1. Young Earth Creationism
The belief that the universe and all that is in it was created by God around ten-thousand years ago or less. They insist that this is the only way to understand the Scriptures. Further, they will argue that science is on their side using “catastropheism.” They believe that world-wide biblical catastrophes sufficiently explain the fossil records and the geographic phenomenon that might otherwise suggest the earth is old. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
2. Gap Theory Creationists
Belief that the explanation for the old age of the universe can be found in a theoretical time gap that exists between the lines of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. God created the earth and the earth became formless and void. Therefore God instituted the new creation which begins in Genesis 1:2b. This theory allows for an indefinite period of time for the earth to exist before the events laid out in the creation narrative. Gap theorists will differ as to what could have happened on the earth to make it become void of life. Some will argue for the possibility of a creation prior to humans that died out. This could include the dinosaurs. They normally believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
3. Time-Relative Creationism
Belief that the universe is both young and old depending on your perspective. Since time is not a constant (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity), the time at the beginning of creation would have moved much slower than it does today. From the way time is measured today, the succession of moments in the creation narrative equals that of six twenty-four hour periods, but relative to the measurements at the time of creation, the events would have transpired much more slowly, allowing for billions of years. This view, therefore, does not assume a constancy in time and believes that any assumption upon the radical events of the first days/eons of creation is both beyond what science can assume and against the most prevailing view of science regarding time today. This view may or may not allow for an evolutionary view of creation. They can allow for in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
4. Old Earth Creationists
(also Progressive Creationists and Day-Age Creationists)
Belief that the old age of the universe can be reconciled with Scripture by understanding the days of Genesis 1 not at literal 24 hour periods, but as long indefinite periods of time. The word “day” would then be understood the same as in Gen. 2:4 “. . . in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” While this view believes the universe and earth are billions of years old, they believe that man was created a short time ago. Therefore, they do not believe in evolution. They believe in a literal Adam and Eve, Garden of Eden, snake talking, and world-wide flood.
5. Theistic Evolution (with a literal Adam and Eve):
The belief that God created the universe over billions of years, using evolutionary processes to create humanity. At some time, toward the end of the evolutionary process, God, through an act of special creation, created Adam and Eve as the head of the human race. Some also believe that God did not use special creation, but appointed already existing humanoids as the representatives for humanity calling them Adam and Eve. They may or may not believe in a snake talking and usually believe that the flood was local.
6. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve)
The belief that God created the universe over billions of years, using evolutionary processes to create humanity. Adam and Eve are simply literary and symbolic, representing the fall of humanity and the ensuing curse.
Problems with the more conservative views:
- Often does not recognize that the Bible is not a science book and was not meant to answer all our questions.
- Can create a “believe-this-or-do-not-believe-anything-at-all” approach.
- Can creates a dichotomy between the Bible and science.
Problems with the more liberal views:
- Often assumes uniformatarianism for all of human history (i.e. the measurement of things today can be applied to the same in the distant past).
- Can seem to twist Scripture to harmonize.
- It is difficult to know when actual (not accommodated history) history in Genesis picks up (i.e. if Genesis 1-3 are allegory or accommodation, where does “real” history start? Genesis 4? Genesis 6? Genesis 12? What is the exegetical justification for the change?)
I believe that one can be a legitimate Christian and hold to any one of these views. While I lean in the direction of number 3, that is the best I think anyone can do—lean. Being overly dogmatic about these issues expresses, in my opinion, more ignorance than knowledge. Each position has many apparent difficulties and many virtues.
This is an issue that normally should not fracture Christian fellowship.
1,207 replies to "Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate"
Richard
I think there again is the defensiveness i am talking about in YEC’s. Why would you think i meant YEC’s any more so than any of the the other six views? Since none of knows for sure, I address the issue simply in terms of of God inventing time, and man, (for now at least), only knowing a limited amount of what all that encompasses, regardless of our personal views on the actual time frame of creation we personally believe in.
I think we all have to admit there’s more we don’t about God’s time frame and his motives in creating us than we do. That’s all.
Sorry if you took it personally. It certainly was not meant that way.
mbaker,
You stated that anyone who thinks they have a clue as to the age of the earth disbelieves in the sovereignity of God. This would clearly include YECs wouldn’t it. That is why I responded.
Having said that, I happily accept you apology. Be assured that I do not mean anything personal either.
http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/theageoftheearth3.html
When it comes to determining the age of something, radioactive measurements are regarded as one of the most important methods. With these measurements, attempts to calculate both the age of the Earth and the age of animals and humans on the Earth have been made, and these methods have usually given the age as millions of years, especially when it is a question of rock types and elements. The measuring principle is based on radioactive materials generally having a certain time in which they change and decompose into other elements. For example, the basic idea of uranium/lead dating is that uranium should change entirely into lead always with the same speed and over a certain time.
The fact is, however, that these methods are unreliable. By them, one can indeed measure the contents in stones and samples but it is another thing whether or not they have anything to do with the age. This is because in the measurements there are suppositions, which are impossible to prove afterwards scientifically.
LANGUAGE OF ADAM EVE.
We don’t know what it was, except that it was not Hebrew as spoken by Moses.
SCIENCE AS INTERPRETATION
Once again (see some of Richard’s recent posts), YECs stake their beliefs on the irrational basis that since data has to be interpreted, it can be interpreted in any manner and is not conclusive. Sorry, guys, it is true that only direct sensory perception (ouch! I burnt myself) has the least amount of interpretation (but still some, the degree of which is still heavily debated), but that does not mean anything goes. No one worries that when they go to the doctor, their doctor relies on interpreted science, and no one worries that when they turn the key in the ignition oxygen combustion is only interpreted science. We are confident beyond doubt in many of our interpretations, and the age of the earth falls into that category. YEC interpretations of the data are not even in the range of the possible let alone plausible; their interpretations break the laws of the physical universe
SOUND SCIENCE
Sound science does not start with the answer, but starts with the data and looks for the explanation that best makes sense of the data and relates the data to each other. YECs only accept scientific explanations as “true” or “correct” if the explanation fits or supports their answer; if they do not, then they are automatically rejected and the YECs keep speculating until they derive a speculation that is superficially plausible. For example, in its magazine, “Acts & Facts” the ICR (Institute for Creation Research) states that,
“Flood Narrative in Genesis Project. Steven Boyd, David Pouts, and project head John Baldwin have begun a comprehensive study of the relevance of Genesis 5:28-9:29 to the geological history of the earth. Their premise is that an understanding of the geology of the Flood must be derived from the Flood narrative in the biblical Hebrew text, since the text imposes constraints on the geological investigation.”
The beauty of that research progam is that they already know the answer; the problem is that what they are doing is not science, and not how God intends us to investigate and understand His universe.
STRAIGHTFORWARD INTERPRETATION?
Not. First, if it were straightforward then the church fathers wouldn’t have been dealing with competing interpretations 1700 years ago. Second, their interpretation is not “straightforward” it is naive. It consists of reading the Genesis text ahistorically (i.e., without regard for the fact that it was written 3,000 years ago or so), as if it were written to 21st century Americans in English using their assumptions of culture, history, and literary and linguistic conventions. Of the various interpretations of Genesis, the YEC interpretation is among the least likely.
Regards,
#John
John’s statement is shown to be false by looking into the actual detail as to how the earth’s age is calculated…
Here’s the current story (from wikipedia):
[Reread my post #254. Among other things it documents the dating of earth diamonds at 6 billion years old, but the date was rejected only because it is believed that the earth age of 4.5 billion is known. It is completely circular reasoning to then claim the 4.5B age is consistent with oldest-know earth samples when samples that disagree are discarded for only that reason.]
Remember John admitted that given only the radiometric age for a rock he would NOT know its actual age; additional info must be know as well. Essentially one must know the history of the rock before they can decide if the radiometric “apparent age” is correct of not. So the 4.54B age of the earth comes from dating a meteorite, and thus requires knowledge of the history of the meteorite. The nebular hypothesis (NH) is assumed true and the meteorites are assumed to have “accreted” at the same time as the earth. So the age of the earth is dependent upon the NH.
I’ll show that the NH is unable to account for any of the planets, moons or asteroids at all. Here’s a brief description of how it’s supposed to work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis):
whoa…how’d we get from 1cm particles to 1km planetesimals?? The NH has no idea:
So the NH cannot account for planetesimals at all. Scientifically it stops right there with 1 cm sized particles, no planets or moons or asteroids. This fact alone invalidates John’s bravado.
