Well, I would say biblical evidence that the earth n universe is more than apx 6,000 years old. That is my rock upon which I stand. It is what I interpret the evidence through. Unlike atheists for example, who rely on their own worldly wisdom and knowledge, and interpret the same data I see, including human nature too of course, calling themselves ‘good people‘ which is why they conclude drastically different,yes?
So, when I see discoveries like radiometric dating techniques, and someone tries using them to ‘date the earth’ I know something is wrong if it does not match the historical record given to us. So although discoveries like these radiometric ‘clocks’ can be accelerated/fast forwarded are fairly recent (compared to when they were first discovered) it is completely expected and was quite predictable because:
Isaiah 55:9 ‘for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my knowledge higher than your knowledge.’
This explains why every single dating technique falls short. Why we discover trees can produce multiple tree rings per year, ice core layers can be produced rapidly, evidence of folded rock layers demonstrate they were formed at the ‘same time.’ That processes like hydrologic sorting of fossils can be demonstrated, and that there is no consistency with ‘fossil order’ hence terms like stratigraphic leaks and reworked specimens.
That fossilized creatures like the coelacanth I mentioned earlier are found in deep layers of rock (and not in above layers) are found alive and well only highlight the flood events and processes, (they are the same age) not evolutionary processes.
Also, building on top of the coelacanth, which for decades was envisioned and erroneously taught by evolutionists as a walking fish btw, when discovered could not and Does not walk. Fossils are fickle aren’t they?
It seems this is why we do not observe abiogenesis, whales with legs, half monkey creatures, reptiles with feathers today. I find it interesting that so many thousands of creatures can be found completely unchanged over alleged hundreds of millions of years like the coelacanth, (living fossils) and yet no living so-called ‘transitional fossils.’
This i gotta day is why we observe things like vegetarian lions, crocodiles, pirahna , spiders, sharks etc. Cause God said that’s the way he did it, seems the idea of flesh eating before sin is less harmonious than millions of years.
I think that is a fair and good answer. Why then do we all not feel the same way? I do not as I do not see the Bible speaking to the age of the earth or universe, so to read that into it is a false interpretation in my opinion.
It is just not in the subject addressed. The geneologies are linking Abraham and the nation of Israel to their Creator, and refuting the polytheism of the time. Same with the creation stories.
Well, here is a paper from ICR of all places only this ICR is the Institute of Cretatean Research:
Let’s think for a moment about how we arrive at our exegesis of various passages of Scripture.
A few hundred years ago, leading theologians of both the Protestant and Catholic persuasion argued quite convincingly that the inerrant Scriptures depict a geocentric universe, and any opposition to this view was heresy. Luther asserted this. Calvin asserted this.
So, what is your opinion of Martin Luther and John Calvin? Are they worth listening to? Do you consider yourself to be a more able exegete of the Scriptures than Calvin and Luther?
Nevertheless, their position on geocentricity and the Bible has faded. In spite of Luther and Calvin’s ferocious attacks on the heretics who adopted a heliocentric interpretation of the Psalms and the book of Joshua, pretty much everyone today adopts the heliocentric exegesis that Luther and Calvin considered to be heretical.
How is it that the heliocentric view that was once considered heretical by the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars (Luther and Calvin) is now so widely adopted? What has changed?
What do you think, @Helloandgoodbye? What influenced the interpretation of Scripture?
Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the earth or stars. Evolution only deals with life.
That said, what do you think about Job 38:4-7? God tells Job that the stars sang together when the earth was created. So Biblically, the stars were formed before the earth. Or are we only looking at Genesis 1 for creation info?
Is that really the point of the passage though? Is God trying to tell us the order in which He created? Note that day 1 talks about the separation of periods of light and dark, and day 4 talks about the sun, moon, and stars (without naming them, because they were considered gods by the neighboring peoples). Day 2 talks about setting up a firmament to create a separation between the waters above and the waters below. Day 5 provides creatures to fill those spaces - sea creatures for the waters and birds for the air. Note that there are no plants yet, and if you think there was no death either, these birds and fish had nothing to eat. Day 3 gives us dry land and vegetation, while Day 6 provides creatures to live on that land and eat the vegetation. Is it possible that the order of days is not actually the order in which God physically created everything, but that it’s a literary device being used to make a point?
Technically, those only provide the genealogy back to Adam. They don’t say there were no humans prior to Adam. Adam is not mentioned in Genesis 1. The generic “man” (or “mankind”) is used there. Adam the individual isn’t mentioned until Genesis 2. Now it is a reasonable interpretation to think Genesis 2 is repeating Genesis 1 from a different perspective, but it’s also a reasonable interpretation to think Genesis 2 follows Genesis 1, especially given the nature of the other toledots found in Genesis - they’re sequels, not restating something in a different way. Two honest Christians can come to different ideas on this.
