# Young Earth Conference in Dallas



## Scott (Sep 21, 2006)

For those in the Dallas area, you may be interested in this Young Earth Conference. Looks good.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Sep 21, 2006)

some people are hilarious; they accept science when it fits in with their presuppositions but reject it when it doesnt. at least be consistent...


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 21, 2006)

?


----------



## blhowes (Sep 21, 2006)

Looks like it'd be an interesting conference, but I didn't particularly care for this:


> Cost:
> $30.00 - Individual Ticket
> $20.00 - Student (15 or older) or *Senior Citizens (55 & above*)


I thought it was supposed to be a young earth conference. Why'd I leave their site feeling so old?

...well, back to my rocking chair...


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ?



sorry, on a tantrum  i was referring to most in the young earth crowd...


----------



## Scott (Oct 10, 2006)

"sorry, on a tantrum i was referring to most in the young earth crowd..."

I think you could say the same thing about Darwinists and Old Earthers, as is evidenced by the history of their ideas.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "sorry, on a tantrum i was referring to most in the young earth crowd..."
> 
> I think you could say the same thing about Darwinists and Old Earthers, as is evidenced by the history of their ideas.



when do old-earthers deny the validity of science when it disagrees with their theology, yet embrace it when it concurs?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott_
> ...



No one on the YEC questions the validity of science, they question the validity of using it to interpret or override the clearer/higher authority.

I really do not see much difference between what we do here and when we agree with a competent Theologian on some issues then reject other views due to the person's deviation from scripture.

CT


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> I thought it was supposed to be a young earth conference. Why'd I leave their site feeling so old?
> 
> ...well, back to my rocking chair...



Don't worry, that's just the *appearance* of age.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> ...



see the fallacy here is that there is a dichotomy between the inferences of science and God and Scripture. Are you implying those that believe science reject Scripture when Scipture is ambiguous on natural issues or when science seeks to explain the created world? Believing in an old earth does not imply someone has "deviated" from Scripture; science is merely the way humans explain natural revelation. If we are to assume that the 6 day creation was literal why not suppose that the Inuits and Aboriginies were talking about the Roman church when Paul declares

"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world."

Just as context should be a given when interpreting Scripture so should the non-contradition of reality. Scripture never implies a literal 6 days, so when science sheds light on Scripture, i think we should listen.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2006)

> Just as context should be a given when interpreting Scripture so should the non-contradition of reality. Scripture never implies a literal 6 days, so when science sheds light on Scripture, i think we should listen.



Everyone here agrees we should read scripture in context. Most here believe that context refers to 6/24 days. Since it is 1) narrative, 2) the waw implies consecutivity (sp, just made up a word) and thus, besides the normal meaning of the words themselves, the very context demands 6/24.

As to the general revelation. It is God's truth. It is not misleading. Our interpretations of it, however, can be misleading. They are marred by sin and need to be corrected by God's special revelation.*

*True, even our interpretation of special revelation can be marred by sin. That is a fair rebuttal. But if that rebuttal is given, then one must demonstrate _from the text itself_ that we have misinterpreted it.


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> Scripture never implies a literal 6 days, so when science sheds light on Scripture, i think we should listen.



I beg to differ. The 4th commandment specifically says, six days shalt thou labour and rest the seventh day in imitation of God who created all things in six days and rested the seventh day. The prima facie understanding is that, as man's working week is literal, so also was God's. There is no evidence within Scripture itself to question this prima facie understanding. The question ONLY arises because modern science tells us the creation of all things required great periods of time. And it makes this declaration on the mere assumption of evolution, which itself is contrary to the instantaneous acts of creation descrobed for us in Genesis One.

What Scripture speaks, God speaks. It should never be compromised by the theories of men.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Oct 10, 2006)

> And it makes this declaration on the mere assumption of evolution



i think you have this backwards. Evolution is implied by long epochs by those that presuppose evolution, not the other way around. I do not presuppose evolution yet i believe in an old earth because science has demonstrated the probability of its accuracy to be higher than those interpretations that hold to a literal 6 days. 




> The prima facie understanding is that, as man's working week is literal, so also was God's. There is no evidence within Scripture itself to question this prima facie understanding.



again, Scripture is not a science book and there is no need to assume because it says six days, that it should be taken literally. I'm not sure if it is totally cogent to argue from silence in this matter. let me put it this way; do i believe God could have made the earth in 6 literal days? yes. Do i believe He did? no.

[Edited on 10-10-2006 by fivepointcalvinist]


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> i think you have this backwards. Evolution is implied by long epochs by those that presuppose evolution, not the other way around. I do not presuppose evolution yet i believe in an old earth because science has demonstrated the probability of its accuracy to be higher than those interpretations that hold to a literal 6 days.