However, there are many more problems with the NH. Even wikipedia admits this one:
There is no complete scientific theory for the origin of the earth at all.
John’s definition of “sound science” as applied to the resurrection would conclude that Jesus remained dead. There is no known scientific law that allows for Him to arise from the dead. Eye witness accounts MUST be false as the laws of physics can’t be violated.
Of course John doesn’t believe or claim this. All Christians understand the resurrection as supernatural. However, many OEs believe that the creation of the earth, and solar system is subject to only purely natural laws. As I’ve just posted there is no such naturalistic theory to explain the existence of the earth. The consensus theory (nebular hypothesis) simply does not work. The known laws of physics preclude 1cm sized particles forming themselves into 1km planetesimals within an accretion disk. [in addition to this show stopper, virtually every planet has now become a special case…the general scenario can’t explain their features]
The creation and likely the flood are not purely naturalistic events. Thus science cannot completely account for them.
So what has happened…simply the words of Peter being fulfilled:
RADIOMETRIC DATING: NOT WHAT RICHARD SUGGESTS
re post 604: “John admitted that given only the radiometric age for a rock he would NOT know its actual age; additional info must be know as well. ”
I have not admitted that. What I did do was refuse to provide an answer to Richard’s trick question and to point out that in order to know a radiometrically dated age, one needs to not just the final mathematical calculation, but also the process by which the age was calculated. I would not consider a bare number, quoted out of context, to provide an “age”. However, provided with appropriate context, I would consider the radiometrically derived date to be a correct date for the earth.
GAPS IN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
Whoopee, there are gaps in our knowledge and things we don’t understand. That’s also true about our knowledge of the human body, but that does not stop anyone from going to a doctor, having surgery, or taking a prescription.
A gap in knowledge does not disprove a theory; it provides a motivation for more research.
Let’s contrast that with jut a few points about YEC “science”: (1) no methodologies for consistently dating the earth to 4,000 B.C. and the allegedly flood formed rocks to 2,300 B.C. (or whatever date they pick); (2) no adequate response to the hard geology of the earth (e.g., sedimentary rock formation) that works within the physical laws of the universe; and (3) they start with the answer and reject any results that do not support their answer, EVEN IF the data and rational are derived IN THE SAME WAY as we derive our knowledge and our understanding in relation to all other aspects of the physical nature of the universe.
In post 108, Richard stated, “Well, we’ve seen dogmatic statements that the earth is billions of years old, but no evidence or reason for the belief has been provided. The most typical answer boils down to ‘that’s the current consensus view of science and I don’t think it’s likely for the majority of scientists to all be wrong about that.'”
Even if we stick only to geology, that statement has since been rebutted. Any bit of geology refutes the YEC interpretation, but the two aspects most dealt with in this thread have been the Joggins Cliff and the Green River formation.The advantage of dealing with geology is that one can observe it directly and its easier for most people to understand.
God designed the universe and our powers and faculties of perception and reason to work together so that we could understand His universe. YECs accept that with respect to some aspects of the universe, but reject it in respect of geology and cosmology and astronomy–but only where those fields of knowledge touch on the age of the universe.
I also note that the issue for me and other OE christians is NOT developing a materialist explanation for the ORIGIN of the universe (as implied by Richard’s post 604). It is dealing responsibly with its age.
Regards,
#John
[cont. from 556]
AGE OF EARTH / UNIVERSE &
DATING METHODS NOT GIVEN SEPARATE HEADING
Apparent age
Yes: 31, 35, 39
No: 37, 41, 47
Other: 36, 160
What can science tell us confidently about ages past
Not much: 40, 81
A lot: 42, 68, 84, 91
Science definitively supports an old universe and earth
84, 91
One can believe in an inerrant Bible and that the earth is old
Yes: 77, 78, 91, 241, 260, 277
No:
Genesis provides information about the age of the earth
No: 77, 91, 127, 260
Yes:
List of various dating methods: 147, 150, 159, 228
Helium: 118, 121, 123
“Soft tissue” in fossil bones: 90, 119, 121, 123, 126
General YEC critiques of OE dating: 163
General OE critiques of YE dating: 163
“Soft tissue” in fossil bones: 90, 119, 121, 123, 126
Do YECs have evidence for a young earth?
Yes: 258
LIGHT & STARS & COSMOLOGY
Big Bang (also cosmic inflation, horizon, etc.): 168, 256
Star light: 12, 37, 47, 84, 160, 168
Speed of light: 47, 160, 161
Star light contains information: 37, 41
Distance to stars: 47
Star formation: 145, 146
White holes: 160
Carmeli: 160
Steady state universe; expanding universe: 161
General YEC critiques of OE cosmology: 171
Specific scientists: Halton Arp (256)
[cont.]
RADIOMETRIC DATING
The YEC RATE project
YEC presentations: 90, 121
Critiques: 118, 126
Zircon crystals: 254
General descriptions of radiometric dating: 153, 156, 213, 228
General YEC critiques of OE radiometric dating, and general OE responses to critiques: 152, 166, 212, 213, 244, 254, 255
General OE critiques of YEC dating, and general YEC responses to critiques: 206, 213, 241
Do YECs lack any valid method for using radiometric dating?: 212, 221, 248
Isotopes in general and also decay rates: 118, 165, 254, 255
Volcanic rock: 249, 250
Potassium Argon dating: 152, 154, 213, 220, 237, 244
KBs Tuffs: 152, 212, 213, 220, 221
Are there “errors” in dating?: 279
Specific Scientists: Curtis (166), Henke (212)
GEOLOGY IN GENERAL & SEDIMENTARY ROCK
Geological column and sedimentary deposits in Mesopotamia: 34
When were rocks formed according to the YEC view?: 279, 280, 290, 292, 299
Types and significance of rock formation models: 290, 295, 299
Varves (annual layers of sediment): 118
Does YEC flood geology contradict known laws for deposition of sediments: 259
Is YEC flood geology incompatible with known processes of lithification in some rocks: 259, 265, 271, 295
Length of time it takes known types of sedimentary rock to form: 265, 271, 280, 295
Formation of rock in marshes: 265, 295
Polystrate Fossils: 266
OE Geology is confirmed to similar degree as other physical sciences:
Yes: 299
No:
Specific Scientists: Max Coleman (165), Derek Ager (266)
SOUND LOGIC; SOUND SCIENCE
Nature of the physical universe: 228, 259, 260
Worldview in relation to science and evidence: 260, 267, 270, 277, 291
“Origins” science: 267
Appeal to Authority: 108, 275, 285 (Baumgartner bio.), 295, 300
Commitment to an answer before doing investigation & also issues of assumptions & bias: 114, 123, 127, 155, 206, 228, 238, 260, 269, 277
Usefulness of critiques without alternate model: 126, 260
Sound science requires testable methods and models:126, 206, 279
Methodological Naturalism: 117, 125, 132, 139, 140, 142, 267
Limits to science and scientific knowledge: 145, 146
Revisions of scientific knowledge and methodology: 162, 206, 297
Comparison of fields of evolution and geology; which has been stable? which fields have been affected?: 153, 290
YEC bears structural similarities to other discredited theories
Yes: 6
No: 40
Specific scientist and philosophers: Richard Lewontin (267, 291), Stephen J. Gould (270)
[cont]
SCRIPTURE IN RELATION TO SCIENCE AND HISTORY
Nature of Biblical history: 68, 75, 81
Does scripture answer our modern science and history questions?
No: 6, 14
Possibly: 11, 29
Yes: 13, 15
Do science and scripture deal with two different realms
No: 11, 13, 170
Yes: 85
Parallel: 98, 103, 104, 111
Issue misses the point: 14, 15
Miscellaneous: 102, 117
Gaps in geneologies, and how long humans have existed: 106, 107
Compatibility of other scripture with theories of Genesis and creation: 17, 22
Evolution (theory of, as an justification for no God, etc.): 89, 109, 117, 121, 139, 143, 158, 207, 208
Difference between biological and stellar / cosmic evolution: 123, 125, 185, 207, 208
Is evolution necessarily linked to OE?: 130, 138, 208
INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS
Is there more than one interpretation available to believers in the inerrancy of the Bible?
