When Baptists ignore science

When Gallileo journeyed forth to face his final trial, charged with believing scientific doctrine contrary to scripture, he said to himself that the evidence is overwhelming; I shall marshall the evidence, surely the ecclesiatical courts will understand and relent.

The ecclesistical courts, arguing along the lines you have provided here, forbade Gallileo to ever again teach or publish that the earth moves.

You repeat history here by ignoring evidence.

It is not "science" that says the world is billions of years old. The world itself cries out this truth. The universe whispers to those who study it - He who created me created me billions of years ago.

The continents, creeping along at inches per year, show the scars where they were once all joined together, millions of years ago.

The lakes bear annual layers of silt that can be directly counted bact 40,000 years.

The clouds of Magellan, circling the milky way in an orbit taking millions of years, have left behind a trail where they disturbed the incredibly thin intergalactic gases in an orbit that could not have been followed in less than millions of years.

The Hawiian Islands left behind a trail of atolls and seamounts showing millions of years of plate movement

"Science Says" sounds suspiciously like men saying things. In truth, the earth and the universe are speaking, in accordance with the scripture: "The heavens declare the glory of God".

It is not men that say these things; men have only learned how to read what the rocks and the stars are saying.

 

(TONGUE FIRMLY IN CHEEK)

Gosh, it's a shame that Moses didn't have a better handle on quantum mechanics. I sure wish God had been smart enough to figure out some way of telling us the truth to start with instead of fooling us for 6,000 years with all of this young earth foolishness. I sure am greatful to you guys for figuring it out the right way instead of that hogwash about Adam and Eve, and six days of creation. Whew! and that nonsense about turning water into wine, what rubbish, everyone knows that science says you can't change the molecular structure of anything just by waving your hand or speaking mere words. There are laws in this universe and why would anyone have a God who isn't subject to them?

(Tongue removed from cheek)

 

(TONGUE FIRMLY IN CHEEK)
And don't forget the day the sun stood still...

Amazing how everything is all figured out by man. I'm sure impressed.

(TONGUE REMOVED from CHEEK)

 

Great post Paul of Eugene. The evidence proves an old Earth, not the opinions of some scientists.

Artimaeus, how in the world do you make the jump from believing in the physical evidence that God has left us and disbelieving in the clear miracles spelled out in His word?

 

Excellent, Paul of Eugene. You are so much more eloquent than I'll ever be.

Artimaeus and LadyEagle. There is a huge difference when it comes to the miracles recorded in the Bible. The virgin birth, the Resurrection, turning water to wine, feeding the five thousand... These are miracles we accept at face value as a part of our faith. We could not hope to find evidence to support these things. The Creation itself reveals the details of its history as Paul said above. A recent, rapid creation would have left a different set of data than what we find. The creation, made by the Creator, cries out for itself how ancient it actually is. Men only listen to that message.

 

I agree, but God also revealed how He created this universe, earth and man in Genesis. I believe that when we stand before Christ’s Judgment seat and we’re judged according to our works, our faith in Gods word will be apart of those works in which we will be judged. The crowns we receive, we will cast back at the feet of Christ.

Am I saying that God is ‘testing” our faith? That’s a tough question, but I do know that these ‘evidences” that proves Gods word is just allegory, have kept many, many, many people from accepting Gods word and becoming a Christian. You’re faith maybe strong enough to not let that contradict the rest of Gods word, BUT Gods word says that we shouldn’t tempt our weaker brother either. I know some posters who used to post in the creation/evolution thread, that I have seen on other message boards and they have lost faith, due to websites such as talkorigin. It’s sad.

 

Posted 12/16/2003 by John6:63

Posted 12/17/2003 by John6:63

Aren't these two posts incompatible?

 

john6:63

Your point is well taken. But I go back to my original post on this thread, and one reason this topic keeps my interest. I think as long as we have this disagreement there will continue to be people who lose faith when they examine the issue and people who are not reached because of it. Where I disagree with you is in what we should do.

