What biblical reasons are there to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old?

A post was split to a new topic: Why is the firmament not a problem anymore

@Bill_II Wonderland.
@Christy I have no complaints about the moderating.

The deterioration is, I think, just the natural outcome of my inquiries having run their course. I was seeking answers and, not finding satisfactory ones, kept searching. I think wore out a number of people who eventually stopped commenting, and I frustrated the ones who continued with my unwillingness to accept what had been offered. People’s reactions were normal human reactions. I am leaving BioLogos disappointed, but not with any ill will.

My disappointment has to do primarily with not having found the biblical solution I was seeking. Secondarily, I was disappointed that my attempts to explain why certain solutions weren’t working, especially as time wore on, were, to a large degree, misunderstood - thus I was perceived as “preaching,” acting in “bad faith,” or having come here for purposes other than the one I repeatedly stated. It finally got to the point that I felt almost nothing I was saying was being understood in the way that I meant it. But, as I say, this is all secondary and is not worth discussing further except to say this: It was like I went to the store to buy a suit. When the clerk gave me one to try on, I explained that the sleeves were too long and the pants were too short because I was hoping some alterations might make the suit fit. But it was like the clerks thought I was someone who was so fussy, he probably didn’t really intend to buy a suit anyway.

I have not come to a conclusion (one way or the other) that I had hoped to reach when I first came here in late June. However, it’s not BioLogos’ responsibility to resolve this issue for me. I asked for help. I was offered help. And here we are. I’ll continue to mull over the things many of you said here.

2 Likes

Come back any time.

1 Like

I can certainly understand your thoughts on this. It is a reasonable assumption. However, have you researched how the aforementioned ministries respond to this question? Many of us have and we have been amazed at how little serious thought they’ve given to questions like “Why do fossils appear in an orderly sequences in predictable strata?” Moreover, we notice that they rarely, if ever, test their hypotheses. (When I was a “creation science” enthusiast back in the 1960’s, Young Earth Creationist speakers and authors constantly complained that they lacked the research grants and reliable funding which could allow them to extensively test their scientific hypotheses and to accumulate the quantities and qualities of data which could be published in academic journals. Half a century later there are many Christian organizations and institutions with enormous multi-million dollar annual budgets which are the envy of many scientists I know. Yet, have you noticed any scientific discoveries and paradigm-changing research projects published by ministries like AiG, ICR, or CMI? No, and for this sequential fossil strata topic they continue to cite the same vague, inconclusive, illogical, and poorly structured “studies” they referenced in the 1960’s! I’ll describe them shortly.)

One would think so. Yet, that is not at all the case!

I have the most experience with AiG so I will focus on their typical non-response to this particular question. The fossil sequence is a good example of a question which quickly got deleted at the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter Facebook pages when a group of us experimented with posting such questions a few years ago. [We were all former Young Earth Creationists who happened to organize an informal SIG group one evening at a Denny’s during an annual Evangelical Theological Society conference.] I can cite many other examples where the reaction to such a question was quite evasive if not also downright hostile. On the few occasions when we got any kind of direct answer, these were their declarations:

(1) Different kinds of animal corpses have different flotation properties. It just so happens that dinosaurs sink faster than the mammals we see today. Yes, that was their answer. On the rare occasions when there was an attempt to cite a source for this, they made vague reference to a lab experiment at Loma Linda experiment involving various dead animals and a water tank. Yet, nobody was ever able to find a published scientific paper or even an informal report about the alleged experiment on animal corpses.

(2) Different kinds of animals have different abilities to flee rising flood waters. (Yes, I guess that means that most flowering plants outran Triceratops and T rex.)

Do you consider these “confident” answers to be based on empirical evidence and the best of peer-reviewed scientific scholarship? I do not. Do you consider it credible science? I do not.

No wonder they are NOT confident of their answers and tend to delete such questions posed on their websites and even tend to ban those who insist on asking such questions.

OK. I can appreciate that. So it is always wise to investigate what the science academy has had to say about such hypotheses from AiG, ICR, and CMI. Peer-review is what keeps science on track and exposes flawed methodologies and illogical conclusions.

I would suggest that you are misapplying the context of “The first to tell his story seems right until another comes along.” It’s vocabulary and circumstance refers to what we would call a “courtroom situation” where the parties and witnesses disagree and tell of differing experiences and observations. It is not meant to apply to differences in opinion in general or, much less, to scientific disputes. (Yes, it is wise to always look for opposing opinions on all sorts of matters but that is unlikely to be what the author had in mind in that passage.)