Yes: 298
Appropriate use of science in the interpretation of Scripture: 241
Genesis provides an age for the earth:
No: 91, 112, 127
Interpreters are fallible: 101, 103, 140, 144, 182, 238
Effect on giving and interpretation of Scripture of the fact that ANE culture was different: 68, 75, 113, 128, 141, 182, 184, 223, 224, 225, 229, 230, 231, 240, 241, 246, 252
Worldviews: 186, 225, 226, 231, 256, 295
How does God communicate truth? Does He communicate falsehoods? Who’s / What questions does He answer?: 141, 155, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 239, 240, 243, 244, 247, 257
Meaning of Hebrew “yom” (day): 26, 54, 64, 77, 82, 253
God’s day is as a thousand: 93, 94, 251
The seven days are seven 24 hour days
Yes: 45, 50, 52, 64, 66
No: 48, 63
Possibly not: 48, 54
Issue of the seventh day (no end described): 54
The first three days (1-3) are unlike the 2d three (4-6): 63, 69, 77
Meaning of Hebrew “earth”, “land”, “man”, “mountain”, ”mist”, “fountains of deep”: 79
Meaining of Hebrew “all” and other global qualifiers: 79, 157, 164, 247
Is the moon a “source” of light?: 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 181, 183
Meaning and significance of day one: 179
Geneologies: 187, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 214, 215, 217, 218
Inerancy: 60, 65, 75, 103, 295
Church Fathers: 63, 69, 70, 134, 282 (Augustine), 287 (Luther),
Authorship of Genesis & pentateuch: 60
Exegesis, Eisegesis, Hermeneutics (in scripture and in science): 110, 113, 293, 294, 295
Naïve interpretation:
Literal interpretation: 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 184, 199, 204, 246, 252
Contextual Interpretation:
Is YEC interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent / contradictory?: 157, 164, 173, 176, 184, 200, 229
THEOLOGICAL ISSUES
Does the theology of the Bible demands a historic physical Adam: 17, 97, 100, 106, 107, 158, 236
Sin and Death before and because of Adam
General discussion: 14, 95, 118, 120, 122, 124, 128, 131, 133, 148, 149
Nature of Adam’s sin and Eve’s sin: 148, 149, 151
Soteriology: 233, 236
Christology: 233, 236
[cont.]
GENESIS VIEWS & BIOGRAPHIES OF BLOGGERS
bethyada: 12, 159
C. Michael Patton: original post, 3
Cadis: 32, 52
cherylu: 66
dac: 33
Dr. Mike: 16
Eclectic Christian: 86
Gammell: 5
Greg: 3, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227
irreverend fox: 31
#John1453 (a.k.a. John C.T.): 99, 130, 263
Leslie: 1
Matt: 10
Michael D: 70
Nick: 21
Rey: 67
Richard: 164, 186, 269
Steve Bartholomew: 178
Susan: 35
Truth Unites . . . and Divides: 129, 158
SPECIFIC SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
Genesis chapters 1 & 2: —> 54, 61, 63, 82, 141, 171
Genesis 1: 1 —> 6
Genesis 1:2 —> 16, 68
Genesis 1:3 – 5 —> 183
Genesis 1:7 & 6 – 8 —> 68, 155 (v. 7 only)
Genesis 1:10-12 —> 184
Genesis 1:14 – 17 —> 155, 173
Genesis 1:16 & 16-18—> 173, 180
Genesis 1:24 —> 184
Genesis 2:11-13 —> 184
Genesis 2:4 —> 48, 56, 61, 63, 74, 82, 84
Genesis 2:17 —> 120
Genesis 2:13 —> 120, 184
Genesis 3:4 —> 120
Genesis 3:19 —> 122
Genesis 3:22 —> 120
Genesis 4:16 —> 184
Genesis 4:20-21 —> 187, 189, 200, 205, 214, 218
Genesis 4:16-14 —> 193
Genesis 5:5 —> 120
Genesis 6:5-8 —> 198
Genesis 7:11-12 —> 184
Genesis 7:17 – 24 —> 157, 164, 199 (v. 23 only)
Genesis 8:13 – 14 —> 157, 164, 184, 186, 229
Genesis 9:18-19 —> 189
Genesis 10:5 —> 184
Genesis 10:16-18—> 218
Exodus 20:11 —> 22, 50, 54, 56, 57/58, 59, 63, 64, 66
Psalms 14:1 —> 175
Psalms 148:3 – 4 —> 155
Proverbs 8:8-9—> 175
John 1:1 —> 16
Romans 5:12 —> 120
Romans 8:19-22 —> 17, 122
1 Corinthians 15:21, 22 —> 17, 122
2 Corinthians 4:2 —> 175
1 Peter 3:3-7—> 167
Revelation 2:7, 22:2, 22:19 —> 120
OFF SITE LINKS: 2, 5, 13, 70, 108, 117, 118, 121, 132, 134, 145, 146, 150, 152, 153, 156, 163, 165, 167, 175, 213, 227, 228, 238. 244, 252, 253, 254, 258, 265, 271
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL THE NUMBERS REFERENCE THE NUMBERS OF THE POSTS AS THEY APPEAR ON MY COMPUTER. IT SEEMS NOT ALL COMPUTERS ARE NUMBERING THE POSTS IDENTICALLY.
[And that is the current state of my index. Suggestions, changes, corrections, etc. welcome as I work on catching up to post #600]
John, do you believe that the meteorite used to calculate the age of the earth originated at the same time as the earth?
Is so, why do you believe this.
If not, why do you believe the accepted age of the earth is correct?
WELL, THEN, STOP CALLING WHAT YECs ARE DOING “SCIENCE”
Post #605: Richard states that “The creation and likely the flood are not purely naturalistic events. Thus science cannot completely account for them.” Richard the unfortunate fact for you is that YEC’s believe that God released the water and then let His natural laws run their course. That is, water turned to steam or rained as it does now, volcanoes erupted as they do now, the wind blew ash and water and dust as it does now, and sediments fell through the water according to Stokes law just as they do now. Unless, of course, you have a different view on this from other YECs.
It is because YECs believe that the atoms and molecules behaved during the flood as they do now (except for God initiating the process by releasing the water), that they try to convince others that a flood could create the rock structures and fossil deposits that we see now. It is also the reason why ICR has started the “Flood Narrative in Genesis Project.” Unfortunately for YECs, it is also why their version of the flood is not only implausible, but also impossible (because it breaks the laws of our physical universe).
The resurrection of Jesus is an irrelevant red herring. OE Christians have no problem with God intervening in His universe any time and in any manner He wants to. That would include the resurrection of Jesus. However, apart from those particular incidents of God’s direct intervention, He sustains the universe in a manner that is regular and constant. He does so because that is how life is possible, and he also does so in order that we can investigate His universe. What we investigate are the regularities and constancies that God has placed into the very fabric of the universe. But those regularities–that inherent design of the universe–are what YECs ignore to their detriment. Ignoring those regularities is (among other things) why what they do is not science. Not science for an atheist, not science for a Moslem, not science for a Buddhist, and not science for a Christian; just not science at all.
Regards,
#John
mbaker
In post # 599, regarding the age of the earth, you stated, “I don’t have a clue, Steve, and that’s the point: I believe anyone who believes in the sovereignty of God doesn’t either.”
Let me review why YECs believe that the 1st chapter of Genesis provides justification for determining the age of the earth, and the universe. I imagine that you are aware of these things, but sometimes it’s a good idea to get back to basics …
If the words of this chapter are understood in their most natural and reasonable sense, God’s creation of the world took six 24-hour days. That is, anyone who approaches this text without a preconceived bias regarding the length of these days would invariably interpret them to be 24 hours long (exegetically, this interpretation is strongly supported by the fact that in the 410 times that “yom” (the word used for day in Gen. 1) appears with an ordinal # (like, first, second, third, etc.) outside of Gen. 1, it ALWAYS – i.e., 100% of the time – indicates an ordinary 24-hour day).
Furthermore, if chapters 2 – 11 of Genesis are read in the same reasonable way, they imply a passage of, perhaps, a few thousand years. I won’t speculate here on exactly how many years are referred to here. The point is that it certainly wasn’t millions or billions of years!
The implication of the foregoing is that the only people who would not understand the days of Genesis 1 to be 24 hours long have a preconceived bias that they cannot be. The question is, What is this preconceived bias? And the answer is, the ancient ages associated with the theory of evolution.