No, I think you are looking at it backwards. First came the idea of "development," then the geological periods of time necessary for the development to take place. "Development" was posited in Grecian times before there was any idea of geological ages.



> again, Scripture is not a science book and there is no need to assume because it says six days, that it should be taken literally. I'm not sure if it is totally cogent to argue from silence in this matter. let me put it this way; do i believe God could have made the earth in 6 literal days? yes. Do i believe He did? no.



This is simply a shrugging off of what the Scriptures do in fact say. They might not be a scientific text book; but when they speak a fact, whatever field of science that fact might encroach upon, it is still to be regarded as infallible.

Now the Scriptures do not leave open the mere possibility that God might have created in six days. It says, "in six days" the Lord created all things, and that this provides a pattern for man's working week.

The Almighty spoke these words, not man. I should also add, He spoke these words in the midst of the most horrific scenes which ever confronted humanity. It is only because "scientists" are not confronted with the same horror of God's presence that they feel free to shrug off His most solemn declarations. But a day awaits them even more horrific than that which the Israelites witnessed.

John Owen once said that the doctrine of justification is only conceived aright when understood in the light of judgment day. I would suggest that all bibilical interpretation should be carried out with a trembling before the Great White Throne.

[Edited on 10-11-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> ...



so you assume that for radio carbon dating to be accurate one must first presuppose development?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2006)

> so you assume that for radio carbon dating to be accurate one must first presuppose development?


On one hand I don't get where you are going. On ther other hand is radio carbon dating really that accurate? I have heard stories on how this living crab was several million years old, etc. I am not against the scientific method but at the same time, I don't believe science gets a "King's X" in biblical evaluation.


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> so you assume that for radio carbon dating to be accurate one must first presuppose development?



Carbon dating is like looking into a crystal ball and prognosticating what will take place in the past. It presupposes a uniformitarianism that cannot be proved on materialistic grounds. Theologically speaking, modern science is nothing more than materialistic hocus pocus. It is one of the grossest forms of idolatry to have entered the stage of human history.

I can only say, historically, that the horse of "development" came first, and the buggy of "ages" followed after.

I can also say, philosophically, that modern scientists only seek to provide a materialistic explanation of this world and its origins. Yet they can't prove that matter exists. For all they know, we might be a dream in a dinosaur's head. They would of course appeal to consciousness, but then they would have to presuppose something immaterial to explain the existence of matter, and thereby undermine their whole theory of materialistic development.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 10, 2006)

I am YE because I think that is what Scripture teaches.

Like other external evidences that support Scripture's assertions, I value what evidence may be found that offers corroboration of what I believe.

For every "clear data point" that "proves" OE, I will produce a contrary "clear data point" that _supports_ YE. Given the amount of material on my shelves, I think I can safely make the bet that I will not run out of "hard facts" for a considerable amount of time.

The issue is not to be resolved by external data (to the Bible), but will always devolve back to interpretive questions, such as, "Why do you accord that datum that degree of weight?" and "On what basis is that interpretation to be received as a final evaluation?"

The battle of "evidence" will never be "won" by either side. OE dismisses just as much "inconvenient data" as YE. So, in the end the real battle is exegetical.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> ...



with all due respect, we should leave science to the scientists and theology to theologians. radio carbon dating doesnt have to necessarily be 100% down to the last second correct for it to offer a plausible explanation of the age of a certain thing. also how is it that you come to the conclusion that scientists cant prove matter exists? dark matter, yes; atoms, yes; but tangeble matter is self evident, it doesnt need to be proved to exist. also you assume that all scientists are atheists. youre confusing science and atheism...


----------



## MW (Oct 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> with all due respect, we should leave science to the scientists and theology to theologians.



This assumes the existence of brute facts. There are none. Every science is conducted on presuppositions, which themselves relate to a worldview.



> radio carbon dating doesnt have to necessarily be 100% down to the last second correct for it to offer a plausible explanation of the age of a certain thing.



You cannot prove that carbon dating is ever correct even in the slightest degree. For all a scientist knows, the fossils it dates might have been deposited in that specific piece of earth by an overflowing flood, which has altered the composition of the earth. Carbon dating requires uniformitarianism which the scientist cannot guarantee because he has not watched over the relic for the thousands of years in which it has been living in its own piece of earth.



> also how is it that you come to the conclusion that scientists cant prove matter exists? dark matter, yes; atoms, yes; but tangeble matter is self evident, it doesnt need to be proved to exist.



Self-evident? This is the consciousness argument. Hence you require non-materialism to explain materialism. Thus refuting the idea of brute facts.



