I agree @deuteroKJ, nor do they have much consistency with tradition.
@PDPrice keep in mind that @deuteroKJ can read Genesis in the original language. He as book coming out soon in Genesis 1.
2 Likes
OK. Thanks. This is something I’ve been curious about. I’ve got it bookmarked to read through later.
CMI has a good track record of reviewing such books, so I’m sure that’ll be on the list once it comes out.
That’s because without Scripture we would have no reliable guide to the age of the earth at all, only speculative attempts to extrapolate backwards.
2 Likes
There is no equivalence. All the anomalies and problems lie on your side, and they are mostly problems of your own making. The evidence comports just fine with the conclusion of an old earth - that is why the consilience of science - geology, the general progression and segregation of the fossil record, cosmology, geochronology, and too much to list, all point in the same direction.
6 Likes
The rest of us have plenty of reliable science indicating Earth is way older than 6000 years. A small group of Fundamentalist Christians reject the data not for any scientific reasons but simply because the data contradicts their Fundamentalist beliefs. You demonstrate the fact every time you duck and dodge and avoid the old age scientific evidence posted here.
The honest thing to do would be to say “yes the physical evidence shows the Earth isn’t young but I believe my interpretation of Scripture anyway” as YECs like Todd Wood do. But then places like CMI and AIG would have nothing to use to plead for donations.
2 Likes
And here is one of the YEC’s who is closest to being an actual scientist admitting just that. Awkward…
5 Likes
I think the coherent claim that a YEC could make (even if it is false) is that:
I affirm young earth because Scripture teaches it, and I can interpret the evidence consistent with a young earth.
Certainly that is up for dispute, but it ultimately will reduce to a theological argument about whether or not appearance of age makes God Deceptive. Science can’t adjudicate that particular argument, but it can point out when YEC interpretations fudge the data.
That is very different from saying,
Independent of Scripture, there is strong evidence of a young earth, such that scientists can see this evidence is best interpreted with least inconsistencies in light of a young earth.
If that second statement were true:
-
We would see non-believing scientists arguing for the legitimacy of YEC interpretations of data. But we don’t.
-
AIG would not be arguing against interpreting scientific evidence without appealing to Scripture (Man’s Autonomous Reason). But they do.
I could go on, but I hope that make some sense.
4 Likes
@Faizal_Ali thanks for sharing the Todd Wood clip. He was a colleague of mine for 10 years. We attended church together for over 3 years. Such a sweet brother in Christ, who fully accepted and trusted me despite our differences on origins. Actually, he “ruined” me in these discussions, b/c I judge all YECs (and others) by his standard. No wonder he’s held in suspicion by other YECs.
6 Likes
You often make a remark similar to this - but I don’t get it. Why is God required to tell us the way we should interpret evidence? How does that make God deceptive?
1 Like
The situation is a bit complex in theology, but to get a sense of it, let’s consider a few possibilities.
-
What if dino’s didn’t actually ever exist, but God just put dino fossils in the ground to confuse us and test our faith. Would that make him deceptive?
-
What if God created you, and your family, de novo a few weeks ago, and miraculously implanted false memories of a life on earth before you were created, miraculously gave us false memories of interacting with you on the forum, and miraculously created evidence and memories that make seems as though you were naturally born to parents and have lived on earth for decades. Would that make him deceptive?
-
What if God did something surprising, that we did not expect, would that make him deceptive?
Most people would say that 1 and 2 would only be done by a deceptive God, but a truthful God can do 3. For many people, as you look at the scientific evidence, it seems for the earth to be young, it would have to be something like #2. However, sometimes this argument is absurdly extended to apply to #3.
That’s the issue any how.
6 Likes
No, I believe this issue as I have stated so many times is that your #1,2 are so very shallow. If science was honest it would agree that dating sedimentary rock using foreign material erupted from deep within the earth should be completely disallowed. And then when we ask you to do the obvious thing like please carbon date the soft tissue you are finding, you begin making excuses of “contamination skewing the results” – the very thing you are doing when you take foreign material from a completely different part of the planet and try to date fossiliferous rock!
Please…do you not yet see the hypocrisy???
@r_speir, this is a warning. Do not call people hypcrites like this. I expect more of you.
You can dispute whether #1 and #2 reflect what we see in the evidence, and if this applies to YEC. But that isn’t what I asked. I asked if those cases were true, would God be deceptive?
As for where the evidence stands, you go back and forth. At times you’ve acknowledged evidence for an ancient earth. At times you’ve acknowledged evidence for ancient life. Then you’ve flipped, stating the reason why was because you were not being faithful to Scripture. I can respect that, but you need to be consistent and truthful. You’ve seen evidence for ancient life and and ancient earth, but you are not comfortable with it yet because of Scripture.
Don’t misrepresent the situation. I hope we don’t have to pull quotes to show this was your history. You don’t have to agree with an old earth, but please honestly representing where you stand and why.
3 Likes
Oh please. I only see your ignorance.
6 Likes
Oh no. Please don’t go there with me. On the other thread you just called me an “idolator”. Remember?
I can build bridges to OEC. I know how to do that you know that I know how to do that. I am not talking about the age of the planet in this argument. I am addressing how evolution does not in any way follow from an old earth. You talked about “dating dinos” and the dating of fossils in sedimentary rock. I simply pointed out the obvious flaw in those procedures…again and again.
I did not discuss this. You may need to reread that post.
Ok, ok. I know how to come down off my high horse. If I called you a hypocrite, I apologize. I did not mean to insinuate that. I know you are intelligent and spend countless hours thinking things through. I appreciate it. But clarifying my statement: it all does appear hypocritical some times - the dating approaches that are taken and the others that are ignored.
1 Like
A hint: if you don’t intend to call people hypocrites, don’t call them hypocrites. “Please…do you not yet see the hypocrisy???” is exactly what you said. Also “If science was honest” is a clear accusation of dishonesty. If you didn’t intend that, don’t say that either.
Now of course “dating sedimentary rock using foreign material erupted from deep within the earth” is perfectly valid, as long as the dating is done using crystals that formed after the eruption. And that’s the case with most such crystals. If it weren’t, magma wouldn’t be liquid, would it?
3 Likes
Than you for the apology. Do not do it again.
I was not discussing dating methods. That’s all off topic. I asked counter-factual questions:
Of course, no one says that is what God did. No YEC I know believes this. I just asked if God did do this in some other universe, would that make him deceptive?
1 Like