Are There Errors in the Bible?

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Jason,

A little twist on Craig's 99% of scientists comment...

I would posit (based on my own experience and the experience of my college and med school classmates) that the average bright young science student with an analytical nature will find the facts surrrounding the age of the earth to be overwhelmingly in favor of OEC. Such a student will likely find the creation science argument quite unconvincing. As such the average physical or natural scientist will feel the same. All of my biology, chemistry, genetics, physics, and mathematics professors at the University of Virginia shared this view.

Now the average conservative MDiv student may feel much differently.

My (perhaps biased) opinion is that anyone with significant training in the sciences, as taught in college and graduate level science (not apologetics) courses will find the YEC argument weak.

Hi Charles,

Thanks for your post.

The key is objectivity. How objective can one of these secular scientists really be when they are taught AS FACT the evolution of species WITHOUT GOD in elementary school, junior high, high school, college, graduate school, and post-graduate school? How honest can they really be about YEC theories and data when they KNOW that if they ever proposed one they would NEVER get a raise, promotion, or any secular accolades? They would get laughed at by their unbelieving peers.

Consequently, since the secular evolutionist has a false foundation and heavy indoctrination, it is not surprising that he/she believes in the evolution of species and dismisses creation science.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jason,

I agree with that. I would also argue however that many YEC proponents bring just as much presupposition to the table, having been told and told that only a fool could believe "devolution".

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Jason,

I agree with that. I would also argue however that many YEC proponents bring just as much presupposition to the table, having been told and told that only a fool could believe "devolution".

I'm glad you agree.

Just as much presupposition? Can you give me the name of someone who learned YEC all throughout Christian elementary school, Christian junior high, Christian high school, Christian college, Christian graduate school, and Christian post-graduate school and defends YEC? Even I attended a few secular schools and I've been a Christian since age 7. In fact, most creationists at ICR and AIG attended a secular university. Perhaps that is where they discovered how ludicrous the ToE really is.

On the other hand, some Christians do argue with the presuppositional approach. Atheists don't like this, though. I don't always use it. I'm confident with telling them that I've studied the Word and found it to be inerrant. The inerrant Word and my long-term relationship with God are two reasons why I trust God and the Bible regarding the things that are unverifiable.

God bless,
Jason

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jason,

I would argue that there are many (and many on this board) who have decided a priori that they believe the Genesis account literally - and THEN (possibly) they research the issue, often using materials such as yours or Josh McDowell's or something like that.

We all have presuppositions.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jason,

Let me say by the way that I don't want my disagreement with your position to imply any disrespect for your accomplishments. I think you probably have helped alot of people.

In truth the average person is not a deep thinker. Indeed the average Christian wrestling with the age of the earth issue wants only to see that there is a reasonable way to explain things in a biblically consistent manner. He/she may not feel the need to analyze and overanalyze things the way I by my nature do!

But I am just uncomfortable in witnessing that YEC is the most logical positions.

As a young Christian 10 years ago I was YEC - and I desperately wanted to be shown a way that YEC could make sense. But I simply could not believe the arguments. I think ( or really I know!) there are many who wrestle with these same things.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:
P.S. You wrote: ". . . NATIONALLY ACREDITED COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY."

You spelled accredited incorrectly. Plus, the REGIONAL accreditations are best in the secular world; not national accreditations. Tech schools are usually the ones that hold national accreditation.

Jason,

Thank you for bringing to my attention my typographical error! Most editors do spell "accredited" with a double "c", and I also favor that spelling of the word. Your comments about accreditations of colleges and universities apply only to colleges and universities in the United States. I don’t know anything about accreditations of technical schools. But I do very much thank you for sharing with us that the only error that you could find in my posts is a typographical error . Maybe I should use a spell-checker to catch those typos so that I do not mislead my readers .

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Jason Gastrich:
P.S. You wrote: ". . . NATIONALLY ACREDITED COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY."

You spelled accredited incorrectly.

Jason,

How much do you charge for spell checking services? If I PM you my posts before I post them will you spell check them for me?

