Six Views on the Creation/Evolution Debate

Now let’s examine radiometric dating from John’s list. Does it really prove an old earth?

Potassium-argon method: http://creation.com/how-potassium-argon-dating-works

Briefly, potassium decays to the gas argon. The relative amounts of each are measure from a specimen, some initial conditions are assumed, and the amount of time it would take to produce what was measured is calculated. However, if the date is calculated as too old (meaning more argon was measured than expected), then it is claimed the there is “excess argon” that somehow got into the sample and is not the result of potassium decay. If too young an age is calculated, the it is claimed that argon escaped from the sample. Since argon is a gas it can move fairly easily. Very convenient…

Now a real world example of how it radiometric dating works in practice. Several times a date was “securely” and “reliably” dated by multiple methods…only to be discarded later.

A layer of volcanic ash in East Africa, called the KBS tuff, became famous through the human fossils found nearby.1

Using the potassium-argon method, Fitch and Miller were the first to measure the age of the tuff. Their result of 212–230 million years did not agree with the age of the fossils (elephant, pig, ape and tools) so they rejected the date. They said the sample was contaminated with excess argon.2

Using new samples of feldspar and pumice they ‘reliably dated’ the tuff at 2.61 million years, which agreed nicely.

Later, this date was confirmed by two other dating methods (paleomagnetism and fission tracks), and was widely accepted.

Then Richard Leakey found a skull (called KNM-ER 1470) below the KBS tuff, a skull that looked far too modern to be 3 million years old.

So Curtis and others redated the KBS tuff using selected pumice and feldspar samples, and obtained an age of 1.82 million years. This new date agreed with the appearance of the new skull.3

Tests by other scientists using paleomagnetism and fission tracks confirmed the lower date.

So by 1980 there was a new, remarkably concordant date for the KBS tuff, and this became the one that was widely accepted.

Which illustrates that, contrary to popular belief, the dating methods are not the primary way that ages are decided. The dating methods do not lead but follow. Their results are always ‘interpreted’ to agree with other factors, such as the evolutionary interpretation of geology and fossils.
References and notes

1. For more information see Lubenow, M.L., The pigs took it all, Creation 17(3):36–38, 1995; .
2. Fitch, F.J. and Miller, J.A., Radioisotopic age determinations of Lake Rudolf artifact site, Nature 226(5242):226–228, 1970.
3. Curtis, G.H., et al., Age of KBS Tuff in Koobi Fora Formation, East Rudolf, Kenya, Nature 258:395–398, 4 December 1975.

All the gory details here — it’s actually quite funny!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp

Though not strictly on topic, specific dating schemes are related, and if others are interested I’m willing to continue responding to Richard. Before I begin, however, I draw to your attention the difference between the science in the fields of evolution and geological dating. In evolution there are fierce disputes and debates, and creationists regularly used them to embarrass the evolutionists. But the evolutionists don’t care; there is science at stake and career advancement. There are no such disputes and debates in the field of geological dating; there are no such disputes about the methodology and trivial disputes about the dates arrived at (I use the word trivial, because the disputes are over a few million years in estimates of hundreds of millions, which is of no help to the YEC). In addition, the critiques of creationists or intelligent design theorists have caused significant responses by evolutionists and changes or corrections to theories, and even outright abandonment of former lines of evidence. The critiques of YECs have caused no changes whatsoever in the field of geological dating. NONE.

An excellent overview of radiometric dating is given by Dr. Roger C. Wiens at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html. Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech’s Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

From his preface: “Radiometric dating–the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements–has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating. This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today.”

Regards,
#John

Potassium-Argon, or K-Ar, dating is useful for ages from around 1 million to a few billion. The reason there is a difference is the respective half life of the radioisotopes.

The radioactive decay rate (or half life) has been established for all naturally occurring radioisotopes to well within 1% accuracy, and that rate is not disputable. The concentrations of various isotopes in geological and archeological samples can be determined by mass spectrometry to well within 1%, and that accuracy is not disputable.

The problems in any type of radiometric dating is to be certain that the ratio of parent isotope to daughter product has not been altered by some external method such as natural or artifical contamination. The accuracy can be determined mathematically when multiple data sets from multiple samples are obtained. Therefore, radiometric dates will almost certainly be accompanied by a “+/-” notation giving the reliability of the data. The more samples are collected and analyzed, and the closer they are to each other, the higher the level of certainty is on the resulting data.

YEC’s will point to disputes between scientists over dates at a particular site, and ignore the fact that the scientists are disputing errors of a few million years in an estimate of hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, YEC’s ignore the thousands of dates obtained around the world using this method where there is no dispute and the ages obtained are considered accurate.

