Thanks for the warm welcome, guys! I’m looking forward to being a part of this community. @jpm, I think part of the reason Christians cling so to YEC is exactly as you pointed out - they either need to reconcile science with faith, or faith goes by the wayside. When I began to process my new paradigm shift, it struck me how clever Satan is. He has managed to use God’s word to decieve Christians, as @Laura pointed out, by creating this false dichotomy of “evolution or Christianity.” How many people has he turned from Christ using the Bible, simply because they could not refute the scientific evidence that plainly points to an old earth but couldn’t reconcile that with their Christian beliefs? There’s a bitter irony to that, really…
7 Likes
Wow, you have just impugned the character of a man who has a very strong one, and have done so publicly. Do you care to provide a link to the instance where Hugh Ross referred to “young earth people as crazy ‘flat earthers’”??
When you do, I would like to call this to the attention of the folks at Reasons to Believe, as I’m certain that they will want to issue an official retraction.
1 Like
I couldn’t agree more with Deuteronomy 25:13-16 too.
Here is a resource expanding on much heat related questions you may have.
https://kgov.com/hydroplate-theory-heat-problem-walt-brown
Unusually compressible water? U mean supercritical water?
https://renmatix.com/process/how-we-do-it/plantrose-process/how-it-works
‘…It’s completely compressible (as opposed to water in a liquid phase, that is not). That’s where water becomes supercritical…’
As I explained above just as there is ‘big science’ in exodus 15:26 whenGod promised Israel ‘none of these diseases’ (if they obeyed simple commandments he gave them) there is ‘big science’ behind the Genesis chapter 1 and The world-wide flood.
I see zero reason why The Genesis account should not be taken literally/historically.
I gotta say old earth accounts do not deliver.
For example, what are the mathematical odds of a bacteria evolving by random processes? How bout even just ONE single lousy functional protein?
Thanks for sharing Matt.
My experience is quite the opposite.
I was born and raised an atheist and evolutionist. I came to learn the idea of evolution and millions of years is bankrupt, embraced an intelligent design position, and then soon enough the God of Israel as the intelligent designer.
This reminds me of the book of Job.
More specifically Jobs friends.
They, with all their observations concluded wrongly. That they lacked knowledge compared to God.
We can not, and should not ever impose our observations, finite knowledge and interpretations of the world around us on the bible, as superior. Trying to fit what we think is impossible like ‘not enough time’ ideas for glacial movements and try to reinterpret scripture because of such ideas and lacking knowledge, yes?
In other words, why not take the historical record given to us via scripture, and try to understand the ‘big science’ behind rapid glacial movements during the ice age(which none of us were there for)… just as none of us were there for the creation of the world, as God drilled Job with I believe 42 questions!
It was a Hugh Ross, Kent hovind debate. Was quite a low blow lol. (when Ross compared ‘young earthers’ to flat earthers)
Do you have a transcript that shows that Hugh Ross said that “young earth people as crazy ‘flat earthers’” ?? I find that to be out of character for him, so I would like to know if your quote is accurate.
I don’t disagree. It is definitely not out of character for me to say something like that. It is entirely accurate, but I am suspicious that a gentleman, like Hugh Ross, would say something to an avowed YEC in a debate with him.
Do you see how these two statements vary? Does it matter to you?
1 Like
Interesting. Why not conclude the earth is young, and that it has experienced a great catastrophic event like a flood burying things 400 feet deeply?
Could it be u r being influenced by the ‘science of our culture.’ And not so much by the historical biblical record 
Great statement!
And vice versa could be easily said.
Turning a historical account into myth to align with the myth of millions of years, and evolutionary ideas, keeping ppl like the old me out of and away from church, and pushing ppl in, out.
As much as I love this subject, I kinda hate it, u know what I mean?
I want to thank you for your acknowledging that we will have all eternity to discuss this together—that’s very gracious. It look forward to it! Blessings, brother!
1 Like
Obviously those things affect how we view things. Reality is that this was sort of the final nail in the coffin for Biblical historical literalism for me, as so much else was not compatable with a 6000 year old earth. I later learned that the deposits over that aquifer were from the erosion of the Rocky Mountains, 300-400 miles away far over the horizon, which is still pretty amazing in itself. Certainly, I can see how an isolated deposit could be interpreted as a flood deposit,but when looked at with other sedimentary deposits, it is obvious they represent long histories, and varied conditions rather than a singular event.
4 Likes
Welcome to the forum, Matt! It is totally possible to love the Bible and love science, so I’m glad you found your way here before someone convinced you otherwise. Your story about your pastor’s passing comment that rocked your world and set you off looking with fresh eyes is inspiration to me to be braver about admitting my non-YEC leanings, even if I think the people I’m with will vigorously disagree. The Christian world needs to be more aware that you can love Jesus and believe scientists too. So glad you have been encouraged here and I hope you will join in more. 
