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"
Re post 650
I am not using Polkinghorne as an authority for the proposition that Christians need not believe in miracles. I’m using him as an example of a person who is widely read by others, very involved with both scientific and religious issues, and who has aptly pointed out one of the problems with YEC beliefs.
Here are other blatantly wrong, problematic, beliefs from the AIG website, beliefs that are an incorrect and thus unecessary stumbling block to faith, and a cause departures from the faith: “Jesus was a young earther” and “Christians who believe in an old earth (billions of years) need to come to grips with the real nature of the god of an old earth — it is not the loving God of the Bible.” YEC’s effectively teach that one cannot through out the bathwater without also throwing out the baby, i.e., one cannot give up a 144 hour creation period without also giving up Jesus. That is simply false.
Further info on Francis Humphrey. He teaches at Faculté de Théologie Évangélique de Montréal, which is a very small college and an affiliate of Acadia University (i.e., not part of the University) that was started by (and still connected with) the l’Union d’églises baptistes françaises au Canada (Canadian French Baptists). It is affiliated so that it is properly supervised and can give credits that will be recognized by other universities. Humphrey does not have a significant record of publications in peer reviewed journals. Humphrey is not moving in the big leagues of Biblical interpretation and Biblical scholarship, and is not an authority to the same degree as either Longacre or Archer, or other conservative orthodox inerrantist scholars who do not hold to a 144 hour creation period.
So Richard, and other YECs, it does not good to play the credentials card of YEC scholars, as they are by and large in the minor leagues in terms of scholarship and scholarly recognition. Note that I said “by and large” not “entirely”. And it does no good to cite dentists and surgeons as scholars on fields outside their expertise. Whoopee, they’re smart. Well I got the second highest mark possible on the Law School Admission Test. I’m smart too. So what and who cares (fallacy of authority). What counts is data and rational reasoning; using one’s faculties they way God intended and designed.
Regards,
#John
John,
I note you made no comment at all on Humphrey’s reasoning, but attacked his standing as an “authority”….
In a single post you both commit and decry the fallacy of authority.
re post 648.
BTW, James Barr is a snobby Brit toff who probably wouldn’t even recognize profs from Cambridge as being as good as those at Oxford. He is flat out wrong in terms of his pronouncement about scholars at world class universities (of course, he only thinks there is one, the one at which he works), as has been pointed out numerous times on various websites responding to this supposed support of the YEC interpretation.
If what he says is true, then you shouldn’t also be quoting F. Humphrey in support because he clearly does not work at a world class university.
If what Barr says is true, then you should also be abandoning your belief in inerrancy (he has).
Oh yes, I forgot, because God has given you the answer that the creation period is 144 days, then every and all scholars are infallibly correct when they agree with the YEC interpretation, but wrong when they disagree with it.
Wow! So that’s how we can sift between the correct things that Barr believes and teaches and the false things: by the divining rod of the YEC belief in a 144 hour creation period. That is, Barr is not correct because he is a famous scholar, but because he agrees with the YEC beliefs. Barr is therefore also incorrect where he disagrees with YECs. But wait, I thought Richard and AIG and CMI and ICR were using him as a support because he’s a famous scholar. But if CMI and AIG and ICR follow his authority because he’s a famous scholar, then they also follow his beliefs that the Bible is errant. Hold it, AIG and CMI and ICR believe in an inerrant Bible. So Barr is wrong and his scholarship is not a useful authority. Just a second, Barr believes that the Hebrew means 144 hours, so he must be right. But of course, he’s only right because he believes what the YECs believe. Hmmm, now I’m getting confused. Is Barr an authority or not? Oh yeah, now I remember, he’s a snobby Brit toff.
Regards,
#John
John,
You post 653 is nothing but a rant filled with non-sequiturs.
It appears to anger you that there are some who actually have credentials in OT scholarship, and who have concluded that the intended meaning of Gen is the YEC view (even if they don’t believe it themselves).
Of course there are others who disagree.
Anything further along this line is just wasting people’s time…
re post 652.
Richard, before you snap off a quick reply, you should read more carefully. I do not commit the fallacy of authority. I point out that not only does a scholars credentials not determine the truth of the matter (fallacy of authority), but that even if the credentials were of some value then Humphreys are worth less than the scholars I cited. I also did not cite Polkinghorne as an authority, but as a bit of evidence. That is, his statement is evidence itself because it expresses his own experience that YEC beliefs have a negative effect on conversion and post-conversion faith.
I also note, in response to the repeated citation in this thread of the Bible verses on scoffers, that 2 Peter 3:5 is, when read in a “straightforward manner”, a warning against a belief in a young earth: “for this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old.” In this regard note also that in Habakuk 3:6 the mountains are described as “everlasting” and the hills are described as “perpetual”. What’s the “straightforward meaning of that? The Hebrew words ‘ad and ‘owlam mean “long duration”, “ancient”, “forever”, and “continuous existence”.
Although I took two years and a summer of Hebrew during my linguistics degree (the summer was in Israel), it’s not my intent to get into a detailed debate about the interpretation of the Hebrew. My point is that knowledgeable, wise, educated, and recognized conservative orthodox inerrantist Bible scholars can propose, support and believe in an interpretation of “yom” and Genesis that is not the 144 hour interpretation. For Richard’s sake, I’ll point out that I am not committing the fallacy of authority because I am not arguing that one should believe in a non-144 hour interpretation because those smart scholars do. I’m only pointing out that it is possible to be both a conservative inerrantist Bible scholar and also a believer in a non-144 hour creation period.
Is anyone out there still being informed or entertained by this thread?
Regards,
#John
re post 654: “You post 653 is nothing but a rant filled with non-sequiturs.”
I take it, then, that you did not get my satire of the illogic of the YEC appeal to Barr as an authority. Did anyone else get it?
Regards,
John
John,
I hope you will continue to inform us, and, yes, even entertain us at times. It has been one of the most enlightening conversations I have read thus far on the blogosphere.
You said:
“‘I’m only pointing out that it is possible to be both a conservative inerrantist Bible scholar and also a believer in a non-144 hour creation period.”
