Literal Genesis = literal creation of the entire universe, the Earth, and all life on it in six 24 hour days only 6000 years ago. Literal Genesis = literal global Noah’s Flood / Noah’s Ark saving a handful of all animal “kinds” in pairs 4500 years ago. Literal Genesis = literal all languages being created at Tower of Babel incident only 4000 years ago.
Sorry Bill but science has conclusively disproven all of those ideas. Deal with reality.
Keep in mind that “literal” is on a hermeneutical continuum. As a result, an Old Earth Creationist like Dr. Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe ministry) would say that he affirms a “literal Genesis” also but he rejects (1) drawing too many “24 hour days” conclusions from the seven YOM in Genesis 1 and (2) global Noahic Flood—to mention some differences with the major YEC ministries.
Hi Bill. Would you say that science has ruled out (or not) a flat earth?
Best,
Chris
Yes. There has to come a point where you just dispense with the “science is always tentative” stance and just move on. The shape of the earth is not like some frontier theory of cosmology, no fact will be unsurfaced that re-opens the debate. As far as I am concerned, the age of the earth falls into the same level of certitude. To make a case for a young earth, nearly all our understanding of geology, biology, astronomy, and much of physics must be invalidated.
Analogous with Biblical interpretation, where verses do not stand alone but are interpreted in view of scripture as a whole, facts in science do not stand alone. The principle of consilience, that individual pieces of evidence are strengthened even further when they converge, is exhibited again and again with respect to the age of the earth. Dividing and conquering these lines of evidence may work as rhetoric, but I am convinced that consilience in science has, indeed, ruled out a young earth for now and always.
For that reason I find that today’s Young Earth Creationism actually has some commonalities with the post-modernist trend of some people who assume that all truth is subjective and even negotiable. (“That may be your truth but not mine.”) Incredibly, I’ve heard such people claim that science is “just one interpretation of what we observe.”
Some today claim that science is nothing but a western, Eurocentric bias that is no better than various other viewpoints, such as ancient mysticism and astrology. Yes, most YECs resoundingly reject post-modernism but they nevertheless can be similarly dismissive of entire fields of science—even those founded by their favorite examples of Christian founders of science—when it gets in their way.
For modern science to be so fundamentally wrong on so many things, one would have to assume that God created a universe where nothing can be trusted, no evidence valued, and no natural explanations examined—because that reality would be disorderly and meaningless. That is one of many reasons that I’m concerned that some Young Earth Creationists have a very limited view of God, just as I did in my “creation science” days of long ago.
And in the multiplicity of psuedo-arguments about things like the speed of light, they neglect the scriptures they claim they are being faithful to.
That one is closer 
I think we can find common ground, at least, on all truth being God’s truth. If Moses passed to us the ninth commandment that we should not bear false witness, nobody in good conscience should be required to believe false witness. I think everyone here, on every side, is sincere in their pursuit of truth, although we may differ on our ranking of authority and the role of our own senses in that quest.
Not all YECs believe in the idea that truth comes from the reality of God’s creation and that it cannot conflict with the truth from the reality of God’s word. I actually had a YEC once ask me for chapter and verse where the Bible says that truth comes from reality. Someone at here PS not too long ago had an issue with that as well.
Science is not about proof. It’s about empirically establishing a conclusion. We can do that in cases to a high level of certainty as in the flat earth case but it always falls short of proof. Your rhetoric is from the scientism you espouse.
Well, denying the existance of reality is certainly one way of resolving conflicting evidence. I think that the evangelical church is generally pretty locked into the Francis Schaeffer perspective that Genesis must be in time and space, adamant in rejection of mysticism and existentialism. I had most of his books on my shelf. Towards the end of my Bible college, I began to find him irritating. He seemed like a general, safely ensconced in a bunker a hundred miles from the front, giving orders to not yield an inch, but not engaging in the real mucky world on the front line. He pressed for literal orthodoxy, but staying clear of messy challenges being posed by geology and paleontology and textual criticism, he remained above the fray. Still, his influence and outlook remain, and I would say a strong emphasis on the unity of truth remains bedrock in the church. Somewhat paradoxically, that is the motivator for so much untruth concocted in the name of a young earth.
Science has empirically established the conclusion to an extremely high level of certainty the events described in Genesis are not literal. Deal with reality Bill, not how you wish the world to be.
5 posts were split to a new topic: Science is Just One Valid Interpretation?
Then again, when it says that God created the sun, moon, and stars, Hugh Ross thinks it doesn’t really mean that God created the sun, moon, and stars then. His “literal” is bizarrely non-literal.
Ross says that the atmosphere went from translucent to transparent and so the sun, moon, and stars became visible long after they were created. So I understand what you are saying.
Ross also points out that nobody actually believes in a 100% literal Genesis or a 100% literal Bible. Language doesn’t always work that way. (For example, even the most “literal” readers of the Bible admit that Jesus is NOT a literal door, even though he is described using that word. He is also not a literal shepherd and those who follow him are not literal sheep or else they would be covered in wool.)
That’s why literal is on a continuum.
i have seen a lot of WWi history and that was first stalemate and then they figured out how to bust the trenches and no more trenches.
There is a attrition on behalf of truth. so even trenches are to the gain of creationism. Then all we need do is figure out how to bust, enfore breackthrough, and prevail. yES we can do it.
there is no equality between accuracy and error about the universe origins.
it must be that the side who is right has advantages in all investigation of nature.
in fact i think the guys who are right must SMELL it more that they are right then the guys who are wrong smell they are right.
Wherever i watch/engage in origin discussions i find the creationist side holds its own, makes progress, but moreso it demonstrates how the evolutionist etc side dOES NOT prevail as it should if they were right. A equation here.
With all the resources, status, etc etc wHY does the evolutionist side fare so badly?
I think because the wrong guys can’t make killer great points. the right side can, but is sloppy in failure, to make great killer points.
IT MUST BE that discussion amongst honest intelligent people , in contentions, lead to the right side eventually prevailing. I think origin internet stuff shows this.
Creationists do far better then we should if we were wrong and evolutionists don’t do well enough if they were right.
I think its late 1917 on the western front.
I showed you a literal Genesis in another thread.
I like that. I have always said that science is powerless to lead one to truth.
If you are truly being transparent about yourself, which presently I have no reason to doubt that you are, I am interested in how you arrived at this point. I may (or may not) want to learn to adopt this kind of behavior. But I do find you interesting, probably your posts here in this thread are the most meaningful of all to me at least.
If you are willing, can you tell us just a little more about how were able to arrive at this kind of peaceful point in your behavior toward others disagreeable to yourself?
6 posts were split to a new topic: Tim and R_speir
Science can help you part of the way. Ultimate truth requires faith which is the adoption of assumptions. This is where faith comes in to help us form our belief system. Hope this makes some sense
We just had a vivid illustration of that in the last couple of days.