6 Likes
At the end of the day, praise God you came to know Him as your Lord and Savior - there’s nothing more important than that, brother! Any disagreement on this subject is all but secondary to the saving grace with which God has graciously provided each and every one of us through his son Jesus Christ. I look forward to joining you in heaven someday!
In response to your post, I don’t question that God was the intelligent Designer of creation. However, I will freely admit to you I don’t yet have a good explanation as to how He went about creating it all. I simply haven’t had enough time or contemplation on the subject to formulate a coherent opinion. Regardless, I want you to know one thing - I don’t know how familiar you are with it, but I was born and raised a Mennonite - essentially it’s one step up from the Amish. An adherence of this belief is on par with heresy, no exaggeration intended, and it’s not one I took lightly. Only in the light of the irrefutable proof of science was I forced to reconsider my opinions. And let me assure you, the transition was NOT a welcome or easy one!
I am interested in your thoughts pertaining to glacial formation and movement within the paradigm of YEC. As I stated before, this was a major sticking point for me with a young earth theory, no matter how much I wanted to believe it. I’ve heard some theories tossed around about the ice age occurring after the flood, but those theories only serve to shorten the time frame for glaciation. I’ve personally seen and touched the grooves that glaciers cut in the bedrock at Put-In-Bay. I live among the dead-flat (and extremely boring!) farmlands of northwestern Ohio, leveled by the ice. I’ve personally picked up specimens of igneous and metamorphic glacial erratics that originated from Canadian rock strata, rock species not remotely indigenous to the sedimentary bedrock of Ohio. Living where I do, denying glacial activity is almost on par with rejecting medical science as a whole. And with respect, comparing physical observations of glaciation with Job’s colleagues and their poor advice is a fallacious comparison (e.g., comparing apples to oranges). Job and the details of his story are not observable, while the evidence for glaciation is directly observable. And that’s beside the fact that the two are not remotely related…
Secondly, and I know you’ll disagree with this outright, why DOES Genesis need to be read as a historical record given to us via scripture? It currently strikes me how unhistorical Genesis 1 through 11 really is. It’s ambiguous at best. The first chapter is obviously poetic in nature, not historical. I’m still a big believer in the inspired writings of the Bible, but I’ve realized that perhaps our attempts at viewing certain scripture passages through our biased lenses of reality can have a profound effect on what we believe. Being a YEC until very recently, I am painfully aware of how a typical conservative Christian interpretation of Genesis leaves little room for alternative explanations. In fact, YEC theory all but builds into itself an automatic defense that any deviations from a literal reading of the book is inspired solely by Satan, right? This isn’t meant to be a trap for you - it’s simply my experience with the subject. Can you honestly say I’m I wrong in that assumption? Denying a 6-day creation and a young earth is denying God’s handiwork? But honestly, why MUST it be this either-or scenario? What about God do we forfeit by accepting He may have created everything in a different way than what we might think?
I don’t claim to have all the answers, or even an inkling of a clue right now, but as a person who subscribes to science as a creation of our Lord, I do know how to interpret scientific study and outcomes. As much as I truly wish it wasn’t the case, I found a myriad of data that I couldn’t logically explain in the context of the young-earth creationist point of view. I can only encourage you to objectively look at some of the science behind these theories and to draw your own conclusions. But as I said before, our superfluous personal beliefs on this subject are worth nothing when compared with our shared belief in the saving blood of Jesus Christ. That is the sole truth that carries eternal consequence for us all.
May God bless you!
4 Likes
If you’re going to show that the heat problem has a solution, you need to show us the maths. That means linking to a paper or web page that has appropriate equations on it that we can check, not to a podcast that just has people giving a non-technical (and therefore hand-wavy and almost certainly wrong) overview.
That’s irrelevant. The mathematical odds of abiogenesis have nothing whatsoever to do with determinations of the ages of rock strata. The two are completely different disciplines.
2 Likes
While there are some who do this, not all EC’s think Genesis 1-11 is myth. I personally believe Adam and Eve and Noah are real people. Real events occurred. I just don’t think the account in the Bible is written in modern historical terms, and I don’t think it’s describing scientific processes.
You’ve presented the false dichotomy that I’ve heard the last 20 years. There is a third way, and to ignore that creates atheists.
I’m teaching my kids that the Bible is the word of God and is true, no matter what we discover about science. The false dichotomy often presented by YEC’s says that if evolution is true, we need to throw out the Bible. I reject that.
4 Likes
Well, yourself and many others (mainly ‘old earthers) theorize about how the nuclear fusionof lighter atoms like helium (which produces heavy, unstable, radioactive nuclei) would overheat the earth…yet, as our understanding of ‘big science’ increases, we learn that such fusion does NoT produce such heat once theorized😎
That we have termed it ‘CoLD Re-packing.’