Dr. Kevin Henke is Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Kentucky. He has written a number of articles exposing and refuting YEC’s critiques of radiometric dating methods. In one of his critiques he concludes, “For scientists that want errors well-below +/-1%, the precision and accuracy of Argon-Argon (Ar40-Ar39) dates for different standards or samples may not always comply with these strict requirements. However, from the perspective of young-Earth creationism, these errors are far too trivial to serve their needs.” (from “How Serious are Errors in Ar40-Ar39 Dates and How Good are Their Monitoring Standards?”)

G. Brent Dalrymple is a geochronologist with 40 years experience and publishing in this area, a pioneer in the identification of excess argon in igneous samples, and an outspoken critic of young-Earth creationism. Two recent, well received publications include: Dalrymple, G. B., 1984, ‘How Old is the Earth?: A Reply to “Scientific” Creationism,’ in Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, vol. 1, pt. 3, Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (Eds). And: Dalrymple, G.B., 1991, The Age of the Earth, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, USA.

And of course, the death knell for YEC: light.

Regards,
#John

Richard,

Can you provide any evidence for a young earth by people or organizations who do not have a prior commitment to an interpretation of scripture?

And just to point this out, but science is always in constant motion. Just because something cannot be explained now does not mean it can never be explained.

Post #141:

“So let’s drop the failed argument that God couldn’t communicate accurately, and instead pay attention to what He actually did communicate….”

OK, lets do that.

Genesis 1:6-7
And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.

Genesis 1:14-17
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth

1. The Bible says the expanse was made to separate the water below it from the water above it.
2. The Bible says the sun, moon, and stars were placed in the expanse.
3. Thus, there is water above the sun, moon, and stars.

Further scripture supports this:

Psalm 148:3-4
Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!
Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!

This view doesn’t fit modern science very well. But it does fit quite nicely within an Ancient Near Eastern worldview. Of course this idea is all hogwash to you, because God wasn’t writing to people in the Ancient Near East, but to people like you who have wonderful modern concepts of Truth that must be satisfied, and the only ones who can truly understand it 3,000 years after it was written.

I’ll repeat my claim: Any interpretation that attempts to find modern science, in any form, in scripture ignores the historical context and does violence to scripture through eisegesis.

Richard,

“A few of many young Earth dating methods”

Going from memory, many of these “methods” have been disproved or shown to ignore outside factors. Many of them are on the Talk Origins website I provided here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Please, please, please check these things first before you go touting them as evidence for your position. As John so nicely put it, much of what your bringing to the table is nothing but pyrite gold.

I said previously if you want to get into this, give me three of your best reasons for a young earth, from non-Christian sources, and we’ll look at them. I see John has already commented on your potassium/argon post.

Richard, I’d like you to interpret these two scriptures for me:

Genesis 7:17-24
The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.

Genesis 8:13-14
In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth had dried out.

I have a few questions:
1. In Genesis 7 is the entire earth covered with water?
2. In Genesis 8 is all the water on the earth dried up?
3. If it’s not all dried up, how come you don’t take 8:14 literally like the rest of the narrative?
4. Can you justify why you change your hermeneutic mid-stride?
5. If you do take it literally, how come we still have water present on the earth?
6. If “earth” means the global earth in chapter 7, why wouldn’t it mean that in chapter 8 as well?

Keep a few things in mind:

1. The Hebrew words for “earth” in 7:19 and 8:14 are the same.
2. The same global language is used in both sections of scripture.
3. In 8:13 Noah saw that the ground was dry, in 8:14 the narrator of Genesis states the earth had dried out. Both perspectives are presented.

I make the charge that YEC are inconsistent in their interpretations, and only interpret the text in a fashion that favors a prior commitment. I do not think you can interpret these passages consistently according to the parameters YEC has imposed on scripture regarding a truly global flood.

John CT: “Returning to TUaD’s post, like him I am unconvinced by Darwinian evolution (of any variety),…”

Love it!!!

Love it!!!

Love it!!!

If anything, I’m really just against neo-Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis.

I’m agnostic between a young earth or old earth.

Firmly advocate a literal Adam and Eve.

cheryl u Can you tell us more of what it was in the science that convinced you to believe a young earth position?

It was a while ago so to mention which specific evidences at the time were convincing would be difficult. But many of the problems with evolutionary theory and the fact that creation theory gave much better explanations was convincing. It wasn’t as if I was predisposed to evolution, but I don’t remember having much of a creationist upbringing. State school and not covered in church. Statements like the days could be long because the sun wasn’t made till day 4 seemed reasonable at the time (though I no longer think like this). But if you take John’s list in comment 137, I do not view that as evidence for an old earth or evolutionary theory. All of it fits easily within a creationist paradigm, and some of the points are much more convincing for creationism once you look into it in some depth.

For example, fossilised tracks and raindrops means that such phenomena must have been covered very quickly. Tracks, and especially raindrops, disappear very quickly. Whereas Flood geology states that the fossilisation process begins very rapidly. So mud from the flood would cover tracks etc very quickly after it formed. And there was plenty of rain during the Flood to allow fossilised raindrops. Whereas the evolutionary paradigm states that the fossilisation process happens very slowing. But the tracks, or dead organisms would be degraded before they could be preserved. This is understood by several evolutionists so there is a move toward catastrophism within evolutionary circles. They postulate multiple catastrophes as opposed to creationists who propose 1 main one.