I can’t find the post at the moment but I recall you saying that someone here had referred to AiG, ICR, and CMI as “scientific kooks”. I have not noticed anybody doing that on this thread but it is certainly possible that I missed such posts. Personally I don’t think of those ministry people as “scientific kooks” because (1) I consider them my brethren in Christ and I try to avoid extreme labels, and (2) I find most of what they claim and do not at all “scientific”. They don’t subject their claims to falsification testing. They misuse and incorrectly define scientific terms. They use equivocation fallacies and far too many logic fallacies in general. They misrepresent scientific concepts and erroneously (even deceptively?) quote-mine the writings of scientists. They complain of unfair bias and missing out on research grants yet rarely if ever apply for them and rarely show any kind of familiarity with scientific methodologies and peer-review. (Answer in General started their own “scientific journal” and then declared: “Look! We do too publish in peer-reviewed journals!” Sadly, their “peer-reviewed journal” disallows any papers which fail to conform to their predetermined conclusions and doctrinal position. AiG’s “science” must always agree with Ken Ham’s personal views on every topic.)

My greatest concern about AiG, ICR, and CMI is that they do great damage to our witness for Christ and tend to confuse the public about the Bible in general and what it means to be a Christ-follower. I have lots of Christian brethren who find the scientific evidence for evolution and billions of years uncompelling—and that’s fine. What concerns me far more is how AiG, ICR, and CMI misrepresent the evidence and the nature of science itself.

5 Likes

As I mentioned previously, the bible is explicit on matters such as Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham and so on, and I accept these as given to us. On other matters, such as ages and times, the bible is not explicit and often mentions things in passing, or does not mention at all - on the latter people may become overly interested, or perhaps become fixated to the point of re-interpreting biblical teachings. If they are so inclined, I see this as a choice they make, and not biblical teaching.

Hi Mike,

My brother, I think that we are having some difficulties communicating. I’d like to try to work it out, if possible.

I tried really hard to make clear that disagreement is not grounds for accusation, much less indictment.

You seem to regard my disagreement with some of your ideas as an “indictment,” and frankly I am confused as to why you feel that way. I have done my best to communicate in a way that I hoped would convey my regard for you as my brother in faith.

I do have some other thoughts that could perhaps be productive. However, if my best efforts result in your thinking that I am “indicting” you, then I would rather not discuss the subject of this thread any further. The most important thing is that we love one another in Christ; that’s the true mark of a Christ-follower.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

1 Like

They have no trouble raising money for creation museums, ark parks, and movies like Genesis: Paradise Lost

The lists in Genesis 4, 5, 10, 11, 25 and 36 are king lists and do not represent the first people of Earth. These are the Horite Hebrew ancestors of Jesus Messiah.

There is a gap of time between Genesis 4:1 and Genesis 4:17. This is evident when we read the material in the Akkadian. The context of these early rulers is Nilotic, not Mesopotamian. Genesis states that Eve gave birth to the ruler (Kain, Qayan, Khan, king) whose royal line is listed in Genesis 4. When Eve gives birth, she declares in Genesis 4:2 kan-itti. The Bible scholar E.A. Speiser noted that Qany(ty) or Qanitti is related to the Akkadian itti, as in itti šarrim, which means “with the king.” Akkadian was the language of Nimrod’s territory (c. BC 2290-2215) and according to Genesis 10:8 Nimrod was a Kushite ruler, with a Nilotic cultural tradition. Akkadian shares many roots with Nilotic languages. Among the Oromo of Ethiopia and Somalia, itti is attached to names. Examples include Kaartuumitti, Finfinneetti, and Dimashqitti. That itti is associated with Nilotic rulers is evident in the name of the famous queen Nefertitti.

@Bill_II
@Chris_Falter

While I appreciated your interest in continuing the discussion we were having (written here and here, respectively), I felt no inclination to continue - even though @Christy had assured me that I had not worn out my welcome at BioLogos. However, this morning it occurred to me how we might have a productive continuation going forward.

The first step is the step I have already taken: that is, for me to cease posting to this thread or any of the other threads I have started at BioLogos. The next step is to launch a new thread and to confine all my posting to that thread only. Since the current state of our discussion here has been focused on the assumptions behind my view, that is where that thread will focus. This means a change in tack for me.

In this thread, I have been asking for biblical solutions to a biblical problem I face. I think this has yielded all the proposals that it’s going to yield…and, going on this long, has resulted in frustration for some because I have not yet accepted any of the proposals offered. In the new thread, the focus will be on my view and on the assumptions that underlie it. I will defend (explain) my views. I am not looking for a debate; rather, I’m looking for an exchange of views. If it turns out that I learn about assumptions that are more well-grounded than my own, then I gain helpful information. But in no case am I trying to convince you of anything; rather, I’m trying to convince myself of something - one way or the other.

The new thread is called: Examining the Assumptions of Mosaic Creationism vis-a-vis the Assumptions of Evolutionary Creationism

Since I will no longer be seeking biblical solutions from any of you to solve the problem I was describing, there’s no need for anyone to become frustrated because I haven’t accepted his or her solution. And although I have no way to control it, I would appreciate it if anyone who thinks that I’m operating in bad faith here at BioLogos he would refrain from participating. It only poisons the well of communication.