So can you explain to me why carnivorous animals have sharp teeth and how they used those to eat plants prior to the fall, or why the cobra had venom? And can you explain to me why some animals have defense mechanisms that would be unnecessary if nothing was trying to eat them - porcupine quills, armadillo armor, etc.? Or do you think all the animals changed in some way at the fall? Please explain to me what exactly happened, because the Bible says nothing about the animals changing, and it wouldn’t make sense to have a venomous snake if it’s not trying to kill something.
I don’t see anywhere in the text that it says thorns didn’t exist at all prior to the curse?
Now you’re really leaving the Biblical text. The Bible doesn’t say anything about any of those things.
So when I read the text, they are given the warning that if they eat of the fruit of that tree, in that day they will die. Did they die physically that day? No. So how could God be talking about physical death unless He was lying to them? They died spiritually that day. They were literally separated from God.
When I look at Romans 5, I see death came through one man’s sin, and eternal life comes through Jesus. So isn’t that talking about spiritual death? Even those of us who have obeyed Jesus will physically die. But we have eternal life - spiritual life.
Now how do I embrace evolution along with biblical teaching? I look at what God is trying to tell us. What is His point in Genesis 1? Is He trying to tell us that plants were created before the sun? Or was He trying to tell us He transcends nature and is above those false deities that surrounding peoples worshiped. Is God trying to tell us that He specially created each and every animal and man, or is He trying to tell us that He has a special relationship with humans? Is He trying to tell us that physical death and thorns and earthquakes didn’t exist before the man sinned? Or is He trying to tell us that man sinned and needs a Savior?
If we focus too much on shoving science into the text, we tend to miss the point of the text. I don’t think the text is telling us about science. It’s not revealing what order things were created or how exactly God created. It’s talking about God’s sovereignty and His relationship with man.
Do you also require biblical evidence that germs exist? Because the Bible doesn’t tell us about germ theory, and I’m guessing you accept that…
Do you realize that many Christians have made scientific discoveries that point to an old earth? You make it sound like the only scientists who have anything to do with these discoveries are atheists. That’s nonsense. It was Christians who wanted to show the flood was global that realized the rocks were telling a different story. They didn’t have atheist glasses on. They weren’t interpreting the rocks through the wrong lenses.
When I, personally, came to accept evolution. I was fully a believing Christian. The problem was that things didn’t fit together in the YEC story. The explanations weren’t making sense. The existence of continuous civilizations before and after the global flood didn’t make sense. My kids were asking me scientific and historical questions that I simply could not answer from a YEC point of view. I investigated what both sides said, and I found that the YEC explanations were severely lacking. I am a fully believing Christian today, and when I’ve read YEC books and articles, I’ve found a lot of misrepresentation of scientific studies, withholding of important information, etc. Basically, some of the “Creation Scientists” I just can’t trust. They are so stuck on one particular interpretation of Genesis (which could be wrong!), that they have to twist the evidence we see to fit their view. That’s not how science works, and I don’t think it’s how we should do things as Christians.
If you want to say that everything was done by miracle and God just made everything look the way it does for some purpose, that’s fine (though I’ll disagree with it, as it makes God look deceptive), but making scientific claims that are just plain false? Nope. I can’t go along with that. When you tell me the ice cores could have been laid down very rapidly, and we have 800,000 layers in one ice core. Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense, even looking through the lens of a global flood 4000 years ago. Or radioactive decay rates changing so drastically (why?!?!?) and somehow not vaporizing the earth. Doesn’t make any sense at all. What does make sense to me is taking the Genesis account as not being a material creation 6000 years ago. Solves so many problems for me - I can see the Bible and nature in harmony, and I get the main theological message just the same as you do: God wants a relationship with man, man sinned, man needed a Savior, Jesus is that Savior. So if we are in agreement on that, why does it matter to you if some of us accept evolution as the process by which God created the great variety of life?
You could. For your first two examples, you’d be missing out on a lot, of course. For the third one…I’m trying to picture a old, flat earth causing frogs to turn into princes, and all I can say is it sounds like an interesting, Terry-Pratchett-esque story if you can ever send an example my way.
Well, Genesis 5&11 and Luke 3 do give a clear historical record from the historical Jesus to the historical Abraham, to the historical Adam n eve, so these truths refutes all myth for sure in every generation including ours.
As for ‘whale legs’ seems these fall into the category of useless mutations like duplicate fins on fish, turtles with two heads, ppl with wired growths too etc., I would say because we live in a fallen world.
From the article/link above:
Unfortunately, Church leaders interpreted certain Biblical passages as geocentric to bolster the argument for what science of the day was claiming. This mistake is identical to those today who interpret the Bible to support things such as the big bang, billions of years, or biological evolution.
