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 âWhatâs Godâs answer to the origin of the Earth?â; and a follow-up: âRegarding this topic, what does he want from us?â This is what matters most. These questions are our starting point.
Itâs 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, Iâm turning my attention to the silent ones listening in who agree with that starting point above. There are great answers waiting for you if youâre willing to pray for wisdom (James 1:5) and dig for the answers: Prov 2:2-5. Consider those words: âhidden treasureâ. As you read scripture youâll 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 youâve been fooled into thinking that Flood geology is better than mainstream geology. But in reality the major problems are still there and donât seem likely to be dealt with any time soon.
If there has been any progress at all, itâs nowhere near enough to think that Flood geology will ever be viable,
6 Likes
Hi Jeff
While I am open to YEC arguments I donât 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 didnât 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 âthings of this worldâ 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 âhistoricalâ 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 canât 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 doesnât 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 donât need to pray to God to tell me the age of the earth because he wouldnât if I tried.
Whether you realize it or not, your âwisdomâ on the age flows from the point of view of YECism and you have absolutely no way to tell if thatâs 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 âspreading falsehoodâ is not the answer.
And there you go spreading falsehood. There is no âgreat consilience of evidenceâ. That is why the idea of a Global Flood was rejected.
6 Likes
This is what God wants from us:
13 Do not have two differing weights in your bagâone heavy, one light. 14 Do not have two differing measures in your houseâone 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. â 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 donât see that happening.
8 Likes
You keep saying that. But you donât produce any examples of this ânew scienceâ.
Iâve also been monitoring YEC since the late 1980s, and have seen no such thing. Thatâs probably why you wonât produce any examples.
3 Likes
Michael,
You ask good questions. Even though youâve made your stance clear, I will respond for the sake of others here who are genuinely interested.
God is curiously silent, and yes as Michael has mentioned seems to âallow confusion.â I would word it âambiguityâ. And yes, YEC and OEC are products of that.
Itâs that exact reason that after years of studying this topic (Age of the Earth), Iâve really recognized just how significant evaluating Godâs character is! And that all important question: âWhat does He want from us?â
Here is how I refine that question further:
Given: In studying the natural world, and scripture, we see God has certainly introduced ambiguity. I see two options:
-
God created the universe in accordance with a Big Bang narrative. He also seemed to allow Genesis to be written in a way that does not match with that narrative. The ambiguity is therefore in the scripture. And even though early Hebrew scholars adhered to a young earth, He doesnât intend for us to continue with that belief, given current scientific revelation.
-
God ensured Genesis was written along the lines of what He did. When we read âAnd God saidâŚAnd it was soâ ⌠it was so. The ambiguity is in the natural world He created. His intent for us is to believe His word, despite the (CURRENT) scientific challenges we see.
Answering that question has become crucial to me. It brings up questions about God: How important is scripture to Him? How important is it to Him that we adhere to scripture? We know He hides wisdom. Would He have created a young earth, and consider that part of His hidden wisdom? Again, these point to assessing Godâs character. Itâs asking âWhat action makes the most sense based on what we know about Godâ
For me, the answer is #2, based on what I read in scripture.
I know people will post replies in disagreement on this, but to the OTHERS: I really encourage you to take to heart what Iâve just posted. Perhaps read through it multiple times.
Honestly, I initially dismissed this post right after reading it, with no intention of replying to it. Itâs real easy for me to ignore posts that I completely disagree with. However I just happened to re-read it, and felt the need to reply
James (and the seven people to liked this post), you need to be very careful yourself here. This is a serious claim youâve implied, all based on a disagreement on evidence. The âDishonestyâ claim is a sword that swings both ways. If youâre going to post this:
Then ensure you also to live up to it. Be careful focusing on the splint you appear to see in my eye.
Your entire post implies the possibility that I am being dishonest. Iâve shared that there is evidence for a Global Flood. I know because Iâve heavily researched arguments for and against it, and lots of prayer over this topic. I share what Iâve discovered because I know itâs true.
I also know that there are people here who are NOT researching it like I have, then declaring that Iâm wrong, and then declaring ME dishonest. To me, thatâs hypocrisy; another thing spoken about in the Word. I say all this for caution. Yes, we ALL need to be very careful about honesty. Indeed, all of our words will be judged some day.
Let me add one more thing: Noahâs flood described in scripture cannot possibly be interpreted as a local flood without being dishonest. One can try to believe that (more like convince ones-self), but as soon as someone tries to teach that to othersâŚtheyâre being dishonest.
djkriese, Iâve read through your post multiple times to ensure Iâm replying to what youâre saying, and not just what Iâm hearing.
