# The Great Debate



## blhowes (Mar 15, 2008)

I started listening to The Great Debate, a debate among professing believers about the Genesis account of creation. Its a 10-part debate, the first four of which have been posted to "Answers in Genesis" so far. I've listened to the first two. It pretty interesting.

So far, they've basically focused on the Hebrew word yom, debating whether it necessarily means a 24-hour day or if it can represent a different period of time, as for example "the day of the Lord" 

Have any of you listened to this debate? I'm curious how those who hold to other than the 24-hour day account handle the account of Adam and Eve. Is it science that drives the view that a day in Genesis 1:1 may represent millions of years, or are there compelling arguments from scripture itself to think that the day should represent an extended period of time. The argument is made that the Hebrew word yom can represent different things, either a day or a period of time, context drives how its to be understood. Is there something in the context that argues for an non 24-hour day?


----------



## dwayne (Mar 15, 2008)

I think they try to make their religious beliefs fit into a scientific paradigms.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 15, 2008)

dwayne said:


> I think they try to make their religious beliefs fit into a scientific paradigms.


That's always been my assumption, but I've never really listened to them argue their case. It'll be interesting to hear the rest of the debate.


----------



## Wannabee (Mar 15, 2008)

Getting down to basics: For one the Scripture is subject to Science. For the other, everything is subject to Scripture. One espouses the inginuity and intelligence of man. The other proclaims the soveriegnty and omnipotence of God.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 15, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> Getting down to basics: For one the Scripture is subject to Science. For the other, everything is subject to Scripture. One espouses the inginuity and intelligence of man. The other proclaims the soveriegnty and omnipotence of God.


 I may have used the wrong word when I said "Is it *science* that drives the view that a day in Genesis 1:1 may represent millions of years...". I think there's a distinction between science and that so called science that reflects the evolutionary theory, which denies God all together.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 15, 2008)

Part 4 was interesting. In the view of those who held to the day in Genesis being millions of years, animals died before the fall. How does that impact the message of salvation, if at all?


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 15, 2008)

I have the _Great Debate _and appreciated it. Be sure to listen to Dr. Mortenson's extra commentary. The moderator is clearly on the side of the old earthers and he does not accord Ham or Lisle enough time to make their points. My only real complaint with the series is that you don't hear enough from Dr. Lisle, the astro-physicist from U of Colorado. 

The idea of death before the fall is not a new problem. It has been acknowledged by day-age and progressive creationists for decades. in my opinion, their answer is weak and does not fit well with the natural reading of Genesis 1-11.

If you like the _Great Debate_, check out some of the other resources on the AiG site. They offer decent answers to most of the old problems: plate techtonics (rapid subduction as a mechanism modeled in a sophisticated computer program), distant starlight (alternate synchrony conventions or gravitational time dilation), radiometric dating (RATE project), stratigraphy (Mt. St. Helens), etc. 

But, the burden of Answers in Genesis is not to provide alternative "evidence." As they say repeatedly, we all have the same "facts." They specialize in presuppositional apologetics. It is in the area of presuppositions and worldviews that the Christian and the naturalist are most obviously at odds. The "facts" are scientifically susceptible to either an old earth or young earth interpretation. One comports well with secular theories of naturalism; the other builds upon a theistic presuppositional base.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 15, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> I have the _Great Debate _and appreciated it. Be sure to listen to Dr. Mortenson's extra commentary. The moderator is clearly on the side of the old earthers and he does not accord Ham or Lisle enough time to make their points. My only real complaint with the series is that you don't hear enough from Dr. Lisle, the astro-physicist from U of Colorado.


I agree the moderator is clearly on the old earther side.

Yeah, Dr. Lisle is very good. I enjoyed listening to his series on distant starlight.  As I recall he didn't give his definitive answer as to why we can see starlight that's millions of light years away, but he did present some interesting possibilities.



DMcFadden said:


> If you like the _Great Debate_, check out some of the other resources on the AiG site. They offer decent answers to most of the old problems: plate techtonics (rapid subduction as a mechanism modeled in a sophisticated computer program), distant starlight (alternate synchrony conventions or gravitational time dilation), radiometric dating (RATE project), stratigraphy (Mt. St. Helens), etc.