Seems the ‘science of the day’ influenced these church leaders.
I have heard ‘old earth’ creationists like Hugh Ross refer young earth ppl as crazy ‘flat earthers’ and have experienced fellow Christians call myself a heretic as well.
Maybe one day soon ‘young earth’ will be widely adopted? By all ppl.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ114.html
What was the light before the sun?
Probably quasars.
Remember, god talks baby talk to us, like I tell my kids that they were in ‘mommy’s belly’ yet there is big science and knowledge behind such statements, yes?
Consider:
All the ‘big science’ behind disease, and God promises Israel none of which they suffered in Egypt.
Day 2 God created the earth crust (Raqia) which began to surface on Day 3, dry land which he then made plants. Seems like proper order yet again, yes.
Yes, I can use a sharp knife for watermelon or meat. Hand for a hand shake or fist. Many animals today have sharp teeth like fruit bats and are 100% fruit eating, pandas n bamboo and so on. How these were used before the fall.
Why do u assume Cobras had venom or plants had thorns before the fall? The genetic code for these things was written in, and manifested after that historical event, sure.
Fossils. Ppl claim earthquakes and such produced them before the fall. Not good.
Adam n eve are dead, so yes, they were warned.
History can teach us many lessons, spiritual lessons too, don’t miss out on them.
Seems more than just literary devices to me. Zero reason why not.
From what u have written, doesn’t seem like u understood YEC that well, before ‘jumping ship.’ Well, I wouldn’t jump ship from anything u wrote at all, as I have explained a bit above.
Maybe u come back?!
Yep. Like “6 days, morning and evening” of creation activity.
Every Hebrew scholar I am aware of interprets “raqia” as “the heavens” or “the dome of heaven” or something like that. The fact that you think it refers to the earth’s crust tells me everything I need to know about the trustworthiness of your exegesis of Genesis.
Best,
Chris Falter
Your father’s blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient mountains, than the bounty of the age-old hills. - Genesis 49:26
Hello, @Helloandgoodbye. You may want to read Deuteronomy 25:13-16 here:
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
You need to be aware that there are rules that interpretations have to follow. Rules that have nothing whatsoever to do with “atheists” or “relying on one’s own worldly wisdom and knowledge” or “calling themselves ‘good people’.” Anything that does not stick to the basic rules and principles of mathematics and measurement is not Biblical, no matter what results it gives.
So when I see YECs proposing science fiction scenarios about accelerated nuclear decay on a scale that they themselves admit would have raised the Earth’s temperature to 22,000°C, that is not sticking to the rules.
When I see YECs inventing fictitious substances such as “unusually compressible water” (whatever that is supposed to be), that is not sticking to the rules.
When I see YECs failing to provide any calculations whatsoever to back up their assertions, that is not sticking to the rules.
When I see YECs claiming that radiocarbon in ancient coals and diamonds is primordial, when the amounts they are citing are so low as to be indistinguishable from known and well studied contamination vectors, that is not sticking to the rules.
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t take a “secular” or an “evolutionist” or an “atheist” mindset to see that young-earth arguments are a joke. It’s not “just an interpretation” or “just an assumption”. You don’t even need to ask silly questions such as “were you there?” either. In fact, you don’t even need to be a scientist to see through many of them. It’s a matter of basic honesty, getting your facts straight, and backing up your claims with appropriate maths and measurements.
Some people say that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. I personally beg to differ on that one. The Bible has plenty to say about science. But what it says about science is concerned far, far, far, far, far more with how science must be conducted than with what results we should expect science to give. As I said, the Bible demands honest and accurate weights and measurements. Old-earth arguments deliver on that requirement. Young-earth arguments do not.
This is not at all accurate. The Bible had been interpreted in a geocentric manner for 2000 years–since the moment the Scriptures had been recorded. It was always hitherto interpreted in a geocentric fashion because that was the prevailing belief when God revealed Himself in the covenants. God accommodated His self-revelation to the science of the time; thus the science of the time shows up in the Scriptures, just as the customs and languages and political systems of the time show up in the Scriptures.
God didn’t show the Israelites the Einstein-Friedmann equations, or quantum mechanics, or organic chemistry, or evolutionary biology. Those were not part of His purposes for the Scriptures. Instead, the discoveries of science are part of God’s commission for all humanity, created in His image.
Read the rabbinic literature, and the literature written by the “fathers” of the early church, and every interpretation was geocentric. The fathers, in particular, bequeathed to us the great creeds that still guide our worship and thought. Yet they invariably interpreted the Scriptures geocentrically.
Why is it that prior to the Enlightenment, not a single theologian ever taught a heliocentric interpretation?