Whether it’s intended or not, what I am getting from Richard and other devoted YEC’s is that we MUST believe in YEC or we cannot be true believers in the inerrancy of the Bible. I am certainly glad there is another point of view being presented here so that those who are hearing all this for the first time, or who have valid questions about the time line of creation will know they are not guilty of being outside the Bible.
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, and doing such a great amount of researching facts to back up the position that there can be other options, and still be within scripture.
God bless.
re post 657. Thanks mbaker. I wanted to make sure that this was not becoming just a conversation between Richard and I. I also appreciate your many thoughtful contributions on this thread (and those of others who have also posted. We’ve had a number of great posts by a variety of people from a variety of perspectives).
Regards,
#John
I’m also following and appreciating.
An interesting link. I have not vetted it, so would appreciate comments on it one way or another:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm
John
First of all, I want to say that I am totally amazed at the amount of time and energy you have devoted to this blog. It is quite awesome.
Next, I want you to know that not a single thing that you have said – and I have read a lot, though not all, of it – has created the slightest doubt in my belief in YEC. Sometimes I have researched a subject that you have raised. The Joggins Fossil Cliffs is one example. Based upon my investigation, the YEC explanation for these cliffs is far superior to that offered by OE proponents. I also want you to know that I think that Richard has done a superb job rebutting your arguments.
My main point in this comment has to do with the big picture of the issue that has been debated on this fascinating blog. I believe that this big picture has been basically ignored, that we have missed the forest for the trees. The real battle in this debate is not, or should not be, between OE Christians and YE Christians; it is between believers in the theory of evolution and creationists (YE and OE). The TOE is a godless theory that proposes that life originated and developed entirely through random natural events. At its very core, in other words, the TOE is utterly atheistic. Theistic evolutionists would argue otherwise, of course. But you know as well as I do, I think, that theistic evolution is a joke, completely rejected by both true evolutionists and creationists. The only people who take theistic evolution seriously are theistic evolutionists.
The problem that we should be focusing upon is that the TOE has a complete monopoly in our nation’s public schools. As a result of this monopoly, every student in our public school system is being taught that there is no God. No wonder that the Christian commitment among young people in our country is rapidly diminishing!
One of the critical features of the TOE, of course, is the ancient age of the earth. As the famous scientist George Wald, professor of biology at Harvard Univcrsity and Nobel Laureate, said back in the 1950’s regarding the origin of life, “Time is the hero of the plot.” Without the ancient ages at the foundation of the TOE, in other words, the theory would collapse – instantly. Believers in evolution HATE YECs, because they are attacking a fundamental cornerstone of their theory, the ancient age of the earth. When OE Christians, like yourself, attack young earth creationism, as you have done throughout this blog, whether they like it or not, they are playing right into the hands of evolutionists. They are fighting evolutionists battles for them!
Finally, I hope that as time passes you will eventually come to recognize the truth of YEC and come over to our side. Judging by your passionate and well researched advocacy of OE, I am confident that you would be a dynamic and effective proponent of YEC, as well. We could use you, John!
Steve
Steve,
While I agree with some of what you say, here’s where we part company:
” When OE Christians, like yourself, attack young earth creationism, as you have done throughout this blog, whether they like it or not, they are playing right into the hands of evolutionists. They are fighting evolutionists battles for them!”
First of all we are not ‘attacking YEC’s, we are asking them to debate the issues fairly. It’s that rigid interpretation that is causing the problem. I repeat: I am not an evolutionist, and because it is YEC’s who have automatically identified OE’s with evolutionist science, rather than listening to our positions: that we believe the account of Genesis is is a historical narrative of what God did, and not in how long it took Him to do it. In my opinion it is your beliefs that are causing folks to turn away from creationism in schools, not the OE position that can embrace both the Bible and science as far as the geological age of the earth.
We have repeatedly told you that we are not evolutionists, but you are just not listening!
I’m sure a lot of Christians have a story similar to yours. Lisa. My point is that if we are to advertise ourselves as giving extra special service, vis a vis being Christians, (as opposed to those business people who are not), then we darn well better be prepared to prove it by our superior actions and service to everyone and not just to our Christian brothers and sisters.
If we can’t prove it, then we’d best get out of advertising ourselves as giving better service or a better product simply by virtue of the name we advertise under.
So sorry, folks. That was meant to go under another thread entirely. please excuse the oversight.
One of the reasons I’ve found this discussion so interesting is that I’ve not studied this on my own, so I am benefitting by the well thought out posts.
I just read something in the news about global warming, and such reports always make me wonder who caused the global warming that ended the ice age. But then I began to wonder how the YE/OE debate views the ice age. Was there one? Did glaciers cover vast amounts of what are currently temperate zones? If so, when? How long did it last?
Anyone…..?
re 665: YECs believe there was only one ice age.
re 661: Thank you for the compliment, Steve. I have appreciated and learned from your postings and hope you continue to post. In regard to the Green River Formation, Richard has not made a reply to my OE interpretation and my rebuttal of his YEC points, so I’d like to know why you still remain convinced of the YEC view. In regard to the Joggins Cliffs, same. What has convinced you about the Joggins Cliffs? And especially how can you explain the alternation of marine and non-marine layers, and the sorting of fossilized vegetation into multiple marine layers, each with the set of marine plants?
***
Further on interpreting “YOM”
Although I have knowledge of Hebrew (as indicated above), and could read, write and speak it at one time, by no means do I consider myself a Hebrew scholar. However, my knowledge does help me to understand articles written about it and to use Hebrew language tools. Given that the interpretation of this word is so key to YEC beliefs, I thought it might be useful to discuss why the YEC interpretation cannot be “THE” interpretation, but only one of several options.
First, a bit about languages. All patterns in language are merely statistical probabilities, not laws. The grammar of a natural language as it is used is descriptive, not prescriptive. A prescriptive grammar is useful for establishing a formal standard, but it does not indicate how the language is used in real life. BTW, why is one dialect called a language and another is merely a dialect of that language? Because languages are dialects with armies (i.e., the social and political power to prescriptively enforce it’s dialect as the national standard).