Someone above, tongue in cheek, talked about Moses not knowing anything about quantum mechanics. He was trying to be absurd, but I think there is a real point in there. The Bible does not try to be a book of science. One simple description would be that the Bible is about God and His people. You will not find in the Bible any great, unambiguous statments of science. Nothing about DNA or orbital mechanics or M-theory or buckyballs or anything else scientific. But what you will find plenty about is God's relationship with man. So why should this be any different? You read Genesis, you learn about God the Creator, the specialness of man "in the image of God," the sinfulness of man, the perfectness of God, and man's need for salvation. So what if it is given in a simple allegory that the people of the day could understand. Nothing more could have been gained by turning Genesis 1 into a blow by blow account of the history of the universe. We can show our faith in God's word by understanding the truths He was trying to convey in the creation account.

All you need to know is there. Today we happen to have the technology and the understanding to look at the creation itself and learn what it is trying to tell us and to figure out the rest. It does not change anything. But as long as some try to deny the reality of the age of the earth, there will continue to be people who lose faith and people who are never reached for Christ because of those who stick to their literal reading and end up missing the forest for the trees.

BTW, I, personally, do not think that this would be a way for God to "test our faith." It just does not seem in character.

 

Well.... in a word, No. The evidence lays where it is and waits on someone to interpret it. It is inanimate and can "prove" absolutely nothing without being interpretted by an observer.

Unless observed, history can only be reconstructed based on evidence. The reconstruction is a creation by someone operating within a paradigm... it is not the history itself.

There is only One who claims to be an eyewitness to creation. His penman, Moses, spent significant time in His very presence and received massive amounts of revelation. This Eyewitness said that He "created" in 6 days. There is absolutely no reason for the specific account of creation if it is not true. Moses would have been just as satisfied with an explanation that said nothing at all about days, direct creation, or man's special place and origin or with no explanation at all.

God allows man to be deceived or to deceive himself about many of the things he observes. The argument that if scientific interpretations are incorrect then God has been deceptive is simply false. It assumes that God has a responsibility to not allow man to be willfully deceived.

So what we have on the one hand is God's witness of history and on the other certain men's interpretations of history based on the present condition of the natural universe. Belief in biblical creationism requires less faith than evolution. I will take the testimony of THE most credible eyewitness over human interpretations of past events by current observations (even by the most intelligent investigator) any time.

 

Scott J

The best "interpretations" say the universe is billions of years old. If you want to dispute those "interpretations" please give us the interpretation that does a better job of explaining what we have observed and makes better predictions about what will be found in the future. Otherwise your objections to the interpretaion really have no merit.

 

You will also not find unambiguous statements of science in the natural universe that you assert (and I agree) that God has given us to study. You recognize that natural/scientific law governs the interpretation of the evidence pertaining to the fields of science mentioned above... I do too. But I also believe that the Bible also governs these same interpretations being a revelation from God.

Because it would have been unnecessary and misleading. God could have established Adam and Eve as the first "living souls" without saying anything about the way they came to be. He could have said "from ancient times I created all that is" and would have owed us nothing more. The fact that He made definitive statements precludes your proposition.

But a great deal was to be lost by establishing man's relationship to God ultimately on a myth.

He wasn't trying to convey truths. God made a claim for being the direct creator of the universe in a time frame defined by Him to man. He could have said "age/generation" instead of "day" but He didn't. He could have said that things "came to be according to His will" instead of God "created" but He didn't.

The only real reason to categorically deny the possibility of YEC is the presumption that God didn't have the ability to do what Genesis records and have the universe appear as it does now. Without regard to the mechanics of earth history, first we believe that God either could or He could not do it. From there we move on to reasons to believe He did or did not do it.

I believe that He has the ability. His Word says that He did. The evidence does not disprove that He did. Therefore, I believe that He did.

Reality? This assumes that God could not for His own purposes create the world just as Genesis accounts and leave it as we see it today. Unless you have an 11,000 year old eye witness, you have no basis for claiming an old earth to be a "reality."

Huh? It is a test of our faith in God to doubt that scientists operating from naturalistic presuppositions might have it wrong? OTOH, it is not a "test" of "our faith" when someone, based on these same presuppositions, demands that Genesis cannot be literal?

 

Scott J

First, absolutely, God could have created the universe several thousand years ago in its current form.

Now, let me tie you down to one position. Do you think that the data from creation shows a several thousand year old universe? If so, then we can discuss the various pieces of evidence. Or, do you believe in some variation on the appearance of age? In which case can you begin to give a line of reasoning for creating the universe to indicate an old universe, an old earth, and evolution when it really was not the case. If the answer is the latter then we have a minor quandry because you can simply dismiss any evidence of mine, no matter how convincing, as not real. If the former, then let's get on to those better interpretations of the evidence.

