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

Faith & Science Conversation
502

You’re misreading me. My point has not been that we know for sure “that the wine would have appeared identical to old wine in every possible fashion, in every perspective,” but rather that we don’t know those details and therefore can’t rule out that possibility.

You and I must be using the words “naturally” and “supernaturally” in different ways. My usage was that an earth created over a 4.543B year period implies an earth created by natural processes, while an earth created over six days implies an earth created by supernatural processes.

I look at it that these histories are inferred through examination of artifacts and by other means by archaeologists, and appear impressive; however, if the word of God states otherwise, I will trust the word of God.

To explain further, see @Swamidass’s Riddle of the 100 Year Old Tree here and my response to it here.

503

But in your story it was awareness of behavior before the miracle that established predictability. There is no parallel with respect to creation in the six-day scenario.

504

I don’t think Jon is right.

Again, I think the riddle of the 100 year old tree has application here. See my links to it at the bottom of my previous response to you.

505

[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:502, topic:36256”]
My usage was that an earth created over a 4.543B year period implies an earth created by natural processes, while an earth created over six days implies an earth created by supernatural processes.[/quote]

But the problem is you’re leaving God out of the second part, when there’s no need to. As several people have pointed out to you, an earth created by natural processes initiated by God is no less “supernatural” than an earth created over six days by supernatural processes.

2 Likes
506

Here again, I think we are being tripped up by different uses of the terms natural and supernatural. As you are using “supernatural” in this sentence, I would agree with you. However, in my usage, I consider both natural and supernatural processes to be equally of God - the main difference being that the former He does regularly (and thus are more easily observed and cataloged by us) and the latter He does irregularly (making them harder to catalog and predict). Another difference, of course, is that supernatural processes may involve factors we cannot observe; the same can be true of natural processes, but our lack of ability to observe them does not excessively inhibit out ability to predict outcomes.

507

My point is that there’s no indication of anything. We don’t know. All we know is that the miraculously-created wine was considered to be excellent.

Your impressive forensic skills could be applied if we’d been left any evidence, but we haven’t any of these things to examine.

(By the way, thanks for reproducing your answers.)

508

Actually, I think it’s the other way around. That is, I think the reason you are finding this in the text is that you are coming to the text with your conclusion already settled.

The Nephilim are mentioned in Gen 6:4, but all the references to the flood come after that - implying, of course, that the Nephilim were destroyed along with everything else that was not on the ark. The identities of the few saved is, of course, confirmed in 1 Peter and again in 2 Peter.

The subject of the Nephilim has indeed, as your commentator above states, “always presented a challenge to exegetes.” But it requires inferring a lot from the cryptic reference in Gen 6:4, and ignoring a lot of explicit references to exclusive deliverance provided to Noah and his family to conclude that the Nephilim, whoever they were, survived the flood.

509

This is the strongest defense of post-modernism I have ever seen. Since we can never rule out miraculous intervention (how could we?), we have no ability to make inferences about what happened in the past…if I follow the Gantt school of reasoning.

What makes you think that an earth that is 4.543 B years old is not created by God?

You aren’t dealing with the question I asked, Mike. What does trusting the word of God imply about the history of civilizations that lived, thrived, developed, and met their demise tens of thousands of years ago?

As for the convex mirror analogy: I don’t understand how it would apply to this situation. let’s examine the mirror analogy carefully.

The car manufacturer is confronted with three conflicting design goals:

  1. The mirror should provide as broad a view of the roadscape behind the mirror.
  2. The mirror should provide as accurate a representation of distance as possible.
  3. The mirror should be quite small so as to not pose a hazard to other vehicles, pedestrians, etc.

The manufacturer can only satisfy two of the requirements; it is impossible to satisfy all three simultaneously. Therefore, the mirror is small and provides a broad view. The warning about distance engraved onto the mirror surface is given explicitly to the occupants so that they can adjust their behavior appropriately, given that the mirror distorts the appearance of distance.

So there are two key factors here:

  • A design trade-off that cannot be avoided
  • An explicit warning about the trade-off

In that discussion, you never identified any trade-offs. You also did not provide any documentation for your assertion that

Where do you find an unambiguous warning in the Bible about scientific inquiry into the age of the earth? What the Bible says and what Mike says it says seem very different to me in this particular case.

I hasten to point out on the key message(s) of Scripture, I appreciate your faithful handling of and obedience to the God’s Word.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

5 Likes
510

At times I wonder how a creationist would reason through a murder trial if they were on the jury.

Imagine if the defense attorney claimed that the death of the victim was a supernatural miracle, and as part of that miracle there was the production of oily swirls that just coincidentally matched his client’s fingerprints. On top of that, the supernatural miracle also just happened to create strings of nucleic acids that just coincidentally and for no apparent reason match his client’s DNA. Since the defense attorney is claiming all of this evidence was the byproduct of a supernatural event, he then asks the jury to just ignore it since they can’t predict what a supernatural event would produce.

What would the creationist think about this? Would they just ignore the forensic evidence?

