6000 years and Dinosaurs

[Administrator: This has been transferred from a discussion area under "Baptists Only." So for this thread, only registered Baptists on the Baptist Board will be allowed to participate. Thank you.]

MARK-IN-TX
To start with I understand Genesis to tell us who is the creator of the universe not neccesarily how. But for those who suggest that it tells us how and that we have an earth that is relatively young. How do you understand dinasour fossils?

P.S. I would love a response from Helen.

PASTOR LARRY
Actually Gen 1 does tell us how. It says that God said ... and it was. There is no reason to doubt that this is the way it was done. In fact, when God switched methods to create man, we are explicitly told so.

As for dinosaurs, we believe in them. Most were probably preflood, though some possibly lived after the flood. The vast majority of dinosaurs were very small. Ken Ham has a wonderful little book on this. I forget the title. I am sure Helen will have more info on this.


DOC CAS

What problem do you think dinasaur fossils present to the young earth creationist? The flood of Noah provides all of the mechanisms for rapid burial, fossilization, and perservation. I fail to see the problem. Could you point out what you think the problem is, then we would have something to address?

MARK-IN-TX
I am not asking you to defend. How do you understand Dinasours. For example They were created on the first day or second or last. Why no mention of giant creatures in the Genesis text?
.
What about the dating? Bones appear to be millions of years old. How old are they.

I just want to hear from your perspective what you believe. I am not attacking what you believe I want to hear it not debate.

No line is being drawn in the sand I just want to hear what others have to say.

listening


ERNIE BRAZEE
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The same creatures that were created here were the same creatures that entered into the ark (see Genesis 6 & 7)

The creatures that were called dinasours still exist today, but don't live as long or grow as big.
There are lizards in the Philippines that resemble man's recreation of what they think the dinasours looked like. If they lived as long as pre-flood cratures they would probably be as large as dinos.

KEN HAMILTON

As I understand it, it is not the bones that scientists say are millions of years old. It is the strata that they are found in it that they claim to be millions of years old based on their presuppositions(all thinking people have them ) that they bring to the table.

For the record, dinosaurs were not reptiles. Reptiles are cold-blooded, dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Dinosaurs were their own group, separate from mammals, reptiles, amphibians, etc.

CHRIS TEMPLE

A young-earth position does not necessitate the earth being only 6000 yrs old. But it does most likely put the earth's age in the 10,000 to 100,000 year bracket.

The Bible does not tell us how old the earth is. In a defense of creationism, its important that we don't say more than the Bible says, or else we are in the same boat as the evolutionists who say more than the earth says

In any case, dinosaurs present no problem to young-earth creationism.

KATIE

Cows,dogs, whales, and that slick snake aren't mentioned in the creation in Genesis either.

TYNDALE 1946
Well I guess you put the dinosaurs with the animals that were created before Adam! I will take 6,000 to 10,000 years as the age of the young earth. Remember in creation God finished it all in 6 literal days... Dinosaurs and all... Then he rested... Brother Glen

JOHNV
I just want to hear from your perspective what you believe.
Oh, well since I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth, I guess I'm off the hook then

GRASSHOPPER
6 literal days yes, but how long is a day?

More info: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/dinocavemen.html?main

A TEENAGE CHRISTIAN
I just accept dinosaurs as a part of life. Why do all the mysteries in life need explanations? Can't we just accept some things as "unexplained" ??????

ODEMUS
Not that I am trying to be a source of strife and contention (I'm just sifting through these boards and making observations), but the old earth/young earth debate has nothing to to with the creation vs. evolution debate. A Christian can very well believe that the earth is billions of years old and the universe is trillions of years old while still maintaining that God is the creator.

HELEN
Mark, I was laughing at your first post. How do we explain dinosaur fossils? Well, dead dinosaurs, of course…

Sorry - couldn't resist.

Like all basic kinds, the dinosaurs existed, as Pastor Larry stated, before the Flood of Noah. However the animals whose fossils we see today give a great deal of evidence of being from several hundred years after the Flood, actually. I'll explain at the end if the various responses to the various posts don't end up covering this.

DocCas already knows I disagree with him about the Flood fossilizing things. If you go to the Bible study on the Flood, you will see why:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-in/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=43&t=000007&p=

The exploding waters were not only scaldingly hot, but they also brought up enormous amounts of debris and pulverized rock material. These conditions just about defy any fossilization at all. Fossilization was the result of continuing activity along the geologically active areas after the Flood, when the mudslides both underwater and above were combined with the vented waters which were so highly mineralized from the earth's interior - these are the conditions which will fossilize, or mineralize, remains.

The dinos were created day six. They were part of the land dwelling, breathing critters. The large sea animals, which some also call dinosaurs (but which aren't) were created day five with the rest of the denizens of the seas.

As far as the age of the fossils, Mark Armitage at Azusa Pacific recently published an article in Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ) regarding finding what appears to be collagen in some T Rex bones. Mark is a personal friend and an excellent microscopist, with a REALLY neat electron microscope in his lab! His research was cautious and presented conservatively. However when I saw him about a year ago and he showed us what he had found, he was pretty excited.

Aside from that, yes, the fossils are generally dated by the strata in which they are found. Various forms of radiometric dating give very ancient ages for these materials. Sometimes the ages don't agree with each other, but they are almost always ancient. My husband, Barry Setterfield (www.setterfield.org) has done the seminal creation work on speed of light research (which he continues to this day). The evidence via the data is becoming more and more clear that the speed of light was enormously higher in the past. This has a great deal to do with radiometric dating, because the speed of light is effectively in every radio decay rate equation! The higher the speed of light, the faster the rate of decay. Thus, the ancient ages are atomic ages, not orbital (gravitational) ages, by which we measure time.
One of the exciting things about Barry's research is that when the atomic ages are corrected via the existing redshift curve to match the Biblical ages, they both are in total agreement regarding the major catastrophes in the Bible: the Flood, Babel, and Peleg's time.

The age of the dinosaurs was basically between Babel and Peleg's time - that is when conditions were ideal for them. Where conditions were ideal, however, were precisely in those warm, steamy, geologically active areas. So that's where the dinosaur fossils come from.

To Ernie: probably the lizards we see today are NOT relatives of the old dinos. They appear to be a different kind of animal.
And no, the lizards of today would NOT ever grow to be as large as the large dinosaurs. The physical structure is quite different. Dinosaur legs, for instance, did not angle out to the side like lizard legs, but went straight down from the torso. The enormous size of some of the old dinosaurs would have required a very different physical makeup than the small lizards of today. Enormous size has definite physical requirements where muscle and circulatory systems are involved especially.

Ken, the jury is still out on the dinos in terms of warm or cold blooded, actually. There may have been some of each.
We may be looking at some very, very different kinds and tending to lump them together.

To Chris Temple: the earth is about 8,000 years old, actually. This agrees with the speed of light data as well as the more ancient Scriptures.

Johnv, You may not believe in a young earth, but that has little to do with whether or not it IS young…

Grasshopper - the days of Genesis are regular days, as marked by the earth turning on its axis. This is why 'evening…morning' are mentioned. Evening and morning are only possible by the earth's rotation. Exodus 20:11 confirms the fact that these were normal 24 hour days.

Odemus, I don't think you have thought your position through. If death did not come before Adam, and it didn't, what are you going to do with all those long ages you don't think make any difference? They make a great deal of difference.

In the long run, if God cannot communicate clearly in Genesis, which is the beginning and foundation of everything that follows, why believe anything else after that?

ODEMUS
Hi Helen. It's nice to meet you

I have thought my position out and my conclusion is that it doesn't matter how old the earth is in terms of my faith in Christ.If the word 'yom' is meant to describe literal indefinate periods of time as opposed to literal 24 hour days then I am fine with that.If God created the animal kingdom millions of years as opposed to a couple of days before He created Adam and Eve I am fine with that as well.If there was death in the animal kingdom before Adam sinned as opposed to after Adam sinned I am fine with that!

As you can see by verses such as Romans 5:12, The consequence of death as a result Adams sin is specifically applied to man:

Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all sinned-

We find in verse 18 of the same chapter that Christ's redemptive work on the cross was meant to reconcile man with God, not the animal kingdom:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of riteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

I am most assured that Christ died for me and you, not lions, tigers, bears, or even the cellular material of whatever it was that Adam and Eve ate prior to their fall from grace.

I find this whole discussion is an excersise in futility for two basic reasons:

1) It can only serve as yet another area of strife and contention between Christians who simply disagree on the matter. There just isn't anything conflicting the central principles of our faith no matter which position you take.

2) We are never going to bring secular scientists to saving faith in Christ by presenting a young earth model to them. It just is not going to happen. Even if the young earth model is true that has absolutely nothing to do with presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ to sinners. I see that you have studied your position and are fairly clear in presenting what you believe and why. I wonder, has it ever been affective in bringing an unbeliever to Christ? I am by no means being cynical with that question, but I am curous if you feel all the effort you invest in guarenteeing that the age of the earth can be explained in terms of a literal six 24 hour day approach to interpreting the Genesis creation account has been affective in your witness to the unsaved.

Five years ago my church was absolutely (and most unecessarily) torn apart by this very issue. Half of the church felt they could not worship under the same roof with the half that differed from (or were tolerant of both sides) their belief! Take a guess at to which half moved out. I hate seeing brothers and sisters in Christ torn apart by such trivialities, and I think if you are honest with yourself you will conclude that this issue is indeed trivial, because in the final analysis sister, me and you are both one day going to embrace in heaven and laugh that this could have ever been a noteworthy disagreement.



HELEN
Odemus,

Do you think that God created the universe -- all of creation -- in bondage to decay? Was this 'very good'?

If not, then death did not only come to the humans as the result of sin, but to all of life.

Yes, Christ died for humans, but you will note that the entire creation will be made over, for it all has suffered from our sin.

I have never found it an exercise in futility to study the Bible, or to believe God knows how to say what He means and mean what He says. In fact, I have staked my life on that.

Yes, there are not only lay people but actual scientists who are brought to faith with the knowledge that they can trust the Bible start to finish. For some people that is very important.

For others it is not so important. Barry and I do the work we do for those to whom it matters. We are there for them. Barry is doing what the Lord has given him to do. I am trying my best to do likewise. What I have seen mostly is emails thanking me from those who are already my brothers and sisters in Christ, as what I present often will help strengthen their faith and help them give reasons for the hope they have. Building up and encouraging the body is very important. It is something that is really on my heart to do.

If it is of any interest in you, both Barry and I started out as evolutionists, and then went to a long-ages model and finally, due to the evidence (and it is to our shame, each of us individually, that we did not have enough faith to simply trust the Bible was being clear!) ended up in the YEC position. He ended up there through his work in physics and astronomy, and I ended up there through studies in both cellular and population genetics.

The Bible is absolutely trustworthy. That is the message both of us want to tell anyone willing to listen!

ODEMUS
I am glad you feel that way Helen but I didn't refer to your study of the Bible as an excersise in futility. I referred to this particular discussion as such. Why? Because young earth creationists have a tendency to tell those who differ or are indifferent altogether that this is a core principle of the Christian faith. It simply is not! Trust me, I have the same faith in Christ as my saviour that you undoubtedly profess, and I look to him on a daily basis to help me submit my will to him and lead me to do whatever he has planned for me.Not once has He ever called me to absolutely determine the age of the earth.I certainly wasn't trying to imply that exploring the Bible to determine the nature of our physical world was futile.After all, God's majesty is revealed in his creation

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

All I have to do is step outside to be reminded of that.

HELEN
I don't think you will ever find me saying that a young creation is the core to the salvation issue!
Jesus is the cornerstone and the capstone. He is the author and finisher. He is all in all.
I ALSO think His Word tells the truth in a straight and simple way!


KEN HAMILTON

Helen,
My favorite Far Side cartoon shows a scientist having left his time machine, carrying a really long rectal thermometer and he is approaching the back end of a large Sauropod. The caption under the cartoon says, "An instant later, both Professor Waxman and his time machine are obliterated, leaving the cold-blooded/warm-blooded dinosaur debate still unresolved.'