Consequently any grammar of a language, such as Hebrew, can only provide the statistically probable patterns, or “rules”. However, in real language use, including written language, those rules are “bent” or “broken” all the time to achieve the writer’s purposes or
[cont.]
[cont. from my post 666 (lucky me, though it is also possible that the number in Revelation is 616)]
. . . or because the writer has made an “error” (communicated his/her message but not used one of the statistically normative patterns).
For ancient Hebrew, we only have a limited supply of the written form of the language (the Bible), written by different authors at very different points in time (so each author would have varied in their use of Hebrew). This is particularly apparent in the use of Hebrew cardinal (one, two, etc.) and ordinal (first, second, etc.) numbers: we have very limited examples of their use and so cannot make absolute and definitive pronouncements about how they could and could not be used and about the permissible range of meanings of a particular usage.
Note that F. Humphrey, the writer that Richard quoted used the word “probably” (see post 645: “The word ‘echad’ is most probably to be read as a cardinal number (‘one’) as opposed to an ordinal (’first’) in contrast to many translations.” [emphasis added]).
Another perspective is that of Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, page 271, Zondervan 1999: “Numbered days need not be solar. Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour days. Even if there were no exceptions in the Old Testament, it would not mean that “day” in Genesis 1 could not refer to more than one twenty-four-hour period. But there is another example in the Old Testament. Hosea 6:1-2 . . . . . . Clearly the prophet is not speaking of solar “days” but of longer periods in the future. Yet he numbers the days in series.”
I own Hebrew grammars (for both ancient and modern Hebrew), but a useful summary of the data can be found at
http://www.creationingenesis.com/TheHebrewWordYOM.pdf, which is where I pulled most of my info from for this post.
More later.
Regards,
#John
Just a bit more now, and more later.
“yom” + ordinal number without the prefix “ha” meaning “the” (e.g.: “yom echad” or “day one/first”) used in Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:19, Genesis 1:23, and Genesis 1:31 (i.e., five of the six creative times) appear only one time in the Bible. So we don’t have a sufficient data base to make absolute pronouncements about the pattern and what it must mean and how it must be used.
You can find this out yourself by using a Strong’s concordance.
I also note that Gleason Archer agrees with Geisler, and Archer was an associate editor of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.
John
Thank you for your kind words in #666 (Gulp!).
In regards to the precise meaning of “yom” in Scripture, I am surprised that no one has referred to its use in Ex. 20:8 – 11, which I am sure you are very familiar with. A natural reading of these words certainly suggests that the creation week was composed of 24 hour days, for it is paralleled with the 7 day week that is used in virtually every corner of the world. In order to demonstrate my point, I will quote the text – which everyone on this blog is undoubtedly familiar with:
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do your work, but the 7th day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
RE: Joggins Fossil Cliffs and Green River Formation, I’d like to respond to you and hope to, but I’m starting to run into some resistance at home re: the time I’m spending on this blog … my wife! She tells me it’s time to move on, and I know she’s right. Nevertheless, maybe I can squeeze out another comment or two before she leaves me!
Finally, your analysis in #s 666-668 simply reenforce the compliment I gave you previously. Although I do not agree with your point re: yom, I think that your analysis is extremely impressive. Once again, I really hope that you eventually come over to our side. I’m definitely going to be praying for it!
Steve
re post 669: Yes, Exodus 20:8-11 is important, but it is not a verse that conclusively swings interpretation only one way. I’ll write more on that later (unless someone, hopefully, beats me to it), but for example the believers in the analogical creation week would interpret Ex. 20 as being analogous but not identical to God’s creation week. Both weeks have periods of work and rest, but the length of those periods is different, and the rest period ends every Monday morning for humans but has not ended for God (and we will join Him in it when His kingdom fully comes to earth) because the seventh day as described in Genesis 1 does not have an ending.
Animal Suffering and Pain, Before Adam’s Sin
This week, William Craig has posted on this issue: “Question 113 Subject: Animal Suffering”. The link to this Q. on his blog:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a
In it he refers to his recent book on this very topic, “Nature Red in Tooth and Claw (Oxford University Press, 2009)” and to a previous book he wrote with J.P. Moreland, which contains material on that topic, “Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.”
Craig believes that the YEC view of no pain, etc. before Adam’s sin is untenable, “However, given the very powerful evidence that animals (and their pain, suffering, death, and predation) pre-existed the first human beings, that view seems incomplete. If the pain and suffering of animals predates Adam’s existence, it is hard to see how his (or our) sin could fully explain it. But before we leave explanations that appeal to the Fall behind, it is worth asking this question: “If all animal pain and suffering came after Adam’s Fall, would the Fall be a potentially good explanation for that pain and suffering?” ” [go to his website to read more. BTW don’t assume from the ending of his answer that he believes in evolution of humans from primates].
I note also, that British researchers have determined that fish do not feel pain, at least not as we feel it, because they (fish) lack the area of the brain that we use in pain sensation: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/10/1044725683181.html where it states, “An academic study comparing the nervous systems and responses of fish and mammals has found that fishes’ brains are not sufficiently developed to allow them to sense pain or fear. The study is the work of James D Rose, a professor of zoology and physiology at the University of Wyoming, who has been working on questions of neurology for almost 30 years. He has examined data on the responses of animals to pain and stimulus from scores of studies collected over the past 15 years. His report, published in the American journal Reviews of Fisheries Science, has concluded that awareness of pain depends on functions of specific regions of the cerebral cortex which fish do not possess.”
Aren’t you glad you follow this blog? The fish pain thing is a great party conversation starter.
My goodness! I never got around to replying to a few things in thi thread… And now this comment section has gotten large… Have y’all considered taking this to a forum? The RMM forum, or maybe even something like TheologyWeb? It would be easier to follow with the threading features of a true forum.
More Reflections on Animal Suffering
The issue of animal suffering is perniciously warped when it is put on the same level as human suffering. It is not, in truth, whether animal dignity is being violated by suffering, but whether human dignity is being debased by a too-ready comparison of the human body with animal flesh and of human suffering with animal suffering. Seen with this light shining, the YEC linkage of animal suffering to human suffering and the fallout of human evil has a shallow, simplistic quality.
