Timothy cleared up your concerns about his item number 2 in post 67, I think.
I’m curious how you would address all five of these items now that item 2 has been clarified.
And regarding your recent reply to T_aquaticus,
Adam, your are mistaken in this view. A great many Christians claim millions of years as well.
We have physical evidence that is much, much older than any written documents, any language, any storage medium for symbolic language, beyond human memory or existence. The stuff was here, it still is, and we can study it to understand the past.
YEC suggests that this young families belief in the literal Genesis narrative also assumes their cosmology is aligned with that of authors of antiquity. Personally, I am unable and unwilling to view the sacred Biblical writings as scientific text. I do see them as a beautiful collection of narratives, history, poetry, and prose that point us to Gods relationship and love with his creation. I pray that God opens their hearts to what the creation narrative is teaching them about the nature of God and his unique covenant relationship with us, rather than trying to read it as a scientific document.
Carbon dating agrees with the Biblical account of Hezekiah’s building of the Siloam Tunnel around 700 BC. Of course, you might think that both the Bible and carbon dating are in error.
One, you do not speak for all Christians, period. Two, practicing science is not humanistic. Three, there is written evidence of dynastic Egyptian history dating back past 3000 BC, half a millennium prior to AiG’s date for Noah’s flood, so you are not in a position to lecture concerning written history.
Does anyone besides me think that love for God should at least at times positively include filial affection? Or is that implicit. The reason I’m mentioning it was that I discovered a link today to another shorter piece by @Joel_Duff about the girdled rocks of the Atacama, and as I was reflecting on it I had a definite warm wave of affection and delight in God for such a remarkable and fun piece of evidence.
When a YECist claims that soft tissue in dinosaur fossils contains red blood cells, osteocytes, DNA and collagen, when all that it actually contains is the ultimately stable breakdown products of red blood cells, osteocytes, DNA and collagen, that is making claims that are demonstrably false.
When a YECist claims that contamination in carbon-14 measurements of ancient coals and diamonds is some sort of “rescuing device,” that is making claims that are demonstrably false.
When a YECist claims that fossils-are-used-to-date-rocks-and-rocks-are-used-to-date-fossils, that is making claims that are demonstrably false.
When a YECist exaggerates the extent or significance of unreliability or errors in radiometric dating, that is making claims that are demonstrably false.
When a YECist claims that evolution and millions of years are motivated by secularism or atheism, that is making claims that are demonstrably false.
When a YECist claims that we can’t tell anything about the distant past because no-one was there to see it happen, that is making claims that are demonstrably false.
Just a gentle reminder folks that this thread is about how to pastorally support a YEC family in trouble. Let’s try and keep things on the topic if we can. Thanks.
Thanks for the reminder Liam. Like most posts, this has…evolved … in ways that have not always been helpful to the stated end.
One thing I have been made aware of, is that lay audiences for the most part are not familiar with the terminology and are really unaware of what the issues are that we often talk about here, so we really have to be careful how we word our responses to their questions. Much like we discussed in another thread concerning apologetics, it is vitally important to get to know the people we interact with, and not only know them, but truly care for their well-being so that any influence we exert is both appropriate and loving.
As an example, one of church leaders used the term “atheistic evolution” the other day in a discussion, and I privately sent him a note suggesting that the term he was looking for was “metaphyical or philosophical naturalism” and that atheistic evolution was about as meaningful as atheistic auto repair. I worry that I overstepped my bounds in correcting him, yet feel someone needed to do so. Delicate areas.
This is what I always say as a person who is very progressive and teaches youth group in a more conservative (biblically) church. I just say that some Christians think this, some think that - I always try to point out other options.
You didn’t overstep your bounds. It’s not a subjective matter like the layout of the church bulletin, or the color of the pew cushions. It’s a matter of telling the truth, especially if you want to keep young people in the church.
What you have is an interpretation of age based on other assumptions that ultimately lead back to the fundamental belief of secular cosmology…that there is no God.
There are plenty of YEC science results, that remain in harmony with the literal interpretation of the Bible which disagree with your claim. And so they should.