So the whole thing is somewhat ironic. Creationists are mocked for believing in catastrophic phenomena, then evolutionists realise that the solution to fossilisation is catastrophe which they borrow from the creationists, then they continue to mock the creationists.

Just to be clear,

natural selection,
genetic inheritance,
plate tectonics, and
catastrophic geology

were all first described by creationists.
are all

cheryl u I guess I am specifically wondering if you know how or if what has been said about the information received in light is interpreted differently by scientists reaching this conclusion.

I don’t quite get what you are asking here. Several comments have been made about light in this thread.

The issue is that God can create with an appearance of age, but most suggest that it would be at the level of what is required for creation. So several different types of rock as a foundation for the earth is reasonable, to claim that fossils of animals were created in the position to make it look like they were buried despite never existing seems not congruent with God’s nature. Thus most creationists, and most people, think fossils represent real animals.

Now God created stars but they are a long way away, and Adam would not have seen them until the light travelled here. Now God could have created the light in transit which I think is fits with necessity of appearance of age. The problem is that this light carries information. It carried information about what each star is made from, and how fast it spins, becoming brighter (nova), and when it explodes (supernova), etc. Now I happen to think that the first 2 of these pieces of “information” are legitimate to put into created light in transit. But putting in information for the star’s destruction if it never happened seems a little like creating fossils of animals that never existed. Thus creationists think that supernova represent true star destruction.

So the problem is: how did the light get from the star to earth in so short a period?

Now this is a real problem. However the stellar evolutionists have exactly the same problem. The temperature of space is uniform and there is not enough time for light to have travelled across space to equalise temperatures, even with billions of years. This is well recognised by evolutionists and is called the “horizon problem.”

Before we propose any solutions what is extremely important to note is that both creation theory and stellar evolutionary theory have a light travel time problem.

Even if we do not know what the solution is, it is logically invalid to dismiss creationism because of the light travel problem in favour of evolution when it has exactly the same problem. Goose and gander and all.

Now as it so happens, solutions are proposed by both schools. Now one may favour one over another, but if your solution has no scientific validation, it is tenuous to use the solution as proof of the truth of your theory. All you can do is claim you have rescued your theory.

The main solution of evolutionists for the light transit problem is the inflationary big bang model.

Creationists have proposed

c decay
white hole cosmology
Carmeli cosmology

While c decay (slowing of the speed of light) is out of favour with most creationists, I have some time for it.

Genesis was written for people who believed in a steady state, but we believe the universe is expanding. The reason that we can see to the limits of the universe (provided we have strong enough lenses) is that at one time it was all very small and very close to us. While space and the objects in it are expanding, the speed of light is constant. Therefore, I don’t see a light transit problem.

Greg: “And just to point this out, but science is always in constant motion.”

Thanks for pointing out fallible human enterprise.

Greg: “Just because something cannot be explained now does not mean it can never be explained.”

Sounds like a Biblical Inerrantist!

Greg,

Going from memory, many of these “methods” have been disproved or shown to ignore outside factors. Many of them are on the Talk Origins website I provided here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Please, please, please check these things first before you go touting them as evidence for your position. As John so nicely put it, much of what your bringing to the table is nothing but pyrite gold.

First, talkorigins is not the source of all truth, and they have not “disproved” the claims of creationists related to dating methods. Please try reading the published rebuttals from the creationist scientists to the talkorigins stuff before you go touting them as having been refuted.

Greg, (post 157)

Genesis 7:17-24
The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.

Let’s see there are at least 7 qualifiers used (eg, ‘all’, ‘every’, ‘everything’, etc) that make if very plain that the entire globe was covered with water. Do you disagree with this?

Genesis 8:13-14
In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth had dried out.

Here there are NO GLOBAL qualifiers related to the term “earth” at all. Thus, the context clearly allows this to mean a partial drying of the earth — specifically in the vicinity of the ark. There is no contradiction here at all.

I have a few questions:
1. In Genesis 7 is the entire earth covered with water?
2. In Genesis 8 is all the water on the earth dried up?
3. If it’s not all dried up, how come you don’t take 8:14 literally like the rest of the narrative?
4. Can you justify why you change your hermeneutic mid-stride?
5. If you do take it literally, how come we still have water present on the earth?
6. If “earth” means the global earth in chapter 7, why wouldn’t it mean that in chapter 8 as well?

my answers:
1. clearly yes
2. clearly no
3. I do consistently interpret the text
4. I did not do so.
5. red herring —
6. answered above…

I make the charge that YEC are inconsistent in their interpretations, and only interpret the text in a fashion that favors a prior commitment.