Have you read a book entitled The Dinosaur Heresies by Robert T. Bakker? I spent a few years in the early 90s updating my childhood by reading the latest books and articles and watching educational television programs about dinosaurs.

ERNIE BRAZEE
It amazes me how biologists and scientists can know so much about something they have never seen
So much for the accuracy of science; I will just the trust the Bible, Genesis says God created all creatures and that is good enough for me. Genesis also says every creature was brought into the ark, so dinosaurs are alive today or somehow became an endangerd species and just died out.

The theory that they were destroyed by a large meteor ranks right up there with "Jack and the Bean Stalk" and "Cinderella"....but who knows, there are probably those who believe those were true stories too.

PASTOR LARRY

24 hours:

1) When 'yom' is used in a non-construct relationship, it is always 24 hours.
2) The yamim of Gen 1 are qualified by 'morning and evening' something wholly incompatible with long periods of time.
3) The creation week is the pattern for the work week (cf Ex 20:6). Unless God intended us to work for long periods of time before taking a long period of time off, then we better go with 24 hours.

Scripture is not confused about this. The days are 24 hours.


DOC CAS
What Mr. Ross seems to have overlooked is that a sidereal day is completely independent of any light source or other object. The bible is clear. There were days prior to the advent of the sun, and those days were sidereal, and a sidereal day was then and still is equal to 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.

A solar day is 23 hours 59 minutes and 57 seconds long. This is the time it takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon.

The difference in the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun so the earth must turn 1 degree past the sidereal day, or about 67 miles, to complete a solar day.

ODEMUS
Well there certainly are plenty of young earthians here

While we may disagree on this issue I think the most important thing of all is to realise is we share the same faith in the inerrancy of God's Word.Man is most certainly fallible but God is not.

The only word of caution I would issue to young earth types is that you are without question going to have to allow room for those of us who believe the earth is very old.

The church had to revise it's understanding of the Bible (and consequently the universe) in the 1600's when Galileo brought the Copernican model of the solar system into prominence, and my belief is that is more than an acceptable precedent to consider when approaching the vast amounts of evidence for an old earth with respect to the creation account.

GRASSHOPPER

I think Hugh Ross would agree with that.

ODEMUS
Indeed he does.

GRASSHOPPER
Very good Odemus, seems some on this board think you can't believe in long creation days and still take Genisis literal.

DOC CAS
You can't! Either a day, with an evening and morning, is roughly 24 hours long, or it is not a "day!" You can't believe in a "long day" theory and still claim you take Genesis 1 literally!

ODEMUS
...but an evening and a morning do not have to contain the rising and setting of the sun?

Since the word 'yom' can also be meant to convey a literal indefinite period of time I can and do indeed take the Genesis creation account literally. Please do not presume to tell me what I can and can't claim to believe about the creation account. This is the whole problem with young earth creationists.


PASTOR LARRY

Not in the constructions in which it is used in Gen 1. Whenever it is used as it is in Gen 1 (singular, non-construct, with ordinal number), it is always a 24 hour day. YOM is that construction is never used as you need it to be used. Hebrew scholar Bruce Waltke (who believes in old earth creation) admits that the author of Gen 1intended his reader to understand the YOM as 24 hour days. Waltke takes them as metaphorical but he knows Hebrew well enough to know the text is not on his side.


GRASSHOPPER
Try this: http://www.reasons.org/resources/skeptics/whencreate.html?main

Secondly, why is there no evening of the seventh day? Could it be we are still in the seventh day?

PASTOR LARRY
The evidence of the hebrew text does not support Ross. I have given the evidence, can give you the appropriate sources to check it out. What Ross says is true about certain uses of YOM and the examples he uses in English closely correspond to the hebrew uses. For instance, the 'day of the Romans' is a construct phrase. It is similar to YOM YHWH, the Day of the Lord. As i have said, in the construction used in Genesis 1, it always is a 24 hour day and every lexical source supports that.

As for the evening of day 7, it is a huge jump in exegesis to say that there wasn't one. There is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest that there wasn't one. That is a prime case of reading the text in light of your presupposition.

GRACEFOREVER

What do I do with dinosaurs? What dinosaurs?

For those people who think that the world is millions of years old? According to the bible, it's possible I suppose, that the world is older than 6,000,000 years old…… My question, why can't scientific experts tell us what hour that O. J. Simpson killed his wife? If they can't do that with accuracy, why should I believe that science knows how to precisely read how old the world is?

ODEMUS
Aye, never mind that we are in fact very literally still in the 7th day of God resting from his creative works (we can just ignore that).Never mind that the Bible allows for the word 'yom' to denote a literal period of indefinite time, we'll simply apply a rule that says 'yom' must be considered a 24 hour day in the creation account when preceded by a number. Never mind that we must reasses our natural understanding of what morning and evening constitute before the fourth day.We can just gloss over this issue and make the necessary assumptions to confine our God and creator to a literal 24 hour 6 day creation. Finally, never mind the very real historical precedent of the Copernican model of the solar system which forced Christians to reevaluate their literal understanding of Psalm 19:6.We'll just pretend that never happened.

You can continue to use the shoe horn approach necessary to fit the mountain of scientific evidence for an old earth into your view of it. That's just perfectly fine with me.
...but what I do ask is that under no circumstances you ever imply that my faith is in anything but the complete, inerrant and totally sufficient word of God because simply put that's a totally false assumption.

I apologize if I am a bit over the top with this but as I said before I went through an extremely gut wrenching period in my life as a direct result of this very issue. Half of my church left because they could not tolerate worshipping under the same roof with those of us who felt differently or were tolerant of both positions.It sickens me to think that Christians-brothers and sisters in Christ can be that closed minded about an issue which poses absolutely no doctrinal or theological problems to the Christian faith regardless of one's position.

[ June 28, 2002, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

HELEN
Creation was finished in six days, and God rested on the seventh. Rested is in the past tense. The past COMPLETED tense. Exodus 20:11 confirms that. The week was established by God Himself on this pattern. I would also draw your attention to the following:

So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work, to this very day, and I, too, am working."

I know your mind seems obviously made up here, but for the sake of others, let me review a few facts.

1. "Yom" ALWAYS means a 24-hour day unless it is specified otherwise. This generally happened one of two ways: either with the inclusion of what we translate as a prepositional phrase ("in the day of King David", etc.) or as part of a specific idiomatic phrase, such as "a thousand years is like a day in the sight of the Lord," where it is part of a picture being given. In Genesis 1, with no hours or minutes yet defined, there is no other way to define a day other than by ordinal numbers and the evening/morning marker. If you do not think this is true, then I challenge you to do it. Please define a normal day as we know it without reference to time as we measure it! That is what the author of Genesis 1 had to do, and He did it.

2. Morning and evening do NOT require the sun. They require only two things: a rotating earth and a light source from one direction. Today that light source is the sun. The first four days it was not. In the center of our galaxy we have a black hole. When we look further out into space, we are looking back in time. Farther out, we see that black holes seem to cause quasars, or at the least that quasars are associated with black holes long ago. Quasars are extraordinarily bright -- brighter than whole galaxies themselves. Our Milky Way Galaxy would have had a quasar the first days of creation. That was the light source. The sun was established on day four when the quasar was diminishing. But the earth had evenings and mornings from the beginning.

I would rather believe what God Himself says than try to force fit Him into what man can understand at the present time! I do not find it to be confining God, by the way, to simply believe Him!

We still talk of the sun rising and setting. Should we pretend that we don't? The message of Psalm 19 stays the same no matter which model one uses, though. God did that, so that men of all ages would understand what He was getting at through David.

Obviously it's not perfectly fine with you for you are using a way of writing that is insulting and derogatory. I was an evolutionist growing up and when I started teaching. It was actual evidence which, along with five years of reading and internal struggles, led me to accept first creation and then a young creation. The 'mountains of evidence' for ancient ages all hinge on two things, and they are related -- radioactive decay dates and the speed of light. The speed of light is NOT a constant, as men on both sides of the fence learned some time ago and are busy rediscovering right now, and radiodecay rates are directly tied to the speed of light, so that the faster the speed of light the faster the rate of decay. Thus we are left with two distinct, and distinctly different time clocks: the atomic clock, which is measured by the rate of atomic processes and the dynamic, or orbital clock, which depends on gravity instead, being measured by the amount of time it takes us to travel once around the sun or the moon once around the earth, or the earth to rotate on its axis. These two 'clocks' have been measued even in our time as being out of synch with each other. So the ancient atomic dates have a perfectly good explanation and should be expected considering the rate of certain atomic processes was so much faster in the past.

I believe you. Don't get so defensive about it. And now read Genesis again, and tell God He doesn't know how to communicate clearly...

The fact that a church split and you found the problems that surfaced then to be gut-wrenching shows that these are NOT light problems. And it has very much to do with both doctrine and theology. The entire Bible is based on Genesis!
Christ refers to Genesis 1-11 a number of times, and always approaches it as literally and true history. So does every author of the Bible who deals with any of those events. In other words, in order to 'reinterpret' Genesis, you also have to end up reinterpreting material from at least half the authors of the Bible as well as the Lord Himself.

I'm not comfortable with that.

ODEMUS
We can both go round and round with this argument forever. I am sure you are aware that there are many more evidences for the age of the earth other than carbon dating and the Speed of light on which both points I disagree with you (as well do scientists).I have absolutely no desire to get into a debate on the science of these evidences because as we both know it would be cyclical and fruitless.

So when I talk about the shoe horn approach to determining the age of the earth I don't mean to be deragatory, I apologize if that's how I come off.What I mean is that you will always be forced to look for and if need be manufacture problems with any evidence that concludes the earth must be very old.

If what is known about God is plainly evident in His creation and makes all men accountable as Romans states tell me how is it that men who devote their entire lives to the study of our universe can come up so drastically wrong in so many fields of science with respect to the age of the earth?

Remember! We trust that science is right when it tells us that the earth revolves around the sun.In the 1600's the church cried heresy because it was inconceivable to think that the Bible could allow any such belief.You cannot deny that Christians were forced to reevaluate their understanding of what seemed to be plainly evident.

I have no problem whatsoever harmonizing an old earth with the creation account so I don't see how you can tell me I don't believe God means what he says.That is only a presumption on your part based from your position that the creation account can't mean anything other than what you believe.I'm sorry but the number of Christians who believe in an old earth is increasing, and we aren't going anywhere.

Finally aside from the disagreement in our understanding of how exactly to interpret the Genesis creation account I issue you and anyone else concerned this challenge: Find for me and explain with Biblical support any doctrinal problems you feel arise from the belief in an old earth.

Let's get to the heart of this matter.

PASTOR LARRY

How in the world do you figure this? As I said, there is not one bit of evidence from Gen 1-2 to support this. The only "evidence" you have is your own preconceived notion. YOu do not want people questioning your faith (which is fine) nor telling you what to believe. You abhor it when people "shoehorn" things in ... but then are you not guilty of the same thing here? I think so. You have shoehorned this in without any scriptural evidence for it.

Where does the Bible allow this for the construction of YOM in Gen 1? (Tip #1: I have looked at every single usage of YOM, and I have compiled the statistices. If you want to see them, I will post them. Tip #2: If you find this usage, you will be the first. No one has yet to find one.)

Once again, you are asserting something outside the text. There is no reason to suggest that morning and evening were anything different before Day 4 than they were after. You are reading your presuppositions into the text.

This is apples and oranges.

Then why come after us with a vengeance if it is fine with you?
I think it is a bit superficial to pretend that there is nothing at stake in this issue. One may believe in a long days of creation or some such similar belief and still be a Christian, but there is a great deal of inconsistency and things that they cannot account for.

While you don't want people questioning you, I for one, would like for you and your side not to question the intelligence or scientific evidence of those on our side. For the most part (apart from the quacks), young earth people are reputable scientists and intelligent people. There is simply too much at stake to give up on this battle.