More importantly, why is it that the early creeds of the church did not teach six 24-hour creation days? If it’s so vital not to abandon that doctrine, why did 6 24-hour creation days never show up in the creeds? It was enough to affirm that God had created the heavens and earth out of nothing.
Best,
Chris
Your father’s blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient mountains, than the bounty of the age-old hills. - Genesis 49:26
You may as well ask why we assume the world is a coherent place that we can make any sense of at all. I don’t think you represent Christianity very well by forcing everything to balance upon a literal genesis. It is thinking like this which drives people away from churches. I think the scripture about becoming like little children had to do with becoming open and sincere, not with becoming ignorant and foolish.
No, actually I was YEC for over 15 years, well versed in the subject. I’ve read those arguments/explanations many times. Those are the kinds of arguments that made me look elsewhere for more realistic explanations, because as I said previously, the YEC explanations (including the ones you linked to) are severely lacking.
I’m good with science and the Bible, thank you. I don’t see any reason why I need to change that?
Hey guys, this is my first post on this site. I have been reading posts on this forum from the shadows for a few weeks now. When I came across this topic and the ensuing debate, I was so interested that I felt led to finally participate – specifically, I felt led to share some thoughts with my brother @helloandgoodbye.
Like several others on this forum, I was raised with the 6-day creation belief. Every Christian I knew prescribed to the YEC theory. I love science, so I am often compelled to understand how things work. While I was well-versed in YEC arguments and all the counterpoints to evolution and an old earth, I secretly always had one tiny problem with the entire theory – the timeframe. There just didn’t seem to be enough time. Specifically, I was getting hung up on the ice age. Living in northwest Ohio, there is undeniable geological evidence of glacial movement. Glaciers don’t form overnight. Their sheer size physically prohibits that. Even assuming glaciers were somehow snap-frozen (which I rejected based on common sense), the glaciers still had to move, bulldozing hundreds of miles of terrain. Suffice it to say, 6,000 years simply didn’t make sense. Maybe Ussher’s timeframe was slightly off. Maybe the earth was closer to 10,000 years old. Maybe God simply never intended for us to know. Those were my rationalizations.
I spent my first 3 years of college majoring in biology and geology. I dutifully argued against evolution with my biology professors, much to their exasperation. I ignored the geological concepts touting millions and millions of years. I believed the acceptance of an old earth was a rejection of God and His inerrant word. The two simply could not coexist.
A couple months ago our pastor, a Christian whom I deeply respect, made a simple comment in passing about how the earth simply cannot be only 6,000 years old. I was absolutely stunned. How could he, with all of his incredible faith and intense relationship with God, not believe YEC? His simple comment drove me back to the scientific research, only this time I was determined to not let my bias color my interpretation of the data. I had faith God would guide my studies. This objective review hit me hard, because I couldn’t rationally or logically ignore so many scientific findings that repeatedly pointed to an old earth. After spending 37 years being a YEC, my entire worldview was turned upside down. Long story short, as I desperately searched for answers, I found this site, which has been an amazing blessing to me. Intelligent people with far more knowledge of both science and the Bible than I possess were able to provide cogent ideas that could explain many of the questions with which I was struggling. I realized very quickly that accepting scientific evidence does not mean I had to reject the Bible; the two could coexist.
I appreciate your conversation with this group. Your knowledge of YEC theory is impressive and extensive, far better developed than my understanding of it ever was. This debate is quite informative to me. It provokes a deeper consideration and challenges all of us to further examine what we believe and why. May God bless you as you pursue His truth.
As for the rest of you wonderful people, I wish I could truly convey how helpful you’ve been to me, without even knowing it. Your lives and words are a testament to your relationships with God, and you all have been such a blessing to me. Thanks to all of you!
So good to have you here, Matt. While I was never immersed in the YEC culture ( indeed, in my formative years YEC culture as such did not exist) biblical literalism was the norm. My “ahah” moment came when we drilled an irrigation well on our family farm, and pumped little fossil clams from 400 feet beneath the high plains of Texas. It was obvious that the history of the earth was ancient and complex, and somehow I had to either reconcile it with faith, or faith would go by the wayside.
In any case, here we are. We look forward to knowing you better as a member of our community.
Thanks so much for sharing your story, Matt! You are definitely not alone in your questions and I’m so glad you’ve found helpful resources here. I remember the feeling of relief when I realized there was an entire organization that recognized the difficulties that the false dichotomy of “evolution or Christianity” poses for so many of us.
No, actually I was YEC for over 15 years, well versed in the subject. I’ve read those arguments/explanations many times. Those are the kinds of arguments that made me look elsewhere for more realistic explanations, because as I said previously, the YEC explanations (including the ones you linked to) are severely lacking.