I’ll make the charge that you appear to have a prior commitment to NO GLOBAL FLOOD, and thus are trying to force a contradiction into the scripture text that is not there to justify disbelieving what it clearly says.

John,

The radioactive decay rate (or half life) has been established for all naturally occurring radioisotopes to well within 1% accuracy, and that rate is not disputable.

There was a 10 yr battle over what the age of skull KNM-ER 1470. The context is critical — this was a battle over which fossil finds were going to be more important, and the age assigned to skull 1470 was very much in dispute. In this process many papers were published and it is amazing to watch how this progressed. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0816dating-game.asp for the details. Below are a couple of interesting items related to “not disputable” decay rates. [I was personally amazed when I first read this many years ago.]

Anthony J. Hurford, A. J. W. Gleadow, and C. W. Naeser, “Fission-track dating of pumice from the KBS Tuff, East Rudolf, Kenya,” Nature 263 (28 October 1976): 739. “Using these techniques and a value for the 238U spontaneous fission decay constant of 6.85×10-17 yr-1 we have obtained ages on standard zircons which agree very closely with their independently known ages.”

This result was 2.44 Myr and correlated with previously published ages using “independent” methods.

However, in the 16 June 1977 issue of Nature appeared a letter from G. A. Wagner of the Max Planck Institute in West Germany. Wagner maintained that there is uncertainty as to the spontaneous fission constant of uranium 238, and that Hurford et al. should have used a different constant:

… many fission-track specialists no longer use the 6.85×10-17 yr-1 value, but now use as the decay constant 8.46×10-17 yr-1; there are good reasons for this preference. If this higher value for the decay constant is used, the fission-track age of the pumice in the KBS tuff recalculates to 1.98 Myr, which would lend support to the K-Ar age measured by Curtis et al.

Hurford et al. defended their use of the uranium 238 constant by saying:

“When it is used in conjunction with the fission track glass standards of the U.S. National Bureau of Standards, we get the best agreement with the K-Ar ages of co-existing minerals and we use it for this reason.”

In other words, the true value of the spontaneous fission constant of uranium 238 was unknown. At least two values were currently in use. In matters of fission-track dating, one is thus free to use the value that gives him the answer he is looking for. The difference in the two dates is almost half a million years in dealing with a date of only about two to two-and-a-half million. 1.98 vs 2.44 Myr is a difference of 23%. That hardly seems like precision dating.

Regarding radiometric dating, John wrote the following:

There are no such disputes and debates in the field of geological dating; there are no such disputes about the methodology and trivial disputes about the dates arrived at (I use the word trivial, because the disputes are over a few million years in estimates of hundreds of millions, which is of no help to the YEC).

Apparently he did not read my post 152 very carefully. The differences in calculated ages can be enormous, and the published dates are often selected dates from a wide scatter. Regarding the KBS Tuff (and thus skull 1470), the calculated age started at 212-230 Myr, but the expected age was much smaller due to associated fossils. That is, they knew what age they wanted to begin with. They wrote:

“From these results it was clear that an extraneous Argon age discrepancy was present…It would only be possible to date this tuff by careful extraction of undoubtedly juvenile components for analysis.”

So they state that they will have to deliberately select young components for analysis…thus throwing out the others.

Now keep in mind that the finally accepted date was about 1.88 Myr. In other words, less than .9% of the lower bound of 212 Myr calculated by K-Ar.

Further, in 1969 an age of 2.61 Myr was determined by multiple techniques (after discarding the K-Ar 212-230 Myr age). Then in 1974 the same scientists (Fitch, Miller) published another study to confirm this. They dated 10 samples with calculated ages from .52 Myr to 2.64 Myr and concluded that this confirmed the age of 2.61 Myr.

In 1975 Curtis, et al, determined an age of 1.6 – 1.82 Myr (scatter of 1.5 – 6.9 Myr). In refuting the 2.61 Myr date determined by Fitch and Miller, they criticized the samples used, the dating method selected, and their laboratory technique.

Also, see my post about the use of 2 different uranium decay “constants”, and hopefully you begin to get a feel for how these techniques are really used. All calculated dates are subject to a filter of what date was expected.

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. (2 Pet 3:3-7)

Peter believed in a global flood, and prophesied that scoffers would come who “deliberately” forget about two things: 1 – the creation documented in the first chapter of Genesis, and 2 – the global judgement of the flood. He implies that they do so to ignore the coming judgment. This prophecy began to be fulfilled in a big way with the advent of uniformitarian geology, which deliberately replaced flood geology. see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0828turning_point.asp

Bethyada addressed the light travel time problem, and the fact that it exists for both YEC and big bang cosmologies. I’d like to add that the “inflation” solution proposed for the big bang has no known physical cause to either start it nor stop it – and thus is pure speculation to rescue an otherwise failed model (the big bang).

Fact is that there is no model of origins completely consistent with known physical laws. This is no surprise to a creationist, of course.

bethyada,

I think you understood what I asked. Thanks for your answers.