 

Everyone read this very carefully:

"That God also created the heavens and the Earth and all original
creations in them sometime in the eternal past is also clear:
'In the beginning, whenever that was, and as there is no date
for the beginning, it must refer to the dateless past. Any man
who sets a date or a time for 'the beginning' is simply adding to
the Bible, and therefore, we refuse to even tolerate a statement
of such a date in these lessons. If God wanted us to know when
the beginning was, He would have told us. Since He did not give
even a hint, then let us leave it like it is. It could have been
millions and billions of years ago, or it could have been a
shorter period in the past. If geologists can prove the age of
the Earth to be as old as they claim it is, why disagree with
them. If they are right they are right, and if they are wrong
they are wrong. Either way it would not contradict the Bible, as
it does not set any time element in connection with the original
creation of the heavens and the Earth.

- Finis Dake

---------------

Rev 22:18 - For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add[10] to him the plagues that are written in this book;

 

So, Anthro, you belive the "gap" theory?

 

Do you believe that you can date "in the beginning"?

 

I wasn't leaping, I was just noting an inconsistency among some that big miracles (literal six day 24 hour creation) weren't true because they were scientifically impossible but little miracles (water into wine, virgin birth, raising the dead) which are equally scientifically impossible were somehow true.

 

When did the scientific method yield those results?
No offense intended but if your guess about the way you think it happened doesn't work, how would your guess about another way it may have happened be any more acceptable.

The creation cries out, yes, not to express its anguish of unrevealed age but, because of the devastating effects of a sin that you claim did not actually happen.

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Exod 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is

If only men would listen to THAT message.

 

It's willfully ignorant accusations like this from the militant YEC side that are doing the greatest harm to our body within the realm of this debate. UTEOW is suggesting nothing of the sort.

If only you would remove your ear plugs and blinders and make an attempt to understand why old earth creationists feel the evidence suggesting an old earth is compatible with Scripture rather than tossing out accusations which equate to calling your bretheren apostates.

 

Sin has caused the fossil record, with is history of evolution? Sin has caused the shared genetic mutations between the species that support evolution? Sin has caused the rocks to be full of ratios of radioactive materials and products that enable them to be dated as millions or billions of years old? Sin has caused all those hundreds of thousands of years worth of ice layers in Greenland? Sin has caused the geological evidence for continental drift going on for hundreds of millions of years? Sin has caused galaxies to show the effects of hundreds of thousands of years of gravitational interaction as they collide and eventually merge? Sin has caused all those star clusters to form in space with all the stars of the cluster being the same age and the ages of the clusters themselves ranging from a few millions of years to over ten billion years? Sin gave us fossils for neaderthalensis, heilderbergensis, erectus, ergaster, habilis, and Australopithecus?

The scientific method has yielded the result of an old earth and of evolution. If you wish to say that it does not you are free to use the scientific method yourself to re-examine the data, to propose a theory that better explains the data, and to convince others of the correctness of your theory. Or are you trying to suggest that we could not tell the difference between a 6000 year old universe and a ~13 billion year old universe? I'll go ahead and try and pin you to a position also. Do you believe the data actually shows a young earth or do you believe in some form of an appearance of age meaning that all these pieces of data, and a vast additional set of data, are not real?

 

Okay, let me see if I have this straight. YEC says sometime around 6,000 years ago (give or take) God created the universe and all that in them is. During the first six days God created a man who then sinned and brought death upon all. OEC says sometime around 4.2 billion years ago (give or take) God created the universe and all that in them is and God didn't create a man who at some point sinned and brought death upon all because death had been in existence for billions of years..

I have neither ear plugs nor blinders. What I have is 30 years of listening to arguments that aren't convincing. Yes, the evidence does "suggest" an old earth. Yet, five minutes after the creation the evidence would have suggested an old earth, too. A grown man and woman with a fully developed language, grown trees bearing fruit, rivers with dug out channels within their banks, light from distant stars already shinning, animals behaving in manners that would indicate they learned this behavior from their parents. OEC and YEC are absolute contradictions and there is no room for compromise. It is not militancy to not accept OEC as truth.