That is a bit desperate, isn't it?

 

[Craigbythesea]

You're absolutely right, again! The odds of biological evolution happening are astronomical. They are statistically impossible. If it were a bet, you'd NEVER take the best because the odds would be so extraordinary.

Apparently you have never heard of a man named Darwin and the theory of “Natural Selection.” No, you will not find “Darwin” in Strong’s Concordance. Neither will you find the theory of Natural Selection expressly mentioned in Genesis, but there is nothing random about natural selection. Therefore your claim that biological evolution is statistically “impossible” betrays your profound ignorance of evolutionary theory. And yes, macro-evolution is a theory, and a theory to which I personally do not subscribe, but not for Biblical reasons, but for scientific reasons. Micro-evolution, however, has been repeatedly demonstrated both in the field and in the laboratory, and is no longer a theory but a fact of science accepted even by most creation “scientists.”

But why didn’t God include in the Bible as a part of the canon a PH.D. dissertation on evolutionary biology? Perhaps the reason is that there are more important issues that ARE included in the Bible. I heard about Adam and Eve and Noah’s Ark a very long time before I heard that Jesus died and rose again to save me from sin. Perhaps if more Christians had a Biblical sense of what really matters and what does not, I would have heard about Jesus before I destroyed my childhood.

[ July 15, 2004, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]

 

[Craigbythesea]

Jason wrote:

You're absolutely right, again! The odds of biological evolution happening are astronomical. They are statistically impossible. If it were a bet, you'd NEVER take the best because the odds would be so extraordinary.

Jason,

I could point out that you misspelled the three-letter word “bet” using four letters, but of course I don’t have to be that desperate, as I demonstrated in my previous post.

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Therefore your claim that biological evolution is statistically “impossible” betrays your profound ignorance of evolutionary theory. And yes, macro-evolution is a theory, and a theory to which I personally do not subscribe, but not for Biblical reasons, but for scientific reasons. Micro-evolution, however, has been repeatedly demonstrated both in the field and in the laboratory, and is no longer a theory but a fact of science accepted even by most creation “scientists.”

I know the difference between micro and macro evolution. In fact, you can see my page on this very topic here: http://www.jcsm.org/Contents/MicroAndMacroEvolution.htm

I firmly believe in every kind of evolution that we have observed. However, I don't necessarily believe in evolution that we haven't observed.

"Biological evolution" was referring to macroevolution. This should have been obvious by its context.

God bless,
Jason

 

[Jason Gastrich]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Jason,

Let me say by the way that I don't want my disagreement with your position to imply any disrespect for your accomplishments. I think you probably have helped alot of people.

"I think" and "probably" make your statement awfully suspect. Just kidding.

In truth the average person is not a deep thinker.

Sounds a bit condescending.

Indeed the average Christian wrestling with the age of the earth issue wants only to see that there is a reasonable way to explain things in a biblically consistent manner.

Agreed.

He/she may not feel the need to analyze and overanalyze things the way I by my nature do!

I enjoy analyzing things as well.

But I am just uncomfortable in witnessing that YEC is the most logical positions.

As a young Christian 10 years ago I was YEC - and I desperately wanted to be shown a way that YEC could make sense. But I simply could not believe the arguments. I think ( or really I know!) there are many who wrestle with these same things.

YEC only seems to bother those that have been heavily indoctrinated with secular, evolutionary science.

Which arguments were unbelievable to you? Please list several.

Sincerely,
Jason

 

[Craigbythesea]

Have a good night, Jason. May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ richly bless you according to His riches in glory.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jason,

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't respect what you do. I'd imagine (although I'm not an eye witness ) that you HAVE HELPED alot of people with their doubts.


"YEC only seems to bother those that have been heavily indoctrinated with secular, evolutionary science."

I'd agree with that somewhat. I'd say those who have really studied "secular evolutionary science" have a hard time with YEC.

As I said I REALLY WANTED DESPERATELY to be able to believe the YEC arguments but I just couldn't.

Some problems...