It really bothers me that in the year 2009 we are still debating if a 2000 year old book, written by people who had no concept of science as we know it, accurately describes the creation of the earth and mankind.

When said book tells us that there’s water in the heaven and that the earth was created in six days, among other things? It’s disillusioning to me as a parent when my daughter has a friend who is taught in school that there were no such things as dinosaurs.

Do you know how that makes us look? Placing the Bible at the center of science, with the role of science being to prove the Bible is correct rather than to advance our knowledge of God’s creation?

You may not care how we look to the rest of the world, but I think an image of a world leader is important to our security. The less rational we appear, the less respect we get.

Further, there are a great many examples of people losing their faith when they get to college and learn that what they took as fact is metaphor.

When our interpretation of scripture is so misaligned with the facts on the ground that it turns people away from God, rather than demonstrating the majesty of God, then we are doing wrong.

Theological debates are interesting — until they reach the point of damaging our nation and our children, and increasing the rise of atheism.

There is the implication from several here that the consensus scientific view is accurate about the age (and hence origin) of the universe. I’ve posted earlier on the difficulties in accounting for the first stars. BTW, similar problems exist in explaining galaxies, cluster, super clusters, etc. No one has even attempted to respond.

If a theory which purports to explain the universe can’t explain stars and galaxies, then exactly how good is it??

John the Fisherman,

I haven’t commented as yet on this thread, but have been keeping up with all the posts.

You stated that:

“When our interpretation of scripture is so misaligned with the facts on the ground that it turns people away from God, rather than demonstrating the majesty of God, then we are doing wrong.”

I believe in OEC for that very reason. It seems to me that God’s natural laws would certainly hold up to scientific scrutiny much better under the OEC scenario. And vice versa. Except for the theory of evolution, one can then see a harmony in a great many respects without dismantling the Bible accounts, or insistence that proven scientific facts are wrong.

Notice I say proven. Evolution remains a theory.

I don’t believe that evolution, however, could have put things in the perfect natural order they are, regarding life. That’s why I believe if the theory now held by science were true, we would have lots of human beings still in various stages of emerging from reptiles, fiash, or the newest discovery “Ida”, which the evolutionists are so excited about.

So an OEC, with a literal Adam and Eve, who were created when all was in perfect order to give them everything necessary for physical survival and the cognitive thought to make decisions other than instinctual ones, plus the spiritual understanding to know right from wrong, as well as to be able to know and speak with God directly, would certainly make more sense to me in the context of what you are saying.

Does it bother anyone else that in Genesis 1:16, the moon is described in the same way as the sun – a light. Matter of fact, a great light. Yet the moon is not a light, i.e., does not generate light, but is a reflector of the sun’s light. I would think that everyone would agree on that, and view the Genesis description as limited by ancient understanding, but not literally true or accurate. But then why take everything else literally?

For those who insist the Genesis account is literally accurate, do you also insist the moon is a great light in the same or similar way as the sun? I would think you’d have to to be consistent.

Genesis does not say that the moon generates light, nor that the sun generates light. However, they both are the source of light that reaches the earth, are they not? So it’s completely consistent to understand that they both are lights.

BTW if one really wants to get picky, and light is just part of the em spectrum, then the moon does radiate doesn’t it.

Is a headlight on your car a “light” or not? In most cases a bulb generates the light, but it is reflected outward by the encasing structure. One is not inaccurate to refer to it as a “light”.

Below is part of a response to the question about creationists taking the Bible “literally”.

(see http://creation.com/why-do-you-take-the-bible-literally, and http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally for more info on this)

—–
Thank you for contacting [us]. I think you’ve misunderstood how we interpret the Bible. You incorrectly state that we take the Bible literally, which we don’t, although we understand that the events recorded in Genesis are literal history. Let me explain in more detail to avoid confusion.

The Bible gives us principles of interpretation in 2 Corinthians 4:2 and Proverbs 8:8–9:

Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Corinthians 4:2).

All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or perverted in them. They are all straightforward to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge (Proverbs 8:8–9).

In other words, we are to read and understand the Bible in a plain or straightforward manner. This is usually what people mean when they say “literal interpretation of the Bible” (this phrase is common among those not well-versed in hermeneutics). I try to use the term “plainly” so I don’t confuse people.

Reading the Bible “plainly” means understanding that literal history is literal history, metaphors are metaphors, poetry is poetry, etc. The Bible is written in many different literary styles and should be read accordingly. This is why we understand that Genesis records actual historical events. It was written as historical narrative, as outlined in Should Genesis be taken literally?

Reading the Bible plainly/straightforwardly (taking into account literary style, context, authorship, etc.) is the basis for what is called the historical-grammatical method of interpretation which has been used by theologians since the church fathers. This method helps to eliminate improper interpretations of the Bible.

For example, I once had someone say to me (who was not a Christian), “the Bible clearly says “there is no God’ in Psalms 14:1.” When you look up the verse and read it in context, it says:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good (Psalm 14:1).

