[_ Old Earth _] Clearing something up.

[Barbarian]

I don't know whether or not the idea of six literal days were ever questioned prior to the ToE.

St. Augustine was the most notable Christian to show that Genesis is not compatible with six literal days.

 

[jasoncran]

St. Augustine was the most notable Christian to show that Genesis is not compatible with six literal days.

and at the time the jewish men werent going to tell the gentile church that had their account wrong

and jeff your exegial account of history and how the jews makes sense. we cant take them like the gentiles.


genesis is a story to teach us and their history is told like something we westerners cant grasp. the story is more important the minor facts.

yom with a number means a day. so if a jew was to say to another in siz days i will see you again. did he mean six eons? or six days?

did you everthing think that god set the day and then told them that he did it in that time?

 

[stovebolts]

I don't know whether or not the idea of six literal days were ever questioned prior to the ToE. Regardless, there should be a large amount of agreement between science and Scripture regarding beginnings. As with similar conflicts between science and theology in the past, we must be open to letting science inform us and be willing to change and correct our understanding of Scripture if necessary.

Free, while I respect you, I disagree with the idea that science would correct scripture. That's a pretty slippery slope. BTW, can you show me by way of science where a man can die a brutal death on a cross and come back to life in three days? Don't you see how that would cause us to question the resurrection? Or what about all the miracles that Jesus performed. Did he really turn water into wine, or was it a simple parlor trick? What about raising the dead, healing the lepers? Were these staged events too? Did Moses really part the red sea? All of these Science would disagree with.

But I think the argument is not the science, but what assumptions that science asserts in it's theories based on visible fact. For instance, both Carbon and Radio Active Decay are based on assumptions and thus the facts that these tests produce are viewed through said assumptions. But the fact remains, nobody was collecting samples 6,000 years ago and nobody was collecting samples 10 billion years ago. 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?

Well, and this is key, there is no mention of "day and night" or "morning and evening" for the seventh day, unlike every other day.

Gen 2:1-3, 1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. (ESV)


So what we have is this:

Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Verse 5 shows that "day" is used both as "daytime," roughly a 12-hour period of time, and a 24-hour period of time. Together with Gen 2:2, we have three primary meanings of day, this latter one being without end, according to the Genesis account.

Something else I have come across recently is that nowhere in the Genesis account is it stated that these are six straight days. They could be considered six 24-hour days but days that are separated by long lengths of time. I need to read the arguments further though before I am prepared to discuss it but it does seem like a plausible reading of the text.

Free,
What we have the first six days of creation are days that end with, " And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

It is very clear that a day consists of a evening and a morning. As far as them not being consecutive days, that's a pretty big stretch since the text clearly states, day one, two, three etc. It's pretty plain and easy to see Duane, I don't see why we have to make the Bible say what we want it to say instead of what it clearly says. And no Duane, I'm not being dogmatic or ignorant here. Again, it's about the assumptions that Science builds it's theories on. It's not the facts that Science produces.

My point is simply that "day" can, and does, also mean an unspecified period of time, and as such, the seventh day either is continuing yet, or that the eighth day began with Jesus' resurrection, the beginning of the new creation. Don't read too much into it.

In the case of creation, I think the texts are clear. They were literal days. However, they were not measurable by what we now set our clocks to until the fourth day. Were the first three days what we know as 24 hours days? My assumption would be yes based on the consistency with the word day in the creation account.

But as far as the 7th day, the Jews also picked up on that.
Hebrews 4:4 For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works;

5 and in this place again, They shall not enter into my rest.

6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter thereinto, and they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter in because of disobedience,

7 he again defineth a certain day, To-day, saying in David so long a time afterward (even as hath been said before), To-day if ye shall hear his voice, Harden not your hearts.

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.

9 There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God.

Sorry Duane, but I don't see that as a scientific formula.

 

[stovebolts]

St. Augustine was the most notable Christian to show that Genesis is not compatible with six literal days.

