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"
I see that my post 388 should be referring to a continuation of my post 386 (not 384).
Is the Joshua in what I read as post 393 the same or different from the previous 2 Joshua’s that have posted on this thread?
re post 398: I LOVE dinosaurs. I even love the cheesy show “Primeval”.
As an OE, I would say that the Bible does not speak to dinosaurs specifically in Genesis, except to lump them in with other land dwelling footed beasts.
All the fossils reveal is that certain animals, whose skeletons we find, lived at various times and under various climatic conditions.
The rest is speculation or theories with insufficient evidence to make them conclusive. I can accept everything from individual creation of species, creation of kinds with some evolution, periodic intervention in the DNA by God or the satan, the implantation within DNA and other cell features of a principle that unfolds as apparent evolution, and straight up evolution (though I find the last one highly doubtful).
Human creation is another matter entirely, and I don’t see how we can get around special creation there.
TUaD’s suggestion actually brings up a good idea. If this thread is to serve a larger purpose and if other readers actually want to read what we and others write, then, Instead of Richard and I responding to each other, what topics would others like to addressed from this point forward? Above is my dinosaur response.
Regards,
#John
John wrote:
Several problems here.
1. Most annoying is he implies that I’ve claimed “proof of YEC global flood” — this is either a deliberate misstatement, or John is extremely careless. How many times have I addressed this…
2. (from an article about Yellowstone) Growing trees have extensive root systems, usually 20–30% of the total dry mass of the tree. But the Yellowstone petrified trees have their large roots broken off, leaving ‘root balls.’ This happens when trees are forcefully pushed out of the ground, e.g. by a bulldozer.
3. These two incorrect statements are then used to imply that I contradicted myself by noting “ripped up” vegetation.
[continued] light time travel problem (4 of 5)
Dr. Humphreys’ model resulted in more creative thinking about the problem and possible solutions. One more example of work done within the YEC camp is that by Dr. John Hartnett (author of the article mentioned earlier) whose bio follows:
Dr. Harnett worked with Dr. Moshe Carmeli on an extension to general relativity, called Cosmological General Relativity. (Dr. Carmeli, recently deceased, was the Albert Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics at Ben Gurion University).
A list of Dr. Hartnett’s publication’s is here:
http://internal.physics.uwa.edu.au/~john/publications.html
Among these, I’ll highlight just a few to show his direct involvement in physical cosmology. Those beginning with ‘J’ are refereed journals, those beginning with ‘C’ are conference papers:
J39. J.G. Hartnett, “Carmeli’s accelerating universe is spatially flat without dark matter”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., Vol. 44, no. 4, April, pp. 485-492, 2005.
J41. J.G. Hartnett, “The Carmeli metric correctly describes spiral galaxy rotation curves”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., vol. 44, no. 3, March, pp. 349-362, 2005.
J51. M. Carmeli, J.G. Hartnett, F.J. Oliveira, “The cosmic time in terms of the redshift”, Found. Phys. Lett. vol. 19, no. 3, June, pp. 277 – 283, 2006
J52. J.G. Hartnett, “The distance modulus determined from Carmeli’s cosmology fits the accelerating universe data of the high-redshift type Ia supernovae without dark matter.” Found. Phys. vol 36. no. 6, pp. 839-861, June 2006. arxiv: astro-ph/0501526
J53. M. Carmeli, J.G. Hartnett, F.J. Oliveira, “On the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer spacecraft”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., vol. 45. no. 6, pp.1074-1078, 2006.
(cont.)
[continued] light time travel (5 of 5)
J54. J.G. Hartnett, “Spiral galaxy rotation curves determined from Carmelian general relativity”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., vol. 45, no. 11, pp.2118-2136, November 2006. arxiv: astro-ph/0511756
J55. J.G. Hartnett, M.E. Tobar, “Properties of gravitational waves in Cosmological general relativity”, Int. J. Theor. Phys., vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 2181-2190 November 2006. arxiv: gr-qc/0603067
J57. F.J. Oliveira, J.G. Hartnett, “Carmeli’s cosmology fits data for an accelerating and decelerating universe without dark matter or dark energy”, Found. Phys. Lett. Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 519-535, November 2006. arxiv: astro-ph/0603500
C62. J.G. Hartnett, “Spiral galaxy rotation curves described using cosmological general relativity”, in the Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on the Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, Madrid, Spain, AIP Conf. Proc. 905, 27-29, 2007.
C63. J.G. Hartnett, M.E. Tobar, “Gravitational waves in Cosmological General Relativity”, in the Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on the Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, Madrid, Spain, AIP Conf. Proc. 905, 30-32, 2007.
C64 M.E. Tobar, P.L. Stanwix, A.C. Fowler, E.N. Ivanov, J.G. Hartnett, C.R. Locke, P. Wolf, “Using Precision Oscillators and Interferometers to Test Fundamental Physics”, International Frequency Control Symposium, IEEE, June, p. 681 – 684, 2006
C65. M.E. Tobar, P.L. Stanwix, E.N. Ivanov, A.C. Fowler, J.G. Hartnett, J.M. le Floch, M. Miao, P. Wolf, ‘Precision Microwave Oscillators and Interferometers to Test Lorentz Invariance in Electrodynamics’, XLIInd Recontres de Moriand: Gravitational Waves and Experimental Gravity, Vietnam, 1, pp. 227-234. 2007.
C66 P.-Y. Bourgeois, K. Benmessai, M. Oxborrow, M.E. Tobar, N. Bazin, J. G. Hartnett, Y. Kersale, V. Giordano, “The Fe3+:Al2O3 Whispering Gallery mode maser oscillator,” Frequency Control Symposium, 2007 Joint with the 21st European Frequency and Time Forum. IEEE International, May 29 2007-June 1, pp.1032 – 1040, 2007
J.G. Hartnett, “The redshift-distance relation extended to higher redshifts in Cosmological General Relativity,” in the Proceedings of the 9th Symposium on the Frontiers of Fundamental Physics, Udine, Italy, AIP Conf. Proc. 1018, pp. 57-66, 2008.