So the context helps determine the proper interpretation—that a fool was saying this.
…

Richard,

That’s the kind of quibbling away at the plain text that I expected.

The moon is not a source of light, just as the headlight is not a light, in spite of the name. If the bulb in the headlight were to fail, you do not still have light, regardless of what you call the thing.

If the sun were to stop working, it would be plain that the moon is not a light.

I don’t buy your argument. If you’re going to take the Genesis account literally, you can’t switch back and forth. To be accurate, the text would have to say that God made a light and a reflector of light. But that is not what it says. It says the moon is a light. You should be arguing that it really is.

Dave,

Try reading my post on interpreting the Bible in the plain straight forward manner.

Taking your logic to its conclusion it is inaccurate to say that the sun is a source of light. Rather one would need to describe the precise matter/energy reaction occurring with the sun that actually results in the light.

Since light travels from the moon to the earth it *is* a source of light to the earth.

To Richard:

Richard, I want to extend my hearty thanks for your wonderful defense of YEC in this blog! You have put a tremendous amount of time and thought into your comments. I greatly admire your persistence! It is very obvious that you have done a great deal of research into this fascinating, and vital, subject.

As my posts (#s 89, 109, 125, & 139) indicate, I too am a devout believer in YEC. I would very much like to maintain contact with you when this blog dies and was wondering if you could send me your email address. If you have reservations about this, let me know, and I will send you mine.

Warm regards from your Christian brother

Steve

Genesis 1 acknowledges the sun as a source of light and a timekeeper. It misses the fact that the sun makes life on earth possible, perhaps deliberately in order to discourage sun worship.

About the moonlight issue: God was communicating to people that there was a body which gave light during the day, the sun and a different body which gave light at night, the moon. “God made the two great lights– the greater light to rule over the day, and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth” Gen.1:16-18

Do not the sun and the moon, and stars shine on the earth? Yes. How exactly do you think God should have worded this, so that people of all times could understand it? He spoke in straightforward terms which all could observe and understand. I heard Hank Hanegraaff speak briefly of the creation debate the other day. He said, “Sometimes we are asking questions which the text (God) wasn’t intending to answer.” God told us the basics of creation. He didn’t enumerate all of the technical details, or we would have a Bible so big we couldn’t lift it. Even the narrative of Jesus’ birth, for instance, is very lean… stated concisely and simply. Sometimes it’s worth asking: Why did God give us THIS information? Why didn’t He word it another way? You have to consider the broad audience which God intended to communicate with…. namely, ALL of mankind.

Susan writes:
“Sometimes we are asking questions which the text (God) wasn’t intending to answer.” I agree. I just think it applies to the seven day creation as well. I have no issue with the wording of Genesis. The point is that if someone insists on a absolute literal reading, then the moon must be a light, not just a reflector. The sun and moon are fundamentally different, yet Genesis would indicate they are similar. If taken literally, as YEC folks insist.

I have not researched this; it hit me only today, but I think someone with no other source of information would assume from the text that the only difference between the sun and the moon would be “greater” and “lesser.”

TUAD,

Re: #162

“Thanks for pointing out fallible human enterprise.”

You’re welcome. I’ve also pointed out the idea of having access to incomplete data do to inherent limitations, whether human or technological. Not knowing the right answer isn’t always due to our fallibility.

“Sounds like a Biblical Inerrantist!”

It’s called keeping an open mind to the possibility of new evidence shedding light on things that are not understood today. YEC might do well to keep this concept in mind concerning current studies in the Ancient Near East and the light they shed on interpreting Genesis.

I have no problem with calling the moon a ‘light’ personally. I guess it all comes down to how you define light. Genesis 1:3-5 describes God’s introduction of light to the world BEFORE He created the sun. So, perhaps when you are the creator of the universe, you are not limited to certain objects which generate light. Perhaps God’s definition of light differs from yours. As I see it the moon casts light on the earth at night, to the extent that it even produces shadows. It IS a light in the nighttime sky. I think that you are being nit-picky, but I will give you a different tidbit to chew on. This note appears in the NET translation of Genesis:

“Two great lights. The text goes to great lengths to discuss the creation of these lights, suggesting that the subject was very important to the ancients. Since these “lights” were considered to be deities in the ancient world, the section serves as a polemic (see G Hasel, The Polemical Nature of Genesis Cosmology”). The book of Genesis is affirming that they are created entities, not dieties. To underscore this the text does not even give them names. If used here, the usual names for the sun and the moon (Shemesh and Yarih) might have carried pagan connotations, so they are simply described as the greater and lesser lights. Moreover, they serve the capacity that God gives them, which would not be the normal function the pagans ascribed to them. They merely divide, govern, and give light in God’s creation.”

