Where does it say that was his first day of existence?
1 Like
While this can be partially true as many people do not closely analyse scientific theories held in consensus especially those with such breadth and depth of evidence, are you speaking with and debating those who study the relevant physical sciences?
I understand that you are rejecting uniformatirianism and feel that holding a certain literal understanding of Genesis as the ultimate and deciding authority.
I did not start with deep time but rather YEC and literalist approach to Genesis. I learned about the theories, evidence, and especially their predictive power. I also understand the appeal to “you weren’t there”/“God was and this is what He said” arguments.
I am wondering what precisely are your arguments regarding these presuppositions? What about lines of evidence that do not rely upon deep time but still contradict the 6k year time frame?
Oh but there are. Just Google “are there gaps in the biblical genealogies”
Problem is when you admit the genealogies are not accurate, how could they be if they are missing people, then how do you decide just how wrong they are? You have nothing else to let you know if they really add up to 6,000 years or 50,000 years.
That is your presupposition and you are free to believe in it, but there are a lot of Christian geologists that do not agree with you.
Measurements of the skeleton can get you quite close to the actual age.
You are implying that geologists came up with the age of the earth to keep the biologists happy. Biologists don’t study the age of the earth geologists do. They simply accept what the geologists tell them. Or is there a vast conspiracy out there?
1 Like
Yes, yes… Korah’s rebellion. My fault. I left out a rather key part of what was in my head … and never made it out to my finger tips!
When was the last time the Levites did something with the Ark of the Covenant that got so many killed ?
As I am, EvD97! There’s really not much point in discussing evolutionary science if you don’t believe geological science!
1 Like
The ancient age of the Earth was a conclusion drawn from tons of geologic evidence well before Darwin published “On the Origin of Species”. The age of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution. If there is evidence you think scientists are ignoring, then present it. Otherwise, it seems that you are falsely accusing scientists of ignoring evidence.
4 Likes
What are these presuppositions you are talking about?
Those conclusions are based on measurements.
I suppose that geographers would also be shocked if they ran into someone who thought the world was flat. Perhaps those “evolutionists” were shocked that someone would hold a position that is contradicted by 200 years of scientific measurements and data.
2 Likes
After a cursory google and reading several articles, I think I found the presuppositions that some are referring to:
-
Bible is always true even on scientific claims (which it apparently makes) and if contradictions arise then waiting for more evidence will always verify the “plain reading” of the bible.
-
Uniformitarianism
-
One article even claimed that Creationism is equally scientific as “evolutionism or age-dating” because they are historical and not observational
-
Reliability of monkey-derived stochastic electrochemical brain processes (apparently science is only true if the Christian God is the one true God)
Most of the references to presuppositions are derived from these points. Feel free to correct me but these are largely accumulated from the plain-literal reading of certain predominant sites.
1 Like
@DanielK ,
In parts of the United States (and I don’t mean Alaska), it is considered normal and proper for ice cream stores to close for the months of December, January and February.
Of course, Bostonians (like me) know this preposterous. If ice cream wasn’t supposed to be eaten in those months, God would have made the world with more ice in the Other Months!
Such is the way with all these ridiculous presuppositions…
1 Like
Genesis 1:26-27 states that God created the first humans – male and female – on Day 6. Genesis 2 describes how God created the first humans – Adam from the dust of the ground, Eve from Adam’s rib. Genesis 1 summarizes God’s work throughout all of Creation Week. Genesis 2 is a zoomed in narrative of the events of Day 6. If the events of Genesis 2 were not on Day 6, then Genesis 1:27 is in error when it says that God created both male and female on Day 6.
Nothing that comes to mind, but why does there have to be a previous incident for this specific account to be accurate?
I believe in geological science. What I disagree with is when people claim that geological science only supports billions of years.
The reliability of Radiometric dating, for one. Another is that the Global Flood recorded in Genesis never occurred, or was simply a local flood. A third is that long periods of time are required for geological strata to form, when in fact they can form relatively quickly depending on the circumstances.
They are based on interpretations of the measurements.
I have meet someone who thinks the world is flat, and I greatly resent people grouping YECs in the same category as Flat Earthers. We are nothing alike.
I was referring specifically to the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. I am well aware of gaps in the non-chronological genealogies such as those in Matthew and Luke, or those in other parts of the OT. In fact, I have done quite of bit of studying to estimate where those gaps are and how long they are. From this I can say there are no gaps that affect the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, or affect the YEC chronology.