You said that you have no idea how old the earth, or the universe, is. Those who believe in a YEC, on the other hand, believe that the earth is a few thousand years old, and they base this conclusion on a simple, reasonable and straightforward reading of the text. Trusting in the authority of God’s Word ahead of the thoughts of man, they conclude that the ancient ages proposed by the theory of evolution must be incorrect … and they have set about to prove it – very successfully, in my opinion.
So, what is my point here? It is to show you that a plain straightforward interpretation of the text of Genesis 1 certainly does provide a basis for judging the age of the earth/universe … and, like I said above, based upon this text, it’s a few thousand years.
Steve
Richard
I have a slight correction to make on your comment re: the Nebular Hypothesis (# 605). In it, you said: “So the NH cannot account for planetesimals at all. Scientifically it stops right there with 1 cm sized particles, no planets or moons or asteroids.”
Not only is the NH incapable of explaining how 1 centimeter sized particles can grow into planetesimals, but I don’t think it can explain how particles of dust can grow into 1 centimeter sized particles, either!
I say this slightly tongue-in-cheek – but I also think it’s true! : )
Keep up the good work!
Steve,
I simply do not understand how YEC’s can assume that we who believe in OE are necessarily believing in evolution of man. They are two different issues. I have stated in a comment above that I believe in the historical account of Genesis in every way, except for the 6,000 year time line.
Where I do is disagree is because YEC’s tend to go back through geneologies to prove the age of Adam, therefore many of them automatically assume that the earth is the same age.
While I appreciate your attempts to explain it, I just do not agree that Genesis is a scientific book and should not be used to prove the age of the earth. It gives a picture to me of the care and methods God used to create entire universe, us being one of them, being unconstrained by the limits of time as we know it.
So, to try to refute scientifically proven facts of the geological aspects of the earth’s age by simply declaring them ‘wrong’ on the basis of a literal reading of Genesis does not make the creation account more true, in my opinion.
Re post 612: The capitalization was supposed to be a subheading, but it reads like a “shout”. Oh well, I can’t edit it now.
Re post 611
Before we move onto another area where YEC determined beliefs fail, I think we should finish off the area of the sedimentary rocks at the Joggins Cliffs and at the Green River Formation.
However, despite the fact that you have not responded to the above issues, I will make an initial foray into meteorites and the age of the earth.
METEORITE IMPACT CRATERS
When very large meteorites hit the earth, they make huge impact craters (dozens of miles across). the Chicxulub crater on earth, believed to have contributed to the K-T extinction when dinosaurs and many other life forms went extinct, is about 160 km wide, thought to have been made by a meteorite approximately 10 – 15 km wide. The impacts are made in sedimentary rock, and then are covered by later sedimentary rock formations.
In the year of the Noahic flood, there is not time for the formation of sedimentary rock, the impact of a large meteorite, and then the formation of new sedimentary rock. Not to mention that the miles of water would have (1) prevented the formation of the type of impact craters we do see, and (2) would have resulted in waves that would’ve swamped Noah’s boat. Or one could go with YEC Henry Morris who suggested that impact craters were the results of a war between upright and fallen angels (the “Marvel Comics Theory” of impact craters). Or one could engage in real science that accords with how God designed it and our abilities to investigate it.
METEORITES AND RADIOMETRIC DATING
Many geologists and cosmologists believe that there are good reasons to think that the earth and the meteorites that land on it were formed at the same time. If so, then radiometric dating of both should yield similar ages. Using some assumptions that appear supported and warranted, many scientists have tested meteorites and similar earth rocks and those tests have yielded similar dates. Several different kinds of meterorites have been dated using different radiometric dating methodologies (including using different methodologies on the same kind of meterorite), and the dates exceed 4 billion years. Consequently, such results add support to the conclusion that the earth is ancient.
HOWEVER, even if this entire line of investigation were found to be incorrect, that would still not affect the ancient earth dates given from the study of basic geology.
METEORITE DUST
YECs argue that both the Earth and Moon should be covered with a great layer of space dust if the Earth were as old as the standard models imply. Modern accurate measurements of space dust give the value of about 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year landing on the earth, which agrees with levels of meteoritic dust levels trapped in sediments on Earth (what’s that?! verification by an independent cross-check?! If only YECs could do that.). It was determined [cont.]
[continued from my post 617]
It was determined that the YEC calculations of vast amounts of dust burying an ancient earth and moon were, well, fairy dust.
YECs have largely abandoned the dust argument, in line with the following admissions by two YEC creatinists (Snelling and Rush 1993), who stated, “It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists’ multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.” (Snelling, Andrew A., and David E. Rush, 1993. “Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System” in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 7, No. 1, pp. 2-42). And so another one of the YEC “proofs” bites the dust, adding its tombstone to the many others in the graveyard of discredited YEC theories.
METEORITES IN SEDIMENTARY ROCK
YECs long claimed that the lack of meteorites in sedimentary rock supported their theories, despite the adequate explanations provided by geologist. Such meteorites have been found, including one identified by two Swedish scientists (P. Thorslund, F.Wickman) in 1981. That meteorite was a 10 centimeter long object found in a limestone slab from a quarry in Brunflo, central Sweden in 1952. In addition, it appears that the meteorite hit an Ordovician mollusk which is fossilized in conjunction with the meteorite (Spratt, C. and Stephens, S. “Against All Odds” The Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Vol. XXI, No.2 (March/April 1992), pp.50-56). Thus another one of the YEC “proofs” bites the dust, adding its tombstone to the many others in the graveyard of discredited YEC theories.
Re post 615: what good work by Richard? He’s failed in every attempt, except for his success in proving that YEC is without any valid scientific support.
Regards,
#John
Despite what John implies with this statement:
YECs did not make the dust accumulation measurements and calculations, they just used the published work of secular scientists. (esp Petterson). This is clearly stated in the YEC article John referenced…perhaps he didn’t read it carefully.
A non-YEC example — Isaac Assimov wrote:
Accurate info on this is available here:
http://creation.com/moon-dust-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system
Current YEC statements acknowledge the now known to be faulty measurements from secular science:
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
Regarding YEC ‘coffin nails’, the Green River Formation (GRF) has been mentioned as a YEC showstopper about 7 different times.
Here’s some info on the GRF. John is quite correct that this has presented challenges to YECs, as they themselves have written:
Moreover, John has made it clear that his understanding of the YEC global flood makes many things “impossible”. However, John’s understanding of the global flood is not that of YEC geologists. In fact, a recent series of back and forth YEC articles describing and contrasting two different YEC views on the GRF has been published. Anyone interested in real YEC views on this can find all the articles here:
http://creation.com/introduction-to-the-forum
John
Now play nice…not everyone thinks your understand of YEC enables you to judge this accurately. However, you’ve made your opinion very clear.
BTW, your light time travel problem “death knell for YEC” seems to have quietly gone dark. We’re still waiting.
I’m also still waiting for your response about the meteorite and the age of the earth (post 612 in my browser)
re post 619
Isaac Asimov as a non-YEC example? How relevant is his statement? He wrote that before men landed on the moon. That quote from Asimov was in his first published science essay (1958), reprinted in a 1989 book: Asimov on Science: A Thirty-Year Retrospective (quote appears at pp. xvi-xvii).
YECs, however, were using their “dust” argument well after men landed on the moon and determined the actual thickness of the dust. YECs were trying to claim that there should be more dust.
The dust issue is a perfect example of how the YEC approach to science constructs unsupportable speculations that are doomed to failure because they start with an assumed answer and then squish the data to fit it by way of speculative theories. YECs assumed a 6,000 year old earth and moon, a 6,000 year old earth and moon must have only a little dust, we find only a little dust and thus YECs must be right and OEs wrong.
Contrast that to what real scientists did. The dust issue was intriguing and seemed to contradict established theories of cosmic dust formation and deposition. The scientists did not throw out the data, but investigated it further. They studied comets and meteors. They looked for meteorite dust on and in the earth (in sedimentary rocks, etc.). They developed theories and explanations and tested them, trying to find ones that best explained the data and best related the varous phenomena to each other. Eventually, they developed a better theory of cosmic dust that explained the facts that we have. Unfortunately for the YECs, it blew one of the pet YEC defences out of the water. No worry for YECs, however, because they already know the answers to many science questions before anyone does any actual investigation or experimentation.