1. Age of the patriarchs. The explanation of the loss of the water vapor canopy (flood) just doesn't seem to cut it.

2. The observation that light from very distant stars has had time to reach us.

3. The observation that certain rocks and rock formations have concentrations of Carbon 14 consistent with radioactive decay over millions of years.

4. Fossilized remains of creatures not existent today.

None of these constitute PROOF of the OEC stance. But they I don't see that YEC offers a cogent alternate system; only piecemeal objections here and there. YEC proponents are right to point out some of the limitations of scientific THEORIES - but this does not constitute disproof.

I would also assert that being in favor of an old earth doesn't necessarily make one a Darwinian evolutionist!

 

[aefting]

1. Age of the patriarchs. The explanation of the loss of the water vapor canopy (flood) just doesn't seem to cut it.

I'm not sure what this has to do with YEC. There are lots of problems with the water vapor canopy theory and most creation scientists that I know have distanced themselves from it. I don't know that Bible believers need to have a scientific answer as to why these people lived so long. The Bible records their ages for us so why not just take it a face value? The best we can do is guess. What is the profit in that?

Andy

 

[blackbird]

Age of the Patriarchs??? Why did they live so long???

Thats about as easy to answer as 1 + 1= 2!!

God simply just kept giving them life! He just kept "speaking life" to them!!

A person is going to live as long as God keeps speaking life to them!

Blackbird

 

[Charles Meadows]

Andy,

"I don't know that Bible believers need to have a scientific answer as to why these people lived so long. The Bible records their ages for us so why not just take it a face value? The best we can do is guess. What is the profit in that?"

Right! There is no need to have a scientfic reason. I just have a problem with the people who insist somehow that science DOES back up what they want to believe, even if it requires very silly explanations, like the water canopy!

 

[Jason Gastrich]

I'd agree with that somewhat. I'd say those who have really studied "secular evolutionary science" have a hard time with YEC.

As I said I REALLY WANTED DESPERATELY to be able to believe the YEC arguments but I just couldn't.

It's a little peculiar that you use the term "study" when referring to how you treated OEC and the term "believe" when referring to your perusal of YEC material. Why? Did you study YEC or just try and believe it? Please forgive me if this is pedantic, but I think you revealed something interesting. How much did you really study YEC?

Some problems...

1. Age of the patriarchs. The explanation of the loss of the water vapor canopy (flood) just doesn't seem to cut it.

As we all know, the "GODDIDIT" reason applies all throughout the scriptures because our God is a God of miracles. Right? Water canopy aside, as someone else already stated, God could have sustained these people. I don't see how OEC gives a better (or any) explanation for their ages than YEC.

2. The observation that light from very distant stars has had time to reach us.

Do you believe that light is a constant? Many scientists do not. The speed of light can change. Therefore, the speed of light could have been very fast, but much slower now. This would answer the question regarding the light we see from stars. Incidentally, you can look up Barry Setterfield for more on this theory.

There is also a theory that light was created in transit. Since Adam and Eve were not created as babies, but as fully functioning adults, it is possible that light was created the same way; in transit and on its way to Earth. The Garden wasn't created as seedlings, but as fully functional plants.

3. The observation that certain rocks and rock formations have concentrations of Carbon 14 consistent with radioactive decay over millions of years.

There are countless things that can ruin Carbon 14 dating methods. If you've studied YEC, then this should have been the first thing you discovered. Carbon 14 assumes that the rate of decay has remained constant, but it does not take into consideration a number of biblical events like Noah's flood, the volcanic and seismic activity associated with the flood, etc. Did you know that many secular evolutionists get YEC dates and dismiss them as bad data?

4. Fossilized remains of creatures not existent today.

How does this support OEC? I can't see how an extinct animal supports an old earth.

None of these constitute PROOF of the OEC stance. But they I don't see that YEC offers a cogent alternate system; only piecemeal objections here and there.

Have you spent much time on Answers in Genesis' site? I have and they have a great number of articles that could help you understand that YECs don't simply have "piecemeal objections," but they have a great number of biblical answers for your questions.

I would also assert that being in favor of an old earth doesn't necessarily make one a Darwinian evolutionist! [/QB]

Anyone like Seinfeld?