Barbarian,
With all due respect, St. Augustine also allegorized the parables of Jesus that were already allegory and by doing so missed the very intent of the words of Jesus, even when Jesus explained the parable. It's like creating a metaphor from a metaphor and then interpreting your second metaphor to shape the first metaphor. That's just bad exegesis, but it sounds very rich and enticing.

Let's be honest. Augustine was a master or rhetoric. He made his living teaching it before he joined the church and he used it to elevate himself within the church. It was something he loved and something that he did very, very well. The church owes a great gratitude for his services. But just like Solomon, Augustine wasn't without blemish and he didn't get everything right. Some things he got dead wrong.

 

[Free]

Free, while I respect you, I disagree with the idea that science would correct scripture. That's a pretty slippery slope.

It is important to note that this is not about correcting Scripture, it is about correcting our understanding of what is stated in Scripture, as Scripture is the final authority.

The world was created by God. Based on that fact, I agree with the fathers of modern science that we can then discover at least some of the "how" of creation. If God speaks through the created order, and he does (Rom 1), and he also speaks through Scripture, then they ought to agree.

We cannot just automatically say that Scripture must correct where there is disagreement with science. That is being dishonest to truth; we must let the facts lead where they may. If our understanding of what Scripture is saying needs to be corrected, then we must do so.

Just think of where we would be if Copernicus and Galileo hadn't challenged the thinking of the day and just merely believed that the Bible taught geocentrism, as was widely believed in their times. I'm assuming you agree that the Sun is the center of the solar system, not the Earth. This was a clear case of an incorrect understanding of Scripture corrected by science.

BTW, can you show me by way of science where a man can die a brutal death on a cross and come back to life in three days? Don't you see how that would cause us to question the resurrection? Or what about all the miracles that Jesus performed. Did he really turn water into wine, or was it a simple parlor trick? What about raising the dead, healing the lepers? Were these staged events too? Did Moses really part the red sea? All of these Science would disagree with.

Miracles are something else and for another discussion.

But I think the argument is not the science, but what assumptions that science asserts in it's theories based on visible fact. For instance, both Carbon and Radio Active Decay are based on assumptions and thus the facts that these tests produce are viewed through said assumptions. But the fact remains, nobody was collecting samples 6,000 years ago and nobody was collecting samples 10 billion years ago. 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?

It is a false dichotomy to say we must choose between either science or God, as though they are mutually exclusive. The whole point is that God has created us as rational beings and so we ought to be able to use our rational minds to discover his creation. Although Carbon and Radioactive Decay are based on assumptions, is there any reason to not trust them, other than assumptions based on our understanding of what Scripture is saying? Is there any scientific or rational basis for not believing the accepted rates of decay to be true?

Free,
What we have the first six days of creation are days that end with, " And there was evening and there was morning, one day."

Yes, that is what I have stated but it is the significance of no mention of it regarding the seventh day that was my point.

It is very clear that a day consists of a evening and a morning. As far as them not being consecutive days, that's a pretty big stretch since the text clearly states, day one, two, three etc. It's pretty plain and easy to see Duane, I don't see why we have to make the Bible say what we want it to say instead of what it clearly says. And no Duane, I'm not being dogmatic or ignorant here. Again, it's about the assumptions that Science builds it's theories on. It's not the facts that Science produces.

But this is to read assumptions into the text and I could just as well argue that making the Bible say what we want is to say that it is speaking of six consecutive days. Note what it says: "the first day"; "the second day"; etc. But of what? Of Creation. This says nothing about whether or not these days are consecutive. It really is an assumption to say that they are consecutive.

My only point in this is to show that an old earth is, in fact, a plausible reading of Genesis 1 and 2.

In the case of creation, I think the texts are clear. They were literal days. However, they were not measurable by what we now set our clocks to until the fourth day. Were the first three days what we know as 24 hours days? My assumption would be yes based on the consistency with the word day in the creation account.