This sort of stuff only confirms the historical biblical account of 6,000 years and a global flood.
Just we as have now demonstrated radioactive ‘clocks’ can be accelerated over a billion-fold, that they are Not constant/consistent and can be manipulated quite drastically too.
So, if you want to mathematically calculate the age of the earth using radiometric dating techniques, fine, but using what underlying assumption?
The always* slow rate of decay formula, or the accelerated* rate of decay formula? (And using Gods word on history as our foundation of truth)
Rocks are not clocks.
We know that square wheels do not work, yes?
And we know such dating techniques do not work either, so why promote them as if they are reliable in anyway shape or form?
Why compromise with a false historical idea? Why promote an idea which is the backbone of atheism and unbelief? Why does the church compromise with false morality too that our culture promotes? 
( these are rhetorical questions by the way)
Such a dangerous slippery slope to have as ones foundation, to put our kids on such foundational ideas…come on guys, snap outta it😉
No, it is the RATE Project that determined that the surface of the earth would be superheated to over 20000 C. The RATE Project was funded by YEC organizations…
Accelerated nuclear decay
Based on these findings, the authors postulated that nuclear decay rates were accelerated by a factor of approximately 500 million during the Creation week and at the time of the Flood. Short-lived isotopes such as 14C were not affected, while long-lived isotopes such as 40K were affected by a factor of a billion or more. Stable isotopes were apparently not affected.
They identified two unresolved problems with this theory. One was excessive heat generation, which would have been sufficient to raise the temperature of the earth’s surface to 22,000 °C,[3]sufficient to evaporate the earth unless some extraordinary cooling mechanism were applied. They acknowledged that neither conduction, nor convection, nor radiation could remove this heat quickly enough, and that therefore a new, esoteric solution would have to be found. They further acknowledged that this solution would also have to have cooled some material more than others to prevent the oceans from freezing over.
The other problem is excessive radiation generation, which would have killed Noah and his passengers on the Ark by the radiation generated from ratioisotopes such as 40K in their own bodies. They speculated that the 40K measured in biological materials today may have been a result of the Genesis Flood itself, although they did not explain how this could have come about.
Despite their admissions of serious problems, they expressed confidence that the problems would be resolved.[1][4]
1 Like
What on earth are you talking about? An old earth gives the heat from nuclear fusion (and all the subsequent processes) plenty of time to dissipate. And if it didn’t produce such heat, then there wouldn’t be a problem anyway.
You’ve done nothing of the sort.
Billion fold accelerated nuclear decay is science fiction. There is NO evidence that it could have happened under any conditions that we could realistically have expected during the Flood. None whatsoever. Nichts. Nil. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis. Even if it had, it would have released enough heat to vaporise the earth. That was the young-earth RATE project’s own admission.
Because, contrary to what you are claiming, we know that they DO work. We can cross-check radiometric results against each other and against other forms of measurement. For example, in the Hawaiian islands and numerous other places on Earth, they give ages that increase with distance at exactly the same rate as direct GPS measurements of continental drift.
Yes, @Helloandgoodbye, they are rhetorical. They are a form of rhetoric that demonstrates total cluelessness on your part about how science actually works.
Long ages are nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. They are nothing whatsoever to do with “compromise” or “false morality.” They are conclusions drawn from measuring things. Nothing more, nothing less.
What do you mean “snap outta it”? All we’re saying here, @Helloandgoodbye, is that if you want to try and address scientific findings, you need to demonstrate that you correctly understand what you are talking about and that your facts are straight.
4 Likes
Alright, let’s expand on this.
Here ya go:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7549.htm
Best definition: an expanse
Keep in mind verses translated in the KJV like ‘thou shall not kill’ are better understood/translated as ‘ Thou shall not murder’ ( Big difference)…,likewise with the Raqia, once translated ‘firmament’ is better understood as an expanse.
Let me ask you a question. Where was heaven originally? Garden of Eden on earth?
In Genesis chapter 1 the first four times the Hebrew word Raqia is used it is ‘solo.’
Last four times it speaks of ‘Raqia **of the heavens **…an additional phrase (where the stars are)
In other words, two different expenses were created.
The first expanse divided the waters above, from the waters below, subterranean chambers of water which would be the source of the global flood. Genesis 7:11 ‘the fountains of the deep burst open’
https://kgov.com/what-is-the-firmament-of-day-2-aka-the-raqia
Also, genesis 1:20 tells us the birds ‘fly across the face of the heaven’ Earth crust makes sense.
Randy Alcorn goes quite in-depth into this subject and builds on the idea of heaven on earth. Not the typical cultural idea of heaven who knows where else .Check it out? A good read.
https://www.amazon.ca/Heaven-Randy-Alcorn/dp/0842379428
The Hebrew word shamayim is used for ‘heavens.’
https://www.biblehub.com/hebrew/8064.htm