> also you assume that all scientists are atheists. youre confusing science and atheism...



I do not assume this. You have argued for the soveriegnty of science in its own realm, one on which the Bible is not permitted to encroach. This supposes that science can deal with material facts apart from an ultimate explanation of reality. I am arguing that materialism as such cannot be espoused, because it is always assuming what it is not willing to accept -- consciousness, soul, spiritual reality, eternal truth, and God. Science which does not reckon with this might not be atheistic, but it is at least agnostic, and it is self-refuting.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2006)

> with all due respect, we should leave science to the scientists and theology to theologians



Some medical scientists say that homosexuality is a character trait that one is born with and therefore not morally responsible (or, we cannot make moral judgments on this). To be consistent with your statement, does the theologian get to "intrude" on science?


----------



## cih1355 (Oct 11, 2006)

Radioactive dating makes the following assumptions: 1) There was no daughter product before the parent started to decay, 2) Radioactive decay rates have always been the same, and 3) Rocks are a closed system. 

If at least one of these assumptions is false, radioactive dating is inaccurate and should not be trusted.


----------



## cih1355 (Oct 11, 2006)

> The battle of "evidence" will never be "won" by either side. OE dismisses just as much "inconvenient data" as YE. So, in the end the real battle is exegetical.



I agree. 

Young earth creationists present evidence that there was a worldwide flood such as marine deposits on high mountain tops. They also give evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed by a massive flood. Evolutionists will look at this evidence and say, "Why did there have to be a worldwide flood? Why couldn't there have been many local floods?".


----------



## non dignus (Oct 11, 2006)

Young Earthers Rule!

If I get to heaven and find out it's 'old earth', then I have only erred by taking the text at face value.

[Edited on 10-11-2006 by non dignus]


----------



## Scott (Oct 11, 2006)

"when do old-earthers deny the validity of science when it disagrees with their theology, yet embrace it when it concurs?"

The introduction of old earth views was motivated by a philosophy of materialism and uniformitarianism. At the time it was introduced the evidence was scant, even by their own standards, and key pieces of the evidence Lyell used has come to be rejected even by their own camp. Yet, the idea remains and is supported by new observations that current materialists believe constitutes evidence. Analogizing to law, the Supreme Court that decided Roe v. Wade had a smattering of supposed reasons why the Constitution provided for a right to abortion. Those reasons have largely been jettisoned, but new reasons remain to give the same right. It is result-based reasoning.

Scott


----------



## caddy (Oct 11, 2006)

AIG has excellent answers:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

[Edited on 10-11-2006 by caddy]


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> with all due respect, we should leave science to the scientists and theology to theologians.



Hold up there friend, you are forgetting that science is only made possible by a theistic worldview and that science was stolen FROM the theists and then refiltered through a material-only worldview which is inconsistent with all the evidence. The materialists are not driven to discover the truth but to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and rebellion toward the Creator.

Leave science to the scientists? That statement is both bad science and bad theology

[Edited on 10-11-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## caddy (Oct 11, 2006)

Might I suggest Rodney Stark's books as excellent resources as to the Dynamic of what Bob mentions above:

http://www.rodneystark.com/

The Victory of Reason:
How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success
Random House, 2005


and

For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery.
Princeton University Press, 2003

[Edited on 10-11-2006 by caddy]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Oct 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by cih1355_
> Radioactive dating makes the following assumptions: 1) There was no daughter product before the parent started to decay, 2) Radioactive decay rates have always been the same, and 3) Rocks are a closed system.
> 
> If at least one of these assumptions is false, radioactive dating is inaccurate and should not be trusted.



the reference was to C14 dating. look at just that single technique so that details and specifics can be carefully examined.

C14 makes no assumptions about daughter products. it is a ratio of C14/C12 in a once living creature who obtained it's carbon from the atmosphere.

what physical parameters have to have changed for the radioactive rate of N14->C14 to have been different in the past? both the weak and strong nuclear forces. what does changing those imply for the universe?

C14 is not used to date rocks.

only the second is actually an assumption of C14 and it is an essential assumption if the universe existed in the past.

C14 is an excellent system to look at closely because it has undergone 1 major recalibration and is in the process of being very well evidenced by at least 4 very different systems: dendrochronology, coral, pollen in lake varves and ice core bubbles. plus C14 has such a limited extension into the past, about 50Kya, that it has dated lots of objects that have independent dating.


----------



## MW (Oct 11, 2006)

I think it must be acknowledged, though, that carbon dating in its best forms still leaves the historian with much guess work. Like the crystal ball, it only provides generalisations, and more guesses are discarded than accepted.


----------