CHRIS TEMPLE

The bottom line is, it doesn't really matter a hoot what scientists or science believes, but rather only what Scripture says. Unfortunately, Scripture does not tell us the age of the earth. I am a full creationist, but one area where creation science fails (and mirrors evolutionary science) is in saying more than the Scriptural evidence allows. I have heard many full-fledged and "certain" scientific scenarios come from creation scientists which are not mentioned in Scripture.
Of course science by definition, examines evidence and forms a hypothesis. But what both sides are often guilty of is coming to conclusions without testable hypotheses.

But in any case, a hypothesis is only as good as one's presuppositions, and for the believer, the presupposition of the biblical record must take precedence over scientific theory and "evidence".

The Bible supports a young-earth position (whatever young means) and the only reason that science holds to an old earth is to allow for slow evolution. But evolution is an unbiblical fallacy, and an attack upon the gospel of redemptive history.

The earth is undoubtedley, "young".

ODEMUS

The old-earth position was originally proposed by James Hutton during the late 1700's as a result of his research of the geologic table. Darwin's theory came during the late 1800's.Yes evolutionists are wong because they promote 'metaphysical naturalism'-the idea that the universe is a closed system and in need of no explanation. Therefore they must propose things like abiogenesis and interspecies evolution to explain life.Let's not confuse evolution with observable phenomenon.

To say that the plainest reading of the text does not force us to reconsider what constitutes our natural understanding of morning and evening is a presupposition.

You are correct. I brought quite a bit of my own personal experience which is tainted with some bitterness.I'm really sorry to those I have offended.I shouldn't have been so harsh.

I have witnessed terrible things done in the name of preserving the young earth position.Forgive me for bringing that baggage here.

Again, it comes down to this: One can look at the evidence for an old earth and harmonize it with the Genesis creation account, or discard it and stick to the 'plainest reading' interpretation.Both positions can believe in a literal interpretation, and both positions can believe in the inerrant word of God. So what's at stake here brother?

CHRIS TEMPLE

Yet basing beliefs upon "observable phenomenon" is the basis of evolutionary thought. Simply because the earth appears to be old, does not make it so. Adam was created a full-grownan; Scripture says that God "hung" the stars and planets in the sky; he did not need for them to travel into their fixed positions.

It comes down to which is the locus of truth for an individual, Scripture or science. Men like ross have chosen to interpret Scripture by science, rather than visa versa.

(The rest of the quotes attributed to me are not mine and I did not say them )



JOHNV

Young is such a relative term. When I was 20, anyone under 18 was young to me. Now that I'm 36, anyone under 30 is young.


HELEN

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor you manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within you gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Creation established the pattern for the week, the last day of which was made holy by the Lord, because on that day HE rested. If the Sabbath continues, that doctrine is false. If the seven day original week is not true, then we have no basis for the seven day week or the Sabbath day of rest, which was such a defining point in terms of obedience for the Lord all the way through the Old Testament.

The reason it was a defining point is written in Hebrews -- Christ is the Sabbath rest for us. If the pattern of the week and the Sabbath is false, then that also gives the lie to part of the Gospel message...

It is an absolutely primary doctrine of the Christian faith that Jesus is the Creator Himself (Colossians 1: 16-17). This means that what He says about creation or any of the events in Genesis is true.

In Matthew 24, Jesus is discussing the end times. In verse 21, He says, "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of theworld until now -- and never to be equaled again." The clear implication here, because of the word "distress" is that humans are around from the beginning. That tends, no matter how you read it, to support a young creation!

In Mark, Jesus is discussing divorce, and in 10:6 we read, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" That does not say "at the beginning of the creation of man", but simply "of creation." The clear implication is that man was there then, by the end of creation week.

In Luke 11:50, Jesus is furious with the Pharisees and teachers of the law, and says to them (among other things), "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary." Thus the account of Abel is linked with the beginning of the world.

In John 8:44, Jesus refers to Satan as a murderer "from the beginning," which again links the first murder -- that of Abel -- to the beginning.

Did Jesus know what He was talking about? If not, or if He was involving himself in inferred deception, why do you worship Him? The character of Christ is the absolute core of the Gospel message.

The belief in an old earth as linked to geology was based on the belief in gradualism -- that everything moved along at a snail's pace throughout the aeons, gradually adding geological layers -- in the exact fashion seen by Lyell and co. Catastrophes were denied as having anything to do with the record of the ages in the rock record.

That view has been abandon by geologists because of the evidence not only in the geologic column of massive catastrophes (such as at the K/T boundary), but we have seen from Mt. St. Helens that strata can build in hours, not aeons! Canyons can be carved through the soft material the same way -- in hours -- as Engineer's Canyon shows -- and yet look very much like a small replica of Grand Canyon!

But the Bible was way ahead of all that. Here is what Peter says:

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

Thus, in agreement with Genesis 1:2, the beginning of the earth was cool, not hot as the long age theorists presume. And I think you will find that this passage also denies the concept of gradualism -- long before 'science' caught up with the 'fact.'

You might want to note as well that radio decay dating is far more than C14 dating, which is the LEAST consistent and reliable of the various methods.

You wanted to talk science by referring to "science says" stuff. OK, I'm talking science. The speed of light has slowed with time. There are articles all over the place on this, not just from my husband-the-creationist! Albrecht and Magueijo, John Barrow, Troitskii, and so many others have been working with this that it simply is not a matter that can be ignored and tossed away any longer. And the fact is that if the speed of light was higher in the past, so was ALL radioactive decay.

That's science.

Yes, I know that there are a number of YEC folk who have gone slightly bonkers regarding "if you don't believe in a young earth you aren't saved." But that sort of attitude does not change the truth of the matter! Just like all the horrid things the Catholic church has done through the ages in the name of Christ does not change the truth or reality of Christ.

There are no other accepted indications of long ages aside from the speed of light and radiodecay dates, by the way. Catastrophism has smashed gradualism, which seems to be the argument you were appealing to, and everything else depends on interpretation, not data.

ODEMUS
Here we go again.I am not asking you to provide me we the same arguments over and over and over for why I must believe the earth is young.I have heard them all millions of times and have resolved the issue quite easily.

Yes I believe the creation account establishes a pattern for the week.

No I do not believe Jesus was ever deceptive, in fact Jesus was not concerned with talking about the specifics of the creation of the world.

Simply put you cannot provide concrete scriptural proof that forces me to accept a young earth. All you have are man made linguistic laws and inferences where inferences aren't even warranted.

Once again, I stated that I have absolutely have no problem harmonizing the vast mountain of evidence for an old earth with the creation account.I don't know how many times I have to repeat this but I will until you stop telling me that I can't see it any other way than you.It is clear that you are thoroughly unwilling to take an objective look at the matter so what would be the point of arguing hard science with you? If you are interested in excellent counter arguments to all sorts of young earth assumptions, you know where to look.

What I did ask for however and has remained unanswered (as it must) is Biblical support for doctrinal problems you feel arise from the belief in an old earth.

You don't have to keep repeating over and over and over that God doesn't mean what he says and and the Bible would be a big fat lie etc etc etc.

HELEN
In other words, it is a matter of you not accepting any argument at all, not a matter of what is right.

You forget, I used to be where you are. I was as adamant. I learned I was wrong via science. Real science, not simply presumptions and interpretations.

And so you have heard of all the speed of light data? That's fascinating! I haven't even read all the papers available on it yet! By the way, if you were hinting at going to Talk Origins, please consider another source for your material. The misinformation on that site is astounding and should be embarrassing to them, although evidently it isn't...

Make your words sweet. You will have to eat them someday.

ODEMUS
As long as we can agree to disagree on the creation account alone and leave it at that I am fine.
My problem comes in when young earth types start telling me I have to believe in a different Creator than they do, or a less than inerrant scripture, or that believeing in an old earth leads to some other heretical notion-all of which are FALSE.

That's what it comes down to.

JOHNV
I'm just stumped as to how "young earth" (6000 years) literalize the Genesis creation story, but don't take literally the commandment of the 7th day as a day of rest. If it was a literal 7 days, then we violate the Commandment requiring us to rest on God's 7th day, not ours, by resting on Sunday, the 1st day. And don't give me the old covanent/new covanent stuff. None of the commandments are conditional as far as I can tell.


EAGLE LIVES 911
Did anybody mention that dinosaurs were contemporary with Job? (Job Chapter 40)
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html

Link re: problems with carbon dating:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

HELEN

Well, I know I certainly take one day off a week and rest! There is no way I can make it through the other six otherwise. But aside from that, I think you will find that there is a discussion in Hebrews regarding Sabbath, and that Paul said a man should not be judged by the day he keeps. Since New Testament is used to explain old....

... and there is nothing in the New Testament that indicates anything other than a recent creation. You sort of have to take the Bible as a whole, not just bits and pieces and then argue about them.

SANDY
Interesting discussion! The seventh day commandment is given, specifically, to the Jews as a covenant between them and God.
Keep in mind that the issue about the age of earth is not an argument for its own sake; the purpose of Scripture is for the plan of salvation. The problem with an evolving earth is that death precedes the fall, thus disconnecting sin and death. If this happens, the death on the Cross didn't pay for sin. It is this thread that will unravel the rest of Scripture, and I've seen it happen in college classrooms.


CHRIS TEMPLE
What young-earth creationism has to do with the Sabbath rest is beyond me, but tell me Johnv, what other OT commandments do you keep?

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Heb 4:9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.

ODEMUS

There is nothing in the Bible that places death in nature as a consequence of sin. Whenever death as a consequence of sin is mentioned it is explicitly applied to man.Jesus death on the cross had absolutely nothing to do with the animal kingdom.

That is the primary doctrinal problem with evolution.

HELEN
I am not sure the Bible agrees with you...

Genesis 1:30 states that all land dwelling creatures with nephesh, or the breath of life, would be vegetarian. That wipes out the predator/prey relationships we see today. This, at the VERY least, indicates something radically different from what we know.

In addition, in Isaiah there is a description of the millennium when Christ shall rule:

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.
The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The nfant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.
They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11:6-9

If that is God's normalcy for the animal kingdom, and Genesis 1:30 certainly gives some indication of that, as well as the change in the relationship of man and animals in Genesis 9:1-3, then death for animals was indeed one of the results of the fall of man. When the leader falls, the dominion itself suffers...

 

SANDY
I don't find anywhere that the advent of death for the animal kingdom is separated from men.
The Bible calls death "the last enemy that will be destroyed" (I Cor.15:26)and specifies the destruction in Rev.20:14 as being in the lake of fire.
Hard to imagine death is part of God's creative mechanism...
The earth, at the end of the evolutionary process, would be a fossil graveyard, yet recall that God saw the completed creation as "very good." Even evolutionists refer to the process of evolution as cruel and wasteful. That is not God's character.

PAUL OF EUGENE
This is a strange thing I'm watching here. Since when does reality give way to theology? I've always been under the impression that theology, done rightly, reflects reality. Indeed, that is the scriptural point of view: "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumtuously. Do not be afraid of him." Deuteronomy 18:22

It's no use trying to say the earth doesn't move. Likewise, its not use trying to say the earth isn't more than 4 billion years old. Likewise, it's no use trying to say all life isn't related by physical kinship. These are things that have been confirmed.


CHRIS TEMPLE
What irrefutable, testable, scientific proof do you have that the earth is 4 billion years old?

TYNDALE 1946
The problem I see that people have trouble believing in a young earth is this. After irrefutable proof from scientific creationists and great men of science on how young the earth is, men will not believe it... Unbelief!

All biblical acheological finds have proven time and time again that all though men have denied certain portions of scripture saying it couldn't have happened, with the different discoveries and breakthroughs in science prove that it did. Not only that but God provided the knowledge and the breakthroughs in his time for us to find out about him and the world HE created!

Why time after time after given the evidence to evauate and measure and knowledge and tools to do the same... This is not only true in science but also in doctrinal teachings we refuse to believe what it says because it goes against what we have been taught. There are always new discoveries on the horizon of time but they will only further prove the existence of God and our young earth where the dinosaurs roamed with man anything else is not truth but untruth... and unbelief!... Brother Glen

HELEN

Paul, God defines reality, we don't. We can only interpret what we are seeing in light of what we think to be true in the first place.