 Yeah, I really enjoy looking at the info at the AIG website. There's a wealth of information there. It'd be neat to visit their creation museum someday.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 15, 2008)

One of the presentations I enjoyed listening to (and I can't remember who did it) showed the absurdity of a dinosaur evolving into a bird. When you compare the bone structure with a close up of the bird's wing and internal organs, that kind of evolutionary transition is difficult to believe, to say the least. I marvelled when I saw the structure of the bird's wing, amazed that God simply spoke the word and such a structure was created.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)

Here are some links to articles on a website my friend, who buys into the day-age hypothesis, likes:

Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation

Biblical Evidence for Long Creation Days

If you go here: Biblical Creation and scroll down to "Young Earth Creationism" you will see that he attempts to show that young-earth creationism is not merely "unscientific," but also unscriptural. Included among these articles is his theory that death did indeed exist before the Fall: No Death Before the Fall - A Young Earth Problem


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 15, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Here are some links to articles on a website my friend, who buys into the day-age hypothesis, likes:
> 
> Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation
> 
> ...



David,

Your citations were excellent! Reading through some of the arguments reminds me that scientifically educated people can make a strong case for and old earth just as some of the yec scientists do on the other side. My contention is not that I have scientific sophistication to albitrate between the two. Rather, I buy the idea that the facts are susceptible to diverse interpretations, based upon one's worldview. 

Yes, I know that many committed Christians defend an old earth, and evolution for that matter. The head of the human genome project, Dr. Collins had a bestseller rejecting YEC and ID. Not only that, but it got him an interview on Schuller's Hour of Power and lots of positive press in the evangelical community. His version of theistic evolution, BioLogos, even contains the idea that *once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required*!!! 

However, I believe that a more consistent Christian position reads the Bible in its natural sense, even when dealing with narrative portions of Genesis 1-11. Is it a slam-dunk? Of course not. Can it be defended intellectually? Absolutely!

BTW, the cavalier dismissal of Answers in Genesis scientists and firm statements of what is "true" and "not true" amuses me. Confident dismissals of the YEC position, for example, based upon hypothetical "dark matter" hardly convince me.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some links to articles on a website my friend, who buys into the day-age hypothesis, likes:
> ...



Thanks!

I agree with your statement that scientific facts are interpreted through the framework of one's worldview. At this point I refuse to even give day-age theory an objective hearing because it seems to destroy systematic theology. Does anyone know how Kline deals with this problem?


----------



## blhowes (Mar 15, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Here are some links to articles on a website my friend, who buys into the day-age hypothesis, likes:


Thanks for the links.


Davidius said:


> Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation




This first article seemed to make sense (I don't agree with it, but it made sense), except these two parts:

Plant life was created on the third day (Genesis 1:11-13, ~1.0 x 109 years ago). These verses are probably the strongest argument for the day-age interpretation. The verse says quite clearly that the earth sprouted (or brought forth) plants and fruit trees bearing fruit. The process described is clearly similar to what we see today. Fruit trees take years to bear fruit, testifying that the third day was at least several years long, and could not possibly be just 24 hours.​God created Adam as a full grown, intelligent man, which normally would take 30-40 years (longer for some of us). I don't know why there'd be a problem with God creating fruit bearing trees, in a like manner, fully grown and ready to bear fruit. I hope he's mistaken about that being the best argument for the day-age interpretation.

The Bible states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (16). A biblical generation, described as being 40 years, would represent at least 40,000 years of human existence. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology​Spoken like a true scientist, but I don't get the impression that God was making a quantitative statement about how many generations had existed up until that time.

Thanks again for the links.

...going to read more...


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)

Yes, it's _quite_ interesting that he wants to turn most of the creation account into figurative language, while at the same time taking phrases such as the "sprouting" of plans and "a thousand generations" as being completely literal.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 15, 2008)

Here's some interesting reasoning from the second link:


> If God had created the universe in an instant, there would be no evidence from nature that He created it. The Bible states God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God (6). In addition, the universe declares God's glory, which is a sum of God's innate and unchangeable character (7). The Bible also states the universe declares God's righteousness (8). God's righteousness prevents Him from sinning. The scriptures say God cannot lie (9).
> 
> Therefore, from the Bible, we conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record of nature. The heavens declare the universe to be at least 10 billion years old.



I think I've read enough for now. Maybe I'll read more another time, but I got a flavor anyway of where they're coming from.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Mar 15, 2008)

Ahh... judging from the title I was looking forward to some Bahnsen Vs. Stein discussion.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 15, 2008)

Sonoftheday said:


> Ahh... judging from the title I was looking forward to some Bahnsen Vs. Stein discussion.



kind of a let done, sorry.


----------