Jerry: "How do I look in this?"

*George shrugs*

Elaine: "You know, just saying that a man is handsome doesn't necessarily make you gay."

George: "It doesn't help."

JG

 

[UTEOTW]

"Do you believe that light is a constant? Many scientists do not. The speed of light can change. Therefore, the speed of light could have been very fast, but much slower now. This would answer the question regarding the light we see from stars. Incidentally, you can look up Barry Setterfield for more on this theory."


Would you care to back this assertion up? A changing speed of light has consequences that could be observed. AFAIK, these observations have not been found. The closest to this you can come is Magueijo, and he only says the speed changed during the first fraction of a second after the Bib Bang. It is an alternative to inflation and in no way suggests a young earth.

"There is also a theory that light was created in transit."

But this means that the light created in transit records a history that never actually happened. I find that troubling, to say the least. I mean, are you going to tell me that SN1987A did not actually happen, the most observed supernova ever?

"Carbon 14 assumes that the rate of decay has remained constant, but it does not take into consideration a number of biblical events like Noah's flood, the volcanic and seismic activity associated with the flood, etc."

OK, tell me how this could have changed the decay rates?

The truth is that you do not have to assume constant decay rates for radioisotopes. Supernova make huge amounts of different isotopes. They are distant, so looking at them is directly looking back in time because of the finite speed of light. These distant, in space and time, isotopes decay at the same rate.

Changing decay rates also has other consequences. Increased decay rates mean increased energy and radiation release rates for one... er, two.

"How does this support OEC? I can't see how an extinct animal supports an old earth."

OK, let's try it a little different. The types of dead things that we find and how they are arranged. We find many transitionals for one, showing that life evolves. We find only a very narrow slice of all known creatures in any given temporal location, showing that only a small number of the known creatures shared the earth at the same time. And there is always biogeography. It may be the best.

"Have you spent much time on Answers in Genesis' site?"

Yes I have. They were one of the reasons I gave up YEC in the first place. For me the kicker was 2LOT. When I came across that, reading as a YEC person looking for YEC information, I started my move towards old earth. It encouraged me to do what I had not done before, look to old earth and main stream science for information.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jason,

"It's a little peculiar that you use the term "study" when referring to how you treated OEC and the term "believe" when referring to your perusal of YEC material. Why? Did you study YEC or just try and believe it? Please forgive me if this is pedantic, but I think you revealed something interesting. How much did you really study YEC?"

Well I think you're reading something into my post that's not there...

I did STUDY biology with evolution. I have a degree from a very reputable university and did alot of lab work and graduate coursework while in undergraduatestudies. This doesn't make me any better than anyone else but what it does make me is VERY FAMILIAR with "science and evolution".

When I got saved I began to look for ways to rethink creation so that I could believe Genesis 1 literally. I read Josh McDowell, Dave Hunt, John Ankerberg, John Weldon, Robert Faid, and several others.

From day one I found problems with many of their contentions however....

Carbon 14, especially before appropriate calibration is not 100% accurate - but it is pretty accurate for objects aged <50,000 years.

The second law of thermodynamics, purported to disprove evolution, does nothing of the sort.

It was pretty apparent to me early on that these guys either didn't know their science well or weren't really arguing accurately for their positions - or maybe some of both!

You said that I should have encountered "disproof" of carbon 14 very early in my studies. What I found was YEC authors only giving half the story and failing to mention that with appropriate calibration carbon 14 can be reasonably accurate.

They seemed to have a mixture of ignorance and intellectual dishonesty!

I have read Barry Setterfield's work as well as critiques thereof by eminent physicists, which were not favorable.

I have not visited the site which you described.

As I said before - if one wishes to believe the bible literally at face value - great! No other proof needed! Why must they then insist on showing that science supports their side when it clearly doesn't?

 

[UTEOTW]

"It was pretty apparent to me early on that these guys either didn't know their science well or weren't really arguing accurately for their positions - or maybe some of both!"

My thoughts exactly! That is what drove me from YEC.