When next we see judgment, in Noah’s generation, animals too are destroyed. Animals suffer in the destruction because of the judgement on man, but nothing biologically significant happens to them. But their suffering is not painted in a moral light, as either evil or a payment for evil.
In addition to the Bible passages I have raised in a previous post in which animal suffering cannot be intrinsically evil because God did it or commanded it, I add the following passage from Acts 10:10-16: “”10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” If God commands the killing of animals, their death cannot be intrinsically evil, or immoral, or an example of something wrong in the natural world.
William Craig, in his post refers to a story that I have read about before. A Christian missionary physician, Paul Brand wrote a book titled “The Gift of Pain” about his work with leprosy patients. Leprosy is a neurological desease that, among other things, destroys the ability to feel pain. Consequently, leprosy victims frequently injure themselves severely or fail to get treatment because they don’t feel the pain of scrapes and bruises and cuts and bumps and fire and heat and cold, etc. It appears that pain and suffering are an unavoidable consequence of creating embodied organisms that live in physical world that operates according to regularities and constants.
Regards,
#John
As I ponder this stuff, this comes to mind: Do YECs believe snakes literally eat dust? In a different way than other carnivores? If not, it just seems like another place in which a literal interpretation seems to create a real problem. (As an amateur herpetologist, I am not aware of any serpents that literally eat dust)
John just wrote:
John, do you really mean this? This implies that pain and suffering were present in Eden for Adam and Eve. — or do you think that Adam and Eve in Eden were not subject to the same types of “regularities and constants” that govern biology today? Please explain your thinking.
Dave Z — you might find this interesting:
Snakes do east dust!
by Carl Wieland
In Genesis 3:14 we read, ‘And the Lord God said unto the serpent… “upon your belly you shall go, and shall eat dust all the days of your life”.’ Since snakes do not really appear to eat dust, this has been taken as an example of either obvious metaphor (which seems reasonable) or an example of the Bible’s propensity to error, depending upon one’s bias.
In Micah 7:17 we read, ‘(The nations) shall lick the dust like a serpent’.
Once again we have the situation where, as more information has come to light, the Bible has been shown to be not only accurate, but accurate in minute detail. Snakes do deliberately and purposely eat and lick dust.
There is an organ in the roof of a snake’s mouth called ‘Jacobson’s organ’. This helps the snake to smell in addition to its nose. Its darting, forked tongue samples bits of dust by picking them up on the points of the fork, which it then presents to its matching pair of sensory organs inside its mouth. Once it has ‘smelt’ them in this way, the tongue must be cleaned so the process can be repeated immediately.
Therefore serpents really do lick dust and eat it.
re post 673 (sigh, I’m now getting farther from completing my index rather than closer.)
Brilliant observation Dave Z! While I hadn’t considered that particular example, I have been developing a post on the problematic, dangerous and unbiblical approach to interpretation that the YECs use. Their method of interpretation is not healthy for the body of Christ, but rather pernicious. It is so not just because it leads to absurdities like a belief in a 6,000 year old universe, but also because of the far reaching negative effects that it has on our understanding of what God has revealed to us in His Word. The interpretive issues are part of the reason why I believe that Christian leaders, including scholars, pastors, scientists and elders, must take a stand against YECism. I see YECism as being like the prosperity or health and wealth gospels that start from incorrect principles of interpretation (fallible people that they are) and so derive incorrect understandings of scripture (again, fallible people that they are), and then try to foist wrong and improper applications of those principles on people (once again, because they are fallible). However, the fact that we are all fallible, both OEs and YECs, does not mean that we cannot know anything. Of course we can know many things, and some things we can know very certainly. We must exercise wisdom and discernment; YECs are not exercising an adequate amount or degree of either.
Regards,
#John
mbaker
In #662, you said, “We have repeatedly told you that we are not evolutionists, but you are just not listening!”
If you reread # 661 more carefully, you will see that I never accused you of being an evolutionist. What I said was:
“When OE Christians, like yourself, attack young earth creationism, as you have done throughout this blog, whether they like it or not, they are playing right into the hands of evolutionists. They are fighting evolutionists battles for them!”
The point is that an ancient age for the earth is CRUCIAL to evolutionary theory; it absolutely cannot survive without it. YECs are opposing this pillar of the theory. Thus, when OE Christians attack YECs, they are working WITH evolutionists in their opposition to YEC.
To repeat, I did not accuse you of being an evolutionist.
Steve
re posts 673 and 675.
If it weren’t for that fact that I’ve read nonsensical fact-stretching disingenuous stuff like this before from YECs, I’d be rolling on the floor laughing. Next Richard will be telling us that the Bible is amazingly accurate because it reveals that insects actually have only four legs: Leviticus 11:20-23 “11:20 “‘Every winged swarming thing that walks on all fours is detestable to you. 11:21 However, this you may eat from all the winged swarming things that walk on all fours, which have jointed legs to hop with on the land. 11:22 These you may eat from them:20 the locust of any kind, the bald locust of any kind, the cricket of any kind, the grasshopper of any kind. 11:23 But any other winged swarming thing that has four legs is detestable to you.” Oh yes, and bats are really birds, because Leviticus 11: 13-19 states, “11:13 These you are to detest from among the birds . . . 11:19 the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.
Back to snakes and dust: From the Encyclopedia Britannica: “an organ of chemoreception that is part of the olfactory system of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, although it does not occur in all tetrapod groups. It is a patch of sensory cells within the main nasal chamber that detects heavy moistureborne odour particles. Airborne odours, in contrast, are detected by the olfactory sensory cells located in the main nasal chambers. Some groups of mammals also initiate a behaviour known as the flehmen response, in which the animal facilitates the exposure of the vomeronasal organ to a scent or pheromone by opening the mouth and curling the upper lip during inhalation.”
I’d like to point out that a pheromone is not dust, a scent is not dust, and a moistureborne odour particle is not dust. It sticks its tongue into the air; it does not lick dust off the ground. It picks up molecules, not dust (yes, dust floats in the air, but that is neither all nor primarily what it is sensing). And, finally, it DOES NOT EAT dust, it smells molecules. It derives no nourishment from the molecules (the “dust”) and does not pass the “dust” into its digestive tract.
