[_ Old Earth _] Clearing something up.

[EricTheBaptist]

Recently, one poster was taken by surprise to learn that I'm a Christian.

I take credit for this.

 

[stovebolts]

Well, unless there is reason to believe that rates of decay are not constant, what reason is there to assume that science isn't correct?

There are many reasons to understand by scientific means that the rates of decay can be tainted. Please understand that I am not challenging facts, I am challenging the assumptions that are used to interpret the facts. Anyway, I think you'll find the below link interesting.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

Now, we can create our own theory based on a literal reading of the Bible and come to the assumption that the earth is only 6,000 years old and we can use that same science to make a case as well.

Except that now we have to change what we know regarding science. As you said, the assumption of science is based on fact. Now you are saying it is okay to ignore those facts and assume that rates of decay are not constant. Not only that, now we have to assume that a literal reading of the Bible brings us to a 6000 year old Earth.

Duane, the nature of Science is to change one's theory as the data becomes visable. For instance, it was believed a realatively short time ago that humans originated out of Africa since that's where the oldest human skeletons were found. Whole theories were bult upon that assumption until recently when human skeletons predating those found in Africa were found in Asia. But when it comes to dating rocks and fossils, what do we know? We know much about carbon 14 and we know much about radioactive decay and the facts they bring forth, and I am not saying we are to ignore those facts. Quiet the opposite actually. As far as the rates of decay being constant, please see the above link I provided. But as far as a literal reading of the Bible which dates the earth around 6000 years old, why would you limit science and not entertain this idea? Isn't science supposed to be un-biased? I would conclude by saying I assume some of the greatest scientiest probably looked at how something could be, rather than how something could not be. It's simply a matter of believing before your able to see.

I agree that it's a false dichotomy to say that we must either choose science or God. Actually, go to any atheist forum and most of them were raised in Chrisitan homes and that false dichotomy was presented to them as truth. No wonder they left the faith.

I'm confused. My response was to this:

"So the only fact that really remains is which assumption does one take? Does one take the assumption of Science, or does one take the assumption that there is a Creator who gave his only begotten son for all of humanity?"

You have here proposed the false dichotomy which you are now denouncing. You are implying that believing in God means not believing what science is telling us.

Duane,
I think your confused because you didn't catch my sarcasm. Maybe things are different in Canada, but they are teaching scientific assumptions as fact in the schools and to say that the earth is 6000 years old is not tolerated, nor is the idea of a global flood. Those types of discussion are forbidden and my own son has been repremened well before I started studying this (which is why I'm learning it). Tell me Duane, since when did asking questions within science become forbidden? That type of thinking is as hypocritical as your sunday school teacher responding, "Because the Bible says so" and abruptly ending the conversation. So what happens Duane when a child is being told by their sunday school teacher, "Because the Bible says so" and they are learning the opposite in their schools and later on in life they have to make the choice between the Bible and Science? You know what Duane, your absolutly right... We don't leave our reasoning by the wayside and unfortunatly, many Christians have denounced the Bible as myth and fairytales based on Scientific assumptions they call fact. If you don't see this Duane, then it's time for you to wake up... Because it's happening each and every day. Go to any Atheist forum and you'll be amazed at how many of them were lured away by Dawkins. So you see Duane, Im not assuming anything as the facts bear out.

But it's more than just that Duane, and I'm going to bring this into the picture as well. I have a friend who helped start up a Christian Adoption agency. She was very, very involved. Well, she was also going for her Masters in Social work and when she moved her classes to the University to complete here Masters, she was told that she could not be affiliated with a religious organization as it pertained to her degree. Not only that, but she is not allowed to be affiliated with any religious organization for X amount of years after she received her Masters or they would pull her degree from her. It's all very legal under the clause of separation of Church and State and the University holds the right to say where their education can be applied. It's a reality we live in Duane, and it's not right.

What we need to do is eliminate this whole dichotomy all together. But the fact that you see a false dichotomy tells me that you yourself see a dichotomy. It doesn't have to be that way Duane. There is ample Scientific evidence and theory that supports a Biblical view all the way from the earth being 6,000 years old to a global flood to the tower of Bable, and it's not based on rhetoric and dogma. In other words, we can hold a scientific view by supporting Scientific facts to uphold a young earth.

My point is that it is still the seventh day, therefore, "day" does not necessarily mean a 24-hour period of time.

Even the writer in Hebrews doesn't call today the seventh day... He calls it "today". But I degress, the creation account was never written as an aplogetic toward evolution as a proper exegesis of the text shows. Let's not try to make apple sause out of lemons.