That also applies to the Green River Formation. YECs aren’t worried that the evidence rebuts their theory, because God has already told them the answer. I also note that it’s not mere interpretation of the many thin layers (the laminates that compose the varves), but rather the only possible explanation that fits, and one that produces the exact same types of layers that we see in currently forming deposits in lakes. Not to mention the fact that the layers have pollen (dark layers with pollen, light layers without pollen and composed of finer dust particles (which were suspended in the water during the summer during higher water flows, but settle out in the winter). YECs cannot explain anything about this formation (but of course, that does not concern them).
re post 621. I answered you. Perhaps you would provide us with your theory. As for light, we haven’t finished with geology yet, and geology is generally easier for readers to grasp.
Regards,
#John
John,
What?? YECs used secular measurements and statements as to the dust expected (hence the Asimov quote), you claimed the it was “YEC calculations” as if YECs simply made it up (remember calling it ‘fairy dust’) — THAT is what I was refuting. Are you even reading these posts??
Also, I couldn’t figure out your answer so I’ll ask again. Please try to answer the questions directly.
re post 623.
Richard, given the extensive discussion in this thread regarding the fallacy of authority, it makes little sense to ask what my personal beliefs are. Whether I believe something does not make it true. In every area where there is a discrepancy between so-called YEC flood geology and OE geology, I prefer the OE explanations, as would be apparent from my posts 617 and 618 and from reading my other coments in this thread. The formation of the earth and of meteors is not yet fully understood, so there is no point in irrevocably committing oneself to a theory. That does not, however, mean that there aren’t good reasons for believing that the earth and the meteors formed at the same time. There are good reasons, and so the explanation is plausible, though not nearly as well proved as the ancient age of the earth.
The fact that you push to know someone’s beliefs is symptomatic of YECs in general and one of the very reasons why YEC is so detrimental to faith and belief (in Jesus). OEs hold that there are several plausible interpretations of Genesis, none of which demand or provide a specific age for the earth. Hence OEs can accept whatever age is provided by science, and can adjust their views on the age of the earth as scientific knowledge on that topic grows. YECs, however, are irrevocably committed to a particular age for the earth, and so anything that challenges that age is a challenge to their very belief system and to their faith. If a young earth falls, the whole thing falls. Not so for OEs, as I have pointed out.
Ironically, YECs are even more committed to the science than the OEs. Science cannot disprove the OE beliefs about Genesis, because OEs do not find a specific age et out in Genesis; God has not told them in the Bible how old the earth is. On the other hand, science can disprove YEC beliefs about Genesis. Consequently YECs get very uptight about the science, while for OEs it’s a big yawn–unless they are professional geologists or are concerned about the negative impact that YECs have on christian faith and testimony.
GREEN RIVER FORMATION
Well, the debate between Oard and Whitmore certainly proves one thing: credentials are valuable for grasping the science correctly and being able to explain it. Even though Whitmore only has a masters degree in geology (his PhD was in biology), he made short work of rebuttingOard, who is not a geologist and holds only a masters in atmospheric science. Oard’s inablity to account for all the data and his ignoring of important phenomena was on display for everyone to see. If that’s the best YECs can do on the Green River Formation, it is no wonder that YECs cannot get any of their work into peer reviewed journals.
regards,
#John
John wrote:
Amazing that you read all 7 articles so quickly…and your assessment of these geological arguments is based upon your degree in geology?
BTW, there are PhD Geologists in the YEC camp (including on staff at CMI who published the peer-reviewed articles mentioned above), just in case anybody is snowed by John’s statements.
John will not answer direct questions, instead he writes:
That age of the earth is stated as 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). John has stated that the age of the earth is “confident beyond doubt”. I showed him that is NOT the case. It is based upon the nebular hypothesis, which John is wise to avoid stating he believes. The currently accepted age of the earth is derived from the nebular hypothesis.
It’s ludicrous to state that the formation of the earth is not well understood, but the age is known “beyond doubt”. Furthermore, if the formation of meteors is not fully understood, then the radiometric age of the meteor is also questionable, since the technique requires making assumptions about the initial conditions, and history of the sample being dated.
Now just exactly what are those “good reasons” for believing meteors and the earth formed at the same time?
I ask these questions to show clearly that John makes adamant statements, as if things are proven, but when the details are examined, these statements are dependent upon highly questionable underlying assumptions.
626 comments and still growing. Good grief!
I think this may be the most commented on thread in P&P history.
Fairy Dust
I’ll lay it out a bit more simply and step by step.
In the 1950s, there were no estimates of meteorite dust derived from actual measurements or experiments. Thus Asimov was speculating–as he admitted. It is true that some scientists speculated that there would be lots of dust, but others debated the point.
With the moon landings in the late 60s and early 70s, it was obvious that there was relatively little dust on the moon–Armstrong was walking in the stuff and not disappearing under it.
YECs, because God told them the earth was only 6,000 years old, used out of date and poorly obtained data on meteorite dust deposition to construct a fanciful argument that the earth must be young. YECs used an unrealistically high and unsupportable rate of dust deposition, together with the observed depths of dust on the moon, to argue that the moon must be young or it would have been covered in an extremely thick layer of dust.
YECs ignored the by the accurate measurements of dust deposition obtained from satellite measurements that showed a low rate of depositino and cherry picked older, unreliable and poorly obtained dust deposition data that seemed to indicate a high rate of dust deposition. The former, more accurate, rate was about 18,000 to 25,000 tons of space dust per year landing on the earth. These satellite measurements agreed with levels of meteoritic dust levels trapped in sediments on Earth. So, the YECs were misusing the so-called “secular” data, and prefering measurements of fairy dust instead (i.e., dust that did not exist).
YECs held onto their dust argument long after it was no longer even remotely tenable, not because it was good science, but because it supported the answer that they already knew was true.
So yes, Richard, I do read the posts. It would help if you would read more widely and actually work through the material instead of just posting links to examples of pseudo-science. But for the benefit of the readers of this thread, and other reasons, I’ll continue to help expose it.
Regards,
#John
Wrong. Science cannot “prove” anything about the unobserved past.
Regarding just how solid ancient ages might be, here’s another example of how the scientific belief about the past can be dramatically wrong (from http://creation.com/focus-262). Notice that the researchers themselves admit that they were wrong. The 3.5 billion year age of the pods became just thousands of years….
———–
At various places on the seafloor, jets of superheated (400ºC, 750ºF) mineral-rich water spurt out of hydrothermal vents. Feeding off the chemicals in the hot fluid, colonies of microbes live around these vents.
In the 1980s, New Zealand geologists claimed ironstone pods found in ‘3.5-billion-year-old’ rocks in northeastern South Africa were ancient hydrothermal vents. Based on their reports, many scientists came to believe these pods showed what the ancient oceans were like and explained how life first got a foothold on earth.
But two US geologists who have carried out a new analysis, say that the pods are nothing more than deposits from underground springs active in the last few thousand years, not billions of years. One of the original researchers laments ‘Quite a few people, including me, have been burnt by this.’
Geology, October 2003, pp. 909–912.
Nature Science Update, , 18 Nov. 2003.
Which illustrates that all such pronouncements about the unobserved past are based on assumptions, and even long-held ideas can be dramatically overturned by new research.
———-
Post 237 documents another “seriously in error” (per USGS) age calculation (Devils Postpile).
You’re implying that Asimov had no measurements to work with. That is wrong, he specifically referenced Petterson’s measurements and did his own calculations based upon those measurements. My entire point is valid, the expectation of mucho dust came from the secular science community, not from YEC as you implied originally.
It is also true that some YECs continued to use the argument after it had been shown to be based upon faulty measurements. But you write as if all YEC did so — incorrect and you know it because you referenced an article in which YECs were being admonished to stop using it.
PEER REVIEWED CREATIONIST GEOLOGISTS? NOT.
re post 625.
(1) I’ll point out once again that is a fallacy of authority to rely on someone’s degrees as proof that something asserted by the degree holder is true. Hence, my degrees are irrelevant with respect to whether an explanation of the Green River Formation is correct. Whitmore, I note, uses many of the same arguments that I, and others, have used to demonstrate that the Formation is a result of sediments deposited in a lake, and not the result of a global flood covering the area in waters miles deep. It’s the arguments that count, not the degrees.