But as far as the 7th day, the Jews also picked up on that.
Hebrews 4:4 For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works;

5 and in this place again, They shall not enter into my rest.

6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter thereinto, and they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter in because of disobedience,

7 he again defineth a certain day, To-day, saying in David so long a time afterward (even as hath been said before), To-day if ye shall hear his voice, Harden not your hearts.

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day.

9 There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God.

Sorry Duane, but I don't see that as a scientific formula.

And yet, I have shown two different uses for "day" in a single verse and the significance of no mention of "evening and morning" regarding the seventh day. This is no trivial thing and we cannot just assume that the meaning of "day" is the same throughout the creation account. If God rested from creating on the seventh day, then it is still the seventh day.

 

[Free]

Barbarian,
With all due respect, St. Augustine also allegorized the parables of Jesus that were already allegory and by doing so missed the very intent of the words of Jesus, even when Jesus explained the parable. It's like creating a metaphor from a metaphor and then interpreting your second metaphor to shape the first metaphor. That's just bad exegesis, but it sounds very rich and enticing.

Let's be honest. Augustine was a master or rhetoric. He made his living teaching it before he joined the church and he used it to elevate himself within the church. It was something he loved and something that he did very, very well. The church owes a great gratitude for his services. But just like Solomon, Augustine wasn't without blemish and he didn't get everything right. Some things he got dead wrong.

And with all due respect, this is another fallacy. Just because Augustine believed things in a way that you do not, whether or not he was wrong, does not mean that he was wrong about questioning the six literal days of Genesis. In fact, I would think that with most early church fathers there are things we would agree with and things we would disagree with. But it would be error to conclude that they were wrong about certain things simply because we believe they were wrong about other things.

 

[stovebolts]

And with all due respect, this is another fallacy. Just because Augustine believed things in a way that you do not, whether or not he was wrong, does not mean that he was wrong about questioning the six literal days of Genesis. In fact, I would think that with most early church fathers there are things we would agree with and things we would disagree with. But it would be error to conclude that they were wrong about certain things simply because we believe they were wrong about other things.

Fair enough. Lets stop posturing and dig on in. Post what Augustine wrote on creation and lets examine it and well see who's in error.

 

[stovebolts]

duane,
just read your reply on the previous page. I'll respond tomorrow as I don't think a reply from my phone would make the trip lol!

 

[Free]

Fair enough. Lets stop posturing and dig on in. Post what Augustine wrote on creation and lets examine it and well see who's in error.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I am not interested in whether or not St. Augustine was in error, or that you or I think he was in error, as I don't know much about anything that he has said.

You first asked: "Free, why was the literal 6 days of creation never really questions until the Theory of Evolution came about?"

My reply: "I don't know whether or not the idea of six literal days were ever questioned prior to the ToE."

Barbarian replied that it had happened: "St. Augustine was the most notable Christian to show that Genesis is not compatible with six literal days."

You responded to Barbarian with:

"Barbarian,
With all due respect, St. Augustine also allegorized the parables of Jesus that were already allegory and by doing so missed the very intent of the words of Jesus, even when Jesus explained the parable. It's like creating a metaphor from a metaphor and then interpreting your second metaphor to shape the first metaphor. That's just bad exegesis, but it sounds very rich and enticing.

Let's be honest. Augustine was a master or rhetoric. He made his living teaching it before he joined the church and he used it to elevate himself within the church. It was something he loved and something that he did very, very well. The church owes a great gratitude for his services. But just like Solomon, Augustine wasn't without blemish and he didn't get everything right. Some things he got dead wrong. "

My last response was only to show the error of the above argument, nothing more.

 

[Free]

duane,
just read your reply on the previous page. I'll respond tomorrow as I don't think a reply from my phone would make the trip lol!

No worries. I would never try that from a phone either, or iPod in my case. They're smart but they still do dumb things.

 

[stovebolts]

My last response was only to show the error of the above argument, nothing more.

Duane,
I'm afraid I'm not following you. Augustine made no mention of Evolution that Barbarian was eluding to and your issue was not the same as Barbarians.