I admit no such thing. I am fully aware that yalad in Hebrew can refer to a descendant, not a actual son. So even if generations are skipped, the genealogy is still accurate. I also pointed out even if there are missing generations in Genesis 5 or 11, it make no difference to the chronology, because each descendant is still born when their ancestor was at the recorded age. To restate my example:
So even assuming genealogical gaps did exist in Genesis 5 and 11, the chronology of the genealogy would remain that same (Adam was still 130 years when his descendant Seth was born, Seth was still 105 when his descendant Enosh was born, etc.)
Not sure where you got that. All I’m saying that many evolutionists do the same thing that YECs are often accused of doing. I wouldn’t be surprised if some geologists support billions of years simply because of biologists, but I can’t say for sure.
In many areas of life, accepting something simply because someone says it is a poor reason for believing something. I don’t believe in a young earth simply because the Bible says so (though that would be reason enough), I have spent almost the last ten years – almost half my life – researching this controversy from both sides.
If you know the basis for radiometric dating and the cross checks that are done then the reliability would never be in doubt.
Just because they can doesn’t mean they all did. There are many examples in the strata that could not have been formed during a global flood. Like fossil forests that are perfectly preserved, dinosaur nests with unbroken eggs, animal burrows, etc. etc. And this is an amazing global flood that is able to perfectly sort fossils in the same order wherever they happen to be found and gently deposit sand grains so their magnetic orientation lines up with the earth’s magnet field.
Well then don’t say. Geologists started with millions of years before evolution was a thing and as their methods improved the age started to move back. And geologists, many of whom are Christians, would never fake their work to support billions of years and they would have to fake their work if it didn’t say billions of years.
This is not “many areas of life” this is science and I take the word of someone who is highly educated and skilled. I understand enough of the basics to know this isn’t a big con game.
2 Likes
But it does only support billions of years. Because of multiple things that can be measured. If you go to almost any Evangelical college and take a geology class, your Christian professors will show you all the evidence. It is not a vast atheist conspiracy.
The RATE project that was the creationist attempt to disprove radiometric dating and provide a different account of the data failed miserably by their own admission. Assessing the RATE Project
Plus you don’t even need geology and radioactive dating to know the YEC time frame is impossible. You can figure it out from anthropology/archaeology. Here is something I was just reading about today on Joel Duff’s blog that creationists have no explanation for. There are trillions of stone age artifacts in Africa. There is no possible way that many artifacts could exist within a YEC time frame with a 500 year post-flood ice age.
Terry Mortensen of AIG tried to respond but apparently did not really read or understand the original research he was critiquing.
2 Likes
Where does it say the events of Genesis 2 all happen on a single day?
1 Like
The problem with the YEC position is that it believes that the Bible is the Word of God, when the Bible is very clear that Jesus Christ is the Word (Logos) of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. The Bible is not God, Jesus is. The Bible did not die for our sins, Jesus did. We do not worship the Bible, we worship Jesus. The Bible is not perfect, Jesus is perfect in that He is without sin.
Just curious what you researched from the not-YEC side? What does it really mean to you to look at it from both sides?
And I wanted to add that radiometric dating isn’t the only measurement that gets you an ancient earth. Those dating techniques can be cross-checked with other things: How do we know the earth is old? - BioLogos
2 Likes
Inerrancy does not equal YEC.
Inerrancy does not equal worshiping the Bible.
1 Like
They may not be the very same thing, but I find them very closely related, That is, inerrancy is based on verbal inspiration, meaning God directly dictated the Bible to Moses or whomever so it is the Words of God, not the word of God.
In any case it is the theology that is the problem and needs to be fixed, not some statement that needs to be interpreted as if it were the Bible which it is not. The Bible cannot be inerrant in any formal sense because Jesus came to replace the Old Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant of Christ.
Or footprints. This is one thing that was severely lacking from my YEC education – the fact that not all fossils are formed the same way. Some can form during disasters, but others require more of a tranquil environment, and when there are different types in all different layers, it makes the idea that they all formed during one disaster sound more ridiculous.
3 Likes
In reading the paper that described the belemnite deposits that Joel referenced I learned something. A geologist can identify the various areas of the inland sea that formed that rock strata and they cross check to make sure they get it right. It is hard to imagine a global flood that could lay down a layer of sediment with that kind of detail embedded in it. The kind of detail that is visible in photographs to us laypeople. Or I guess we are all just blinded by our presuppositions.
2 Likes