(2) Richard refers to “PhD Geologists in the YEC camp (including on staff at CMI who published the peer-reviewed articles mentioned above) . . .” I will point out again that:
(2A) Neither Whitmore nor Oard hold a PhD in geology. Oard does not even have a geology degree.
(2B) The creationist magazine in which they published their debate is not a peer reviewed journal by any stretch of the imagination, so it is incorrect to claim that the articles were peer reviewed. The articles are not long, if any one else is inclined to read them.
Let’s take a look at some of the other “geologists” listed on the CMI (Creation Ministries International) website. John Woodmorappe is listed as a geologist. Woodmorappe is his pen name; his real name is Jan Peczkis and he has an undergradate Bachelor’s degree in Biology (not geology) and a Master’s degree in Geology (and no PhD of any kind), actually a M.S. in Earth Science in 1982 from Northeastern Illinois University.
But getting a degree, even a Master’s does not make one a geologist. In the past he has published a few papers in mainstream geologic journals under his real name of Peczkis in which he claimed an affiliation with the geology department of NIU. However, he does not appear to have ever been listed by the American Geological Institute Directory of Geoscience Departments as a faculty member, nor does there appear to be any evidence that he is or was associated with that geology department apart from his claim. Peczkis / Woodmorappe never practiced as a geologist with a university, nor with an oil company or some other field requiring that profession.
At least he actually got an earth sciences degree, which puts him up on Oard (which CMI lists as an atmospheric scientist, not a geologist). Whitmore also has a masters degree in geology, but not a PhD.
BTW, my claim was not that YECs still use the dust argument, but that it was a fallacious and incorrect argument at the time that it was made, and that it was used by YECs for years until they finally gave it up (as indicated by that article)
Regards,
#John
Re post 326.
You wrote that “it’s ludicrous to state that the formation of the earth is not well understood, but the age is known ‘beyond doubt’, in reference to my previous post #324. But what I stated was that “The formation of the earth and of meteors is not yet fully understood . . .” There is a difference, but in any case my point is that science is still learning about the formation of the earth and meteorites. If they were both formed at the same time and by the same processes in the same context, then their ages should be the same and the dating should reveral similar ages—and similar dates (in excess of 4 billion years) is what the research does show. But the ancient age of the earth can be established apart from the age of the meteorites, and can be established by methods other than radiometry. Multiple lines of research and phenomena all point in the same direction—ancient age for the earth—which is why we have confidence that that fact is well established.
Even if you were to catch me in some personal example of a contradiction, whoopee. I’d correct myself and move on. So let’s stick with the data and the arguments, Richard.
It appears that you’ve conceded that the Green River Formation cannot be accounted for by the YEC description of a global catastrophic flood, and that it constitutes a rebutting defeater to YEC flood geology. Yes, yes, I know that you believe that one day the YEC scientists will find an explanation that supports the answer that God gave them, but until then the Green River will continue to function as a rebutting defeater. In the meantime, let’s move on to the Joggins Cliffs and finish that issue.
Regards,
#John
I agree with John that advanced degrees don’t prove anything. He brought up geology degrees.
John’s post implies there are no geologists at CMI. Wrong again. Also, Creation Journal is peer reviewed whether John agrees with it or not.
Dr Emil Silvestru
Geologist/karstologist
Biography
Dr Silvestru earned his Ph.D in geology at the ‘Babes-Bolyai’ University in Cluj, Romania (where he has worked as an associate professor), in karst sedimentology including caves. (Karst is a term which initially referred to barren regions of mostly limestone and dolomite, noted for spectacular and distinctive landforms, and with substantial underground drainage features — caves, underground rivers, etc. It has come to refer more to the entire geosystem, above and below ground.)
A world authority on the geology of caves, he has published 41 scientific papers (see below), written one book (The Cave Book—see below) and co-authored two books. He was, until recently, the head scientist at the world’s first Speleological Institute (speleology = the study of caves) in Cluj. Since 1997 he has been a full-time researcher and speaker with CMI.
His areas of expertise include: Sedimentology of clastic deposits, stratigraphy of limestone terranes, general geology, karst genesis and functioning, cave climate and glaciology, show-cave assessment & designing, ore prospecting and exploration (surface and mining).
…
In January 2002 he immigrated to Canada from Romania with his wife and two daughters. In addition to doing research and writing for CMI, he now also on staff at CMI Canada as a Seminar Lecturer, and has written a number of articles for the Journal of Creation, Creation magazine and this website, and produced several DVDs.
Dr Silvestru’s papers published in secular science journals
* Viehmann Iosif, SILVESTRU Emil, Fabian Calin (1979) La Grotte d’Iza, Monts de Rodna, Roumanie. Travaux de l’Institut de Spéologie “Emil Racovitza”, Bucuresti, t.XVIII:201–207.
* SILVESTRU Emil, Viehmann Iosif (1982) Etude de microtectonique comparée dans le karst des Monts de Rodna (Roumanie). Travaux de l’Institut de Spéologie “Emil Racovitza”, Bucuresti, t.XXI:63–67.
* SILVESTRU Emil (1984) The Relationship Between Tectonics and Karstification in the Cave from Izvorul Tausoarelor (Rodna Mountains). Theoretical and Applied Karstology, Bucuresti, 1:35–42.
* Soritau Dan, Nicoara Dorel, SILVESTRU Emil, Demeter Janos, Popa Cristian, Viehmann Iosif (1984) Avenul din Stanul Foncii. Bull.”Pestera”, Cluj–Napoca, 1:79–88.
* SILVESTRU Emil (1985) Aspects of Karstification in the Crystalline Limestones on the Southern Slope of Rodnei Mountains. Theoretical and Applied Karstology, Bucuresti, 2:87–95.
* SILVESTRU Emil (1988) New Ideas on the Cretaceous/Tertiary Extinctions. Evolution and Adaptation, Cluj–Napoca, III:89–97.
… out of space…
Where did I claim it formed in the flood?
Creationists have been documenting aspects of GRF for decades that are very problematic with the standard interpretation. Yes, yes I know that OEs have tried to explain away all of these, but the answers are just not convincing.
PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS, AGAIN
Peer Reviewed Journals
http://www.scitopia.org
One can search over 3 million science and technology articles at scitopia.org. Tellingly, neither the articles by Oard and Whitmore, nor the “Journal of Creation” are indexed.
From the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign:
[beginning of quote]
Applied Health Sciences LIBRARY
146 Library, 1408 West Gregory Drive Urbana, IL 61801
217/333-3615, FAX 217/333-8384
Q: What is a peer-reviewed journal?
A: A scholarly periodical which requires that each article submitted for publication be judged by an independent panel of experts (scholarly or scientific peers). Articles not approved by a majority of these peers are not accepted for publication by the journal.
Peer-reviewed journals can be identified by their editorial statements or instructions to authors (usually in first few pages of the journal or at the end), and also by consulting Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory, available online at: http://www.library.uiuc.edu/orr/get.php?instid=258215
[end of quote]
The Journal of Creation does not meet those criteria.YECs love to be pretenders at secular science and to inflate the reputation of both their magazines and their scientists (which is not to dispute that some YECs do have legit degrees and published papers, though not published YEC papers in real peer reviewed journals).
Regards,
#John
Re post 634.
My reasoning was: You are a YEC, most YECs (like Oard) believe that the Green River Formation can be explained by YEC flood geology (do I need to provide the links to articles in the leading YEC websites?), therefore it is likely that you believe that the Green River Formation can be explained by YEC flood geology.
However, your post #634 implies that you do not believe that. There is no one following this thread that has provided any significant argument in favour of the standard YEC explanation of the Green River Formation. Hence, my argumentation in favour of the OE understanding of that formation stands, which is a problem for you, Richard, since the OE explanation of the formation provides an age for the earth that is far greater than 6,000 years.
If you accept Whitmore’s explanation, which is unique among YECs, then I can start shredding his theory that the formation could have occurred in the 4,250 or so years since the flood waters receded.
So, which is it, Richard? Inquiring minds want to know.
BTW, you also misrepresent the so-called “problems” with an OE explanation for the Green River Formation. They are not problems that call into question the old age, they are only “problems” in so far as the current explanations for the phenomena observed in that formation have not yet accounted for all the phenomena. The fact that we don’t understand how some of the phenomena were formed in the Green River Formation, does not mean that we don’t know the age of the Green River Formation.