Isn't there a song with that title? How did that go? "Gotta keep them separated..."

Here is what Augustine wrote on the matter. You will indeed see that it is filled with allegory and rhetoric and the only thing he does not question is he Catholic faith.

http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf

If, then, Scripture is to be explained under both aspects, what meaning other than the allegorical have the words: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth?”5 Were heaven and earth made in the beginning of time, or first of all in creation, or in the Beginning who is the Word, the only-begotten Son of God?
And how can it be demonstrated that God, without any change in Himself, produces effects subject to change and measured by time? And what is meant by the phrase “heaven and earth”? Was this expression used to indicate spiritual and corporeal creatures? Or does it refer only to the corporeal, so that we may presume in this book that the author passed over in silence the creation of spiritual beings, and in saying “heaven and earth” wished to indicate all corporeal creation above and below? Or is the unformed matter of both the spiritual and corporeal worlds meant in the expression “heaven and earth”: that is, are we to understand, on the one hand, the life of the spirit as it can exist in itself when not turned towards its Creator (it is by this turning towards its Creator that it receives its form and perfection and if it does not thus turn, it is unformed);6 and, on the other hand, bodily matter considered as lacking all the bodily qualities that appear in formed matter when it is endowed with bodily appearances perceptible by the sight and other senses? 3. But perhaps we should tak...

As far as Science,

But another explanation might be offered. Although this work of God was done in an instant, did the light remain, with-out night coming on, until the time of one day was complete; and did the night, following upon the daylight, continue while the hours of the nighttime passed by until the morning of the following day dawned, one day, the first one, being then complete? But if I make such a statement, I fear I shall be laughed at both by those who have scientific knowledge of these matters and by those who can easily recognize the facts of the case. At the time when night is with us, the sun is illuminating with its presence those parts of the world through which it returns from the place of its setting to that of its rising. Hence it is that for the whole twenty-four hours of the sun’s circuit there is always day in one place and night in another. Surely, then, we are not going to place God in a region where it will be evening for Him as the sun’s light leaves that land for another.

Someone will say: “What have you brought out with all the threshing of this treatise?
What kernel have you revealed? What have you winnowed? Why does everything seem to lie hidden under questions? Adopt one of the many interpretations which you maintained were possible.” To such a one my answer is that I have arrived at a nourishing kernel in that I have learnt that a man is not in any difficulty in making a reply according to his faith which he ought to make to those who try to defame our Holy Scripture. When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, hither we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt.

If you want to discuss Augustines use of the Parables in the same manner, the Good Samaritan is an easy one to illustrate his mis use of allegory and rhetoric.

 

[Free]

Duane,
I'm afraid I'm not following you.

I'll let Barbarian back up his statement regarding what St. Augustine believed. This was my only point on the matter:

"Barbarian,
With all due respect, St. Augustine also allegorized the parables of Jesus that were already allegory and by doing so missed the very intent of the words of Jesus, even when Jesus explained the parable. It's like creating a metaphor from a metaphor and then interpreting your second metaphor to shape the first metaphor. That's just bad exegesis, but it sounds very rich and enticing.

Let's be honest. Augustine was a master or rhetoric. He made his living teaching it before he joined the church and he used it to elevate himself within the church. It was something he loved and something that he did very, very well. The church owes a great gratitude for his services. But just like Solomon, Augustine wasn't without blemish and he didn't get everything right. Some things he got dead wrong."

You seem to be arguing that because St. Augustine was wrong about Jesus' parables, that therefore he was wrong about questioning the six days of Creation.

But there is no connection that can be made there. That is the error. Each instance where you think he is wrong, must be looked at individually. It is fallacious to conclude someone is wrong about a point where there is disagreement based on believing they are wrong about another point of disagreement, unless of course there is some sort of interconnectedness.

So, St. Augustine's view on the six days of Creation must be taken and evaluated apart from his views on anything else.