Richard,

Re: #164

I respect your justification for your inconsistency, but its not good enough. I tried to help you keep a few things in mind, namely that the Hebrew word used for “earth” that was attached to all your qualifiers was the same word used in 8:13-14 for “earth”. Remember that in 8:13 the word for “ground” is different from that for “earth”, so your excuse that it referred to the vicinity of the ark is unfounded. Clearly 8:13b refers to Noah’s immediate location, but 8:14 provides the narrator’s “universal” point of view.

Looking at how “erats” is used in Genesis, your interpretation cannot be supported .

“Erats” is used often and consistently within Genesis up until chapter 10 (I stopped looking after that), and unless the context is obviously referring to a limited geographical area, like land through which a river flows (Genesis 2:13), it is used in a global sense. You cannot make a case based on an absence of global qualifiers. The qualifiers that Genesis does use to imply “erats” doesn’t mean “earth” are examples similar to 2:13, where the context explicitly implies a limited area, such as:

Genesis 1:10
Genesis 1:11
Genesis 1:12
Genesis 1:24
Genesis 2:11
Genesis 2:12
Genesis 2:13
Genesis 4:16
Genesis 10:5
*These are from the NET Bible.

I didn’t find any areas without qualifiers where “earth” didn’t mean “earth”. So your claim that the context doesn’t allow for a global earth in 8:14 because there are no global qualifiers present is not consistent with its usage in Genesis. A localized usage brings an obvious context with it. Genesis 8:14 does not have that, so there is no reason to read it like that.

Further, when the narrator refers to certain times, as he does in Genesis 7:11-12 and Genesis 8:13-14, he uses similar terminology. In the first case “erats” is used in a global sense. There is no reason to assume the second and third occurrence of “erats” should be understood differently from the first, especially given the fact there are no localized qualifiers used.

“Thus, the context clearly allows this to mean a partial drying of the earth…”

It just “allows” it to mean this? I think I detect a lack of certainty in your wording.

But my charge for inconsistency still stands. Even now you have demonstrated that it is OK to flip back and forth between a global and local perspective as it suits your needs, even when the context does not allow it. I think you should pick a perspective and stick with it.

“I’ll make the charge….”

It’s not as easy as “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” I cannot understand how you can interpret scripture ignoring it’s historical context and expect it to be correct. Your problem is your worldview; its not scripture’s.

If you understand the ANE worldview of the original author of Genesis and its original audience, all of these problems go away. The creation account, the flood account, and modern science…..none of these are problems anymore.

Richard,

Re: Post # 143

“Do you disagree that the quotes I posted show “evolution” is more than biological? If you don’t, disagree, then why say “supposedly”?”

Because I can’t check your quote for contextual accuracy, and YEC are notorious for quote mining. I still don’t think Steve’s usage of it implied the broad definition which you returned with, but I’d be content to settle the matter by simply asking Steve what he meant by it when he wrote it. I trust him to give an honest answer.

Onto another subject, I’m interested in what your opinion of post #155 is. I went through and found out what God was communicating in Genesis 1. Like the flood account, I’d like to hear your interpretation of the verses I posted.

Greg, you wrote:

I cannot understand how you can interpret scripture ignoring it’s historical context and expect it to be correct. Your problem is your worldview; its not scripture’s.

If you understand the ANE worldview of the original author of Genesis and its original audience, all of these problems go away. The creation account, the flood account, and modern science…..none of these are problems anymore.

————
Greg it would help our discussion immensely if your would answer these questions. My answers are yes, yes, no.

Do you believe that the Genesis flood covered the entire planet earth?

Do you believe that the author of the flood account intended to communicate that it covered the entire planet earth?

Do you believe that the author of the flood account intended to communicate that the entire planet was dry in 8:14?
————

You are insisting that the text itself in Gen 8:14 can ONLY mean that the entire planet dried out. Given your hermeneutic, it appears that the flood account *is* historically inaccurate. The author erroneously stated that the entire planet earth was dry in verse 8:14. This implies that either the author was ignorant of the state of the earth (ie that there are lakes, oceans, etc.), or didn’t understand how to use Hebrew properly.

I disagree with your linguistic analysis and assertions.

————

Now regarding worldviews:

Let’s see if I understand yours correctly; it appears to contain the following:

1. universe and earth have been proven ancient by science

2. author of Genesis had an ANE worldview

3. an ANE worldview for author and audience makes it impossible to communicate historically accurate information about the creation and flood.

Related to just those 3 items, my worldview contains:

1. science has not proven the age of the earth or universe

2. the author of Genesis includes the inspiration of God, and is NOT restricted to an ANE worldview such that falsehoods must be communicated

3. the is nothing in the ANE worldview, nor the Hebrew language that prevents accurate communication of the events of creation and the flood. Please see my post 141 for an ANE and Genesis vocabulary compatible account of the big bang and evolution.

So it seems that you believe that either the author of Genesis was unable or unwilling to communicate historical events correctly. At this point the OE folks I’ve encountered usually say one of two things:

1. Genesis is simply inaccurate and not inspired (the “liberal” approach), or
2. The intent of the Bible is not to convey history, nor scientific information, but rather to communicate “spiritual truths”.