C71. J.G. Hartnett, “Fourier analysis of the large scale spatial distribution of galaxies in the universe,” in the Proceedings of the 2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference, Port Angeles, WA USA, in press, 2008.
I’d hope that it’s obvious that Dr. Hartnett is a serious scientist by anyone’s measure, and has done real “science” within the area of physical cosmology. He is also YEC and works on YEC cosmological models.
For John, or anyone to simply assert that there is no science here, and that all YEC models have failed is absurd.
John, you need to provide your promised explanation about the horizon problem for the big bang…
Dinosaurs
Here’s a good layman’s article describing the YEC and typical OE views.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs
Many articles of varying depth are available here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/dinosaurs
Dinos are extremely interesting and there have been some very relevant recent findings so I’ll try to post more when I can.
Re post 400.
Richard does not get my point, but I hope others do. I’ll make another attempt anyway, because perhaps I’m not communicating clearly enough.
A global flood would deposit a thick sedimentary layer that could be traced to that one catastrophic event. Nor is four and a half thousand years is not enough time to turn that sediment into rock and then move it into its current elevations with the degree of weathering shown.
No existing sedimentary rock gives evidence of having been produced by a global rather than a local flood. A rock that gives evidence of having been produced by deposition in a local flood is evidence of . . . a local flood.
If polystrate trees were evidence of a global flood, we’d find a layer of such trees spread across the globe at matching levels of deposition.
Furthermore, as indicated in my post 397, it is a physical impossibility for a global flood to have produced the multilayered sedimentary rock formations, interspersed with trees and their undisturbed roots and animal nests both found in situ, and often bent or faulted, that we observe. Hence, my conclusion that Richard cannot point to any rock formed by a catastrophic global flood.
Pot shot “science” that hangs more on a particular phenomena that it can bear is not sound science and does not provide a basis for a viable alternate geology.
Just so I am clear: I do not disagree that a flood or moving river water can deposit sediment. However, the localized findings of such sediment and sedimentary rock have characteristics that bear no relationship to the overall features of the comprehensively considered shale deposits found around the world, and there is no possible or workable extrapolation from the characteristics of localized flood or river deposits to the characteristics of the worldwide shale deposits. The world wide shale deposits give no evidence of having been all deposited at one time by a giant catastrophic flood, but rather evidence of having been laid down over millions of years, in the context of widely varying conditions, as the result of a number of different deposition processes.
On the absolute negative thing. Here’s an absolute negative: No winged unicorns exist. Here’s how to disprove it: find a winged unicorn.
Here’s another absolute negative: There is no workable model of flood geology that will provide an explanation for the characteristics of the world wide deposition of sedimentary rocks that we see (for starters, just deal with the layering). Here’s how to disprove it: provide a model.
I don’t need to prove my negative, because I have a viable geological understanding that provides explanations for the worldwide sedimentary rock phenomena that we observe.
My negative is a challenge that shows how devoid of sound science YEC is.
Regards,
#John
re post 402. It does appear that I was right to think that we are getting somewhere. Richard now states “he [meaning me, #John] implies that I’ve claimed “proof of YEC global flood”. The apparent meaning of that statement is that Richard does not claim to have proof of YEC global flood.
Unless others are interested, I doubt I will post further on the issue of light.
Regards,
#John
John, either show exactly where I claimed to “have proof of YEC global flood” or I expect an apology from you for repeatedly misquoting me.
John CT: “Unless others are interested, I doubt I will post further on the issue of light.”
There’s more? I thought what you posted was quite a bit already. Are you saving the best for last? If so, let’s see it.
Thanks.
John you wrote:
I missed it somehow, please show us where AIG was in opposition to the existence of large distances, and did not agree that astronomical techniques are sound.
I’m having trouble entering the blog. This is a test.
Susan – Re: post #259
An excellent post, Susan! Your questions are right on the mark. The Bible does make it abundantly clear that the Flood was indeed a worldwide catastrophe – and the earth is loaded with evidence that these words are historically true. Fossils are high on the list of these evidences.
Steve
Thanks Steve, I think that was post #359 but it’s getting a little hard to keep track! I think this is the most posts I’ve ever seen on a blog here in the year and a half or so that I’ve participated.
It seems to me that John reads the Bible selectively, which is certainly not a posture of submission before an almighty creator. “God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble”.
John, do you ever get down on your knees and ask God help you to submit completely to Him, and to receive from Him HIS intended meaning, when you read the Bible? I need to do this…..we all should. His knowledge is infinite, ours is indeed very ignorant in comparison. We all tend to read scripture at times wanting passages to mean certain things even if they don’t….and we tend to explain away that which we aren’t comfortable with, for whatever reason. Should we not be willing to lay this down as we approach scripture? Humility. That is what God desires from us. To be honest, after reading so many of your posts, there is one thing which stands out to me. You address those who don’t agree with your view in a very condescending manner. That reveals pride. I even find myself wondering if you speak to your wife in a condescending manner. I know what that feels like, trust me. There is nothing but arrogance behind it. You are obviously very intelligent, but intelligence lacks wisdom when devoid of true humility.
Susan writes:
Hello, pot? Kettle calling!
It’s (almost) humorous. Susan, you have taken it upon yourself to question John’s salvation:
or at least his orthodoxy, even though he is advocating an interpretation considered acceptable by many conservative evangelical believers. So, if a person questions YEC, you automatically suspect he’s a heretic? YEC is now essential to salvation?
John did make a remark that he apologised for, but other than that, I think your characterization is inaccurate. Both sides hold their positions with passion, and if you can’t stand the heat…
I don’t see much hope of Richard and John reaching any agreement, but I have benefitted from this discussion, and I greatly appreciate it.
It is probably the longest thread I’ve ever followed – long enough for TUaD to prove the accuracy of Godwin’s Law. ;^)
Dave Z, lol on Godwin’s Law!
Actually, if I had ‘questioned’ John’s salvation I would have said something more like, “Are you even a Christian?”