Regardless of the behavior and attitudes of other YECs, I want to re-emphasize one thing I hold strongly to that helps greatly in this dialog:
There is a significant distinction between the term âscienceâ (which is used as way too broad a brush) and ânaturalistic origins narratives.â
As Iâve mentioned, I have a high regard for science. So itâs certainly not something to âdistrustâ. I believe itâs a lack of acknowledging this distinction above that causes challenges.
I see that too often in this forum. In reading your reply to my previous post, I believe you read more into what I was saying, and mis-applied the âbroad-brushâ of âscientific knowledgeâ to it. I do hope you hear what Iâm sayingâŚ
The question really is whether to believe a literalistic interpretation of scripture or science.
It seems to me that the latter should be preferable to Christians.
Surely it seems more plausible that scripture would be shaped to its original audience than it does that God would create a massively deceptive universe. And we see that Genesis 1 does favour the views of the Ancient Near East - to the extent that even you prefer science to parts of it - you donât believe that the sun or the stars are merely lights in the solid dome of the sky.
6 Likes
To get any use from that âdistinctionâ you are going to have class things like âthe Earth is much more than 10,000 years oldâ as a ânaturalistic origin narrativeâ. And it really isnât. It is a scientific conclusion, and one that really seems unassailable. Indeed, there is no reason why a ânaturalistic origin narrativeâ cannot be science so the distinction is dubious even where it might apply.
3 Likes
âearly Hebrew scholarsâ also adhered to a flat earth. Regardless of whether you believe the Bible itself teaches a flat earth (which IMO is fairly clear, but anyway) the Hebrews who wrote it undoubtedly did believe in it. Yet we know that to be false, to an even greater degree of certainty than we know the earth to be ancient. Are you a flat earther? If not, arenât you being inconsistent to apply this standard to the age of the earth, but not to the shape of the earth?
4 Likes
God speaks loudly and clearly, and the scientists are reading his message.
Genesis was written by humans. And humans are fallible. God cannot ensure that what is written was correct.
But it can be a fictional flood. Humans are story tellers.
4 Likes
Not necessarily. The point that I was making was simply that interpretation of scientific evidence has rules, and that it is perfectly Biblical to insist that those rules take precedence over trying to shoehorn the evidence into some dogma or other that it quite clearly contradicts. If you donât know what the rules are, or if you have been misinformed about them, then you would simply be mistaken. You would only be dishonest if you knewâor should reasonably be expected to knowâwhat the rules are and that the claims you were making did not stick to them.
And Iâm fully aware of the need to be careful. I have a degree from Cambridge University in Natural Sciences. I work in a profession that requires a fairly high standard of scientific literacy. I have hands-on experience of having to face the consequences of not sticking to the rules. Arts and humanities students who havenât set foot in a laboratory since they gave up high school science at the first possible opportunity at age sixteen could claim ignorance if they made untrue or misleading claims that do not obey the rules. I do not have the luxury of that excuse. And many of the other people on this forum are far more accomplished scientifically than I am. Some of them work in situations where not sticking to the rules could kill people. Their margin of error is even smaller.
Did your research include learning the basic rules and principles of how science works? Did it include hands-on experience? Did it include coursesâwith exams at the end of themâin mathematics, measurement, laboratory technique and fieldwork? Did it include working in situations where making mistakes or not sticking to the rules had real-world consequences for which you would be held personally responsible?
7 Likes
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for the clarification.
I disagree with your distinction premise. Things that follow scientific methodology and evidence can address the evidence for naturalistic origins. They cannot exclude supernatural.
I see God communicating his truth to a people without granting special knowledge so that they would learn to rely upon Him and their relationship. The bible could have had advanced medical and other science in it, yet it does not. I do not see anywhere where God calls us ignore his Creation in order to prefer one type of hermeneutic so I cannot follow you on the second option to your post to Michael. God often calls us to look beyond what is seen (like where he shows the heavenly host) and to walk by faith to follow him. These were not merely against flesh and blood, but supernatural. I do not see God-created evidence with the trait of ambiguity as following his character (often have heard many say that these are tests and whatnot).
As for the evidence and fairness of measurement verses. I know that you are convinced of your position. There is literal and demonstrable counter evidence for YEC. It is not dealt with. You may disagree and that is okay.
As for the charge of dishonesty regarding interpretation of the flood, why are you reading that literally? In verse 8, does God need to remember things? Does God need to the rainbow to be reminded of His covenant? Is the promise of not destroying life with a flood reasonable given there are x number of ways to do this including later mentioned use of fire and heat? Is this theological?
.
1 Like