Do you believe either of these?

So if there was a worldwide flood in Genesis 6-9 that killed all but the 8 on the boat, why does Genesis 4:20-21 refer to the living descendants of Jabal and Jubal, the sons of Lamech through his two wives? Wouldn’t their continued existence to the author be better explained by a widespread but local flood?

Eric W,

I’m not sure I am following your question in comment # 87. However, I did note that the Lamech in Genesis 4 is a different Lamech than the one that is mentioned in Genesis 5 that was Noah’s father. The Genesis 4 geneolgy is the line of Cain. The Genesis 5 geneology is the line of Seth. Does that change anything in your question or am I still not following you?

cheryl:

It doesn’t change anything in my question. If Jabal’s and Jubal’s descendants were destroyed in the flood, then how can they be said to be the fathers of those who (in the author’s day) dwell in tents and herd and play music? Genesis 9:18-19 suggests that the earth/land was repopulated solely by Shem, Ham and Japheth, of Noah, of Seth’s line. Yet Genesis 4 posits at least two groups of still-existing peoples (tent-dwelling herders and musicians) who came from Cain’s line. Thus, Genesis 4:20-21 seems to require the flood to have been a local one, not worldwide.

EricW,

Thanks, now I understand what you were saying.

Supposing the flood was just a local flood instead of world wide, I wonder what the purpose of saving animals of all kinds would of been. Would they not have just moved back in and repopulated the area after the waters dried up?

I also wonder if the flood was just local how all the mountains could of been covered? Those things don’t make sense to me at all if the flood wasn’t world wide.

Noah’s three sons had wives. Perhaps two of them were descendants of Jabal and Jubal. Come to think of it, I don’t think we know the lineage of Noah’s wife either…

I think that is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h. It seems to me that if they had married into Seth’s line, whether by marrying Noah or Noah’s sons, their descendants would no longer be traced through Cain’s line. Genesis 4:16-24 is clearly showing Cain’s lineage, not Seth’s.

You consider it a stretch, but it is not impossible. Thus there is no necessary contradiction between the Gen 4 account and the Global Flood account, and this can’t logically be used to claim the flood is local only. Even Hugh Ross calls the flood “universal” meaning all humans outside the ark died…(someone let me know if he’s changed his position on that).

Aren’t the lineages in Genesis largely, perhaps exclusively, patriarchal? If so, then Genesis 4:20-21 does not included Sethites. I think trying to account for Jubal’s and Jabal’s descendants as coming from marriages to descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. There were no descendants of Jubal and Jabal if the flood was worldwide and killed all but the 8 in the boat.

Eric, notice how your premise is only a possibility, not a certainty:

perhaps exclusively

If so, …

but then your conclusion is absolute:

There were no descendants of Jubal and Jabal if the flood was worldwide and killed all but the 8 in the boat.

This is incorrect logic. You are trying to force a conclusion that is not sustained by your argument. Rather, you can only conclude:

“If scripture always and exclusively defines descendants only through an exclusively male lineage, then (and only then) one can conclude that the global flood precludes “descendants” of Jubal and Jabal from continuing post flood.”

Scripture nowhere maintains this definition of descendant, and furthermore if it did, then Jesus would not be a descendant of David and it is a rather important theological truth that Jesus is the “son of David”.

Richard:

I didn’t say “Scripture always and exclusively.” I spoke/asked only about Genesis. And I believe in early Genesis, and perhaps all of Genesis, lineages are patriarchal.

EricW,

I am not sure what the answer is to the verses you have brought up in chapter 4 of Genesis.

However, they not only seem to contradict the ones you mentioned earlier about Noah’s descendants repopulating the earth, they seem to totally contradict what Genesis 6:5-8 says was God’s purpose for the flood.

Those verses say that He was grieved and repented of having created man because of his wickedness and that he decided to destroy him (wipe him out, obliterate him) from the face of the earth. Noah was spared because he was a righteous man. That certainly doesn’t sound like only some of the people were killed in a local flood.

Eric,

Ok, I understand. Can you explain what this verse means:

“Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.” Gen 7:23

BTW, it’s OK to admit that the reason for not believing in the YEC position (including global flood) is due to a belief in what science has proven. That is a very common position. For example:

Pattle Pun is a molecular biology lecturer at Wheaton College, Illinois, and he admits that the obvious meaning of Genesis is the YEC position. But he rejects this not for grammatical reasons, but to fit ‘science’. Pun also has an M.A. Theology from Wheaton.

‘It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils [sic — creationists would say ‘most’] were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.’

Reference

Pun, P.P.T., Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 39:14, 1987; emphasis added.

Richard:

The verse means what cheryl u says – i.e., Genesis 4:20-21 is problematic for Genesis 6-9, and vice-versa.