I simply asked what he believes about Jesus. I find that most believers are fine with answering such questions. I would be. Was I wondering if he was a Christian or not? Yes, until he answered my questions, he had only said that he believed in God. I realize that Christians vary in their positions on creation. My father is an MD, a Christian, and has held to the “Big Bang” theory for as long as I can remember.
As I have said, think that this has been an interesting discussion amongst knowledgeable contributors. I have no ill feelings toward John…at all. I haven’t felt any ‘heat’ actually, but if I did…I’d get out of the kitchen 😎
Richard,
Re: Post #365
To someone who believes what scripture says, God created man in his image, and God communicates meaningful with man…
Of course God does. But you’re stuck in your worldview and can’t imagine that anyone ever thought any differently than you do about things. You even assume that God Himself can’t think differently than you do on these things. “The ways of God are not the ways of man…”
The ANE argument is used only because it is believed that science has *proven* the plain reading of the bible can’t be true, so we must find a way to explain away that plain reading.
This completely ignores post # 358. You use science to interpret scripture too, so don’t accuse me of anything.
Re: Post # 367
Local flood adherents. In post 247, I listed several of the statements of scripture that show the flood was global.
Not so fast. I falsified your literal hermeneutic by showing it and you to be inconsistent and contradictory. Even if you claim that’s not your hermeneutic, you have to justify why you interpret Genesis 8:14 in a manner inconsistent with “erats” previous usage.
I’m STILL waiting for you to respond to post #184 in a manner that doesn’t include ignoring what you just don’t like.
Please explain how an ANE worldview precluded proper understanding of each one of these concepts.
Read Post #68. When you understand their world, you’ll understand how the flood happened. Stop reading your worldview into scripture!
Is an ANE also incapable of understand days, months, and cubits?
Or did the local flood last as long as stated and to the depths stated? — if so, then explain how the laws of physics were changed to accomodate this.
Knowing how long it takes the sun to come back and the length of one’s arm isn’t the same as the breadth of the earth, my friend.
Richard,
Re: Post # 369
This very question implies that there would be more credibility to the beliefs of a YEC scientist if they were NOT A CHRISTIAN.
I think you missed the point. Find me someone without an overwhelming need to prove scripture above all else who thinks the same way you do. This is science in action, a test for your belief system. Isolate the variable that causes one to be a YEC. If its the evidence, then I may listen to you more. But if its scripture, then you cannot be trusted with the evidence because your commitment to truth goes only as far as your interpretation will allow.
YEC have a prior commitment. That prior commitment is considered off limits to questioning and its importance trumps everything else. Therefore a YEC cannot be trusted to do science. You do not follow the evidence; you follow only your interpretation (which is NOT scripture) and insulate yourself from anything contrary to your beliefs.
Refer to posts #346 and #349 from John for more on this.
Re: Post #370
We’ve been over this. You’ve not proven that God couldn’t communicate historically accurate information to His audience.
This is ridiculous. We don’t have to do any such thing. All we need to show is how God did communicate to His audience, which we did.
You rejected God’s chosen method. I can’t really comment on that anymore.
Re: Post #371
I state this one last time. YECs do NOT claim that science proves a YEC understanding, simply that the facts of science are consistent with it. There is no inconsistency at all in investigating what science IS capable of showing us.
That’s fine, but not what I said. Here it is again for you: “Richard, this hasn’t stopped you or any YEC organization from trying to provide scientific evidence for a young earth and global flood.”
Who said anything about proving? We all know that science doesn’t prove anything, only gathers evidence and makes sense of it. See Post #225.
As you can see, our understanding of what science is capable of seem to be the same. Thus, my original claim stands: “Richard, this hasn’t stopped you or any YEC organization from trying to provide scientific evidence for a young earth and global flood. An inconsistency like that isn’t good for your argument. (Post #358)”
If we can’t do it, and we use the same scientific process as you, then you can’t do it either. Same goes for every other YEC out there.
This is the first contradiction in your writing I pointed out. The second had to do with you chastising me for using science to inform my interpretation when you do the exact same thing. I’m curious how you answer that charge (post #358).
Steve,
Re: Post #377
Your adamant opposition to YEC has corrupted your reason, Greg.
My friend, the only thing corrupted was my quote.
Here it is in its entirety: “The fact that this great individual is a YEC doesn’t mean much. He’s also a Seventh Day Adventist Christian, so are we really surprised by this? John pointed out that a precommitment like this can cloud how someone looks at the evidence.
Can you show me a YEC that isn’t a Christian and is also an expert with a terminal degree in biology, cosmology, or geology?”
The implication of your statements is that the fact that Dr. Carson is a YEC doesn’t mean much because his field of expertise doesn’t qualify him to make judgments on the subject of creation and evolution.
As you can see, I said nothing at all about the man’s expertise, only his religious beliefs. The first thing you quoted was a general statement meant to make a point. Just because you have a man with a Ph.D who believes as you do doesn’t mean he’s also an expert in it.
But if you want to apply it to the good doctor, can you explain to me how neurosurgery has to do with geology, or cosmology, or astronomy, or evolutionary biology?
Just because someone studies biology and chemistry in med school does not automatically “uniquely” qualify them to make broad pronouncements on distant fields.
What peer-reviewed papers or books has Dr. Carson published pertaining to evolution or cosmology? According to his profile on the Johns Hopkins Medicine website, he’s published over 100 neurosurgical publications, three best-selling books (none related to the above mentioned subjects), and has received 38 honorary doctorates. After reading his 70-page Curriculum Vitae, I still didn’t find anything specifically related to these fields. Can you point them out to me?
In an interview here (http://www.adventistreview.org/2004-1509/story2.html) his understanding of evolution is really that of a layman, and even that’s heavily influenced by his Christian beliefs. He gets YEC and Intelligent Design confused and even believes this is only an either/or approach, that both God and evolution and an old universe cannot coexist. The only types of people who believe that are atheists and YEC.
In a word, his whole argument against evolution is really one against naturalism. Even I’m against naturalism!
The man is an expert in pediatric neurosurgery. He is not an expert in biological evolution, geology, or cosmology. Even though you misapplied it the first time, my statement still stands: The fact that this great individual is a YEC doesn’t mean much.