Evolution is 'confirmed' only by those who believe it to begin with. As far as the age of the creation goes, God defines reality here, not the evolutionist. What has been INTERPRETED from the data is an ancient age. This is a whole lot different from any kind of proof.

ODEMUS
Amen.
That is about all I have been saying.I don't look for science as a standard of truth but I have to admit the evidence presented from a myriad of fields is pretty compelling for an old earth.In light of that I can't find anything contradictory in the Bible.

Could God have created the earth 6-10 thousand years ago?Yep.I have no problem accepting this as a reality.

Could God have created the earth 4 billion years ago?Ditto.

Either way my faith isn't affected one bit.

So when you say something like that all I can do is shrug.I really couldn't care less what the age of the earth is in terms of my faith in God which is the only important thing.I just happen to be of the persuasion that the earth is very old. If it turns out that I am wrong it won't have the slightest impact on me because I don't stake anything about my faith in God on it.

PAUL OF EUGENE
Well, lessee, what proof IS there that the earth is old?

There are only two models for the age of the earth out there that really matter to us on this board. One - earth created 6000 years ago more or less, and the universe created after the earth; two - earth created 4+ billion years ago, and the universe created 12 to 15 billion years ago. This is very big difference. It should be trivially easy to tell the difference between these two options. And of course it is. Here's a few lines of evidence:

a) Ice core drillings at Greenland and at Antartica have recovered successive annual layers of snow deposited over well more than a hundred thousand years.

b) The Hawaiian Island chain, a line of islands stretching form the big one (Hawaii itself) all the way across the pacific to Midway Island, a coral atoll. These were formed by a single plum from the earth's interior forming a succession of volcanoes in the pacific ocean geological plate. Just look at them in an good atlas or a good globe. Notice how evenly spaced they are, and how each one gets smaller and smaller as they get over to Midway. The last ones in the chain are coral islands, formed as the land sunk under the weight of living coral growing on top. This is not a 6000 year story here, folks. The continental plates don't move that fast! And we have to not only account for the creation of the islands, we have to account for their wearing away after being created.

c) Light from distant galaxies has been travelling for millions and billions of years before getting here.

d) Radioactive decay measurements give a definitive age of the earth. And for some strange reason, they answers match the results determined by other means. For example, the ages of the Hawaiian Islands as determined by radioactive decay results MATCH the ages as determined by plate techtonics theory. Hmmmm - maybe they are really old?

e) The genetic variation we see in the human species today could not have occurred over a mere 6000 years. The time calculated for the earliest common ancester for every human on the planet is more like a few hundred thousand years.

f) Every airless body in the solar system retains a record of severe bombardment from meteorites that just covers the surface with large, destructive craters. In the older view of the earth and solar system, these are mainly remnants of the times the solar system bodies were created by accretion and have had time to erode away on earth and now would be expected to show only traces. And that's what we see. In the younger view of the earth, when would we be able to accomodate such a world-shattering storm of destruction without killing all the life on earth? The Bible mentions nothing of any such event.

g) I can wiggle my ears.

There's more, of course.

HELEN

They are presumed to be annual. They are records of successions of storms which are annual now. However after the catastrophes involved with the Flood, and then the axis tilt and the massive and catastrophic separation of the continents in Peleg's time, the storms would have come in wave upon wave, depositing in much more rapid succession than we see now. The idea that these are ALL annual deposits is an interpretation based on gradualism and not a fact.

There was once when the plates did move that fast. It was massively catastrophic and both Peleg and Joktan, his brother, were named in commemoration of this ongoing devastation. The fact that the devastation continued for a number of years was enough reason for the rapid erosion and wearing away of the earliest structures.

It is also interpretation that the land sunk BECAUSE of the weight of the coral. If the land sunk somewhat gradually, due to the geological movements, then the coral would have grown on coral, seeking the shallower depths necessary for survival.

The fact that light traveled faster in the past is purposely ignored by those clinging to a long age universe. The measurements of a slowing speed span over 300 years (every time the same person measured using the same instrumentation some years later, we have a slower speed, so it is not a matter of lack of accuracy or changing the way it was measured). The actual necessity for a faster speed of light in the past is now being discussed in physics journals which have nothing to do with creation science. I'm afraid you cannot dismiss the actual science so easily!

Radio decay rates decreased as the speed of light decreased. The speed of light is in the numerator of every reduced decay rate equation. Plate tectonics also relies on gradualism and has been charted to be in conjunction with radio decay rates. They are not as separate as you think!

There is almost NO variation in the human species. The cosmetic variations are easily arrived at within very few generations, especially with the isolated populations which were left migrating after the Babel catastrophe. You might be interested, by the way, in knowing that the name Ham (Noah's son) means 'burnt one.' Thus we seem to have some pretty significant cosmetic variations in humans from before the Flood. If you want to see something more dramatic, try dogs. And we call them all dogs...

Yes it does. Babel. The "Lord came down." If you want to see what happens when the Lord "comes down" check Psalm 18.

You will also find the following in Job:

IMPACT EFFECTS - Job 9:5-7
"God removes the mountains and overturns them in His anger;
He shakes the earth out of its place and its core trembles;
He commands the sun & it does not rise; and He blots out the stars …"

VOLCANISM, RIFTING, MAGMA - Job 28:9, 14:18.
The mountains fall and crumble away,
And rock is moved from its place …
For God overturns the mountains from their roots
And cuts out channels through the rocks;
… And underneath it is turned to fire,
Whose stones are the source of sapphires
And contains gold dust.

VOLCANIC FIRESTORMS - Job 27:20-22; 1:16, 19.
"A storm steals him away in the night.
A burning [fiery] wind carries him away, and he is gone;
It sweeps him out of his place.
It hurls against him and does not spare…"

"Fire has fallen from heaven and burned up the sheep and servants and consumed them…
and suddenly a great wind from the wilderness struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young
men…"

TSUNAMIS & STORMS - Job 12:15; 14:11; 30:14
"God withholds the waters, and the sea dries up;
He sends them out, and they overwhelm the earth.
For the waters fail from the sea,
And the [ocean] flood dries up."
"They come as broad breakers,
As the wide breaking in of ocean waters;
Under the ruinous storm they roll along."

ICE-AGE - Job 38:29-30
"From whose womb comes the ice? …
The [ocean] waters harden like stone,
And the surface of the deep is frozen."

CAVEMEN - Job 24:7-8, 30:3-7
One group from a generation earlier (fathers of the children taunting Job) 30:3-7.
One about poor people of Job's own day 24:7-8 - society becoming established.
Just possible - one of these groups - Neanderthals
"They were gaunt with want and famine,
And plucked mallow by the bushes,
And broom tree roots for their food …
They lived in the clefts of the valleys,
Their houses were the caves in the rocks,
And they lived under the wild bushes…"

"They spend the night naked, without clothing,
And have no covering in the cold.
They are wet with the showers of the mountains,
And huddle around the rock for want of shelter."

Job was an eyewitness of catastrophic events, leaving a valuable written record preserved for us.

I'm impressed.

OK

PAUL OF EUGENE
Greetings again to Helen and all who read these words! May the Lord continue to bless us all as we strive for whatever understanding we can achieve on this subject. Helen, you've posted the following disavowals of the evidence I suggested on this topic:

Regarding ice cores
Hypothesis: The supposed annual layers of ice in Greenland and Antartica are actually only annual in the points where we can observe them forming and where we can calibrate them back to historical volcanic ash markers of known historical dates. Some time below that level they switch from being annual layers to very much more frequent layers dues to frequent severe storms.

Implication: There is a transition point where the layers change in nature. They will be of a different thickness, will have a different type of inclusions (dirtier, due to higher winds).

Observation: The layers do not change in thickness or inclusions in a manner indicating such a switch. The hypothesis that the layers become less than annual is disproved.

There are various checks on the layers being really annual. The annual layers are not differentiated by the number of storms that came by, but by the size of the ice crystals. Summer snow comes in with smaller crystals than winter snow. God promised us that summer and winter would never cease so this should always work, according to His word.

Gen 8:22
"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."
NIV

Helen refers to this verse in the Bible:

Gen 10:25
Two sons were born to Eber:
One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.
NIV

Every commentator I can find agrees the division of the earth here is not a breakup of the continents but a distribution of the earth between various families, or clans of men following the tower of Babel episode. This verse says nothing about physical disaster. The traditional interpretation also fits the context, which is a toting up of family lineages and who went where with whom. I can but marvel at the tremendous sense of imagination that would read continental splitting into this tiny, offhand remark.

Hypothesis: Light used to travel much, much faster, fast enough that what appears to be light from distances millions and millions of light years away was able to traverse all that distance in the past few thousand years.

Prediction: The slowing of the media, light, that bears the information will necessarily slow the playback of that information as we view it. Cepheid variables will wax and wane more slowly. Collapsing molecular clouds will collapse more slowly.

Observation: No such slowing affect occurs. The faster light speed hypothesis is disproved.

All the discussion in physics journals about faster than light speed "in the past" talks about conditions that prevailed WITHIN THE VERY FIRST SECOND of the origin of the universe and NO LATER! Students of physics will excuse me for greatly exagerating the length of time they envision for this condition to possibly exist.

There is also an observation of a very minute change noted in a galaxy several billion light years away in the fine structure constant. This might also be a light speed change effect but it is not able to be fitted into any theoretical framework at this time. It is not big enough to make any difference for the age of the universe.

We're not all identical twins. There is a lot of variation. It is true that we have less variation than other species. But we have enough variation to determine kinship, paternity, things like that. And that variation is enough to determine how long ago we all had a common ancestor.

I posted this earlier:
"Every airless body in the solar system retains a record of severe bombardment from meteorites that just covers the surface with large, destructive craters. In the older view of the earth and solar system, these are mainly remnants of the times the solar system bodies were created by accretion and have had time to erode away on earth and now would be expected to show only traces. And that's what we see. In the younger view of the earth, when would we be able to accomodate such a world-shattering storm of destruction without killing all the life on earth? The Bible mentions nothing of any such event."

Nothing in Psalm 18 refers this to Babel. The Bible is quite clear what happened at Babel, and it has nothing to do with physical destruction. It was a confounding of languages. Affects surrounding the appearance of God are always appropriate to the occasion. Consider the manger of Bethlehem. Not a mountain moved anywhere!

As for your quotes from Job, again, there is nothing to say Job personally saw those things with his own eyes; he could have been drawing on the racial memory preserved in oral history and sacred writings. He could have been granted a vision of these things. None of the Job material you quoted preserves a context of the particular thing described, instead, it is all an expression of the might and glory of God. It does that very admirably, but it does not provide us geological history we can link to any particular time or place.

Look at the moon with a telescope. Except where lava flows have created smooth plains, its all heavy craters. If that happened any time after the flood, we would all be dead. If that happened any time before the flood, we would all be dead. If that happened during the flood, then it would not be just a flood, it would be much more. The Bible says its only a flood. If it happened before life started, then no problem.

Ahh, at last an argument you accept! <gggg> Helen knows, but the rest of you might not, that I use the ear wiggling as an example of a vestige, a left over form or function in the current species that reveals a previous usage. Nobody today has any use for moving our ears. How many species back in our ancestry must we go before we find the species that did? Isn't this vestige evidence we came from an earlier species? Note I said evidence, not proof.

There is a larger issue here. I suppose everybody knows we could keep posting back and forth until Jesus comes on this issue. Normally, minds do not change quickly. What is the appropriate thing to do about the fact that we sincere believers have a disagreement here?

