Survey in my class

And by far the most important point; Christianity does not require a literal interpretation of Genesis.

4 Likes

As Christians, the only question worth asking is “What’s God’s answer to the origin of the Earth?”; and a follow-up: “Regarding this topic, what does he want from us?” This is what matters most. These questions are our starting point.

It’s apparent that the half-dozen folks who reply to me (so far) have differing starting points, have minds fully made up, and will never stop debating.

With that, I’m turning my attention to the silent ones listening in who agree with that starting point above. There are great answers waiting for you if you’re willing to pray for wisdom (James 1:5) and dig for the answers: Prov 2:2-5. Consider those words: “hidden treasure”. As you read scripture you’ll find multiple places were God speaks of hidden wisdom, wisdom that many in the world will miss out on. Then of course go read about the great consilience of evidence pointing to the fact that the earth looks Globally Flooded. Trust me, you can reach a point of great confidence in this worldview.

Yet the pretence of having evidence was still there. And some people were fooled by it. That seems to be pretty much the same - we can see that you’ve been fooled into thinking that Flood geology is better than mainstream geology. But in reality the major problems are still there and don’t seem likely to be dealt with any time soon.

If there has been any progress at all, it’s nowhere near enough to think that Flood geology will ever be viable,

6 Likes

Hi Jeff
While I am open to YEC arguments I don’t find them convincing at this point. I think the overview of the book Creation and Evolution Glenn cited is aligned with what the evidence is telling us.

All that being said I would be interested in what is convincing to you either here or in a private message.

So what evidence have you added for Earth being 6000 years old you didn’t have back then?

What evidence for the Earth being 4.56 billion years old has been overturned?

In which you still have absolutely nothing. Like, **. Not a squat more evidence now than ever before? All you have is that the volume of apologetics has grown larger. It still contains no actual evidence.

6 Likes

There is hidden wisdom. I would not paint scientific knowledge with the brush of “things of this world” as God made this world by faith and the Word.

I also see how Jesus and the authors of the NT did not put the same emphasis on the OT as apologetics ministries or the grammatical-historical method. These latter perspectives are the main drivers of YEC.

God is truth and made reality to be somewhat knowable. If you see God as creator (ofc assuming Christianity), then the evidence and science towards origins is Him speaking. He also spoke of doing things with proper and fair measurements. The continual reliance on flawed radiometric arguments (most according to Snelling) is one of many terminal flaws.

As the thief on the cross, God calls us to place our trust in Him and that relationship. Christ often called attention to how we treat others as a reflection of our that reflection (You cannot love God if you hate people). Treating reality fairly matters as it has an impact on people.

Insufficient alternatives to the scientific method, downplaying, denialism, conspiratorial thought, partisanship all cost us. This attack on “historical” versus operational science also affects climate change. This push of YEC is strongly supported by those who wish to weaken public trust in science and its ability to inform decision making.

This attack on science and from YEC often focus on discrediting as a way of maintaining their version of Christianity/hermeneutics/culture/etc. It is a proxy war for so many things. Most additional doctrines of evangelicals crumble is one rejects this specific hyper-literalist way of interpreting scripture (not saying that it is universally applied but just as an example of application). I know Peaceful science is a work towards providing an acceptable out for those evangelicals that can still work with science from a biological and origins perspective. The main reason I came here and participated.

1 Like

It amazes me how you can in one breath claim that scientific evidence can’t be probative (the real question being what scripture has to say) and then appeal to scientific evidence to support your claims. Those stances are mutually contradictory.

7 Likes

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like God is going to descend from heaven to tell us. As usual, he stays silent and allows confusion to fester. YEC, OEC, evolutionary creationism, theistic evolution, etc are the ideological products of that confusion.

In any case, let me ask, how exactly does this question aid us in determining the age of the earth?

Same question as before, what is the practical importance of this question in determining the age of the earth?

Your mind is already made up too and a lot of those who disagree with you on this issue derive their stance on the age of the earth from rigorous evidence generated over decades of investigation.

I don’t need to pray to God to tell me the age of the earth because he wouldn’t if I tried.

Whether you realize it or not, your “wisdom” on the age flows from the point of view of YECism and you have absolutely no way to tell if that’s the God-approved viewpoint.

Been there already and the fairy tale status of a global flood still stands.

3 Likes

I would think that the second question would be by far the more important and that “spreading falsehood” is not the answer.

And there you go spreading falsehood. There is no “great consilience of evidence”. That is why the idea of a Global Flood was rejected.

5 Likes

This is what God wants from us:

13 Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. 15 You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For the Lord your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly. — Deuteronomy 25:13-16

Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1-11, any challenge to the theory of evolution or the scientific consensus that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, must obey these verses. The age of the earth and evolution themselves are not important theologically, but teaching falsehood and misinformation in the name of Christ about any subject is a very serious matter. For this reason any form of creationism that does not obey these verses is not Biblical, is not scientific, and is not honest.

Those of us who have been responding to you so far may have different starting points, but there is one thing in particular that we all have in common, and that is an insistence on honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information. Science has rules, measurement has rules, basic honesty has rules, and if you want to convince us that the earth is young or that the Flood was global, you must do so within the constraints of those rules. And those of us who know and understand what the rules are and how they work simply don’t see that happening.

7 Likes

You keep saying that. But you don’t produce any examples of this ‘new science’.

I’ve also been monitoring YEC since the late 1980s, and have seen no such thing. That’s probably why you won’t produce any examples.

3 Likes