Maybe that wasn't your intent but it came across that way to me.

 

[stovebolts]

Maybe that wasn't your intent but it came across that way to me.

I would suggest that it came across that way to you because internet forums are prone to misunderstandings coupled with your lack of knowledge or understanding of Augustine and his writings... BTW, Did you know that the words we use are actually a very, and I mean very small portion of communication?

Anyway, the jist of my reply to Barbarian was to state that Science is not built on rhetoric and allegory and I'll take the liberty to add neither is sound exegesis. And as Augustine states in his opening statement, he is addressing the creation account by way of allegory.

As far as the comment on the parables, I used that because more people are acquainted with how Augustine deals with the parables than they are Genesis. But what holds true, is that he treats them the same way. Which is simply to say rhetoric and allegory. Why? Because that's what Augustine got paid to teach before he came into the church and he was good at it.

Hope that clears that up and hopefully I'll have time to reply to what you wrote yesterday later today.

 

[Barbarian]

Augustine's understanding of creation, the universe created instantly from which all things then unfolded as He intended, by the potential created in it from the beginning, speaks of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator. It so happens that it also fits your idea of potentiality in things.

And it happens to fit what we observe of the universe. I think he was right in this.

 

[Asyncritus]

Sorry to join this late.

But why are we wasting time on Augustine? Dawkins looks a better target to me!

 

[stovebolts]

Augustine's understanding of creation, the universe created instantly from which all things then unfolded as He intended, by the potential created in it from the beginning, speaks of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator. It so happens that it also fits your idea of potentiality in things.

And it happens to fit what we observe of the universe. I think he was right in this.

Barbarian,
I hope that you don't think I'm attacking Augustine. I hold much of his writings as illuminating and inspiring.

As with you, I see much of what you write as inspiring, and though we may disagree on the age of the earth, I have no less respect for you.

 

[stovebolts]

Free, while I respect you, I disagree with the idea that science would correct scripture. That's a pretty slippery slope.

It is important to note that this is not about correcting Scripture, it is about correcting our understanding of what is stated in Scripture, as Scripture is the final authority.

The world was created by God. Based on that fact, I agree with the fathers of modern science that we can then discover at least some of the "how" of creation. If God speaks through the created order, and he does (Rom 1), and he also speaks through Scripture, then they ought to agree.

We cannot just automatically say that Scripture must correct where there is disagreement with science. That is being dishonest to truth; we must let the facts lead where they may. If our understanding of what Scripture is saying needs to be corrected, then we must do so.

Just think of where we would be if Copernicus and Galileo hadn't challenged the thinking of the day and just merely believed that the Bible taught geocentrism, as was widely believed in their times. I'm assuming you agree that the Sun is the center of the solar system, not the Earth. This was a clear case of an incorrect understanding of Scripture corrected by science.

While I understand your view, I have to ask if you understand the assumptions of Science as it relates to millions or billions of years. Both carbon dating and radio active decay are based on what we've observed via science and then assumptions are made from those facts. But the fact is, nobody's been collecting that type of data for 6,000 years let alone billions so science has to assume that the rate of decay within radio active decay is constant, which is where they derive thier theory that the earth is billions of years old. 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.

Miracles are something else and for another discussion.

When God creates something out of nothing, I think that's a pretty big miracle and personally, it trumps turning water into wine.

It is a false dichotomy to say we must choose between either science or God, as though they are mutually exclusive. The whole point is that God has created us as rational beings and so we ought to be able to use our rational minds to discover his creation.

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.

Although Carbon and Radioactive Decay are based on assumptions, is there any reason to not trust them, other than assumptions based on our understanding of what Scripture is saying? Is there any scientific or rational basis for not believing the accepted rates of decay to be true?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating

Eleven samples were collected from five recent lava flows during field work in January 1996—two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow7> (Figure 6). The darker recent lavas were clearly visible and each one easily identified (with the aid of maps) on the northwestern slopes against the lighter-coloured older portions of the cone (Figures 4 and 7). All flows were typically made up of jumbled blocks of congealed lava, resulting in rough, jagged, clinkery surfaces (Figure 8).
The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), for whole-rock potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating—first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow.7 To also test the consistency of results within samples, second pieces of two of the 30 June 1954 lava samples were also sent for analysis.
Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K–Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K–Ar dating. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work.