[ June 28, 2002, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

HELEN

Ice Core Layers
Paul, I agree with you that ice core layers can be tracked by temperature variations at the time of the storm as well as inclusions such as volcanic ash. Nor did I say that the buildup are only annual when we can observe them forming. Nor am I saying that the seasons themselves have changed since the Flood (you agree with the Biblical Flood? I didn’t think you did!). What I am saying is that after the Flood as well as later, there were conditions which precipitated series of storms for awhile which dumped enormous amounts of snow on the poles, precipitating ice ages. Volcanic or other catastrophic activity at the time would have presented conditions in which the storms came in warm and cold series, which we associate only with annual events now. Because we see the layers as annual now, we cannot presume they were ALWAYS annual, even if they were USUALLY annual. The assumption of gradualism, in other words, may not be accurate here.

Catastrophic Plate Movement
You said ‘every commentator I can find agrees the division of the earth here is not a breakup of the continents but a distribution of the earth between various families…following the Tower of Babel episode.’

Many Bible commentators do say that, Paul, but there are several problems with that interpretation:

1) Why name two children with names indicating catastrophe when all people did was migrate?

2) “Eres”, the word translated “earth” ALWAYS indicates a geographical area, not a population of people by itself. The EARTH was divided; the people were not divided. The migration of people came after the Babel catastrophe. The time of Peleg, if you check Genesis 10, was several generations later.

3) The remark in Genesis 10:25 may seem ‘tiny’ and ‘offhand’ to you, but so is Genesis 8:21, where the Lord remarks in a very offhand way that the heart of man always tends toward evil from childhood! And that is a major premise of the entire Bible! The remark may also seem offhand because the author had no idea people would ever forget such a catastrophic event and was placing Peleg and Joktan in time. There are a few other tiny remarks we take extraordinarily seriously in the Bible, such as when Jesus told the woman at the well in John 4 that God is spirit. That wipes out several cults on three words!

4) After the Flood, the life expectancies of men dropped by over 50%, indicating some kind of major change in mankind due to the catastrophe. You will find exactly the same thing at the time of Peleg – life expectancies drop in Peleg’s generation by about 50% from the generations immediately after the Flood. This also indicates much more than a simple migration of peoples!

Speed of Light[
You have missed an important point in the speed of light material. The changes are isotropic throughout the universe at any given time, with the possible exception of small areas where individualized changes may take place at some times. Because of the universal nature of the light speed change, however, what we see will correlate with what we know happens. I did a quick look through some of Barry’s responses to email questions in the past and found this, which might help a little:

It has been proved recently by aberration experiments that distant starlight from remote galaxies arrives at earth with the same velocity as light does from local sources. This occurs because the speed of light depends on the properties of the vacuum. If we assume that the vacuum is homogeneous and isotropic (that is has the same properties uniformly everywhere at any given instant), then light-speed will have the same value right throughout the vacuum at any given instant. The following proposition will also hold. If the properties of the vacuum are smoothly changing with time, then light speed will also smoothly change with time right throughout the cosmos.

On the basis of experimental evidence from the 1920's when light speed was measured as varying, this proposition maintains that the wavelengths of emitted light do not change in transit when light-speed varies, but the frequency (the number of wave-crests passing per second) will. The frequency of light in a changing c scenario is proportional to c itself. Imagine light of a given earth laboratory wavelength emitted from a distant galaxy where c was 10 times the value it has now. The wavelength would be unchanged, but the emitted frequency would be 10 times greater as the wave-crests are passing 10 times faster. As light slowed in transit, the frequency also slowed, until when it reaches earth at c now, the frequency would be the same as our laboratory standard as well as the wavelength.


And I also think you will find that people like John Barrow are very much considering the extended slowing of the speed of light through time. There are some who postulate it was only in the first moment(s) after the Big Bang, but there are others, aside from Barry, who dispute it. According to Albrecht, whom Barry had a chance to meet this spring, even Magueijo is considering that option!

In the meantime, the change in the fine structure constant not only can be disputed on the basis of its size (please see Barry’s webpage for his response to that), but since ‘hc’ holds invariant, it would not have anything to do with the change in ‘c’.

Variation in humans
This has nothing to do with finding a common ancestor, Paul, but with the serendipitous effects of genetic combinations even in one generation. You stated that the differences we see today could not have arisen in just a few thousand years. I will state that the differences we see today could become evident in just a few generations given two factors: more original gene variation potential than we see today and small isolated populations. The first came through with the Flood from the original humans and the second from the Babel dispersion.

Cosmic Bombardment
First, I did not say that Psalm 18 refers to Babel, although it very well might. What I was saying is that this phrase ‘the Lord came down’ is not a reference to a quiet visitation and we need to check this phrase, as used in the Babel account, with other times it is used in the Bible, such as in Psalm 18. It refers to a catastrophe.

We also have other evidence, much of it in the legends of peoples who SAW this bombardment happen! The people of the South Pacific remember the event well as one which marked the moon! Since the bombardment would have been happening on the other side of the earth at that time, that makes sense. Our major craters are just about all on the northern hemisphere!

Greek and other legends also record that the cost in human life was enormous, almost to the extent of the Flood, where very few people were left alive in some areas. So yes, there was a real devastation.

Then you say there is nothing in Job that says he saw them with his own eyes. How on earth do you consider the reported devastation of all that he owned, including his own family due to firestorms and such? In addition, you will find the incidents are all reported in the present tense, not the past tense. This is only considered to be ‘historical memory’ by those who are refusing the obvious meanings. Please consider also that Job is most probably Jobab of Genesis 10, Joktan’s son. The age at death is what would be expected for the life spans of that time and is much too old for anything later, and too young for anything earlier.

As far as Babel goes, do you honestly think that one morning one family woke up saying “gorple gook” and understanding each other and no one else and another family woke up saying “rama lama ding dong” and understanding each other and no one else? I am amazed that you are insisting on the naturalistic materialism of evolution and refuse the natural explanation that the languages changed BECAUSE of the migrations and resultant isolated populations. We know the latter happens because we see such strong dialect differences even in different parts of the same country! Why are you accepting not just miraculous events, but those which don’t need to be miracles, rather than what we KNOW happens in one case and refusing God’s simple and EXTENSIVE account of creation in another? You refused the idea of the earth being divided because it is just a passing comment. However Genesis 1 is not a passing comment, is it? It is a rather extensive telling of what happened and is referred to by many other Biblical authors as well as by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It seems to me you are picking and choosing what you choose to believe on the basis of man’s interpretation of what he is seeing rather than what God clearly has said.

About your last question, regarding what we should do as sincere believers when we disagree so strongly on some issues. For me, I have to hold the position I do since I feel God’s character is involved. If He cannot be counted on to communicate clearly and simply to us, as we need, in the Bible, then we really cannot count on Him at all in a consistent way, can we? We would have to, instead, depend upon our own knowledge instead of depending on Him. For me that is the theological issue, so I have to take my stand here. The fact that science data is actually backing up the Biblical account (apart from man’s interpretation of it), is something I am very please about, but also something I would expect to find.

[ July 01, 2002, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

RADIOCHEMIST

I have a couple of comments, especially on Helen's remarks about the
speed of light.

The idea that the speed of light has changed in the past is an idea
whose time has not yet come. That is, it has so far not found enough
acceptance to be published even once in the scientific literature.

Helen often makes claims that are highly speculative and treats
them as if they have been accepted as established mainstream ideas.
She does no one any favors, even herself by often failing to
make this distinction. She does it again in talking about how the
earth was "divided" in the days of Peleg. She builds a whole
geological
theory based on a single line in the bible where there is no proof
that the line was even referring to geology at all.

Someone named Ernie commented on the theory about the dinosaurs being
destroyed by a meteorite and said that this idea ranks up there with
the
story of Jack and the Bean stalk. Apparently Ernie does not believe
this theory. As one who has published on this topic, I disagree with
Ernie and contend that the evidence is very strong. Let me review it
here:

1. The event that destroyed the dinosaurs and a considerable fraction
of life on earth is well dated and is dated to about 65 million years
ago. There is a layer known from about 70 locations around the world
that corresponds to this event, which is also known as the K-T event.

2. The remnants of a crater, a very large one, has been found in
Mexico that dates at exactly 65 million years, with an uncertainty
of 100,000 years. The size of the object that created the crater
is estimated to be about 7 miles in diameter. It can be calculated
that an object of that size, striking the earth would release as much
energy as hundreds of Hiroshima size nuclear explosions. There are
various types of shocked minerals that have been found in the KT
layer that can only produced by great shock. Small diamonds have
also been found in the layer produced by shock. Carbon in the form
of soot has been found in the layer.

3. The element iridium is also found in the layer, but not above
and below it. Iridium is found in meteorites and therefore its
presence is a strong indication of an impact.

The Smithsonian has an interesting page where you can view a
deep sea core sample containing the layer that was deposited
by the impact event. You creationists may disagree, but the
weakness of your position is that you have no valid science
that can otherwise explain this evidence. Here is the link:

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/blast/k_t_boundary.htm

A link that better shows the deep sea core related to the impact
event is given below:

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/blast/the_core.htm

This post can be combined with my earlier one if possible.

 

PAUL OF EUGENE

Greetings, Helen, and all who read these words. May the Lord bring His plans to fruition in all our lives.

Helen had this too say about ice core layers:

Every possible way of checking the accuracy comes up confirming the accuracy of the layers being an annual count. If you question their count, then it behooves you or someone you trust to do a recount. Or you can examine the notes and records of the scientists who did the work May I suggest you have no basis for making that assertion? There is an area below the 100,000 year mark where non-uniform conditions begin to appear. There things get less certain.

You offer the following problems for the traditional theory that the division of land memorialized by the naming of Peleg is a territorial division:

Hmmm. Surely you had your tongue firmly in cheek when you penned this one!

Well, it was the EARTH that was partitioned among the people! Of course Peleg was named after the event, not before it.

And is Genesis 8:21 the only place we see the Lord complain about the evil within the heart of men? The remark in Genesis 10:25 isn't even ABOUT the division, its about PELEG getting his NAME! And glance down just 7 verses down, you will find "These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their geneologies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood." That provides a context for the interpretation of the verse. It's a summary verse of the whole chapter. And lastly, let me call your attention to Psalm 55:9. Remember that Peleg means divide. The verse reads: "Confuse, O Lord, PELEG their tongues, for I have seen violence and strife in the city." The psalmist, recalling this very Genesis story, calls on God to again DIVIDE these sinners just as He did before, calling for a repeat of the confusion of tongues episode. This shows that the inspired Psalmist considered the division referred to to be the division caused by the confusion of tongues. Let me share a reality check here. Continental drift is measured in inches per year. The most severe earthquakes move ground eight to ten feet. The Atlantic Ocean was not created in a single generation. That is simply not possible.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what that means. Could you please rephrase?

You quoted Barry Setterfield as saying this:

It is precisely this slowing of frequency that we do not observe. Let me give a parable. There was a mother who gave her kids a record player - one of those old fashioned things that plays sound based on a long, spiral groove molded into the circular disk (they called them "records"). A needle tracks the groove, the constant speed of rotation allows irregularities in the groove to vibrate the needle, the vibrations are electrically amplified into sound. The two boys, Paul and Barry, were having fun with the record player. Paul discovered that by making the disk slow down - using his thumb to drag the platter - he could make it sound weird. But the mother heard them doing this and told Paul not do that, it could hurt the record player. So the boys quit. They just played records. But then Paul thought he'd get Barry in trouble, so he went up to mom and said "Barry's been dragging the platter"! But mom said, no, he has not, YOU are in trouble. "But how can you tell?" asked Paul, sulking as he went to his room. "Because the sound of the songs from the record player didn't slow down!"

Now the record on a record player is just like the light coming from the galaxies in that the distance between vibrations on the record stays the same as the record is slowed by a childish thumb. But the drop in frequency is instantly detectable when we do that.

Barry hasn't managed to slow down the cepheid variables in the nearby galaxies, which would be a necessary prediction of his theory. Nor has he slowed down the waxing and waning of supernova across all the universe. Nor has he dropped the frequency of starlight from galaxies. This is fundamental evidence showing his theory is wrong.

