Folded rocks question

[Boscopup]

@Ecerotops

Do you think they are afraid of admitting the earth is old? Fear of man’s punishment is not the way the work of God is done

I don’t think young earth creation research is God’s work. It’s man’s work, trying to prove a misguided view that has nothing to do with the message and purpose of the Bible. The Bible is about God’s plan of redemption, and that’s not affected by the age of the earth or whether God used evolution or not.

@Ecerotops

In response to my statement, “Please show me “scientific proof” that you are without sin.”

Boscopup:

Huh? What does this have to do with me? Are you referring to the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery in John 8? You do realize that the “He who is without sin” comment is referring to the people who had brought the woman to him without bringing the man?Leviticus 20:10 says they’re supposed to put both the adulterer and the adulteress to death. They had only brought the woman, going against the law. Their actions were sinful.

John 7:24 says to judge with right judgment. Galatians 6:1 talks about restoring a brother in sin - you’d need to judge them to be in sin in order to do that.

I can say that I have not posted a blog post lying about scientific evidence (or evidence of anything in my own related field), so no plank in my eye on this subject.

You know what I meant.

No, actually I do not know what you meant. I honestly interpreted what you said - that you were invoking a common misuse of scripture, saying you shouldn’t point out sin if you yourself ever sin. That’s not biblical. If you meant something different, you’re going to have to explain it to me.

@Ecerotops

But what about the genealogies in the Bible that give us a close approximation of the earth’s age and Jesus asking, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (Matthew 19:4)?

I have no problem with the genealogies telling the family tree from Jesus to Adam. I believe Adam was a real person. I can’t say exactly how long ago he lived, but 6000 years or less is fine with me. I suspect the ages in the pre-flood genealogies involve some numerology that we don’t understand, so Adam may have lived much less than 6000 years ago. I’m totally ok with that.

Jesus indeed states that when humans were made, they were both male and female. I don’t recall evolutionary theory contradicting that - no asexual humans running around. Whether the humans made in chapter 1 are the same as those in chapter 2, that’s debatable. When I look at other toledots in Genesis, they’re never used to retell a story with more detail, so why should I think that first one in Genesis 2:4 is any different?

@Ecerotops

May I then ask why is the word, “day” in Genesis treated differently from the same word in later scriptures?

I believe it to be 6 24 hour days, so you’re arguing a strawman here.

I don’t believe Genesis 1 is talking about a material creation, explaining scientifically how God created the earth. That’s where we differ. The Bible is not a science textbook. It’s about God’s plan of redemption for man and His desire to have a relationship with man. If you are so intent on shoving science into it, you’re missing the point.

@Ecerotops

Study of the Bible is like the study of math.

No, it’s not like math, at all. I can’t study math and get layers and layers of learning each time I study it. Once I understand calculus, I understand it. It’s easy peasy. There is no more depth to look into it. The Bible has incredible depth. You can study it for many decades and still find something new that you didn’t notice before, connections between different parts that weren’t clear to you before.

@Ecerotops

But yet much argument occurs over long settled Biblical truth. Although true that no one knows 100% of it, is fighting over it necessary? What causes the fights over its settled knowledge?

Settled by whom? God is my authority, not any kind of denominational council, pope, or other institution devised by man. Geocentricity was settled Biblical truth for a long time… until it wasn’t.

And why are you fighting over this? I agree that the fighting isn’t necessary. You’re the one that brought a fight into my thread that had nothing to do with that fight. I was simply asking for information from geologists, and I’m sure you aren’t one. So you have chosen to pick a fight in my thread. I am a member of a very Biblically conservative local church that teaches YEC. Most of my local brethren are YEC, and I get along with them just fine. I’m thankful that they aren’t fighting me as you are trying to do. Instead, they welcome me and love me, knowing that this isn’t a salvation issue. My theological conclusions are the same as theirs - man sins and needs redemption. Jesus is our Redeemer and King. We need to obey Him. If you agree with that, I don’t know why you’re choosing to fight with me about science, which the Bible does not reveal.

[Chris_Falter]

@Ecerotops

In response to my statement, “As for what God said is very good prior to the fall, did that include mega-annum of death, destruction, and disease that occurred prior to Adam and Eve?”,

This does not make sense to me. First, at least plants were dying; the creatures mentioned in Genesis must have been eating something.

Now consider microscopic fauna such as E. Coli. Under good conditions, E. Coli reproduce by binary fission every 20 minutes. That means the population of E.Coli increases by a factor of 2⁷² every 24 hours if none of them die.

Assuming God created a single E. Coli bacterium on the sixth day of creation, on the morning of day 7 (the day of rest) the earth’s population of E. Coli would number 4,700,000,000,000,000,000,000. Assuming standard weight and volume for the little critters, this population would occupy 4700 m³ in volume–roughly 2 Olympic swimming pools–and weigh about 5 tons.