Is it any wonder that YECs are not and should not be believed in either science or Bible interpretation?
Regards,
#John
Richard,
Would you say that if Adam had stumbled over, say, a tree root or stone, and hit his head on a tree, he would not have a bump on the noggin? How would that work? Would the tree become rubbery? Would his head have become rubbery? If he had fallen off a cliff, would gravity have been suspended? The ground become cushiony? Would he bounce to a gentle stop?
There are implications that must be considered in any physical world. I think C.S. Lewis discussed it somewhere. Maybe in ‘The Problem Of Pain.”
Assuming A&E cooked (maybe they preferred their potatoes mashed) how did fire work? Was it hot enough to boil water, but not hot enough to burn?
Regarding the snakes, I hope you’re kidding. The snake’s sensory organs (essentially) differ from a bloodhound’s only in the delivery system. If you insist that snakes eat dust, you also have to say that about lizards, which detect scents the same way. Snakes smell using their tongues and Jaconson’s organ, which, by the way, works just fine without touching the dirt, just as our noses do.
Eating clearly implies nourishment; snakes are not nourished by flicking their tongues.
A flickering tongue, used in reference to eating, is just silly. I would be embarrassed to present it.
re post 677
By that line of reasoning we should also be opposed to animal and plant breeding because those areas of science also play straight into the hands of the evolutionists. Plant and animal breeding deals with natural variation in plants and animals and perpetuates certain variations in the offspring such that the offspring are different from their parents and become different species. If that doesn’t smack of evolutionism I don’t know what does.
Truth is what it is. We cannot and should not deny truth merely because someone else can use the truth in the service of their other ideas and proposals. Evolution needs much more than long periods of time, and even the time involved for the earth is not sufficient to produce the evolutionary changes needed (assuming evolution worked, which it doesn’t but that’s a whole ‘nother argument).
It is completely irrational, illogical, and ungodly to oppose truth (e.g., the ancient age of the earth) simply because it can be used and twisted to serve someone else’s purposes. But that kind of reasoning permeates the ICR, CMI and AIG websites. Again I ask, is it any wonder that YECs are not believed and should not be believed in relation to issues of scientific investigation and Bible interpretation?
And here’s another science tip to the YEC readers: Coneys and hares do not have hooves and do not chew the cud, despite what the Bible appears to say if it is read in a YEC “straightforward” manner. For those who do not read the Bible in a naive manner (i.e., without regard to language, written context, cultural context, etc.), such as OEs, there is no problem with such Scripture passages being true according to their proper interpretation.
Regards
#John
“It picks up molecules, not dust ”
Now who’s reading modern science into scripture.
Note that the response said the statement being a metaphor is reasonable. The further response was clearly ONLY to those trying to make this biblical statement into an inaccuracy.
The common understanding of eating dust would be to put into the mouth. That’s all.
John, are you truly incapable of thinking clearly about this. You seem to have a filter that says “any statement coming from a YEC must be nonsense”.
“It is completely irrational, illogical, and ungodly to oppose truth (e.g., the ancient age of the earth) simply because it can be used and twisted to serve someone else’s purposes. But that kind of reasoning permeates the ICR, CMI and AIG websites.”
Absolute nonsense. “Truth” is not opposed, rather the reasoning that reaches the interpretation of an “ancient” earth is examined and found wanting.
John, your continuous misrepresentations of YEC make this a complete waste of time. Too bad. Try describing what YOU think and how YOU reach your conclusions — in other words, give a reason for what you believe. Stop attacking your YEC strawman.
Ok, John, now tell us the proper interpretation of the “chew the cud” scriptures that you brought up.
Then also, tell us why the statements below (written by a Jewish Christian) are an incorrect “naive” interpretation that ignores culture, etc.
From
http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud
John/Richard:
We saw some wild hyraxes climbing on the rocks when we were at Ein Gedi (En Gedi) in April. They’re cute! I’m sorry I didn’t get a video of them eating to see if they “chew the cud” (I took a few still pictures, though). 😀
re 681 & 682
Strawmen? You haven’t replied to the rebuttal of YEC beliefs regarding the Joggins Cliffs or the Green River Formation. When we’re done with that we can then deal with the absence of significant sediment on the ocean floor in comparison with the continents, the presence of more sediment on or close to the continental shelves in comparison to the mid-oceanic ridges, ice cores, tree ring dating, and the like.
Let’s go back, for a moment to the snake thing. You say, “The common understanding of eating dust would be to put into the mouth.” Um, no. The common understanding of eating is putting something in your mouth, swallowing, and digesting it, not smelling it. My kids when they were babies put things into their mouths and also ate things, and I was able to tell the difference. So could the babies: the things they ate disappeared into their tummies, and the things they didn’t came back out. Next time I eat at home, I’ll take a whiff and then leave the table because I’ve already eaten the meal with my nose.
And what’s this stuff about metaphors? Don’t you know that metaphors are an abuse of the interpretation of the Bible? which should only be interpreted in a straightforward manner? Or do you mean that metaphors are OK as long as they are metaphors according to our 21st century American understanding of what is metaphorical?
I get my YEC stuff straight from the horse’s mouth: the websites of AIG, ICR, CMI, etc. However, if you think that I’m wrong, then by all means present what you believe to be the trued YEC position.
Note that the stuff about the snake comes straight from your quote of a YEC writer, who obviously does not understand (a) what snakes actually do with their tongues and Jacobsen’s organs, nor (b) what eating is, nor (c) what the Bible actually means.
Anyway, I’ve spent most of my posts explaining why OE is correct, not repeating YEC beliefs.
I don’t have any reason to doubt that you sincerely love Jesus and sincerely try to walk closely with him, however, you are sincerely wrong about the age of the earth, sincerely wrong about how one should interpret the Bible, sincerely wrong about what God has said (or not said), and sincerely leading others astray. It is important that other Christians correct and oppose these errors.