And with that I’m finished. I’ve said all I need to say.
Thanks everyone for the opportunity to discuss these things, I hope those who have chosen to watch will be able to evaluate what’s been said here and make sense of it all.
Richard and Steve, I didn’t expect to change your mind through these posts because I personally know how shielded the YEC mind is; no one could talk any sense into me either. I had to learn it for myself. I hope ya’ll are able to take the same path someday for the integrity of God’s Word, His World, and our Witness.
John, you did a fantastic job countering Young Earth Creationism. Unfortunately I think much of it has gone unnoticed by our other frequent posters, but I’m sure many have carefully considered what you have said even if they didn’t make it public. You covered the science aspect of this discussion single-handedly and much better than I ever could. You made this discussion worthwhile!
And its just awesome to have taken part in the most active post on this blog!
Greg
P.S. – (http://xkcd.com/386/)
Greg wrote:
BTW, it’s “erets” (Strong’s number 776).
You “falsified” your own strawman hermeneutic. I showed you what a YEC hermeneutic is in post 175 (‘plain and straight forward…’). It’s not inconsistent to consider the context of a word’s usage in any real hermeneutic.
——————————
I wrote:
and your response is:
You completely avoided the question. The “breadth of the earth” concept is not the only one at issue. If you can’t explain how an ANE would fail to understand cubic of depth, months and days of duration as we do, as well as the absolute terms I listed earlier, then you have *(failed* to make your case for an ANE understanding precluding an honest to goodness global flood. In fact, so far you haven’t even tried to make that case. You only asserted it.
re post 409: I suppose my response is a puzzled “?”. My position is that no YEC has either physical evidence of a flood as a YEC describes it, or an actual description of how it would produce the phenomena that (1) we do observe and (2) makes use of and stays within the workings of the physical universe. Hence I keep repeating that no YEC can show or prove either. I read Richard’s post 402 as indicating that he agrees with me that YECs have no proof of a global catastrophic flood, and indicated so in my post 408. Richard’s position is not typical YEC (typically YECs believe they have physical proof and a workable explanation). Note that there is a difference between a claim that he has proof and a claim that he has no proof. Anyway, the upshot is that Richard and I now agree that: (1) appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, (2) the Shroud of Turin is most likely the burial cloth of Jesus, (3) there is no proof that the YEC version of the global flood occurred.
In relation to the last point, I will repeat: it is possible to believe in a global flood that is NOT as described by the YEC (i.e., the YEC description is not the only one), and it is possible to believe in an ancient earth and a global flood. Like the majority of Christians, I believe that what the YECs describe is not what is described by the Bible (in relation to the flood). So, in regard to posts 413 and 259: it’s entirely reasonable, and within the interpretive options available to those who believe the Bible is inerrant, to believe in a global flood (even one that covered the mountains existing in Noah’s time). That does not mean, however, that YECs accurately describe that flood.
Re post 414, and the comment that “John reads the Bible selectively”: ? I have consistently stated that my view that the earth is ancient is a view accepted by leading evangelical scholars who believe that the Bible is inerrant and that the OE view was and is considered to be compatible with the Chicago statement on inerrancy by those who drafted and signed that statement. I’ve also indicated that I currently take an agnostic position on the extent of the flood as described in Genesis (i.e., remain open to both views—the local and the global). Hardly a selective reading of the Bible. So, if you’re going to make that statement, back it up, otherwise you’re merely being unnecessarily offensive.
The way in which you’ve written your post implies that I do not do what you describe. The appropriate way to read what people write is to assume the strongest and best interpretation, not the weakest and worst. There is nothing I’ve written that, charitably interpreted, indicates I do not pray thusly or that I am not submissive to either God or His Word.
But, though your post appears to assume the worst, there is no need to apologize. I’ve got a thick skin, and am not offended; in my world I get called worse.
Last response to post 414: Disagreeing with someone’s position and arguing against is not inherently condescending. In so far as I’ve called the YEC version of science as “junk science” and not “sound science”, I’ve provided a definition of same and a link to the longer work of the Council of State Governments wherein those terms are further discussed (for those interested, those terms are also used in law and the decisions of judges and legal texts). I’ve provided examples to show how what YECs do fit within the former and not the latter.
The statement in post 414 (“We all tend to read scripture at times wanting passages to mean certain things”) is true. It is particularly true of YECs because they accept only one interpretation of Genesis (young earth, and a global catastrophic flood that produced the sedimentary rock and continental drift, etc.). As I’ve indicated a number of times, OEs are not bound to a single interpretation, but have several, quite different, valid options available to them. I’ve also indicated more than once that if one looks only at the words in Genesis, the YEC interpretation is a possible one.
I’ve also drawn attention to the fact that the interpretations that various OEs follow do NOT indicate any particular age for the earth. That is, the text in Genesis 1 & 2 does not indicate an age for the earth. Note that the KJV website I cited earlier holds to a belief in seven consecutive 24 hour days but does not believe that this necessitates a particular age for the earth.
So the OEs are not the ones making the Genesis text mean something specific about the age of the earth: they hold that Genesis 1 & 2 provides no information about the age of the earth. Hence one can go from the words in Genesis to any age. One has to determine the age on other grounds.
***
Greg, sorry to see you go. You were very clear and helpful. I learned from your posts. I hope you end up posting on other threads in the future.
Regards,
#John
Greg and John and Richard,
This has been one of the most interesting discussions I’ve ever read on the subject. I have blogged on it on another blog in the past, but the scientific possibilities and how they relate to the Bible, or not, were very helpfully and thoroughly presented on both sides here. Thanks to all three of you for your research and time involved.
God bless.
#John 1453 said:
“I’ve also drawn attention to the fact that the interpretations that various OEs follow do NOT indicate any particular age for the earth. That is, the text in Genesis 1 & 2 does not indicate an age for the earth. Note that the KJV website I cited earlier holds to a belief in seven consecutive 24 hour days but does not believe that this necessitates a particular age for the earth.