Now imagine the morning of day 8 in Eden. God is about to instruct Adam not to eat of the tree of life. What about our population of E. Coli? They would now occupy 22,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 m³–as much as 22,000 earths! They would weigh 24,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons–4 times as heavy as the earth!

This is just one of the countless reasons why the YEC perspective does not make sense to me.

@Ecerotops

But weren’t we told there are two possible science-based interpretations believed true that depend on the glasses (evolution or creation) worn?

Whoever told you that does not understand how science works.

I suspect that what I am about to say will surprise you, so I ask you to pay close attention. The only assumptions necessary to validate the theory of evolution are:

• Genetics as observed today
• Math

That’s it! No glasses required.

Just genetics and math.

@Ecerotops

The word of God only has one interpretation- the correct interpretation that comes through the spirit. Do you remember what Jesus said to Peter?

The earliest Christian teachers (for example, Basil of Antioch), taught that the Scripture has 3 interpretations:

• literary
• moral
• symbolic

Your proof-text does not speak to the interpretation of Scripture because it refers to the manner in which the Holy Spirit directly revealed Jesus’ messianic nature. Therefore Matthew 16:17 says nothing about hermeneutical approaches to the Bible.

@Ecerotops

But how do we know that the evolutionary mindset is not from uninspired, fallible assumptions?

How do we know the earth is spherical, and not flat?
How do we know the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa?

Best,
Chris Falter

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@Ecerotops

May I then ask why do people hate to admit that the earth is young?

For the same reason that they hate to admit that it is flat. It isn’t, it’s as simple as that.

@Ecerotops

But weren’t we told there are two possible science-based interpretations believed true that depend on the glasses (evolution or creation) worn?

No they don’t.

Two possible science-based interpretations only depend on the glasses worn if both such interpretations fully obey the basic principles of mathematics and measurement, if they accurately describe the evidence that they are interpreting, and if there is insufficient data to differentiate between them. There was a legitimate debate back in the 1950s between the Big Bang theory and the Steady State theory, but the debate was settled in favour of the Big Bang in 1964 by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background by Penzias and Wilson. As for the question of young-earth versus old-earth, there has been no legitimate debate there for more than two hundred years.

[Boscopup]

@Ecerotops

But weren’t we told there are two possible science-based interpretations believed true that depend on the glasses (evolution or creation) worn?

Told by whom? The Bible says nothing about it (or science in general). Glasses didn’t even exist when Moses wrote Genesis. An uninspired man such as Ken Ham can say whatever he wants, but it doesn’t make his statement true. Be a Berean and search daily to see if what you’re told is true.

I personally, with my Christian glasses on , believe God created and maintains everything (“creation”) through processes He made, which we usually call “natural processes” (“evolution” being one of them). Why do you insist that we throw out God’s natural processes? If something “happens naturally”, that’s God. You don’t need to make a false dichotomy between evolution and creation. Hence why Biologos uses the term “evolutionary creation”.

[originmike (Michael Mayers)]

@Christy

From Jeff Greenberg, geology professor at Wheaton:

The kind of folding the YEC continues to use as “evidence”, is the very high-level crustal sedimentary buckling and slumping. When this depositional or early post-depositional wet-sediment deformation occurs, there is fluidity and no real brittleness in the material, i.e., no cracks. The terrible trouble with this mechanism is that it only refers to those folds; while the YEC ignore all other types of folding which are much more common. So typical of these folks. In the case of Snelling, Austin, et al, they are deceitful, pure and simple. They do know better and yet would rather lie than admit another awful mistake. We can continue to assume that those without scientific sense and theologically indoctrinated are the only ones persuaded. CULTIC.

Hi Christy, I am assuming that you agree with Greenberg in his criticism of Snelling, Austin et al. These are men who claim to be Christians but Greenberg says they are liars and are deliberately deceiving people. Is it the view of Biologos that YEC people like Snelling and Austin are liars and deceivers?

[Randy]

@originmike

Is it the view of Biologos that YEC people like Snelling and Austin are liars and deceivers

I’m not a Biologosian, but I hope you don’t mind that I step in a minute–I think that you might like the book written by a former Biologos president, Darrell Falk, with Todd Wood, a brilliant YEC scientist–" The Fool and the Heretic"–about how to interact with Christian love when we disagree. I listened to it on “Audible,” and found it very good. It’s put out by the Colossian Forum https://colossianforum.org/, “transforming conflict into growth.”

Thanks. Blessings.