I would like to read how you interpret “yom” in more detail, and why you believe it is the only possible interpretation. I’m especially interested in the latter, because I do admit that depending on one’s views about the language, and historical, cultural and linguistic context, one could interpret Genesis 1 as either a 144 hour creation period or a longer one. What I do not agree with is that the 144 hour creation period is the only possible interpretation.
I would also be interested in your responses to the Cliffs and Green River. I’ve not yet read an adequate YEC response.
I hesitate to even bother doing this, but just in case anyone actually believes John’s continued assertions…
I suppose he’ll say that Bryan Naqqi Manco, Senior Conservation Officer, Turks & Caicos National Trust is a closet YEC…
http://www.timespub.tc/tag/fall-2006/
So a snake does indeed pick up dust particles and place them in its mouth….I wonder where they go from there….perhaps through the digestive system to be expelled….
John, show examples of “truth” being opposed “simply because it can be used to serve someone else’s purposes” from the sites you claim it’s from:
You should be able to show several easily since you said it “permeates” these sites.
I spent summers of my youth working on a farm. Cud is what comes up from a cow’s belly into its mouth. I’ve never seen a cow defecate, and then turn around and eat the crap.
The verses in question are: Leviticus 11:5 “And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.” Leviticus 11:6 “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.”
The word translated as “cheweth” is the Hebrew word “`alah” which means “ascend up” (Strong’s word 5927). 2 Thus, “cheweth the cud” would be more accurately translated as “brings up the cud.” So, a straightforward translation is to “bring up”, that is “vomit up” food from the stomach. Not chew what drops down out of the animal’s rear end.
As someone who does not believe in interpreting scripture naively, I can dispense with the straightforward meaning of those verses in favour of an explanation that takes into account all the relevant facts (and not just the straightforward meaning of the English words). I have several options: (a) rabbit’s jaw movements do appear to simulate cud-chewing. Thus the author(s) of Leviticus probably assumed that rabbits and coneys did ruminate (a natural and likely understanding, because it is useful for observing and so identifying which animals are clean to eat.),
(b) the rabbits’ practice of refection, in which they sometimes eat their own feces in order to extract the full nutrition out of food by digesting it twice, because they have a poor digestive system. Refection would be analogous, though not identical to cud chewing, because it serves the same purpose as rumination: recycling partly digested food in order to obtain the full value of the nutrients (not plausible, as there is no evidence that the Hebrews knew this much animal biology),
(c) the concept of chewing cud had a wider meaning in ancient times than at the present, and teh Hebrews classified rabbits and coneys as ruminants because they were simply considered as such in ancient times. This is analogous to the “bat as bird” calssification, where bird simply means the class of “flying things that are not insects”,
(d) “chewing one’s cud” had a different meaning in ancient times and referred to any animal that chewed its food for a long period of time, and
(e) a copyist’s mistake might have been involved. Note that verses 5 and 6 in Leviticus 11 are identical except for the animal (“coney” or more properly “rock badger” in v. 5 and “hare” in v. 6). Some scribe might have accidentally copied the cud chewing phrase from a previous verse and overwritten the original text. The autograph copy of Leviticus might have given a different rationale for forbidding the eating of rabbits and rock badgers. Both may have been considered unclean animals because they eat their own feces; the original version of Leviticus might have stated this.
Steve,
You said:
“The point is that an ancient age for the earth is CRUCIAL to evolutionary theory; it absolutely cannot survive without it. YECs are opposing this pillar of the theory. Thus, when OE Christians attack YECs, they are working WITH evolutionists in their opposition to YEC.”
This is convoluted reasoning to assume that because OE’s believe the geological age of the earth is different than YEC’s, that we “are working WITH evolutionists in their opposition to YEC.”
If YEC’s are “opposing this pillar of the theory” (and I am assuming it is the Theory of Evolution you are speaking about) strictly to disprove evolution, then they are not only unfairly lumping valid OE’s arguments with evolutionist beliefs, they are not going to be taken seriously by their own Christian peers.
God’s truth can always stand up to scrutiny.
Further Thoughts on Straightforward Interpretation
Anyone can see that a snake eats mice and birds and other things by swallowing them whole, and that is completely different from sticking out its tongue to smell the air with an olfactory organ. Unless, of course, it’s straightforward to interpret my smelling of my supper as equivalent to eating it. It is extremely doubtful that the Hebrews even knew what the snakes were doing when the tongue was stuck out (given that no culture discussed the Jacobson’s organ until it was discovered and described in the 1800s by Danish physician L. Jacobson).
Or do we read Genesis Gen 3:14 differently? (3:14 “The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.”) Instead of reading that verse as a straightforward but nonsensical description of what snakes eat, is it not more appropriate and a truer interpretation of God’s Word to see that as a metaphorical description of the serpent as being in a condition of humiliation, slithering so low on its belly that it could not be any lower or more humiliated.
Such an interpretation has been put forward for a long time, far preceding the OE/ YE debate and the issue of evolution. In 1838, G. Bush, in his “Notes, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Genesis: Chapters I-XXI”, wherein he states that “‘Eating the dust’ is but another term for grovelling in the dust, and this is equivalent to being reduced to a condition of meanness, shame, and contempt”.
What is more sensible? To twist the meaning of dust eating in the Bible and the scientifically understood usage of the Jacobson’s organ for smelling so that the use of this organ really means eating? Or to see the metaphorical use of a vivid language to refer to humiliation? To twist the meaning of cud chewing to somehow include refection, or to accept that the straightforward English meaning to a 21st century American is not the meaning to a 1,700/1,300 B.C. Hebrew?
None of the alternative interpretations of snakes or coneys/rock badgers is “straightforward” but rather require an understanding of ANE worldview, ANE beliefs about animals, ANE language, ANE classification schemes, ANE copy and transmission of documents, animal biology, etc. So we see that the whole coney and cud chewing becomes an example of YECs abandoning their “straightforward” interpretation principle whenever it suits them (particularly when it is impossible to derive some sort of straightforward meaning from the text).