Regards,
#John
I just watched this ep for the first time and I actually applauded when it ended – BEST STAR TREK EPISODE EVER!!! Even better than City on the Edge of Forever. This totally blew me away…two men from opposite universes trapped in the corridor of eternity in a perpetual battle: “Image having a mad man at your throat for eternity, Spock- imagine it!“
A quote from a comment about a Classic Star Trek episode called The Alternative Factor about two Lazaruses fighting and battling each other eternally.
mbaker
In post # 616, you said: “I simply do not understand how YEC’s can assume that we who believe in OE are necessarily believing in evolution of man. They are two different issues. I have stated in a comment above that I believe in the historical account of Genesis in every way, except for the 6,000 year time line.”
You were responding to my post # 614, in which I said: “ … the only people who would not understand the days of Genesis 1 to be 24 hours long have a preconceived bias that they cannot be. The question is, What is this preconceived bias? And the answer is, the ancient ages associated with the theory of evolution.”
As the above indicates, I did not suggest that you believe in the evolution of man. My emphasis was not upon a belief in the TOE; it was on the ancient ages ASSOCIATED WITH the TOE. The point I was trying to make is that the reason you do not accept the plain, natural meaning of the text of Genesis 1 is that you read it with a preconceived bias that the days in question could not have been 24 hours long BECAUSE (you believe) SCIENCE HAS BASICALLY PROVEN THAT THE EVENTS DECSRIBED IN GENESIS 1 TOOK A HECK OF A LOT LONGER THAN 6 DAYS.
This is the only point that I was attempting to make. And isn’t my assessment accurate? Isn’t it true that you reject the notion of a 6-10,000 year old earth because you believe that science has proven that this is impossible?
If the chronology of secular science is correct, the period of time described in Genesis 1-11 (the creation of the world to the birth of Abraham) is about 14 billion years. You may not agree that this period is about 2-6,000 years (like YECs), but surely you would agree that it certainly doesn’t appear to be describing a period of about 14 billion years! If you don’t, we must be reading different Bibles.
Seeking the Truth
Steve
Steve,
Talk about preconceived notions!
I was once a YEC, who could never understand why a sovereign’s God’s natural order of creation could not compliment scientific discoveries about His creation. As I began to question and research why there was such a disparity, I began to see how science, except for evolution, actually could agree with the Genesis accounts, but not under a iiteral reading of 24 hour day, or a 6000 year creation that YEC’s want to make it all fit.
You said:
“If the chronology of secular science is correct, the period of time described in Genesis 1-11 (the creation of the world to the birth of Abraham) is about 14 billion years. You may not agree that this period is about 2-6,000 years (like YECs), but surely you would agree that it certainly doesn’t appear to be describing a period of about 14 billion years! If you don’t, we must be reading different Bibles”
I don’t think we are reading different Bibles, only reading the Bible differently. I read Genesis as an historical account of creation, not as a scientific one. Seems to me that YEC’s are the ones trying to create science out of an historical narrative.
Post 638: Steve writes: “The point I was trying to make is that the reason you do not accept the plain, natural meaning of the text of Genesis 1 is that you read it with a preconceived bias that the days in question could not have been 24 hours long BECAUSE (you believe) SCIENCE HAS BASICALLY PROVEN THAT THE EVENTS DECSRIBED IN GENESIS 1 TOOK A HECK OF A LOT LONGER THAN 6 DAYS.”
Actually, “no”. Or at least “no” for some people, such as me. I’ve discussed above the appropriate use of science—our understanding of the regularities of God’s creation via our perceptive and reasoning powers and faculties—in relation to the interpretation of the Bible. If we find a conflict between the former and the latter, then we need to more fully investigate both. The conflict should motivate us to question our assumptions and methodologies in regard to both science and biblical interpretation. As the saying goes, “all truth is God’s truth”, and there is no guarantee that our interpretation of the Bible is without question the correct one. If the science appears to be rock solid, then we need to look more closely at how we’ve interpreted the Bible. Is there something amiss with out interpretation? After all, not everything in Scripture is easy to interpret or understand, as even the Apostle Peter noted in 2 Peter 3:16.
OEs, especially the evangelical scholars who believe in inerrancy, don’t come to the Bible looking to eliminate a 24/7 creation day/week of 144 hours (in 6 days). They come to the Bible looking to find the truth. That is not to say that they are ignorant of the findings of science, but only that they are not bound by either previous interpretations of Genesis nor by the findings of science. They also come to the text knowing that there is a very long history of different interpretations of Genesis, dating back to the time of the apostles.
There are more than 130 authors who wrote about the 6 days of creation from the time of Origen (the 200s) to the time of John Milton (1600s): Frank Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature: A Study of the Greek and Latin Commentaries on Genesis (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1912); Robert Letham, “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly,” Westminster Theological Journal 61:2 (Fall 1999). Authors who did not take the 6 days as 6 consecutive days of 24 hours each include Origen (200s) and Augustine (400s). So that interpretation has a very long and well established and respected pedigree that predates by centuries the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection.
As discussed earlier in this thread, Origen (c. 185-254), responded to the nonChristian Celsus who argued that Genesis has some days before the creation of the sun. Origen replied that Genesis 2:4 refers to “the day in which God made the heaven and the earth” and that God can have days without the sun providing the light (Contra Celsum, VI: 50-51)…
[cont. from my post 640]
. . . and that God can have days without the sun providing the light (Contra Celsum, VI: 50-51). Origen also stated that, “In what we said earlier we criticized those who follow the superficial interpretation and say that the creation of the world happened during a period of time six days long….” (Contra Celsum, VI: 60). In his De Principiis IV, 3, 1 he says, “What person of any intelligence would think that there existed a first, second, and third day, and evening and morning, without sun, moon, and stars?”
Augustine (354-430) wrote in The City of God XI, 6, “What kind of days these [i.e., the creation days] were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive” Augustine did not believe that there could be solar days before the creation of the sun on the fourth day. Augustine opted for instantaneous creation, with the “days” of Genesis 1 being treated as six repetitions of a single day or days of angelic knowledge or some other symbolic representation. Augustine’s interpretation has been very influential, even up to the present time. As with Origen, Augustine wrote centuries before our present state of scientific knowledge about the age of the earth.
So, in fact, the impetus for interpreting the first 6 days of Genesis in a more figurative manner, and not as 144 hours, came from the text itself, not from science. The Genesis text itself, because it does not have the sun created until the fourth day, indicates that the creation days were not to be understood as 24 hour days (one should note that Genesis never speaks of the number of hours in a day).
Secondly, one needs to consider the context of the Genesis text. When pondering the fact that the sun is not created until the fourth day, one should be historically and culturally aware of ancient near east culture, which viewed and worshipped the sun and moon as gods. The fact that God did not even create them until the fourth day, would be seen by Moses and the Israelites (and those ANE peoples who knew the Israelite creation story) as a clear demonstration that Yahweh alone controlled the giving of light on the first three days, that He alone and not the sun god established day and night, that the sun and moon were created things and not gods themselves, and that the sun a moon were contingent with a beginning that was dependent on the will of Yahweh.
Hence, the text itself and its context do not provide any indication at all regarding how long the first three days were (i.e. how many hours long they were). Yes, God was in control of the coming of the evening and the morning, but when? How long? God does not tell us.
So OEs are not Johnny-come-lately’s to the issue of the nature of the days in Genesis, nor was their interpretation developed in the first centuries A.D. on the basis of a preconceived notion of what science had proved about geology or radiometry or star light, etc.
Regards,
#John
London Theology student Chris Tilling briefly weighs in on the issue at his Wednesday, June 10, 2009 post on his “Chrisendom” blog:
http://www.christilling.de/blog/ctblog.html
(I can’t link directly to the post, just to the Webpage/blog and give you the date of the post)
Tilling became a YEC via Ken Ham. He’s now a Christian evolutionist. Be sure to read the comments for the discussion by readers (only 20 or so – versus the 641 here!).
More Indications from the Text of Genesis Itself
Genesis 2:9 states that in creating the garden of Eden, God caused trees to grow up. That specific language indicates a process of natural growth, not creation in a moment or extraordinarily rapid growth. Moses and other Israelites would understand the words in terms of their experience of the growth of trees. The 144 hour creation week view (e.g., YEC) is inconsistent with the natural read of those words to an ANE Israelite. Note again the fact that it is the text itself that raises problems with the YEC view and directs us to a longer time-frame, not modern 21st century science.