2 Likes
511

I wonder if Mike would nod his head in agreement while reading Foucault…[quote=“Chris_Falter, post:509, topic:36256”]
What makes you think that an earth that is 4.543 B years old is not created by God?
[/quote]

That seems to be at the heart of Mike’s thesis, but I’ve never seen him support it in any way.

There Mike goes again, pretending that science is merely dismissible post hoc inferences without any empirical predictions.

1 Like
512

You’re misreading me even more this time. Wildly so. I was talking about two situations where we have the testimony of God that a miracle occurred which may be in conflict with evidence we observe. From that, you have extrapolated that I don’t ever want to use evidence because a miracle might have occurred. Completely unwarranted.

I gave you my understanding and usage of the terms “naturally” and “supernaturally.” How then can you think that my usage of “naturally” with respect to the earth’s creation would mean I was saying God wasn’t the one doing the creating?

Do you not recognize that you are trusting without question the verdict of archaeologists, and then asking me how I can trust the word of God instead?

  • The design trade-off that cannot be avoided is the need to show regularity of processes so as to invite scientific inquiry.
  • The explicit warning about the trade-off is in the six-day creation as attested by Gen 1-2, Ex 20:8-11, and Ex 31:12-17.

Primarily, in Gen 1-2, Ex 20:8-11, and Ex 31:12-17 - especially with regard to Adam being created on the sixth day, and all the genealogies of the Bible that trace back to him.

Yes, I get that. I fully expected BioLogos people to have different views of Scripture than mine. It’s those views of Scripture I came hear to find out about. What’s amazed me is how little I’ve heard about them compared to the science that’s been thrown at me. If I had wanted scientific explanations, I would have gone to a science site.

513

No, Mike, it’s abundantly clear that Chris is not afraid to reach his own verdict based on evidence for important matters. I sincerely doubt that he treats archaeology as a series of verdicts.

If you’re going to claim that you can’t touch the sciency stuff because you are scientifically illiterate, why is it too much to ask for you to stop misrepresenting science as mere hearsay or mere post hoc inference? It seems to me that you are desperately clinging to those misrepresentations. Why?[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:512, topic:36256”]
If I had wanted scientific explanations, I would have gone to a science site.
[/quote]
If you don’t want to talk science, please stop making false proclamations about the nature of science. Fair enough?

2 Likes
514

No differently from anyone else. A creationist would not be any more swayed by a defense attorney’s claim that the death of the victim was a supernatural miracle than you would, but he would be swayed by Scriptures which have stood the test of time and whose veracity has been attested by the blood of prophets, and the blood of Jesus Himself.

515

We all reach our verdicts by trusting others more knowledgeable than ourselves. The only difference is in whom we choose to trust.

516

We happen to have an example in Acts 23

Then when Paul noticed that part of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, he shouted out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead!” 7 When he said this, an argument began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.) 9 There was a great commotion, and some experts in the law from the party of the Pharisees stood up and protested strongly, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” 10 When the argument became so great the commanding officer feared that they would tear Paul to pieces, he ordered the detachment to go down, take him away from them by force, and bring him into the barracks.

517

I am really trying to understand your position. Is your position that we have no way of predicting the outcome of a six day creation so what ever we see is just what we get and has no value in saying anything about the creation?

518

No. I am saying that since science designates the supernatural to be outside of its purview, I am surprised that it would claim to know what results a supernatural creation would leave behind.

519

@Mike_Gantt, what kind of physical evidence would you expect to accompany a miracle?

I would expect record of the miracle, after it occurred, but no record before. Basically a discontinuity in the historical record of events.

For example with the wine at Cana, I would expect a bunch of wine stained cups, and very happy people. I would not expect any vats full of squished grapes (that had not already been accounted for), or any ledgers of money spent. The wine was miraculously created, so there should be no record of it from before the miracle.

Likewise, if I believed in a 6000 year old universe I would expect there to be living beings that were created (i.e. us). And then there would be some sort of discrepancy in the historical record. In this particular case, I would expect that there would be no records from before 6000 years ago.

However, this leads us to a contradiction, because there are scientific records of ages greater than 6000 years. Therefore one of our assumptions must be in error.

In this case there are two interpretations. The one of science stating the evidence of greater than 6000 years, and the one of biblical interpretation stating that the earth is only 6000 years old. One of those has to be wrong.

Now, as stated many times above, there is virtually no disagreement in the scientific interpretations. And the ages they determined are corroborated by many different fields. However, there is disagreement in the biblical interpretations, both recently, and from theologians of the past.

Therefore it is most likely that the 6000 year old biblical interpretation is the incorrect one. You do not appear to like (or agree with) any of the alternate interpretations that have been brought forward thus far; but that doesn’t make the 6000 year old one correct.

4 Likes
520

That’s false. We all may reach SOME of our verdicts that way, but not all of us reach all of our verdicts that way. You’ve just been presented with a crystal-clear exception to your claim by Taq!

Again, if you’re going to claim scientific illiteracy, would you please stop making pronouncements about scientific authority? If you have any confidence in your biblical interpretation, you shouldn’t need to misrepresent science to support it.

1 Like
521

So the creationist would ignore all of the physical evidence? Is that what you meant by not mentioning it?