So the OEs are not the ones making the Genesis text mean something specific about the age of the earth: they hold that Genesis 1 & 2 provides no information about the age of the earth. Hence one can go from the words in Genesis to any age. One has to determine the age on other grounds.”
Susan asked where your back-up among the regular contributors was.
As an OE, I agree with you. It has nothing to do with our belief in the inerrancy of scripture, or our belief in, or submission to Christ. OE just makes better sense when you look at both science and the Bible.
So far the only ‘biblical backup’ in the age of the earth that I’ve encountered among my YEC peers, who believe the 6000 year old model is written in stone, is the one and only proof text of the scripture saying: ” But do not overlook this one fact beloved, with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Peter 3:8 was talking about the coming of the Lord and how we do not know when that will be, and why we need to be prepared. In context, he is speaking of a future event not a past one.
Therefore, I believe the scripture above was used metaphorically to describe the fact that God is under no time constraint, and should not be used to determine the age of the earth. Besides being taken completely out of context, to do that pits science and God against each other. As such, it makes people have to make choice not just about Christ, but between God and proven scientific facts that even a growing number of Christians have a problem with. I have run into too many people who just cannot accept Christianity as being valid simply because of the YEC 6000 year belief alone. They can accept the sacrifice for sin on the cross, and the resurrection, but not a 6000 year old earth that is being disproven every day by mounting scientific discoveries.
However, as an OE I have no trouble reconciling the two, with a literal Adam and Eve, so explaining Christianity to someone who asks why such a division exists between YEC’s and science makes so it much simpler to tell people that there is more than one theologically accepted view.
Thanks for giving me some excellent resources and facts to back it up.
Great discussion.
@#John1453 — Regarding post #393, it is actually a *third* Joshua. 🙂 I forgot to disambiguate.
Personally, I find it interesting to observe that Paul said “all men descend from Noah”, but refrained from identifying himself with any of the 6 labels articulated above. Or any of the other beautiful insights the church fathers have gleaned from Genesis. Practically the whole Bible is contained in the early part of Genesis, regardless of which of the 6 theories one adopts.
mbaker,
“Susan asked where your back-up among the regular contributors was.
As an OE, I agree with you. It has nothing to do with our belief in the inerrancy of scripture, or our belief in, or submission to Christ. OE just makes better sense when you look at both science and the Bible. ”
?
You must have been thinking of someone else.
Furthermore, I wasn’t referring to John’s view of the age of the earth, just his rendering of the flood account.
John, I thought that you were firm in your belief that a world-wide flood did not occur. That to me, would be saying that even in the face of God’s very specific language used to describe the flood, that you simply would not accept that it was worldwide. That is what I was referring to as ‘selective’. I have read or skimmed the majority of the comments on this thread, but I missed your openness to the possibility of a worldwide flood. So, I stand corrected, but still have a difficult time seeing how one could read that text and not solidly conclude that God did in fact cover the entire earth with water……whether you can ‘prove’ it or not.
If it’s any consolation, I appreciate your concluding remarks. I can see where some might believe (as I do) that the earth was created in a literal 6 days, but might be much older than 4,000 to 6,000 years old. That seems more reasonable, and God honoring to me, than to deny a six, 24 hour day, creation. So there you have it…..you’ve opened my mind ‘a crack’ 😉
Also, John, I fully realize that I don’t at all know your heart, nor your posture before God (which might be better than mine !). You were correct in assuming I was thinking of your frequent use of the term “junk science”. It didn’t strike me that Richard is dependent on ‘junk science’. Well, anyway, I’m glad you participated in this discussion…and ,I wouldn’t say that if I didn’t mean it!
In Him, Susan
Richard…..have you anything to say about this?
To All … seeking a response
Recently, Greg and I had an exchange re: the question of whether Dr. Benjamin Carson was qualified to be a spokesman in the creation/evolution debate (post #s 339, 360, 377, & 419). Below is a partial copy od # 339:
“Benjamin Carson: The Pediatric Neurosurgeon with Gifted Hands
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.*
Introduction
Benjamin S. Carson, M.D., one of the world’s foremost pediatric neurosurgeons, is professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School. A graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, he was rated by a Time issue titled “America’s Best” as a “super surgeon.” Dr. Carson was also selected by CNN and Time as one of the nation’s top 20 physicians and scientists, and by the Library of Congress as one of 89 “living-legends.”
Dr. Carson is a leading research scientist. A “voracious reader of the medical and scientific literature” from his graduate school days, he has long been very interested in scientific research and has been very active in this area for his entire career, with over 120 major scientific publications in peer reviewed journals, 38 books and book chapters, and grant awards of almost a million dollars. His achievements have so far earned him 51 honorary doctorates, including from Yale and Columbia Universities.”
A Google search reveals thousands of sites devoted to this incredible individual. I highly recommend them to you and any other readers of this comment. His is a remarkable and thrilling story.
It is very possible that Dr. Carson is, in fact, the world’s LEADING neurosurgeon. A recent TV documentary titled “Gifted Hands” about Dr. Carson appeared on Discovery channel.
With all of this background, Greg concluded that “The fact that this great individual is a YEC doesn’t mean much.” His conclusiion was based essentially on the fact that Dr. Carson’s specific field of expertise was not evolutionary biology – that his training, in other words did not qualify him to be a spokesman on creation and evolution.
I have absolutely nothing against Greg. My only goal is to establish the truth.
Now, my question: In light of Dr. Carson’s resume, does anyone besides me realize how illogical, even absurd, Greg’s conclusion is?
Thanks for your consideration.
Susan
I can tell from your comments that you know the truth about the critical issues in this debate (the extent of the Flood, the age of the earth, etc.). It concerned me to see that John’s comments had opened your mind ‘a crack.’
Please, Susan, be careful. Cling to the Truth with all of your might!
John does not believe that the Flood was worldwide. You pointed to Genesis 7:18 – 24, etc. and questioned how he could believe what he did. You were RIGHT, Susan! Pray over it. I will, too!
In Jesus
Steve
Steve, I completely agree with Greg, and I say that in recognition of Dr. Carson’s accomplishments, but neurology is not geology, and this thread has dealt primarily with geology and astrophysics.