As noted in some very early posts on this thread, YECs are inconsistent in their use of “literal” or “straightforward” interpretation. They use it when it suits them, but abandon it when it when necessary. They then turn to other uses of language, such as metaphor or analogy, etc., but refuse to apply those concepts to the…
[continued from my post 690]
They then turn to other uses of language, such as metaphor or analogy, etc., but refuse to apply those concepts to the first chapter of Genesis. Their movement between what is to be taken as straightforward and not-straightforward does not have a consistent or rational basis, and is not rooted in an adequate understanding of how humans (and God) use language in both its spoken and written forms.
re post 687
Perhaps I was not clear enough, and I don’t mean that sarcastically. I was referring to the YEC use of the slippery slope argument, particularly with respect to evolution. I was referring to the fact that the YECs avoid the truth about the age of the earth like it was the Black Plague because they are so worried that it is a broad path to evolution, the abandonment of scripture, moral degeneration, and loss of faith. Here are a few quotes from the AIG website:
Ken Ham: “In this era of history, called a “scientific age,” man has used supposed scientific evidence to discredit God’s Word in people’s eyes. As a result, generations have been led to believe that God’s Word can’t be trusted in Genesis. And subsequent generations have applied this more consistently and now believe God’s Word cannot be trusted from Genesis to Revelation. . . . Remember, if the history in Genesis concerning our origins is not true, the birth of Jesus becomes insignificant. . . , It’s no wonder most people think the Christmas account in the New Testament is no more than fiction, when the first four C’s that give it meaning have been undermined and compromised by evolutionary/millions of years teaching!”
unascribed: “Many theological colleges insist students consider all views of Genesis (e.g.: theistic evolution, progressive creation, day-age theory, gap theory, six-day literal creation, etc.), but dogmatically assert that no one can say which view is right! People fed a diet of toleration lose certainty about Genesis. ‘Perhaps the evolutionists are right after all,’ becomes their nagging doubt. . . . Many Christians confused by lack of authoritative leadership but unwilling to become completely agnostic, attempt to solve their dilemma by adding evolution to the Bible, and God to evolution. The sad success of their false logic results only in an insecure co-operation. . . . The acceptance of evolution makes it necessary to relegate Genesis to myth, allegory, or meaningless symbolism and logically leaves all biblical doctrine without foundation. Sin, salvation, coming judgment and indeed all Christian doctrines removed from their Genesis foundations ultimately cease to be believable. Those who refuse to face their own logic by consistently rejecting the contents of the Bible can only cling wistfully to what they now blindly believe, hoping against hope that something, somewhere is right. Their faith at best is stunted, hemmed in by practical unbelief; at worst faith is discarded.
Further to eating dust
Other examples of the figurative use of eating dust as meaning humiliation, etc. (compare to the English expression, “eat my dust”. It’s a pretty common expression in cultures):
Psalm 44:25 For we lie in the dirt, with our bellies pressed to the ground.
Psalm 72:9 Before him the coastlands will bow down, and his enemies will lick the dust.
Isaiah 25:12 The fortified city (along with the very tops of your walls) he will knock down, he will bring it down, he will throw it down to the dusty ground.
One can also benefit from examining the use of poetic symmetries and assymetries. For a fuller discussion see http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/08/symmetry-asymme.html
But the gist is that a series of correspondences are apparent in the original Hebrew of Genesis 3:14 and 3:17. For an example of the symmetry or correspondences, the serpent is cursed with these words [God to the serpent]:
Cursed are you
among all cattle
and all wild beasts.
On your belly you shall move,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
The ground from which the human came is cursed with these words [God to the human]:
Cursed is the dirt on your account.
It by toil you shall eat
all the days of your life.
If we compare side by side we see:
Cursed are you // Cursed is the dirt
And dust you shall eat // It by toil you shall eat
all the days of your life // all the days of your life
Both the serpent and the human will survive by eating dust / the dirt (a parallel pair in ancient Hebrew). ‘Eat dust’ / ‘eat dirt’ evoke the undercurrent of humiliation the text implies. Neither serpent nor human survive, of course, by ingesting dust /dirt. Rather, the sense is that both must ‘scrape a living from / procure to eat from’ the dirt. The assymetry exists in that God curses the serpent directly but only curses Adam indirectly via a curse on the dirt.
Regards,
#John
Here again we can see that John is speaking correctly when he talks about snakes being dust eating reptiles being metaphorical to describe humiliation. There are several snakes that do not inhabit dusty areas.
One is the water moccasin, a semi aquatic snake, that mainly inhabits swamp lands, like the area I grew up in south Georgia, the other the timber rattler, which mainly inhibits woodlands, where I live now in Washington state.
Not to mention the garter or, garden snakes or king snakes that eat insects and other pests like mice, which affect gardens.
To me, more proof that God can use anything for good, including snakes. So to state that every snake is bad, based upon satan being turned into a snake is necessarily bad, is like saying everything in God’s creation that disposes of bad things is bad.
Don’t think God intended us to think thus.
Let’s see what we’ve learned about dust in the air:
1. some skeptics claim that the snakes “eat dust” verse proves the bible is false
2. to counter this point, a YEC points out that the statement is reasonably metaphor, but EVEN IF someone tried to force it to be taken literally, it’s still within the realm of being true.
3. John rants that snakes “do not lick dust off the ground”, but only molecules to smell, etc…and this is just more “nonsensical fact-stretching disingenuous stuff … from YECs”
4. conservationists speak of a snake picking up dust from air and ground to taste and smell (perhaps a YEC stooge, but not likely) – there are other secular references also, it’s simply a fact.
5. John rants:
6. That YEC writer is a medical doctor, I suspect he understands “eat”, he is correct about what snakes do and John is wrong – snakes DO pick up dust(see 4 above)
John, you continue to make yourself look foolish and insult your audience in the process. Not to mention your continued degradation of fellow Christians. This adds nothing constructive to the discussion.
On a more constructive note (hopefully) I’m truly interested in
John’s answer to 674 – repeated here:
John just wrote:
John, do you really mean this? This implies that pain and suffering were present in Eden for Adam and Eve. — or do you think that Adam and Eve in Eden were not subject to the same types of “regularities and constants” that govern biology today? Please explain your thinking.