The Fool and the Heretic - Todd Wood and Darrel Falk

I couldn’t decide if this should go in the “science” or “theology” category, so I chose neither . Todd Wood and Darrel Falk wrote a book together that I believe will be of interest to a lot of people here. I ran across a short interview (click here) that increased my curiosity.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

Thanks for the tip, Randy. I didn’t know it was available through Audible!

[Bill_II]

@originmike

Is it the view of Biologos that YEC people like Snelling and Austin are liars and deceivers?

I don’t speak for BioLogos but I believe most YEC apologists obfuscate the facts to avoid the inconvenient truth revealed by God’s creation. There are some that admit the data says the earth is old but they don’t try to cover it up but simply accept what the Bible says (at least in their mind) instead.

[cwhenderson (Curtis Henderson)]

@originmike

Is it the view of Biologos that YEC people like Snelling and Austin are liars and deceivers?

Like Randy, I have zero claim on being “BioLogos”. Having presented the disclaimer, I would suggest that most frequent forum-dwellers do not consider people like Snelling and Austin (or Purdom, Tomkins, et al) deceivers and liars, but possibly overly-committed to a particular interpretation of the Bible (note - not overly-committed to the Bible itself). There is literally no evidence strong enough in quality or quantity to change their minds and they will go to great lengths to attempt to explain away evidence for an old earth and for evolution. When the explanations are stretched to the limit of reason and beyond, sometimes the explanations simply sound disingenuous.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@originmike

Is it the view of Biologos that YEC people like Snelling and Austin are liars and deceivers?

The “views of BioLogos” are expressed in the belief statement and the common questions, which are produced by the editorial team in conjunction with scholars in the BioLogos network. I am not aware of any opinions on Snelling and Austin being expressed there.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@originmike

Hi Christy, I am assuming that you agree with Greenberg in his criticism of Snelling, Austin et al. These are men who claim to be Christians but Greenberg says they are liars and are deliberately deceiving people. Is it the view of Biologos that YEC people like Snelling and Austin are liars and deceivers?

Just a couple of points worth making here.

First of all, remember that Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21). The Apostle Paul warned, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29-30) So then it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that people will enter the Church, making all sorts of evangelically-correct noises, but at the same time mingling them with falsehood and lies to sow confusion and undermine the credibility of Christ’s faithful witnesses.

Second, there are certain things that are indisputably lies, no matter which way you slice it. Anyone who makes a claim that they know – or should be reasonably expected to know – to misrepresent material evidence, documented procedures or established results, is lying, period.

Andrew Snelling’s claim about these rock formations not being fractured can be seen to be untrue simply from his own photographs. He actually visited those rock formations, so he should have been expected to notice the fractures that he claims not to exist. In fact, he had students standing in front of the very fractures that he claims not to exist. In an interview with Ken Ham at the start of this year, he pointed out that in order to get to the rock formation in question, he had to climb up some scree and past a waterfall and he ended up slipping and breaking his thumb. This confirms that the places where those students were standing are not easy to get to, and that their placement there must have been conscious and deliberate. Furthermore, Steve Austin and Andrew Snelling are professional PhD geologists with many years of field experience, so they should be expected to meet much more stringent standards of factual accuracy than non-geologists. (This is what James 3:1 is all about after all.)

Was that lying? Judge for yourself. But as far as I can see, Snelling had no excuse whatsoever for not knowing that those rock formations were fractured.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Z[quote=“cwhenderson, post:54, topic:40884”]
sometimes the explanations simply sound disingenuous.
[/quote]

It is important to note that opinions expressed on the forum are personal, and do not represent the position of BioLogos, I admit that at times I feel Ike some go beyond vigorously defending their position and cross the line into intentional deception. I also at times feel like financial gain drives some to stretch things to protect their organization. Such is not confined to the debate at hand, but has been seen in recent years in church scandal coverups, with those involved rationalizing that they must do so to protect “the gospel.”
Intimately, we are all susceptible to falling, and must guard against it.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@originmike

I am assuming that you agree with Greenberg in his criticism of Snelling, Austin et al.

I don’t personally know enough geology to agree, but I do trust Dr. Greenberg’s expertise in geology exponentially more than I trust Snelling and Austin.

I think calling someone a liar is making a judgment about their state of mind, and I don’t feel like it is my place to do that. I can pretty much guarantee that no article posted by BioLogos would ever call a YEC geologist “a liar and a deceiver,” because the organization is committed to gracious dialogue with other Christians and calling people liars generally isn’t considered a dialogue-enhancing move.

I cut and pasted Dr. Greenberg’s response from a different forum, and in hindsight, I probably should have edited out that comment about Snelling and Austin, since attributing negative motivations is not allowed here. I apologize for that oversight. If you would like, I will remove it from the post.

[originmike (Michael Mayers)]

@jammycakes

First of all, remember that Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21). The Apostle Paul warned, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29-30) So then it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that people will enter the Church, making all sorts of evangelically-correct noises, but at the same time mingling them with falsehood and lies to sow confusion and undermine the credibility of Christ’s faithful witnesses.