Dr. Carson may well be able to speak on the evolution debate, at least as it relates to neurological systems, but why would you accept him as an authority on anything else, unless he has specific credentials on the subject at hand?
Good gracious Steve, sounds very condescending as if we OE’s are heretics, and not in your YEC county club.
Please, let’s try to keep this debate as just that, and not as some ad hominem attack on people who are simply questioning the world wide flood theory, as least as the world was defined in their day. So what if it was confined to
an area which was violating God’s law? Why would we need prayer because of that?
And Susan did start that line of thought, because like it or not, or mean it that way or not that’s the way she came across.
Steve, I think you misunderstood me a bit. I am absolutely taking God at His word about the world-wide flood, and about the 6-day creation. When I said that my mind was open a crack, I was referring to the possibility that the earth is older than 4,000 or 6,000 years old. I’m not inclined to think that it is, but I haven’t studied the issues. I’m assuming that these timelines are derived from counting generations and such from the biblical narrative, but I haven’t looked into it personally. I have always believed, for instance, that God created the dinosaurs when He created all other animals, but for whatever reason, He destroyed them….let them die off…. Maybe they were not among the animals included on the ark, and they were destroyed in the flood (?). I certainly believe that Genesis is written as a historically accurate narrative…from beginning to end….not poetry..(not even the creation account). I also think that it’s wrong to explain away the accuracy of Genesis by saying that it was just supposed to be understood by ancient people…that’s who God was talking to. It’s true that we need to consider historical contexts, but I’m sure that God was giving the info about the creation and the flood in completely literal, accurate narrative for all people of all times. It’s a mistake to water down scripture by saying that God was just speaking to ancient people in a way that they could understand, and it wasn’t meant to also be heard and understood …and relevant to our understanding. God was recording these events for our benefit as well.
So Susan:
I agree with you when you say :
“It’s a mistake to water down scripture by saying that God was just speaking to ancient people in a way that they could understand, and it wasn’t meant to also be heard and understood …and relevant to our understanding. God was recording these events for our benefit as well.”
I don’t think OE’s are watering down scripture, as you put it at all, but rather just the opposite. Like others here, I am just waiting to what exactly your biblical backup is – other than the typical one and only scripture in 2 peter 3:8 for a 6000 year old earth, which as I pointed out in my comment above is historically taken out of context by most YEC’s, and on that alone they rest their case.
If your belief is different, please provide the exact scriptural backup, and in proper context.
Thanks.
I’m curious about what some of the YECs think…did God supernaturally reveal to Moses (or whoever wrote Genesis) exactly how creation happened, or was Moses drawing on oral histories that had been passed down from Noah and ultimately from Adam? In other words, do you think Noah and his contemporaries knew this stuff? Did Noah carry geneological records on the ark?
BTW, don’t discount too quickly how the ANE folks would have viewed Genesis. Understanding the intended audience is a primary rule of hermenutics.
@Steve, #428 — The fact that a person is an accomplished expert in one area does not necessarily mean that he will be qualified to dispense advice in a completely separate area. And having people stroking his ego about his “genius” in one area is a terrible temptation to overextend — something I myself need to be very reminded of. We see spectacularly disastrous results of this overextension all the time. For example, when Dickie Dawkins embarrasses himself by engaging in theology, or when Stevie Hawkings embarrasses himself by delving into philosophy.
On the other hand, that doesn’t mean he is wrong. It just means that we need to be very, very, cautious about what he says.
@DaveZ, #434 — I am not a YEC, but I do think that Moses was informed by revelation, and not just “tradition”, in his understanding of the creation. And while I wouldn’t take a strong position on the following, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that he understood evolutionary theory with far greater detail (about the salient points) than current “experts” do. Scriptures are very explicit about the fact that Aaron’s translation of Moses involved some paraphrasing. And of course the understanding of Moses needed to be summarized in a way that matched the medium and could endure thousands of years without corruption.
*If* Moses’ understanding had looked anything like current scientific consensus, with all of its markov methods, monte carlo simulation, game theory, and so on (which are absolutely necessary to support current consensus), then it is certain that the particulars would not have survived uncorrupted over 3,500+ years. Modern evolutionary theory would be absolutely indefensible and unexplainable to ancient man, without first establishing several thousand pages of mathematical methods as foundation.
And the mathematical foundations would of course have been superfluous in any event. The historical narrative is the only salient fact to moral philosophy, and Moses (in conjunction with Aaron) correctly distilled his inerrant understanding of the creation process into the salient narrative that would survive to glorify God even as the details of the narrative emerged.
mbaker, when I commented about watering down scripture by claiming that God was speaking to an ancient people in a way that they could understand, without recognizing that God was intending to speak to us as well, I was harkening back to the comments of one particular commenter who placed a big emphasis on that ANE approach (I don’t recall who that was). Personally, I felt that he was in danger of taking that too far…. especially since (if I recall correctly) he used that reasoning to dismiss the world-wide scope of the flood. I did not have OEC people in mind when I made that comment. So, I guess I won’t need to provide a scriptural backup 😉
Hopefully all will agree, that there are some instances in scripture when knowing the context of the people and times is absolutely essential to understanding what is being said. The Epistles are a good example, and there are many others. Paul was addressing specific churches, speaking to ongoing problems in the church. Understanding the historical context, and the cultural environment of the time, is invaluable to distilling the fullest meaning of the text.
When it comes to Genesis….the creation account…. that’s quite a different situation. In answer to Dave Z’s question, I certainly believe that that account was given to the writer of Genesis purely by divine revelation, in that the author was not present at creation! I don’t believe that the author was recording oral tradition, because again, who was there when the earth and animals were created? God told the writer how He created. The author of Genesis recorded God’s words. When it comes to the Gospels, you have the authors, as eye-witnesses, writing their accounts of Jesus time among them, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit….each from their own perspective. It’s possible to land on a good principle of hermeneutics, but then over-apply it, in situations which don’t really call for it.