Figure 7. Map of the northwestern slopes of Mt Ngauruhoe showing the lava flows of 1949 and 1954, and the 1975 avalanche deposits.3,4 (Click image for larger view)
The “dates†obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1.7 The “ages†range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded “ages†of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave “ages†of millions of years. The low “age†samples were all processed by the laboratory in the same batch, suggesting a systematic lab problem. So the lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real. Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analyzed (A#2 and B#2 in Table 1) did not reproduce the same results, but this was not surprising given the analytical uncertainties at such low levels of argon. Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these rocks. Some geochronologists would say <0.27 million years is actually the correct “dateâ€, but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct “age†if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?!
Because these rocks are known to be less than 50 years old, it is apparent from the analytical data that these K–Ar “ages†are due to “excess†argon inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth.7 Thus, when the lavas cooled, they contained appreciable (non-zero) concentrations of “normal†40Ar, which is indistinguishable from daughter radiogenic 40Ar* derived by radioactive decay of parent 40K. This violates assumption (1) of radioactive dating, and so the K–Ar method fails the test. This same failure is also known to occur in many other rocks, including both recent volcanics8and ancient crustal rocks.9

As far as your argument on the seventh day (Sabbath), I'm still not seeing your point.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian,
I hope that you don't think I'm attacking Augustine. I hold much of his writings as illuminating and inspiring.

As with you, I see much of what you write as inspiring, and though we may disagree on the age of the earth, I have no less respect for you.

Augustine made errors. But I think he had this right. And Christians can differ on things and remain brothers in Christ. No offense taken in any way. As you know, I can be overly blunt, and I certainly am not going to be offended by plain talk from others. BTW, Argon/Argon testing of the eruption that buried Pompeii got it precisely right. But if you're careless and sample the wrong sorts of rocks you can make mistakes.

Not everything can be accurately sampled, which is why there are people who spend a lifetime learning how to avoid those errors.

 

[stovebolts]

Thanks Barbarian,

And I agree, there isn't any reason why we shouldn't consider each other brothers in Christ.

Just so you know my perspective... Personally I don't really give a hoot about the arguments between young earth and old earth and as you can tell, I'm not science wiz. But I do care about my son who's 12 and has a very inquisitive mind. He is being taught evolution in school and has been told not to bring up items such as global floods etc. So we see that the false dichotomy which Duane spoke of earlier is being promoted within the school system, so I have to be concerned with this.

I recently joined an atheist forum and I was extremely amazed at how many of them were raised in Christian homes but were lured away by this false dichotomy where they had to choose between Science or Christianity. As Duane said, God didn't create us to leave our minds at the door and pretty soon, they started viewing the stories of the bible as fairy tales and myths. Once that was undermined, its a very short leap into agnostics or worse yes, atheism.

And yes Barbarian, I too am guilty of being a bit blunt at times too. But anyway, I wanted to ask you this. You said they got pompei perfect. What would you assume they did wrong on the AIG samples that caused them to utterly miss the true age of those rocks. And how many other rock samples, if you had to put a percentage to it would you think were also mis-dated?

 

[Free]

While I understand your view, I have to ask if you understand the assumptions of Science as it relates to millions or billions of years. Both carbon dating and radio active decay are based on what we've observed via science and then assumptions are made from those facts. But the fact is, nobody's been collecting that type of data for 6,000 years let alone billions so science has to assume that the rate of decay within radio active decay is constant, which is where they derive thier theory that the earth is billions of years old.

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?

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.

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.

As far as your argument on the seventh day (Sabbath), I'm still not seeing your point.

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