John, you’re doing a wonderful job of holding the fort against the YEC position, but I’m curious why you reject “Darwinian” evolution and cite the ID movement with approval. You seem to be an evidence-based thinker, which is good. Have you explored the evidence for evolution? Do you really think the ID movement has the better of it? If so, why?
For the record and just so everyone knows where I am coming from, I am an evangelical Christian, PhD in Biology, and I accept modern evolutionary theory. You may all throw things now. 🙂
I reject ID because of the same reasons I reject YEC and OEC – poor scholarship.
Greg, your explanation of the ANE context of Genesis was great – you sound like you’ve been reading John Walton. The link is to some online lectures, one by Walton. Perhaps some might be interested.
re 695
Licking dust is not eating it, even if I were to agree that is what snakes do. As to what snakes actually do, I’d sooner go with the Encyclopedia Britannica than some talk intended to be received at a popular level. As for the dust, what most people and what ANE peoples would think of as dust is the stuff that gets kicked up by sandals, etc., generally large, visible particles. While such particles would land on a snakes tongue (I’ve yet to see a snake drag it’s tongue through the dust), what a snake actually smells with its Jacobson’s Organ are microscopic particles. So OK, if a dust mote is microscopic, then I guess it gets smelled. But the bottom line is that licking and smelling is not eating by any stretch of the imagination but yet eating is what is claimed on all YEC websites that I’ve seen. YECs claim that snakes actually eat dust because they claim that they must take that statement in Genesis literally, in a “straightforward” manner. Thus they twist what snakes actually do (smell) and what scripture says (eat) into a weird claim that they are equivalent, that smelling is eating. If you, Richard, can accept that the Biblical expression “eat dust” is figurative language, great, you’re miles ahead of most YECs.
re 698
I’ve already posted lengthy discussions of pre-Adamic pain and “suffering” and referred to offsite articles and books. To be embodied physically in this natural universe is to experience pain, but pain is not necessarily an evil but rather a good. If others can’t follow what I’ve written and indicate so, then I’ll write more, otherwise I’m moving on. I note, Richard, that you keep wanting to know what “I” believe, as if I must necessarily believe and be committed to only one idea or view. However, I’m satisfied if I have OE options that are plausible; I don’t feel any need to pick between them. The option that I cannot commit to, or even believe is a potential option, is YEC. YECs, on the other hand, believe there is only one option.
re 697
Discussion evolution is certainly on the table in this thread, but it is quite long already. My focus has been whether YEC is a valid option for Christians and one that should be “left on the table”. I believe that it is not, and that the evidence, both scripturally and scientifically, is such that it is completely and clearly eliminated as an option. I think it would be great if CMP would have someone post a separate thread on theistic or other evolution, and I would contribute to it. I think that the strongest objection to materialist evolution is that it is impossible to get life from non-life. No materialist has ever put forth anything that even remotely comes close to solving that problem. Part of that problem is that life entails information, and the nonliving material universe is incapable of organizing itself to create information. Randomness cannot generate increasing complexity. Etc.
I ask about John’s “pain and suffering” statement (which he reaffirmed), related to Adam and Eve in Eden. John’s answer here is completely non-responsive as “pre-Adamic” has nothing to do with Eden.
John is avoiding answering this question. He prefers to say he has many plausible options, but doesn’t want to commit to any. However, he won’t attempt to defend explicit statements that he himself has made.
Herein is a major difference. As is typical of YECs, I actually believe that there was an Eden and that the creation was truly different prior to the fall.
Apparently John does not believe that Eden (if it existed – not sure what he thinks) was different than the world today. He thinks that the same “regularities and constants” that operate today have always operated in exactly the same way.
So John, did people really live to be 900+ years old or is that me reading my worldview into scripture? I expect to see dragged out the secular lists of people with enormous ages, however, I happen to believe that scripture is inspired and thus differs from secular literature.
re post 799
I think that “pre-adam’s sin” cover’s everything in creation prior to that, including Eden. If Richard thinks that it is possible for an embodied creature (man or animal) to be free from pain in any physical universe, or that pain is always an evil, he is free to argue that or to rebut what I have presented as being the more plausible option. I’ve yet to see either, but I will interact with whatever is provided.
Both YECs and OEs agree that sin fundamentally affected humans, which would include their longevity, so I fail to see why a decrease in human lifespan is a problem, especially since God later on establishes by decree a much shorter life span (the precise verse escapes me, but I think it was 120 years).
I’m still waiting for an effective YEC response to the Joggins Cliffs and the Green River Formation (my read of Richard’s emails and the YEC websites is that it is currently an unanswerable problem for them).
In regard to any strawmen that Richard believes I have constructed in order to more easily defeat the YEC positions, I will gladly be corrected. I request that Richard point out what he believes to be the strawman and then present what he believes to be the truer, stronger YEC position. I will then provide rebutting and/or undermining defeaters to that position.
What I will do next is further explore why YECs find an OE interpretation so dangerous, and then make an important and enlightening comparison.
Ken Ham, AIG website: “What has happened to cause the Church to unlock this ‘door’ and reinterpret the meaning of marriage?
Personally, I believe men of God, many of whom have been deeply committed to the authority of God’s Word and the proclamation of the Gospel, have unwittingly opened this door that has opened the way for the destruction of the Christian framework in nations.
How could they have done this? In various articles, and through messages at seminars and on tapes and videos, we have clearly illustrated how many Christian leaders have accepted the belief in millions and billions of years of history and have used this to re-interpret the days of Creation, and allowed death and disease before sin, and so on.”
One of the challenges I have been giving Christian leaders in recent times is this: ‘You may preach authoritatively from the Word of God, insisting on its infallibility and verbal, plenary inspiration, but then … if you teach people they can accept the belief in billions of years and add this to Scripture, you have then unlocked a door in how to approach God’s Word’ (i.e., undermining hermeneutical principles). The new hermeneutic that is being taught, then, is this: one can interpret God’s Word using man’s fallible opinions. Thus man is put in authority over the Word.
[cont.]