Steve, I came to know a famous pediatric neurosurgeon, who was at times introduced at international pediatric neurosurgery conferences where he lecture, as “the world’s foremost pediatric neurosurgeon”. When I met him, he was not yet a true convert to Christianity. By God’s grace, I was the one God chose to share the gospel with him. His background was Catholic. He told me once that he had read what the Pope had written about creation, which was sort of a blend of the biblical account with evolution, as I recall. Assumably, this surgeon friend of mine, was influenced by the Pope’s perspective on the matter. About a year after hearing the gospel….and many months of God’s Holy Spirit working in his heart and mind, to bring this man to saving knowledge of Jesus, he received Jesus as His Lord and Savior. He too had written countless books and journal articles in his field, particularly about the surgeries he had pioneered and become famous for. Once he came to know Jesus, He immediately began to talk about wanting…
to write a book about religion. I didn’t think that he was quite ready for that. He was a brilliant and innovative surgeon, but he really didn’t have a sound understanding of scripture. About a year later he told me he was considering leaving neurosurgery and going to seminary “because I want to give something back”, he told me. I don’t know the rest of his story, but hopefully I will see him again in our future kingdom and have a chance to hear it all! Anyway, to answer your question, in a now convoluted manner, I would have to agree, that you can’t always assume that someone is a qualified expert in another field, just because he is brilliant in a different field. On the other hand, the type of personality and drive which it takes to become such an outstanding neurosurgeon, will tend to be carried into other endeavors…. as the man pursues them with like passion. It’s quite possible for such a man to become an expert in other fields… sometimes in a rather self-taught fashion. So, possibly the surgeon you referred to is such a man.
re post 424:
Good point, mbaker, re 2 Peter 3:8. Given that God pronounces His creation “good”, and creates multitudes of creatures, and given that most things He does seem to take a long time, it seems reasonable to me that He would want to enjoy His creation for billions of years. Speculative, yes, but seems plausible.
re post 427:
Susan, you may be interested in viewing http://www.kjvbible.org, which I posted about in #328, and which holds to an ancient earth and a global flood. I posted about the Council of State Governments and their views on science in post #346: “The Council of State Governments defines sound science as “research conducted by qualified individuals using documented methodologies that lead to verifiable results and conclusions.” (see http://www.csg.org/pubs/Documents/sgn0109SoundScience101.pdf).”
re post 428 and 430 and others re Dr. Carson:
Greg’s position seems quite logical, because Dr. Carson is not an authority on the science relevant to geology or to the dating of the earth. It is a logical fallacy to appeal to him as an authority. I post the below from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html:
Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.
re post 429:
? How many times do I have to repeat that (1) one can believe in both an old earth and a global flood, and (2) I’m agnostic about the extent of the flood (though I do currently lean to local, but it’s only a leaning, I’m not committed to it).
Regards,
#John
Another interesting side note to the belief by many YEC’s that the earth’s age is based upon 2 Peter 3:8, is that if that scripture is taken to date the earth, rather than it’s proper context, which is speaking of the future coming of the Lord, then would not the 40 days of the flood also have to mean 40,000 years?
Now I am not speaking of tracing back human origin back roughly 6,000 years via using biblical records, but the actual age of the earth itself.
If the facts assumed in the first paragraph are true, then how could Noah and the family, with pairs of all the earth’s animals survive, given their natural reproductive cycles for 40,000 years in an ark?
Noah’s years according to scripture were 950 years in Genesis 9:29. according to my calculations that would have made him die on the ark, instead of establishing a worldwide dynasty.
To those who question Dr. Carson’s authority in the field of evolution, I will make this as simple as possible:
In its purest form – that form concerned only with the origin of species – the MOST relevant scientific discipline is biology. For a physician, obviously including a neuorsurgeon, the most important field of study, the starting point in other words, is … BIOLOGY.
The obvious conclusion is that a physician is eminently qualified to make judgments about evolution, because the primary discipline required for study of evolution is the basis of his profession.
One could argue that the study of biology does not qualify one to make judgments regarding the age of the earth or the extent of the Flood, but I would tend to believe that Dr. Carson’s judments about these matters is probably considerably more informed than most of ours. As far as I am concerned, in other words, the opinion of a man with Dr. Carson’s background in science is worthy of very healthy respect … and to cavalierly dismiss his opinion, as some here have done, is, in my opinion, not justified.
Steve
Susan
Great story about your physician friend! (Was his name Benjamin Carson?!)
P.S. How do you get a smiley face, and italics, in these comments?
Steve
mbaker wrote:
I’ve yet to encounter it in YEC writings. I have seen your statement from OE skeptics many times, however, so perhaps it is around somewhere.
Please show us where a YEC claims 2 pet 3:8 implies a 6000 year old earth?
Actually this very scripture is often used by OEs to claim that “day” does not mean “day” in Gen 1, and this is refuted by mainstream YECs. Thus YECs do not teach what you are claiming:
eg
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/sixdays.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/theistic_evolution.asp
John wrote
I know you’re capable of reading, so either show where I said what you claim, or apologize.
John, you continue to misquote me, both directly and by implication. Just a few examples:
1. reread #409
2. I’ve never mentioned the Shroud of Turin
3. you just wrote “Richard and I now agree…” implying the earlier I disagreed and have changed my mind.
Also, my post 292 documents you misquoting AIG, and I asked you to clear that up days ago, which you’ve ignored.
A few days ago I asked you to stop “making things up”. Then I posted 409 asking for an apology, which you have pretended to not understand. Perhaps this type of misquoting is useful in a legal setting, but it is completely inappropriate in a Christian. I’m again asking that you apologize for misquoting me.
mbaker wrote:
Do you really believe your own statement? The “one and only scripture” used by YECs in determining that scripture teaches a young earth? So the entire OT has nothing to do with it?
This is so ridiculously inaccurate that I’m really interested in what you mean.
If you’re trying to claim that YECs claim the earth is exactly 6000 yrs old, then I would indeed be learning new info about the YEC teaching that I’ve been studying for 3 decades.
re post 444 on the YEC view of the age of the earth
The AIG position: “Furthermore, as history, the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 provide an accurate chronology, so that from the creation of the first man Adam to the present day is only about 6,000 years. Since the earth was only created five literal days before Adam, then on the authority of God’s Word the earth is only about 6,000 years old.” from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/12/how-old-does-earth-look
Guess Richard does not depend on AIG materials.