I am not calling for help or participation on this new thread. I’m only making myself available to anyone - like @Bill_II or @Chris_Falter - who might have a continuing interest in the discussion. And even if the two of them change their minds and lose interest, that’s ok, too.

1 Like

It is accurate. If God interacted with the natural world in a perceptible manner then it would be considered a natural process.[quote=“Swamidass, post:590, topic:36256”]
You can have your personal opinions @T_aquaticus but science does not include God as a causal force and never has. It has been that way for 400 years, and it is now the law of the land in the US too.
[/quote]

Theists purposefully exclude God from science by claiming that God does not produce perceptible evidence in the natural world. That isn’t the fault of science. God, as defined by theists, can not be a part of science because theists have defined the actions of God as being imperceptible.

@T_aquaticus,

I don’t agree with this idea. The whole vocabulary of " ‘poof’ = the miraculous" is based on the idea that God can do things through natural law, without natural law (acknowledging, of course, that there is a 3rd likely category where God seems to do something miraculously, but is really invoking a natural law that we don’t comprehend (currently or maybe for eternity).

Then you write: “That isn’t the fault of science. God, as defined by theists, can not be a part of science because theists have defined the actions of God as being imperceptible.”

Perhaps you are having a bad day? I don’t know any theists who argue this as a central point. I know I have proposed that some things God does could be so imperceptible that it would be impossible to know if the process was perfectly natural or not.

I am talking about things like a pillar of fire or smoke that guides people through the desert. For the purposes of science, that would be part of nature and would satisfy the need for empirical evidence.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:621, topic:36256”]
Then you write: “That isn’t the fault of science. God, as defined by theists, can not be a part of science because theists have defined the actions of God as being imperceptible.”

Perhaps you are having a bad day? I don’t know any theists who argue this as a central point. I know I have proposed that some things God does could be so imperceptible that it would be impossible to know if the process was perfectly natural or not.
[/quote]

I don’t know of any theists who argue that the actions of God can be discerned in an empirical fashion. In fact, many theists have told me that God wouldn’t make his actions known so that we wouldn’t be forced believe in God. When asked for a discernible and empirical example of God acting in the universe around us I usually don’t get an answer.

Your not getting an answer may well be quite well documented. But it doesn’t mean that any perceptible action by God is always going to be part of the lawful side of nature. That would pretty much mean anything really miraculous is something that nobody could see or notice.

This is not how that word (i.e., “miraculous”) is used on this list, or most any list I’ve ever seen.

They would still be perceptible as violations of natural laws. We had no problem discerning the precession in Mercury’s orbit, even though it violated natural laws as described by Newton. If there were a pillar of fire wandering around the desert, I’m pretty sure people would notice. If amputees were healed 100% of the time after a specific prayer, people would be able to see it happening.

@T_aquaticus

Well, now I don’t know which side of the discussion you are taking. My issue was with this quote where you characterized what Theists thought:

I think, Mr. T., that your “…many theists have told me that God wouldn’t make his actions known so that we wouldn’t be forced believe in God…” are investing in an apologia more than they are definiting the term “miraculous”.

While they may deeply believe this is why miracles are rarely seen in today’s age, I don’t believe we can use this as a strict definition for a miracle.

In fact, for the ardent apologists, these are not mutually exclusive ideas. He can still do miraculous things and he can make them more subtle than most can detect.

My issue is that theists have defined the supernatural as imperceptible which is why it can’t be included in science. It isn’t as if scientists have all of these obvious and easily measurable products of the supernatural, but then choose to just ignore them. You can’t blame science for not including the supernatural when those who profess a belief in the supernatural can not produce a testable hypothesis for the actions of the supernatural.

George, that accusation is false. Taq only commented on arguments and answers. He made no statement there about what anyone thought.

@T_aquaticus,

This is not true. You are confusing an apologia with a definition. If you asked a Theist what makes a miracle a “miraculous thing”, they would say it is something that cannot be explained by any known natural means.

If you ask them if miracles happen in today’s world, they may or may not say - God hides these miracles.

But it is not the hiding of them that makes them miracles. Follow?

First off, you will see that I didn’t include the word “miracle” anywhere in my post.

However, using that definition 400 years ago, the list of “miraculous things” would have included infectious diseases and lightning.[quote=“gbrooks9, post:628, topic:36256”]
If you ask them if miracles happen in today’s world, they may or may not say - God hides these miracles.

But it is not the hiding of them that makes them miracles. Follow?
[/quote]

Again, this doesn’t address what I was bringing up. People keep saying that science purposefully excludes supernatural explanations. What I am saying is that there are no supernatural scientific explanations to exclude.

1 Like

What is a supernatural scientific explanation?