Regarding variation in humans you stated this:

Well, you said that, but you only gave us your off the cuff estimate. How does the hard math come out? Off the cuff estimates for a subject like this are inadequate. We need quantification of the variation and projections for how they worked out over time. Others have done this and came up with more than a hundred thousand years. Who has done such an analysis and came up with a result consistent with your view? Using real math and real facts about the amount of genetic variation in the species?

Aww, c'mon, Job's personal disasters were NOT world shattering, however bad they were for him and his family. Not to minimize his sufferings, but the fire only destroyed one house. What scripture actually says he actually experienced has nothing to do with total world meteorite bombardment!

You don't know that.

I think that the Biblical narrative indeed states that families did wake up with tongues divided just like you said. That is plain from reading the narrative! However, your idea that the story actually reflects the discovery of mankind that we are divided because of migrations and isolations is probably accurate. Perhaps it is an extended parable?

Prov 25:2
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
NAS

God's character is not such as to mislead us with false signs in the skies or false layers in the ice or false fossils in the ground. He has placed the information there to be uncovered in His time. The nations have discovered many things about the size and age of the universe and how life developed over time. As God promised, these discoveries are not false!

 

[Administrator: It was a mistake to include a post from Radiochemist in this thread as he is not a registered Baptist on Baptist Board. However since Helen responded to it, we are letting it stay. However no other material from non-members or non-Baptists will be allowed in this thread. Our apologies for this mistake.]

HELEN

Radiochemist, I am guessing that you do not consider Physics Review D scientific literature? There have been several articles on the speed of light not being constant starting with January 1999. There have been a number of other articles as well in various other journals and review magazines such as New Scientist.

As far as the times of Peleg goes, the word for what was divided is eres. It is used 2505 times in the Old Testament. It is translated as “land” or “lands” 1184 times, “earth” 524 times, “ground” 160 times, “country” or “countries” 131 times, “world” 20 times, “region” 18 times, “territory”17 times and most of the rest are in combination with other words indicating a particular country or place. It NEVER means people. The plain and clear meaning of Genesis 10:25 was that in the time of Peleg and Joktan the earth was catastrophically separated by land masses.

Is this wrong for a single line in the Bible? No, it is not. In Genesis 8:21 you will find that God casually kicks in a simple throwaway phrase when talking to Noah about the hearts of all men being inclined toward evil from childhood. This is not even a complete sentence the way it is written in Genesis, and yet it is the foundation for the entire presentation of being born again which Jesus gave Nicodemus in John 3. Again, in John 4, Jesus uses only three words to indicate the enormous truth that “God is spirit”, and again, this does not even get a sentence to itself; yet by itself it demolishes several cults.

Do not suppose that the amount of space devoted to something in the Bible determines its importance! First of all, everything is important; secondly, many of the items which take up the most space are simple histories! The earth, physically and catastrophically, was indeed divided during the lifetime of Peleg. The memories of this horrid time are preserved in many of the old legends and histories around the world.

And yes, there were meteorite impacts, and several very large ones associated with the extinction of the dinosaurs. You are right about that. Thank you for the links regarding that, too.

 

JHAPPEL

Odemus: I have thought my position out and my conclusion is that it doesn't matter how old the earth is in terms of my faith in Christ.

Jhappel: That is fine. The age of the Earth should never be a stumbling block for someone accepting Christ. I however have huge problems with the implications of those that believe in an old Earth and still claim to defend Bible inerrancy.

Odemus: If the word 'yom' is meant to describe literal indefinite periods of time as opposed to literal 24 hour days then I am fine with that. If God created the animal kingdom millions of years as opposed to a couple of days before He created Adam and Eve I am fine with that as well. If there was death in the animal kingdom before Adam sinned as opposed to after Adam sinned I am fine with that!

Jhappel: What in context would lend support to the position that the days in Genesis are really long periods of time as long as millions of years? If God wanted to imply long ages he could have used other words or expressions like olam to make it more clear. Without any pre-conceived ideas of the past, I don't see how anyone would come to the conclusion these days
Are millions of years long.

Odemus: As you can see by verses such as Romans 5:12, The consequence of death as a result Adams sin is specifically applied to man:
Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all sinned-
We find in verse 18 of the same chapter that Christ's redemptive work on the cross was meant to reconcile man with God, not the animal kingdom:
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of riteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. I am most assured that Christ died for me and you, not lions, tigers, bears, or even the cellular material of whatever it was that Adam and Eve ate prior to their fall from grace.

Jhappel: Paul says sin entered into the world and death was through sin. So clearly Paul is implying death is the result of sin and he specifically referring to man in this passage as being one of those of the creation who now has to face the consequences of sin in death. In Genesis 1:30 God commands the higher animals to only eat plants. Clearly plant death is not an issue in God's very good creation. But its the death of higher animals like birds and mammals that corrupted God's very good creation as the result of sin. In Genesis 9:3 God makes it clear only now is man allowed to eat animals and the command for man to eat plants is given in the EXACT
CONTEXT as animals to eat plants in Genesis 1:29-30 so clearly all higher animals were originally herbivores. Also to be consistent with other long-agers I assume you deny the human status of Neanderthals correct? If so you have God creating man-like creatures who look almost indistinguishable to us with the ability to speak, paint pictures, use music, use sophisticated
tools, bury their dead and even interbreed with what are considered modern humans and yet are not descendants of Adam so therefore cannot be saved. So you are saying God called the death, disease, pain and suffering of these 'animals' very good. I have severe theological problems with such a position and makes the gospel look nonsensical.

Odemus:I find this whole discussion is an excersise in futility for two basic reasons:

1) It can only serve as yet another area of strife and contention between Christians who simply disagree on the matter. There just isn't anything conflicting the central principles of our faith no matter which position you take.

jhappel: I disagree. Old earthers tend to say its only a trivial issue but when you really analyze what is happening it is much more serious than they claim.

Odemus: 2) We are never going to bring secular scientists to saving faith in Christ by presenting a young earth model to them. It just is not going to happen. Even if the young earth model is true that has absolutely nothing to do with presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ to sinners. I see that you have studied your position and are fairly clear in presenting what you believe and why. I wonder, has it ever been affective in bringing an unbeliever to Christ? I am by no means being cynical with that question, but I am curious if you feel all the effort you invest in guaranteeing that the age of the earth can be explained in terms of a literal six 24 hour day approach to interpreting the Genesis creation account has been affective in your witness to the unsaved.

jhappel: I disagree strongly. Most secular scientists know about compromises yet we don't see them flooding to be converted. Most secular scientists reject design a priori so would never have the proper worldview to interpret the evidence in a Biblical framework. As Christians we believe
in a God who is omnipotent and Omniscient which we are not. If the most plain interpretation of the text conflicts with how we interpret the past we should challenge our fallible interpretations not reinterpret infallible scripture.

Odemus: Five years ago my church was absolutely (and most unecessarily) torn apart by this very issue. Half of the church felt they could not worship under the same roof with the half that differed from (or were tolerant of both sides) their belief! Take a guess at to which half moved out. I hate seeing brothers and sisters in Christ torn apart by such trivialities, and I think if you are honest with yourself you will conclude that this issue is indeed trivial, because in the final analysis sister, me and you are both one day going to embrace in heaven and laugh that this could have ever been a noteworthy disagreement.

jhappel: As I said before the age of the Earth should not be a stumbling block to Christ however this is not a trivial issue and is very important in our understanding of our creator.

Odemus: Well there certainly are plenty of young earthians here. While we may disagree on this issue I think the most important thing of all is to realize is we share the same faith in the inerrancy of God's Word. Man is most certainly fallible but God is not. The only word of caution I would issue to young earth types is that you are without question going to have to allow room for those of us who believe the earth is very old.

jhappel: Are you saying mans interpretation of the age of the Earth is infallible? You have to prove your case Biblically BEFORE you accept an old Earth. The Old Earth position has never been able to do that. Until then you are saying the Bible is fallible but man's interpretation of
nature is infallible.

Odemus: The church had to revise it's understanding of the Bible (and consequently the universe) in the 1600's when Galileo brought the Copernican model of the solar system into prominence, and my belief is that is more than an acceptable precedent to consider when approaching the vast amounts of evidence for an old earth with respect to the creation account.

jhappel: The Biblical case for geocentrism and the case for the age of the Earth is vastly different. We say the sun rises and sets all the time. There is no reason to suspect the Bible authors would say anything different.

Odemus: Aye, never mind that we are in fact very literally still in the 7th day of God resting from his creative works (we can just ignore that). Never mind that the Bible allows for the word 'yom' to denote a literal period of indefinite time, we'll simply apply a rule that says 'yom' must be considered a 24 hour day in the creation account when preceded by a number. Never mind that we must reasses our natural understanding of what morning and evening constitute before the fourth day. We can just gloss over this issue and make the necessary assumptions to confine our God and creator to a literal 24 hour 6 day creation. Finally, never mind the very real historical
precedent of the Copernican model of the solar system which forced Christians to reevaluate their literal understanding of Psalm 19:6. We'll just pretend that never happened.

jhappel: Just because God rests from creating continues does not mean the 7th day continues. Douglass Kelly thoroughly refuted this in Creation and Change.

Odemus: You can continue to use the shoe horn approach necessary to fit the mountain of scientific evidence for an old earth into your view of it. That's just perfectly fine with me. ...but what I do ask is that under no circumstances you ever imply that my faith is in anything but the complete, inerrant and totally sufficient word of God because simply put that's a totally false assumption.

jhappel: If we can reinterpret scripture and force the scripture to mean what we want it to mean by using fanciful eisegesis and ignore the rules of syntax than what does inerrancy really mean?

Odemus: I apologize if I am a bit over the top with this but as I said before I went through an extremely gut wrenching period in my life as a direct result of this very issue. Half of my church left because they could not tolerate worshipping under the same roof with those of us who felt differently or were tolerant of both positions. It sickens me to think that Christians-brothers and sisters in Christ can be that closed minded about an issue which poses absolutely no doctrinal or theological problems to the Christian faith regardless of one's position.

jhappel: Like I said I have serious theological problems having God call the death, disease and suffering of man-like creatures very good! God is calling cancer and other diseases very good. This is not a trivial issue! I am sorry about I think Old Earth Creationists who claim they support a literal reading of Genesis do harm to the faith.

Odemus: We can both go round and round with this argument forever. I am sure you are
aware that there are many more evidences for the age of the earth other than carbon dating and the Speed of light on which both points I disagree with you (as well do scientists). I have absolutely no desire to get into a debate on the science of these evidences because as we both know it would be cyclical and fruitless. So when I talk about the shoe horn approach to determining the age of the earth I don't mean to be deragatory, I apologize if that's how I come off. What I mean is that you will always be forced to look for and if need be manufacture problems with any evidence that concludes the earth must be very old.If what is known about God is plainly evident in His creation and makes all men accountable as Romans states tell me how is it that men who devote their entire lives to the study of our universe can come up so drastically wrong in so many fields of science with respect to the age of the earth?

jhappel: As I said most scientists reject design a priori so they are not willing to accept a creator supernaturally created a mature Earth in 6 days. Argument from authority is irrelevant in origins.

Odemus: Remember! We trust that science is right when it tells us that the earth revolves around the sun. In the 1600's the church cried heresy because it was inconceivable to think that the Bible could allow any such belief. You cannot deny that Christians were forced to reevaluate their understanding of what seemed to be plainly evident.

jhappel: You keep bringing this up but I can assure the Biblical case for geocentrism is virtually nill but the Biblical case for a young Earth is overwhelming.

Odemus: I have no problem whatsoever harmonizing an old earth with the creation account so I don't see how you can tell me I don't believe God means what he says. That is only a presumption on your part based from your position that the creation account can't mean anything other than what you believe. I'm sorry but the number of Christians who believe in an old earth is increasing, and we aren't going anywhere.

jhappel: Again if you follow the plain rules of exegesis you will never win a debate with a young earther. You have to bring in outside ideas from man's interpretation of nature to make the Bible fit with billions of years.