 

[Free]

There are many reasons to understand by scientific means that the rates of decay can be tainted. Please understand that I am not challenging facts, I am challenging the assumptions that are used to interpret the facts. Anyway, I think you'll find the below link interesting.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

Even the dating they do, although it varies, still shows dates of millions of years. Not to mention the example of Mount St Helens doesn't really work.

But as far as a literal reading of the Bible which dates the earth around 6000 years old, why would you limit science and not entertain this idea? Isn't science supposed to be un-biased? I would conclude by saying I assume some of the greatest scientiest probably looked at how something could be, rather than how something could not be. It's simply a matter of believing before your able to see.

Again, I would disagree that a literal reading of the Bible necessarily dates the Earth around 6000 years, even apart from the Creation account. I am not limiting science. Science currently states that the Earth is very old and as you stated, it will (should) change as "as the data becomes visable." So until that happens, why limit Scripture? There are very plausible literal readings of Scripture which make the Earth very old. So why presume that the Bible teaches the Earth must be 6000 years old and try and make science fit?

Duane,
I think your confused because you didn't catch my sarcasm. Maybe things are different in Canada, but they are teaching scientific assumptions as fact in the schools and to say that the earth is 6000 years old is not tolerated, nor is the idea of a global flood. Those types of discussion are forbidden and my own son has been repremened well before I started studying this (which is why I'm learning it). Tell me Duane, since when did asking questions within science become forbidden? That type of thinking is as hypocritical as your sunday school teacher responding, "Because the Bible says so" and abruptly ending the conversation. So what happens Duane when a child is being told by their sunday school teacher, "Because the Bible says so" and they are learning the opposite in their schools and later on in life they have to make the choice between the Bible and Science? You know what Duane, your absolutly right... We don't leave our reasoning by the wayside and unfortunatly, many Christians have denounced the Bible as myth and fairytales based on Scientific assumptions they call fact. If you don't see this Duane, then it's time for you to wake up... Because it's happening each and every day. Go to any Atheist forum and you'll be amazed at how many of them were lured away by Dawkins. So you see Duane, Im not assuming anything as the facts bear out.

I'm actually not sure what your point is. Of course I am well aware that many Christians turn from belief due to this false dichotomy, but that is just as much an issue with what is being taught as Christian belief as it is with what is being taught in schools. When Christians are dogmatic that the Bible teaches the Earth is 6000 years old, of course believers are likely to have a major crisis of faith, we've just set them up for it. We've set up the false dichotomy that they must choose between what the Bible says and what science currently teaches.

Had such atheists been rightly taught that Scripture can very well support an old Earth, they may very well still be believers today.

But it's more than just that Duane, and I'm going to bring this into the picture as well. I have a friend who helped start up a Christian Adoption agency. She was very, very involved. Well, she was also going for her Masters in Social work and when she moved her classes to the University to complete here Masters, she was told that she could not be affiliated with a religious organization as it pertained to her degree. Not only that, but she is not allowed to be affiliated with any religious organization for X amount of years after she received her Masters or they would pull her degree from her. It's all very legal under the clause of separation of Church and State and the University holds the right to say where their education can be applied. It's a reality we live in Duane, and it's not right.

I don't know why you would think I don't know this or agree with it.

What we need to do is eliminate this whole dichotomy all together.

Which is precisely what I am trying to do.

But the fact that you see a false dichotomy tells me that you yourself see a dichotomy. It doesn't have to be that way Duane. There is ample Scientific evidence and theory that supports a Biblical view all the way from the earth being 6,000 years old to a global flood to the tower of Bable, and it's not based on rhetoric and dogma. In other words, we can hold a scientific view by supporting Scientific facts to uphold a young earth.

But again, this is all based on the presumption that the Bible teaches the Earth is 6000 years old.

Even the writer in Hebrews doesn't call today the seventh day... He calls it "today". But I degress, the creation account was never written as an aplogetic toward evolution as a proper exegesis of the text shows. Let's not try to make apple sause out of lemons.

I am well aware that "the creation account was never written as an apologetic toward evolution," but a "proper exegesis," if you really want to go there, reveals all sorts of interesting things.

 

[stovebolts]

Even the dating they do, although it varies, still shows dates of millions of years. Not to mention the example of Mount St Helens doesn't really work.

Correction Duane. The interpretation of the data shows millions of years and I might add that samples that were less than 50 years old came back as a quarter of a million t0 3.5 million years old. That in itself shows how the data can be interpreted incorrectly based on assumption. I'm not understanding how you can disagree with this as the facts have clearly shown the flaw in assumptions made by scientists. Furthermore, why is it that if a fossil is found and carbon 14 dating shows it to be 1 million years old, yet the rock comes back through radioactive decay states that the rock is 5 million years old, the Carbon 14 sample is thrown to the wayside and the fossil is dated by the rock.