Dave Z wrote:
That’s an interesting question. I’d love to know that myself!
Since God didn’t tell us exactly how it was communicated, we can’t be too sure. One interesting theory, based upon the “toledoth” structure is here:
http://creation.com/did-moses-really-write-genesis
with a followup discussion here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0923.asp
Global Flood – Biblical and physical evidence, plus implications:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter10.pdf
————————-
It has been claimed many times in this blog that given an ANE audience (an author) for Genesis, the flood account really communicates a local flood, some have said it at least allows it, others have said it definitely is local:
I’ve repeatedly asked for evidence that an ANE worldview precludes the flood account communicating a global flood. I even broken the issues down in posts 247 and 367 (numbers might be off by 1 or so). We’ve yet to receive any real response. To make the case, local flood adherents need to deal with all of the statements in the flood account, not just make vague assertions about the author’s “knowledge of the world”. Does anyone really think that the author of Genesis did not know the true/factual extent of the earth? Is God an ANE? The local flood adherents must show that even though the account is inspired, God would not put in accurate details if they would have been outside the ANE worldview’s understanding.
I specifically asked about an ANE’s ability to understand cubits, months and days. I got a non-response from Greg. The reason I asked is that it is obvious in the flood account that Noah understands cubits as he was given dimensions for the construction of the ark. So “cubits” are within the ANE worldview. Second, the flood account includes specific info on year, month and day for various events that occurred. So Noah, understood those terms; thus months and days are within the ANE worldview. Therefore one must conclude that EVEN TO AN ANE, the flood account indicates that the water was a measurable amount above the mountains. Also, these mountains were covered for a duration. As I’ve stated (and it has not been responded to), the laws of physics preclude water remaining 15 cubits above the mountains if the extent is local. You’d have to put the region in a bowl of higher mountains (to contain the water), then conclude that the ANE worldview did not know about those mountains.
I’d really like to a response to this, as maybe I’m missing something. And, don’t just say “you don’t understand” – explain it.
Richard, those who are reluctant to believe that the flood was worldwide are reluctant to believe what God has said. Would they call God a liar? Maybe not overtly, but that is what they are doing. God used SO much very specific language in that passage that it just seems crazy that a Christian, who really believes that the Bible is indeed God’s inspired word for us all, can explain the worldwide flood away! It makes me wonder how much of the rest of scripture they might ‘explain away’.
John, you explained the appeal to authority fallacy at lengths. It made me wonder if perhaps Dr. Carson is one, who like yourself, is an expert in one field, but has studied much in another field, because of personal interest. You are a lawyer, not a scientist, right? Perhaps Dr.Carson has studied these issues just as much as you have, or more. It’s possible for a person to become an expert in another field, even if they don’t have a degree to prove it, right? So, who knows….?
Steve, glad you liked the story. My surgeon friend is retired now, but he worked at UCLA for quite a few years, then at UCSF. He is originally from South Africa….British South African. I won’t mention his name, but I’m sure he would have known the doctor you’ve referred to….they probably crossed paths at conferences many times. They may now even be aware of their like-heritage in the family of God.
OK, let me stir things up a little. Not attempting to hijack the thread, but…One of the things I think we are dealing with here, which may account for some of the different opinions and approaches, is the nature of inspiration. If we accept verbal plenary (VP), which is the dominant evangelical view, then we can say that the words of Genesis are the very words of God. But speaking for myself, I cannot separate VP from dictation, which almost everyone denies. If God chose the very words, man becomes no more than a secretary recording God’s dictation. Yet almost all evangelicals would say that the Bible has a divine element and a human element. So exactly what is the human element? (BTW, I believe in inspiration, but I lean towards what Roger Olson and others have called dynamic inspiration)
In this case the human contribution may be the ANE worldview of the writer. The YEC position is dependant on the exact wording of the creation account, but what if God’s only intent was to communicate that he (God) is indeed the source of all that exists?
So I guess what I’m asking is exactly what is the human contribution to the creation account? Or do we deny a human contribution to scripture?
Putting on flameproof suit,
Dave
@Susan:
Please read the link which John furnished above regarding some of the things we are talking about, before suggesting we are or might be questioning the entire Bible before you make such statements as this one:
“Richard, those who are reluctant to believe that the flood was worldwide are reluctant to believe what God has said. Would they call God a liar? Maybe not overtly, but that is what they are doing. God used SO much very specific language in that passage that it just seems crazy that a Christian, who really believes that the Bible is indeed God’s inspired word for us all, can explain the worldwide flood away! It makes me wonder how much of the rest of scripture they might ‘explain away’.”
Here is the link:
http://www.kjvbible.org/
As you will see there are several very detailed and biblical explanations by valid theologians who believe there could have possibly been a local flood.
And, please could we stick to the specific issues here? This is the second time you’ve defended YEC by making comments which would suggest those of us who don’t agree with your opinions are going outside of the Bible. I absolutely don’t mind valid and factual disagreement but such snide personal comments turn me off entirely. Not to mention they end any desire for anyone to carry on a reasonable discussion with you, especially since you’ve indicated in a comment above that you really haven’t studied much up on anything much outside the YEC camp.
I want a good factual explanation of all these beliefs which CMP has presented, because these are question non-believers tend to ask all the time, and I want to have answers which are biblical and make sense to someone outside Christianity.
Thanks.
@Dave Z,regarding #448:
A very reasonable question and one I have often wondered about as well.
@Richard
I have heard 2 Peter 3:8 preached from pulpits all my life, as a scriptural backup for the 6000 year old earth. And I have covered a lot of territory in my ministry travels for the last 25 years, in a lot of different denominations, all over the country.
I cannot recall ever once meeting or hearing an OE who used that verse to make a case for an old earth creation, and indeed cannot see how they could possibly do that. I should think it would be just the opposite.