Odemus: Finally aside from the disagreement in our understanding of how exactly to interpret the Genesis creation account I issue you and anyone else concerned this challenge: Find for me and explain with Biblical support any doctrinal problems you feel arise from the belief in an old earth.

jhappel:Old Earth has 2 serious problems

1) Denies plain Biblical teachings like 6 solar day creation, forces gaps in the genealogies way beyond what the text allows, denies the overwhelming Biblical evidence for a global flood, uses fanciful eisegesis to harmonize the days of creation with uniformitarian geology like the denial of
the creation of the sun on day 4, the denial that plants were created before complex life, denies that land dinosaurs were created with man and after whales, the denial that thorns and thistles did not exist until after sin, the denial that higher animals were not carnivorous until after sin, etc,

2) Makes the Gospel nonsensical by having God call the death, disease and suffering of man-like creatures very good.

Odemus: Again, it comes down to this: One can look at the evidence for an old earth and harmonize it with the Genesis creation account, or discard it and stick to the 'plainest reading' interpretation. Both positions can believe in a literal interpretation, and both positions can believe in the inerrant word of God. So what's at stake here brother?

jhappel: A non-literal use of the word literal. The literal interpretation is the most basic meaning without further elaboration. You cannot have 2 interpretations that are the most basic.

Odemus: Here we go again.I am not asking you to provide me we the same arguments over and over and over for why I must believe the earth is young. I have heard them all millions of times and have resolved the issue quite easily. Yes I believe the creation account establishes a pattern for the week. No I do not believe Jesus was ever deceptive, in fact Jesus was not concerned with talking about the specifics of the creation of the world.

jhappel: Jesus referred to the creation accounts and the flood as real history. These accounts are concerned with the specifics of the creation of the world. Jesus could have made it clear the Earth existed for long ages before man but He never did. All of His sayings always are more consistent with a young Earth than an old Earth.

Odemus:Simply put you cannot provide concrete scriptural proof that forces me to accept a young earth. All you have are man made linguistic laws and inferences where inferences aren't even warranted.

jhappel: Simply because you are unwilling to accept the overwhelming Biblical evidence for a young Earth because of your preconceived ideas of nature.

Odemus: Once again, I stated that I have absolutely have no problem harmonizing the vast mountain of evidence for an old earth with the creation account. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this but I will until you stop telling me that I can't see it any other way than you. It is clear that you are thoroughly unwilling to take an objective look at the matter so what would be the point of arguing hard science with you? If you are interested in excellent counter arguments to all sorts of young earth assumptions, you know where to look.

jhappel: But again your 'harmonizing' may help your faith but I say it has nothing to do with defending Bible inerrancy since the Biblical evidence has never been demonstrated to support the old Earth view.


Odemus: There is nothing in the Bible that places death in nature as a consequence of sin. Whenever death as a consequence of sin is mentioned it is explicitly applied to man. Jesus death on the cross had absolutely nothing to do with the animal kingdom. That is the primary doctrinal problem with evolution.

jhappel: Yes only man can sin. That’s not the issue. Its what effect did sin have on the creation? Old Earth says virtually none. God called the death of human-like creatures very good.

[ July 11, 2002, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

PAUL OF EUGENE

Here are some key quotes posted from above:

We have to face the collisions here:

- Science, meaning objective study of the universe, concludes the universe is 12+ billion years old and the variety of life we have today is the result of a billion years of evolution. The Bible is not considered a source worth considering at all in evaluating these notions.

- Our Bible, literally interpreted, points to a 6000 year old universe including stars, seperate creation of all species in 6 days. Evidence from science is not considered at all in deciding this is valid, but is only searched for whatever corraboration science might happen to appear to give to this view.

let me comment about the stars here: it is only a modern prejudice that confines the word "start" to a vast glowing ball of gas self shining from the heat of gravitational collapse or nuclear reactions. Remember that the planets themselves were called "wandering stars" by the ancients. The word star as used by the ancients refers to ANYTHING UP THERE other than the Sun or the Moon that shines. Hence, a meteorite is truly a falling star, AS THEY WOULD DEFINE IT.

We have to face the historical fact that this collision has happened before with regard to the moving of the earth. We still have Christians defending the bankrupt view that the earth is unmoving, based solely on the literal interpretation of scripture, but they are a very small minority now.

Now we have Christians saying that the previous generations of Christians were sadly mistaken in their interpretation and should have been able to allow for the view that the earth moves, but today, our intepretations are completely valid and science is surely wrong this time, anyway.

Should our Lord tarry and we have time for history to futher unfold, the same pattern will be followed, this time with regard to evolution and the age of the universe, because human nature remains the same but human knowledge continues to grow. The knowledge will continue to percolate throughout all humanity and the believers in a 6000 year old earth with separate creation of millions of species at the beginning of that time will slowly become the same kind of harmless minority. We are experiencing the transition even now.

 

HELEN

The collisions are between God’s Word and man’s INTERPRETATION of the data. The data do not disagree with what God inspired to be written in the Bible.

There is no such thing as an objective study of the universe. Each person looking at it comes to his observations with preconceptions and presuppositions regarding what the truth is. And it is very rare to find someone making conclusions which disagree with those original suppositions. And I am sorry you do not think the Bible is a source worth considering in evaluating what we see. That is a sad comment to be making about what God says. Other perfectly qualified scientists disagree with you completely. Astronomers like Dr. Danny Faulkner have no trouble using the Bible to help interpret what they see in the heavens. Nor does he stand alone.

You mention that the Bible ‘literally interpreted’.

That is an oxymoron! You cannot “literally interpret” something. It is either taken literally, which to me means simply ‘straightforwardly’, or it is interpreted to mean something else.

And yes, the Bible does quite definitely indicate a very young creation, although, depending on the text you use (the oldest indicates a slightly longer age), it may be more like 8,000 years. And, actually, evidence from science does help us understand a lot in the Bible. We now understand what the ‘paths of the seas’ refers to, what the ‘fountains of the deep’ means, and exactly what was meant by the binding and loosing of the two constellations, Orion and the Pleiades.

Actual, true science and the Bible support each other completely. There is no disagreement. The disagreement is with man’s interpretation of a lot of what he finds.

Yes, you are right about the stars in terms of ancient understanding, but they were clearly differentiated from the sun and moon. Other than that, what is your point? Science has given us a fuller understanding of everything that was referred to as stars, but that does not make them any the less look like stars in the heavens!

As far as the ‘moving of the earth’ is concerned, that is view totally unsupported by Scripture itself! It was man’s interpretation that made the error, not Scripture. I have responded to this so many times from so many people that I finally saved this:

It is precisely BECAUSE man’s interpretations are so wrong so often that it is wise to go back to Bible!

And I had to laugh about your ‘harmless minority’ where we YEC’s are concerned. If that were really true, Eugenie Scott et al would have nothing to fuss about, would they? The actual truth is that the more the universe is studied, the more questions are being raised about the interpretations we have all been taught and so many believe on faith. It seems to me that sometime, somehow, it is going to occur to some of you that every time the Bible and man’s interpretations in any area – history, science, human nature, anything – come into conflict, the Bible always ends up being right. The more I see unfolding in physics and astronomy the more I know that we have nothing to worry about – except the brainwashing going on in the public arena. The transition I am aware of from increasing numbers of emails is that the trend is exactly opposite what you are thinking. The following is one of many emails just this week which Barry and I have received:

As is probably evident, this person, a physics professor in Europe, has English as a second language. Emails like this are coming in more and more steadily now as people are asking to read Barry’s work; and the only possible conclusion to Barry’s model is a very young creation. The pendulum is swinging, Paul, but not in the direction you are thinking.

 

PAUL OF EUGENE


Greetings, Helen, and all who read these words. May the Lord grant us discernment and wisdom as we
discuss these things on which we continue to disagree.

One can just as easily assert the reverse: "The collisions are
between observation and man's INTERPRETATION of God's Word". See? And it is just as
meaningful or meaningless, as you choose to agree or disagree.

There IS such a thing as an objective study of the universe. It is precisely the scientific method. The
spectacular results of the scientific method are evident all around us. I suppose every person brings
some personal bias to anything, but with training and technique one can learn to put that bias aside.
This is not a bad thing! This is a good thing!

Now let me share a couple of verses with you:

Matt 13:34-35
34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables, and He did not speak to them without a
parable, 35 so that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying,
"I will open My mouth in parables;
I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world." (NAS)

I'm coming more and more to the idea that this scripture, from both Matthew and Isaiah, is very true,
and that the things regarding the foundation of the world are given to us as parables. This allows one
to accept what the scriptures really say in Genesis one, including the parts about the six days of
creation and the one day of rest, and not excluding the parts about the firmament over the earth and
the waters above the firmament. Because it is viewed as a parable, it does not have to jibe with modern
science, and yet continues to have the spiritual truth for us that God has intended to convey all along.

Well, let him publish his findings and let them stand or fall on their merits. Remember how long it took
continental drift to become the accepted wisdom in geology. Remember how Einstein's ideas aroused
such controversy in the beginning. Time will tell. So far, the ideas of Darwin and Gamow and
Hawking and Einstein and Penrose on this subject are holding up quite well.

Precisely the things said by Martin Luthor as he led all protestantism to oppose the teachings of
Copernicus. You yourself now call for us to no longer take the Bible literally, when it says the sun
stood still for Joshua. You excuse this by asserting it's ok to merely accept the words of Scripture as
speaking to appearances instead of reality. What changed between Martin Luthor's time and your
time? Merely that you know Copernicus was right. If you yourself lived in Luthor's time, you would
have joined in the chorus against Copernicus, just as you join today in the chorus against Darwin and
Gamow and Hubble and Einstein and Hawking and Penrose and Sagan and others like them whom you
judge to be mistaken in what they think they have found out about the universe. What do they know?

Well, we can map our current understanding of these things into a particular interpretation of those
words. There was never any assistance to science from these passages. The language of these
verses is ambiguous enough to allow for a lot of variation in the science of these things.

Truth is truth whever you find it. Properly interpreted, the Bible will not contradict truth. Therefore,
you need to stop improperly interpreting the Bible and let it be interpreted to agree with what we know
to be true, including the 12 billion + age of the universe and the common descent of all DNA based
life.

You must have missed the part where I said this would come to pass in the future.

Well, there you have it folks, completely opposing points of view. Helen and I are both committed to
advancing the kingdom of God. Helen and I both deeply regret the harm to the cause of truth and
God's Kingdom by the notions of the other. One of us is very wrong somewhere. We take our stand,
aghast at the strange erroneous notions of the other, united in a desire to see God's Name honored and
advanced. And where do the rest of you, our dear readers, take your stands? It remains our prayer
that God will lead us closer to His truth. He will do that in His good time.

 

HELEN

Hi Paul and all! Yes, I join in Paul’s prayer for wisdom!

I agree with you, Paul that there can be collisions between observation and man’s interpretation of God’s Word. That is why I prefer not to ‘interpret’ His Word but simply take it as it was written. This does not exclude poetic utterances and allegory and such, but these are clearly marked in the Hebrew and Genesis simply does not bear these marks! Genesis gives every evidence both historically and linguistically of being a series of eyewitness accounts of what happened. We can disagree with it, but we should take it on its own terms and not force interpretations on it.

One other point – I think you will find that generally it is not the actual data which seem to disagree with Bible, but the way the data is interpreted, i.e. what the observations are seen to mean. It really is impossible to get away from this, on either side, as all of us, scientists or not, see things through the glasses of what we already believe to be true.

You said the scientific method is a way to objectively study the universe. No, it is a way to objectively gather data, and there is a difference! The conclusions drawn from studying the data always include the presuppositions of the person doing the studying. And I doubt VERY seriously whether or not a person can actually put aside what he or she already believes to be true when looking at data! Maybe it can happen, but I have not seen it.
You used the Matthew 13:34-35 quote to indicate that you thought Jesus’ parables or at least parables in general were part of the creation narrative. But Matthew is not talking about anything like that! He has made this comment in the middle of a series of Jesus’ parables about the kingdom of heaven! THIS, in context, is what has been hidden from the foundation of the world: what the kingdom of heaven is like! I don’t think that even by the greatest stretch of the exegetical imagination that, unless you take that quote out of context, it can refer to anything but what surrounds it contextually.
Again, there is nothing, but nothing about Genesis to indicate it is in any way a parable or allegory. It is given as a straight eyewitness account, or series of accounts, first from God Himself (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) and then by human authors. There is no spiritual truth to be gained by anything after Genesis 1:1 if Genesis 1-11 is allegorical or a parable!
Danny Faulkner, by the way, has published consistently in creation journals as well as a few others. From his c.v.