It is always good to quote scripture but we need to make sure it is not being taken out of context. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” So, what is the Father’s will? In John 6:29 Jesus said, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” To do the Father’s will is to believe in Christ for our salvation.

The savage wolves, mentioned by Paul, are those who want to destroy the church, they are enemies of Christ and they deny Christ. Paul gives a strong warning in Galatians when he talks about those who preach a false gospel. There is also a warning about false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction”. There is no shortage of warnings about such people in the NT.

I don’t have any reason to believe that creationists are denying Christ or that they want to destroy the church. In fact, I would say it’s the exact opposite.

It is, of course, always good to be on the alert and to be like the Bereans – checking what is said against the truth of God’s word. But what happens when God’s word is no longer seen as true, or is believed to be only partly true? We only have to look at what happened in the middle of the 19th century when Darwinism and Higher Criticism came on the scene. Charles Spurgeon (the prince of preachers) saw the danger and he wrote about it in The Sword and the Trowel. He called it The Down Grade. Many did not heed his warning, and the church has been going downhill ever since.

[Bill_II]

@originmike

But what happens when God’s word is no longer seen as true, or is believed to be only partly true?

You mean like Galileo and heliocentrism? Or do you believe it was a mistake to believe Galileo instead of the Bible?

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei

[originmike (Michael Mayers)]

@Bill_II

But what happens when God’s word is no longer seen as true, or is believed to be only partly true?

You mean like Galileo and heliocentrism? Or do you believe it was a mistake to believe Galileo instead of the Bible?

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei

The Galileo affair is an interesting one. It’s not the simple ‘science versus religion’ story. It has a lot to do with politics, pride, envy, and a clash of personalities. But don’t take my word for it – check it out for yourself. You asked me if I believe it was a mistake to believe Galileo instead of the bible. Why do I have to choose between the two? Did Galileo say something that contradicts God’s word?

[originmike (Michael Mayers)]

@Christy

I am assuming that you agree with Greenberg in his criticism of Snelling, Austin et al.

I don’t personally know enough geology to agree, but I do trust Dr. Greenberg’s expertise in geology exponentially more than I trust Snelling and Austin.

I think calling someone a liar is making a judgment about their state of mind, and I don’t feel like it is my place to do that. I can pretty much guarantee that no article posted by BioLogos would ever call a YEC geologist “a liar and a deceiver,” because the organization is committed to gracious dialogue with other Christians and calling people liars generally isn’t considered a dialogue-enhancing move.

I cut and pasted Dr. Greenberg’s response from a different forum, and in hindsight, I probably should have edited out that comment about Snelling and Austin, since attributing negative motivations is not allowed here. I apologize for that oversight. If you would like, I will remove it from the post.

Hi Christy, Thank you for what you do. I know what it’s like doing the job of moderator. It’s not easy keeping an eye on all that’s going on, and you can never please everybody. I will leave it to your judgement as to whether the post should remain.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@originmike

Did Galileo say something that contradicts God’s word?

According to respected theologians of that day … yes; …or sort of. Ted Davis provides a good resource about this that includes mention of Cardinal Bellarmine who recognized this as a biblical issue, but also seemed to leave the door open that if science could actually demonstrate heliocentrism (it couldn’t at the time), then … and only then would he be open to re-interpreting various passages.

But for my purposes here … note that Bellarmine already considered the obvious and primary scriptural interpretation to be a settled issue: the earth doesn’t move. They saw it as a plain scriptural assertion (even if a peripheral one, which on Bellarmine’s view did not lessen its import as a matter of scriptural integrity), and it is difficult to tease apart how this would in any way be different from how some creationists handle scriptures today on the origins issue.

[Randy]

Readers also raised theological objections. In a number of places the Bible seems to speak of the motion of the sun or the immobility of the earth. (For example, take a look at Joshua 10:12-14, Psalm 19:4-6, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 104:5, Isaiah 38:8, or Ecclesiastes 1:5.) When they interpreted texts like these, most Protestant and Catholic theologians quite naturally assumed that the Scriptures bore witness to the plain and obvious fact (as they regarded it at the time) that the sun goes around the earth, not vice versa<

Yes, to quote–here are verses from the text that people believed implied the Sun moved around the earth–Joshua causing the Sun to stand still, the earth can not be moved, etc.

Good resource, @TedDavis. Thanks.

[Bill_II]

@originmike

Did Galileo say something that contradicts God’s word?

Why yes he did. But everyone now accepts that he was right and have adjusted their interpretation of the Bible to agree. Even YEC have adjusted their “literal” interpretation so it doesn’t conflict.