a poetic way. The science there is so obviously clear that there are not Christians organizations arguing for a flat earth because it’s not a clear teaching of the Bible.
The same is not true for creationism. I only hold to a young-age earth because, to me, it’s a clear teaching of scripture based on multiple passages, and science hasn’t given me enough evidence that my interpretation of the scripture is incorrect.
I did a google search and this came up at the top. I don’t necessarily support this organization; but I thought the page did a good job explaining how to interpret the Bible, and I’d use a similar method. https://billygraham.org/story/how-to-interpret-the-bible/
I don’t see what that has to do with varves.
Here’s the scenario that goes through my mind when I read something like this.
Creationist: I just don’t trust science because scientists are changing their mind all of the time.
Scientist: So what would make you trust science more?
Creationist: If scientists changed their mind about the age of the Earth.
The Bible was continuously added to over time, with the New Testament being a rather large addition for Christian cannon.
There are Christian groups arguing for a flat Earth, claiming it is Biblical.
What evidence would you need?
1 Like
It’s claimed to be an independent check on radiometric dating to know how old the Earth is.
I’m not actually finding any reason to argue with that.
Find me those wackos so I can argue with them.
hmmmm…something that was actually independent evidence. I’m not sure such a thing exists. Science is extrapolating backwards based on certain assumptions.
Jeanson at AIG decided to independently measure mtDNA and y-chromosome pedigree mutation rates to see if they fit a young-age creation model, and he says that they do and they fit historical evidence. But no one believes him because they like all their assumptions better.
No, it isn’t. Carbon dating of varves only goes back to about 50,000 years ago.
hmmmm . . . could you be contradicting yourself in the very next paragraph?
Isn’t that the very same thing you were arguing against in the previous paragraph?
If you want to discuss what you think are assumptions, that might make for a good thread. I think you will find that they aren’t assumptions at all.
2 Likes
Yes. I’m saying they claim to count them independently and match the organic material in a specific counted layer to a carbon date. It’s supposed to be evidence to YEC that if carbon dating is wrong there’s an independent check that shows year by year.
No, because actual historical facts are a better check on how old the earth is than science. It’s history checking science rather than science checking science.
Just so we are on the same page . . .
- Carbon dating is not used to determine the age of the Earth.
- They measure the amount of carbon-14 in organic material in each layer. They don’t match it to a carbon date.
Why wouldn’t that be evidence? There is a non-radiometric date for each layer done by simple counting, and then a measurement of the carbon in each layer.
You were describing scientific findings, weren’t you?
Why can’t we use radioactive decay rates to do the same thing?
2 Likes
If that were the case, great.
But I checked - it’s not done by simple counting at all. You can go back and look at my entire post if you want.
It’s not historical evidence.
For instance, I watched a PBS Spacetime video that described how scientists first came up with an age of the universe that was younger than the age of the earth. They were forced to go back and fix it only because of that contradiction. An earth younger than the universe would actually fit a biblical model. I’m not suggesting they weren’t doing bad science in the first place, but that if you work in cosmology, geology, or anything do with with radiometric dating, the data has to be fit into the model. And it generally works decently because we have no idea yet how the flood really affected the earth. Whatever it did to the climate was unlike anything we can see now and can only guess at.
When radioactive decay rates are used, they make assumptions about the climate. But the last 4000 years of history were actually observed by people. There’s enough historical record to give us independent evidence that we haven’t made huge mistakes.
I can already see that sometime in the next 100 years cosmology isn’t going to fit into the Big Bang model anymore. That’s probably not the only thing that’s going to change in science.
Neither are mutation rates, and yet you cited mutation rates.
It seems that you will reject all scientific evidence.
I think you are projecting. You, yourself, are throwing out scientific evidence because it doesn’t conform to your reading of the Bible.
Climate doesn’t affect radioactive decay rates.
What about the previous 4.5 billion years?
2 Likes
No, I was saying history could confirm mutation rates.
Yes, I haven’t denied that.
Please show me the written records that independently corroborate each other.
So you start with the assumption that your chosen scriptures are infallible?
1 Like
Only God is infallible. I believe the scriptures are inspired.
But yes, I’m working through the lens of scripture. Otherwise I wouldn’t be arguing with you about the age of the earth you see 
If I didn’t believe the Bible gave me really important reasons not to believe in common descent or an old earth, I’d be fine with it. But since I’m a sinner in need of grace and I love Jesus and believe that I’m reading scripture consistently, I’m going to continue to do so. Unless like I said, the evidence otherwise is obvious to me personally. But as I’ve studied science I’m finding more and more reasons to doubt the science, not the other way around. I was maybe 30% I could have been wrong. Now I’m about 1-2%. Studying cosmology has been fun
I think we would both agree that you are fallible, as were the humans who wrote the Bible. Also, if the Bible was inspired that doesn’t make it accurate human history, just inspired. The movie “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?” was inspired by the Odyssey, but that doesn’t make either a part of human history.
If you think climate changes radioactive decay rates I would probably start there. 
2 Likes
That would go against the idea of inspiration.
Admittedly, I know barely above nothing on the subject. But it’s not like it’s a completely foolproof concept. It’s something I’ll have to study more and decide if that moves the needle on my personal % of doubt
1 Like
I read the methodology found on your resource but I think that that method itself does not hold up with how Jesus and the authors of the New Testament understood and worked with the Old Testament.
Typology and symbolism are not apparent in literal readings of the Old Testament yet Paul and others refer often in this manner.
The rules regarding literalism, single meaning, and context have little to no support in NT tradition of interpreting the Old Testament.
1 Like