Nor have I said not to take the Bible literally whether it is a matter of the sun standing still at the time of Joshua or whatever. The biblical authors expressed matters as they saw them. They would have had no way of describing this event from an astronomical perspective! It is always important to understand that!

It was OUR misinterpretation of the meaning of this, as human beings, that led to the error, not the observation from earth of what happened at that time.

I think you will find, also, that there are some biblical passages which have sparked some science, one being the reference to the ‘paths of the seas.’ Matthew Maury is considered the ‘father of oceanography’ and on his tombstone is ‘pathfinder of the seas.’ He took Psalm 8:8 and 107:25 seriously and literally and with his hydrographic surveys of the Atlantic ocean discovered the cause and effect relations between air circulation systems on the earth and the oceanic currents. Thus he was able to chart them. Scientists such as Kepler, Boyle, Kelvin, Pasteur, Faraday, and Linnaeus were also all Bible believing Christians who took a great dieal of their direction from the Bible – at least according to what they themselves wrote!

However, where the constellation movements are concerned with Orion and the Pleiades, it is simply a point to be noted that the Bible mentions these movements correctly long before it was ever discovered by science! It does not matter if anyone took these mentions in Job as a foundation for astronomy; the fact is that the Bible was there with the correct statements about them long before mankind discovered such for himself. Nor is the language of these verses ambiguous. It is quite clear to astronomers what is being said, and the Bible is correct regarding these statements.

You stated that truth is truth wherever you find it and then referred to the ancient age of the universe and the common descent of all DNA based life. Both those things are INTERPRETATIONS of the data which disagree with a straightforward reading of the Bible, Paul! They are also interpretations which are showing up to be very questionable in secular science as well. The age of the evolutionary universe has varied by billions of years! What essentially amounts to a 100% error bar is really of no use to anyone! Nor does DNA say anything about common descent unless common descent is what you are accepting as truth in the first place. All phylogenetic trees and clades are based on the presupposition of common descent. Therefore to try to use them also as evidence for common descent only leads to circularity and self-referencing, which is not logically acceptable as evidence.

It seems to me, in closing and in accordance with your closing remarks, that yes, one of us is very wrong. But you seem to be taking your standard of truth from man’s explanation of data, while I prefer to use God’s Word, read in a straightforward manner, as my standard.
Personally, I honestly could not do else, especially considering how many times science changes its mind about literally everything it sees and interprets!

 

MARGARET

There is a problem associated with the creationist viewpoint, that I
have never heard discussed. The problem is related to the fossil
evidence of a huge number of species existing in the past, far more
than exist now. If we imagine that a species cannot change into
another species, then fossil evidence of a particular species must
mean that in the beginning God created that species and it lived
essentially unchanged until it either died out or survived to the
present time. Since we know that there are an enormous number of
species that existed in the past and no longer exist, then that
implies that the biological diversity has sharply diminished with
time. But has it? We also know that at many points in time, in the
past, there is no evidence of species that exist today. Humans
are a good example of that. If we go back in time, to the time
of the dinosaurs, there is no fossil evidence of humans.

Not only that, but in the heyday of the dinosaurs, there is no
evidence of many of the modern species that we have now, for
example, horses, pandas, bears, elephants, do not stretch indefinitely
back in time. And the hundreds of dinosaur species that lived 80
million years ago, no longer are present on the earth. In short,
the fossil record shows that the inventory of animals on the
earth is not static but is different for different time periods.
As little as 20,000 years ago, the North American continent was
home to saber tooth tigers, giant sloths, various types of
mammoths and other species, all of which are gone today.

If we add to those species, several hundred species of
dinosaurs, many of whom were quite dangerous, and we add into
that mix, several species of humans, and several species
of horses, and all sorts of other land creatures that
existed in the past but are extinct now, and we assume that all
had to live in the world at the same time, it makes for an
unbelievable situation. It would seem that the world would
be over crowded if all of them lived at once. But if we
allow evolution, then the difficulty immediately vanishes,
because they need not have lived all at the same time, but
could have arrived on the scene as a species derived from
other species, rather than present from the beginning. Evolution
thus explains what would be unexplainable without it.

It may be, of course, that humans lived at the same time
that dinosaurs, but there is no evidence of that and creationists
would shout it from the house tops if there were such evidence.

In looking at it another way, strong evidence for creationism
would be to find evidence for each present day species, stretching
back into the mists of time to the very beginning. But that is
not what the fossil record shows. Rather, those ancient times,
say more than 200 million years ago, are devoid of the creatures
that we know now, or at least devoid of most of them. So it
seems that this is a most difficult problem for creationists.

 

PAUL OF EUGENE

Paul here, replying again to Helen on the general concepts of truth and science and the Bible. May all who read these disputes be held innocent in the eyes of the Lord and be guided into a greater appreciation of Him Who is the Author of all Truth.

Hmmm. Do you think Pluto goes around the Sun in an orbit? You realize that since it has been discovered, it has never been observed to complete a circuit. I certainly think it does. Do you think this is an unscientific opinion I hold, since observing the complete circuit has not been possible yet? Your reasoning above would leave me unable to draw that conclusion! And what if you are called on to sit on a jury? How could you ever find anyone guilty and assign a penalty, if you feel there is no way to objectively draw conclusions? As for scientists willing to put aside their preconceived notions and accept the implications of new data, I cite the example of Fred Hoyle, who on September 6, 1965, at a meeting of the British Association for the advancement of Science announced he was giving up his steady state theory of the Universe. The evidence that the Universe had a beginning - including the background radiation we have all heard of - was just too convincing. Fred really wanted to believe in a steady state universe that has no beginning. His theory to that affect is still identified with his name and he would be much more famous if it had turned out to be accepted by all. By the way, there are still a few diehards out there pushing for the steady state theory to be true.

Hmmm. Didn't I just see you arguing above that this Bible verse -

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. KJV


refers not to division of land among tribes but to continental splitting? This in spite of the context, which includes this verse that follows soon after, as a summary of the preceding verses:

Gen 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.


Your interpretation is way more out of context than mine! After all, we believe that Jesus in his role as Jehovah is, in a real sense, the author of all the Bible. So why should we NOT extend the principle that "without a parable He said nothing to them?"

Well, there is the fact that it is not literally accurate. Isn't that a clue of a sort? And you yourself do not hold to the complete literal statements of Genesis 1. Otherwise, you would believe in a firmament over the earth that holds back the water above the firmament from crashing down on our heads. I know you interpret those verses differently. That's precisely my point. You don't interpret them literally because you know they're not literally true.

Now now, you know better than that. Surely you don't think that the parables of Jesus have no spiritual truth, whether found in Matthew or Genesis?

I know nothing of Danny Faulkner except what you have posted about him. But if you are on speaking terms with him, he sounds like somebody you might ask about the speed of light slowing down on its way toward us from the Megellanic Clouds and the Andromeda Galaxy and the implications that would have in the observed periods of cepheid variables, how that would force them to appear to be oscillating more slowly directly in proportion to the slowing of the speed of light. Which, of course is not observed. Which implies an ancient universe.

Nor would anyone standing around in the Middle East have any idea that continents were actually dividing if, as you suggested, they moved asunder creating the Atlantic Ocean in one man's lifetime. What they would observe would, to them, appear to be a disappearing of land mass, not dividing. Great earthquakes, all the earth shaken - remember one man cannot see more than 20 miles or so to the horizon. No, your notion of the continents dividing in the time of Peleg are only made possible for you by modern notions based on your habitual view of world maps and globes, which were not around in those days. Look and see: there is no interpreter of the Peleg verse who ever said it referred to continental splitting asunder before 1930. And yet nobody ever thought this was a strange, incomprehensible verse. It always made perfect sense.

Its better than no information at all. If I know I need to travel maybe 100 or 200 miles to reach my destination, the fact that this represents a 100% margin of error does NOT make this information useless to me! And a lot of this so called "varied" age stuff is simply getting the information more and more accurately, a perfectly normal thing to happen in science. It is the glory of science to progress.

I think you are confusing consistency with circularity. The same technology that proves paternity and kinship between humans proves degrees of kinship between the species. It works. It is not circularity, instead it verifies the kinship relationships derived independently by examination of fossils and living forms. A great example of circularity is how most preachers prove the Bible is inerrant by quoting passages of the Bible to establish that inerrancy. I'm sure YOU never resort to that logical error. But I'm interested in just what circularity you are referring to here. Can you cite an example of circular reasoning commonly used by scientists?

Just above you complained about scientists never changing their minds, now you complain that they do. You treat the words of scientists like police do the words of prisoners - whatever they say you hold it against them. What you are resisting was prophesied by Daniel:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. KJV

 

HELEN

Margaret, Yes, there are a great number of animals which are no longer alive today. But first I would like to correct a misconception you seem to have about any of the creation models (and there are several). Variation/speciation is not disputed. I don’t know of anyone, lay or scientist, in the creation camp who doubts that dogs, coyotes, and wolves, for instance, came from the same original population. The same with the big cats, etc. Natural selection is a fact of life, although it does not do what evolution would like it to do. We can look at dogs, or cats, or people and see remarkable variation in just a generation or two.

However, when there is a catastrophe of some kind, large or local, natural selection has nothing to do with the fact that entire populations can be wiped out in a minute or a day or a week. The fact is, that when a speciated population is wiped out by some kind of catastrophe, they don’t exist anymore. Thus we would expect to find far more diversity in the fossil record than we see in life today.

Another point about regular natural selection is that every time it selects against a certain percentage of the population, their combined genomes, not moving forward through time, represent a genetic loss to the species. Gradually you can get such a specifically adapted species which has no more genetic variation left to it that it becomes in danger of going extinct. This is one reason we have so very many animals on the endangered species lists right now. The ability to vary genetically decreases with time; it does not increase.

Therefore, again, we would expect to find more diversity in the past.

It is a presumption of evolution that the different strata represent vastly different times. Although I think there is a time element with the major divisions (Archaeozoic, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic), I think that we also need to consider that what we find also represent different ecosystems, and that where we would find the Cambrian sea-dwellers, for instance, we would certainly NOT expect to find the land-dwelling saber-tooth, even if they lived at the same time.

And the fact is that there are a great many species which do stretch back to as far as we can find in their particular environment: roaches, ants, dragonflies, many identifiable plant species, etc. etc. There are lists of them in places, but I am not sure where at the moment and don’t have the time to look. It is for certain we recognize ancient bacteria when we see it. Bacteria have generation times measured in minutes, not years. It seems to me there would be vast differences between prehistoric bacteria and our bacteria today, but there are not.

In regards to the large dinos, their body mass and size (and possibly food requirements) dictated the necessity of them living in very humid, warm areas. After the Flood, these would have been the geologically active areas and humans would have stayed away from them not only because of the heat and humidity, but because of the dinosaurs themselves. It would not make any sense at all, in fact, to find a human fossil with a dinosaur fossil. There may be some footprints that are near each other – lots of fights go on about that – but the bony remains themselves? Very, VERY doubtful!

Again, the ecosystems of the world have changed dramatically in the course of time. The species of plants and animals which would have thrived in the warm humidity after the Flood, for example, would not have done at all well in the following ice age, with its cold, dry air.

We see species lost today mostly from man, but also from changing conditions apart from man. But we don’t see nature replacing any…

I think the fossil record shows just enough to let us know that this earth has been through some mighty hard times! As a young-earth creationist, I find this is what the Bible is telling us happened. I do not, in other words, find discordance between the Bible and the geologic strata.