Dr. Robert B. Longacre has stated this concerning the range of meaning of yôm:
[start quote]
“As for the Hebrew words, yôm in the immediate vicinity of Gen 1 there occurs an obviously figurative use of the term: “And these are the generations of the heavens and the earth in the day when the Lord God made the heavens and the earth” (Gen 2:4). Here it is evident that all six days of creation—however conceived—are summarized as “the day when the Lord God made the heavens and the earth” —where the NIV simply translates “the day” as “when.”
“The time of the taking of Jerusalem, sacking the City, burning its palaces, breaking up and salvaging the massive bronzeware of the temple, destroying the walls of the City, and taking people exile is referred to in Lamentations 1:20 and 2:21 as “the day of God’s anger.” Obviously, the events described in II Kings 25 and Jeremiah 39 took place over a period of time; and, in fact, the actual capture of the City may have spread over a month because the City then and in Roman times was cleft by the Tyropoeon valley. The taking of the newer part of the City with the wall built in Hezekiah’s time evidently occurred first. Then the Babylonian army, after catching its breath, advanced to the rest of the city where the temple mount and public buildings were located and reduced that. Pillage, burning, and consolidation of the conquest probably took even longer. The Romans in their later reduction of the City attacked first the older part and then the Western hill—in opposite order from the Babylonians. But the sacking and pillaging, as we have said above, is all referred to as “the day of God’s anger” in Lamentations (Lam 1:2 1)—even as those same nations rejoiced saying “This is the day we have waited for” (Lam 2:16).
“It would be laboring the point to argue that the eschatological “day of the Lord” likewise most probably indicates a period of God’s judgement not a single calendar day.”
#John1453:
Re: Genesis 2:9. There God causes the plants to grow. This contrasts with Genesis 1:11-12 where God seems to expect the earth itself to send forth vegetation and plants, which the earth then does. (And see Genesis 1:24-25 where God uses different language than Genesis 1:11 re: the earth bringing forth animals, which God – not the earth – subsequently makes.)
Is Genesis 2 really a replay of parts of Genesis 1?
for your consideration:
“The meaning of yom in Genesis 1:1 – 2:4”
by Francis Humphrey who holds a B.A. (Bishop’s University), a Dip.Ed. (McGill University), a M.Div. (Canadian Theological Seminary), a Th.M. (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) and a Ph.D. (McGill University)…
http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1
…
…
My quote from R. Longacre came from his communications to the Report of the Creation Study Committee of the Presbyterian Church in America. John Ley in the 1645 Westminster Annotations on Genesis 2:4 “in the day”: “The day is not here taken (as in the first Chapter and in the beginning of this) for the seventh part of the week, but with more latitude for time in general wherein a thing is done, or to be done; as verse 17 & Luke 19.42. 2 Cor 6.2. Ruth 4.5.”
Note again that it is the text, not science, that is directing us away from a 144 hour six day creation interpretation of Genesis.
YECs claim that yôm with an ordinal number such as “first” or “second” always necessitates a requires a 24-hour-day interpretation, but that is disputed and so not conclusive. Hebrew scholar Gleason L. Archer states the ordinal in Genesis “serves as no real evidence for a literal 24 hour day concept on the part of the Biblical author”. Archer observes that the days of creation do not bear a definite article in Hebrew (i.e., “the” first day, etc.), and he writes that “In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite… Thus they [the days of creation] are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.” Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, (1982), 60-61 (I own that book, one of the first “scholarly” Christian books I ever bought).
There are instances in Scripture where yôm used with a number does not mean a solar day of 24 hours: Hosea 6:2, “He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day,” which refers to Israel’s ultimate restoration without regard for precise time.Zechariah 14:7, describing the Day of the Lord, contains yôm echad (translated “unique day”), which is identical to yôm echad of Genesis 1:5 (translated “one day”). The context of Zechariah 14:7-8 suggests yôm echad will be a period of time spanning at least one summer and one winter, and in any case not a solar day.
A further indication from the text is that the seventh day does not have an end indicated, unlike the first six days. There is no use of “evening” and “morning” like there is with the other six days. John Ankerberg (a well respected conservative evangelical inerrantist scholar) writes, “The Seventh “Day” Is Thousands of Years Long. Everyone agrees that it has been at least thousands of years since the time of creation, yet the Bible declares that God rested on the seventh day after His six days of creation (Gen. 2:2-3). According to the book of Hebrews, God is still in His Sabbath rest from creation (4:3-5); hence, the seventh day has been at least six thousand years long, even on the shortest of all the chronologies of humankind.” (see http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/creation.htm).
[cont.]
[cont. from my post 646]
In the same article Ankerberg also notes that “On the third “day,” God not only created vegetation, but it grew to maturity. The text says that on the third day “the land produced vegetation; plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:12, emphasis added). To grow from seeds to maturity and produce more seeds is a process that takes much longer than a day, a week, or even a month for most plants. There is no indication in the text that its growth was anything but natural; it is its origin that was supernatural.”
I have noted previously in this thread that at the end of the creation passage (it ends in Genesis 2:4 with a colophon), “yom” is used in reference to the entire creation week: “This is the history of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day [yom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” (Gen. 2:4 NKJV).
If one is going to read the text naively, in a so-called “straightforward” manner, then the phrase “evening and morning” does not encompass all of a twenty-four-hour day, but only the late afternoon of one day and the early morning of another. Instead, the use of “evening” and “morning” rather than specifying a full solar day (which would be easy for God to communicate to an ANE people, a point made by Richard and others with respect to how God communicates).
So we have many indications from either the text of Genesis itself, or from other places in the Hebrew/Aramaic Bible (the Old Testatment uses both languages) that the creation week should not be understood as 144 hours but in some other manner.
It is said that Martin Luther once wrote, “If I were younger, I would want to learn this language [Hebrew], for without it one can never properly understand the Holy Scripture… For that reason they have said correctly: ‘The Jews drink out of the original spring, the Greeks drink out of the stream flowing out of the stream, the Latins, however, out of the puddle.’” If Latin speakers were drinking from a puddle, what are English only speakers drinking from, given that they are so much further removed from the original language and culture?
Note that I am not arguing for a day-age interpretation of “yom”, and in fact I suggest that that interpretation is less likely than others. What I am pointing out, though, is that the text itself indicates that the use of “yom” does not indicate 144 hours for the first six days, but rather that the author (God and the human(s)) are using the language to direct us to another path.
Regards,
#John
So there is a difference of opinion as to the meaning of ‘yom’ in Genesis 1-2. No surprise here.
As a reminder from one who does not believe in 24-hr days, Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr, on the meaning of Genesis
Once more, the influence of today’s consensus science is clear in Pattle Pun’s words:
And given that Longacre statements were in the context of the Report of the Creation Study Committee, they are hardly outside the context of the creation/evolution/ancient earth discussion.
Re post 645.
I’m not saying that a case, even a relatively sophisticated case,
cannot be made for a 144 hour six day creation period.
What I am saying is that (a) a 144 hour six day creation period is not the only option available to conservative, orthodox, inerrancy believing Christians, and (b) there are indications in the text itself for non-114 hour interpretations, apart from any consideration of the science, and (c) there is nothing in the text that conclusively and irrevocably forces one to only a 144 hour six day creation period and excludes all other interpretations.
The YEC interpretation of Genesis is just that: an interpretation, a fallible interpretation by fallible people. It is not an infallible interpretation. Indeed, it is not even the most likely interpretation as indicated by the text itself.
It is therefore wrong to teach that a 144 hour six consecutive day creation period is the only valid interpretation and essential to the Christian faith.
Re post 642. Thanks for the tip, EricW. I used the link and read the comments. I found this quote from Polkinghorne quite appropriate:
“. . . by insisting on such absurdities as a six-thousand-year-old Earth, [Young-Earth Creationists] discredit Christianity’s reputation for truth and seek to bind burdens on believers and inquirers that are too heavy to be borne.”
(John Polkinghorne’s Traffic in Truth: Exchanges between Science and Theology, p. 8).
Regards,
#John
Polkinghorne also teaches that Christians need not believe the miracles in the bible. See my discussion with him from post 140.