So why should Christians disagree with the claim that Genesis is an allegory?
The following on Stack Exchange - Christianity has some decent answers to this question…
One important area where the Bible uses figurative language is to describe Heaven, God’s appearance, seraphs and thrones, and the like. The creation account is not describing the world to come and its contents which are beyond comprehension, invisible realities - it is describing this world and its contents. No analogy or parable is necessary.
Moses was a lawgiver who was intent on providing a reasoned defense of the Laws and customs he was delivering…The basis for the authority of the ten commandments was that the Lord had actually - not figuratively - inflicted plagues upon Egypt, parted the Red Sea and freed his people from slavery. Authority was based on concrete action, not fancy philosophical and made up stories.
The Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes and the other writings are wisdom literature, not law, though they may make reference to the law. The prophets make heavy use figurative language, but often take pains to spell this out. Joseph explained Pharaoh’s dream, making it clear it was figurative. John tells us that a beast represents an empire and a lampstand and lamp an angel and a church. No such analogy is given in Genesis. Real history supports real law. The Bible draws legal conclusions from these early chapters in Genesis (like concerning marriage, the sabbath, etc.) so it is basing its claim of authority on the fact that these events actually happened and demonstrate God’s glory.
As has been said before, that is like saying ‘secular plumbing’.
Numbers of people have become Christians because of big bang cosmology. Hugh Ross is the first one who springs to mind. And big bang cosmology first postulated by a Christian. ‘Secular’ cosmologists would have been happier with a steady-state universe – in fact, ‘big bang’ was intended as a derisive label by someone who did not like the religious implications of the universe having a beginning.
There is no real issue with Big Bang theory in YEC movement. I don’t know why you should think there is?
I am not going to air much of a response to the ‘secular plumbing’ statement…other than to say, it leaks!
The general difference between secular big bang and religious big bang is its origin.
Secular belief says: there is no God, the big bang came from a singularity which was basically nothing…or nothing in that it exists for such a tiny amount of time we can call it nothing (which i think is so ridiculous it insults my intelligence to be honest)
Religious belief says: there is a God who spoke everything into existence…and this is consistent with a biblical model that has more than 3 thousand years of documented provable history via artifacts, excavations of historical sites, external documented evidence from sources outside of the bible, YEC observations of the world around us that are consistent with a global flood and, even social structure that we live by today that is also consistent with biblical standards (ironically enough).
BTW, this question makes a claim that i dispute…it is only the opinion of the author of the question that YEC families are struggling with the literal creation/flood account theology. Those who are adequately educated in the bible do not have an issue with any of this…I will make the counter claim it is only those with poor biblical theology that have problems.
Sure there isn’t. Big bang cosmology demonstrates the great antiquity of the universe just like girdled rocks demonstrate the great antiquity of the earth. Girdled rocks. What are they?
This is a religious forum is it not? My understanding is that Biologos was founded by a Christian…i do not see what the relevance is of any claim here that the James Webb telescope is going to provide an intimate knowledge of every aspect of the cosmos. It still cannot answer a very basic question and the most fundamental problem of science…
Where did the energy and matter come from that started the big bang and,
How did the big bang start…ie what started it?
Do you honestly think that humanism will ever be able to answer that question using James Webb, Hubble, or even swinging my horses tail until one gets some sense knocked into ones brain by two hind quarter hooves?
Adam, Adam, Adam, it is not my opinion, it was the open expression of concern from his mother.
The problem is that when the gospel is linked and even made dependent on untruths such as a 6000 year old earth, the gospel is rejected with the realization that the associated baggage is false. There are many who can testify to that path, and this mother fears her child will follow that path. It is important that those in that position realize that it does not have to be that way, but that scripture can be harmonized with the factual observations of creation, and there are a variety of faithful views of Genesis.
I know no amount of evidence can convince you that creation is indeed as it appears so long as you rigidly hold to your current views on origins, but would encourage you to humbly consider how other Christians both historically and currently have found deeper meaning in the story of creation than the limited view expressed.in some of your statements.