Again, I would disagree that a literal reading of the Bible necessarily dates the Earth around 6000 years, even apart from the Creation account. I am not limiting science. Science currently states that the Earth is very old and as you stated, it will (should) change as "as the data becomes visable." So until that happens, why limit Scripture? There are very plausible literal readings of Scripture which make the Earth very old. So why presume that the Bible teaches the Earth must be 6000 years old and try and make science fit?

Let me correct you again. Based on scientific assumptions of factual data that enable rocks that are less than 50 years old to erroneously be dated as millions of years old does not negate a literal rendering of the text that would date the earth to around 6000 years. I'm kind of getting the idea that I'm repeating myself Duane.

Had such atheists been rightly taught that Scripture can very well support an old Earth, they may very well still be believers today.

My point is this Duane. Science will not entertain a theory of a young earth, yet they support the theory of an old earth. Why not objectively look at both theories. BTW, did you know that the guy who thought of plate tectonics was a creationist? The secular scientific world ignored him until they could ignore him no longer. Young Earth Creationists have much to bring to the table.
But more to my point, I am trying to bring an awareness that there is indeed scientific evidence that supports a young earth, as well as a global flood and with anything, the longer I study this, the more concise I'll get at it's arguments.

But again, this is all based on the presumption that the Bible teaches the Earth is 6000 years old.

And I believe the texts support a young earth, and it is much easier to support this view with the texts than what you propose.

I am well aware that "the creation account was never written as an apologetic toward evolution," but a "proper exegesis," if you really want to go there, reveals all sorts of interesting things.

If it wasn't written to counter evolution, then why do we try to make it fit into that box? As far as a proper exegesis, yes it is very interesting and no, I don't think that includes the serpent seed doctrine.

Here is a good start if you want to discuss it.

http://www.christianforums.net/f45/creation-near-eastern-perspective-20251/
http://www.christianforums.net/f34/genesis-1-2-3-a-24148/

 

[Free]

Correction Duane. The interpretation of the data shows millions of years and I might add that samples that were less than 50 years old came back as a quarter of a million t0 3.5 million years old. That in itself shows how the data can be interpreted incorrectly based on assumption. I'm not understanding how you can disagree with this as the facts have clearly shown the flaw in assumptions made by scientists. Furthermore, why is it that if a fossil is found and carbon 14 dating shows it to be 1 million years old, yet the rock comes back through radioactive decay states that the rock is 5 million years old, the Carbon 14 sample is thrown to the wayside and the fossil is dated by the rock.



Let me correct you again. Based on scientific assumptions of factual data that enable rocks that are less than 50 years old to erroneously be dated as millions of years old does not negate a literal rendering of the text that would date the earth to around 6000 years. I'm kind of getting the idea that I'm repeating myself Duane.

Sorry, I did a quick skim, evidently too quick. I'll have to look at that link another time.

My point is this Duane. Science will not entertain a theory of a young earth, yet they support the theory of an old earth. Why not objectively look at both theories.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? There is no one on either side of the debate that actually can be truly objective. I do agree that they shouldn't just dismiss YEC.

And I believe the texts support a young earth, and it is much easier to support this view with the texts than what you propose.

It is no easier and a proper exegesis would bear this out.

If it wasn't written to counter evolution, then why do we try to make it fit into that box?

Why is it fitting into a box? If science tells us that the Earth is old and there are legitimate readings of the Creation account which allow for an old Earth, then it could very well be that the idea of a 6000 year old Earth is incorrect and YECism is trying to fit science into a box. This goes both ways.


My only point in all of this is that there are legitimate readings, and perhaps one superior reading, of the Creation accounts which allow for an old Earth. If our understanding of what the Creation accounts say needs to be corrected, then we must correct it and not begin with the presumption that the Bible teaches a 6000 year-old Earth.

 

[stovebolts]

Sorry, I did a quick skim, evidently too quick. I'll have to look at that link another time.

Fair enough Duane. I posted four links. Two from AIG and two in Genesis. We can discuss the two from AIG here, or start new topics and we can continue the Exegesis and redaction on Genesis in either two threads already started. Or if you prefer, start a new one.

Let me end off the day here though. I'm going to be away for awhile so if I don't respond until next week it's because I'm not near a computer, and I don't want to respond with my phone... that's just icky lol.

Enjoy your time with family and don't eat too much turkey lol!