Age of the Earth - Light Years

[JohnGill]

ICR and AIG have articles on this issue. You might also look up Halton Arp. He disproved the idea of Redshift-Blueshift. Almost everything that "scientists" claim proves billions of years has been disproven.

Radiometric Dating - based of 3 faulty assumptions
1. Constant decay rate of radiometric isotopes (disproved by nuclear catalysis and photoremediation)
2. The belief that there was no daughter element. Mt. St. Helens disproved it
3. The belief the area remained undisturbed for billions of years.

Ice Core dating was disproven by WWII planes left on Greenland. According to Ice Core dating WWII occurred 100,000 yrs ago. C-14 dating has similar issues. Moon silt, ocean salinity, recent lava flows which were radiometrically dated all end up disproving the billions of years myth. So the idea of there having been billions of years has no evidence. Unless one is willing to believe that when we know the age of a rock radiometric dating is wrong and when we dont know the age of a rock, it's correct. The best book I've read on the issue is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Wasn't written by a Christian but a science journalist. Refutes it pretty soundly.

Hope this helps some.

It also helps to remember that billions of years nonsense is necessary for evolution. Has nothing scientific behind it.

 

[Reformed Philosopher]

Benjamin,

Please tell me what 6 days means? Does it mean 6 hours? Does it mean 6 years? Does it mean 6 million years? Or does it mean 6 literal days? How long is 'day' in Scripture?

We know that on the 4th day of 6 of creation, God created the stars. Do stars mean moons? Do stars mean asteroids? Do stars mean stars?

Now look at the age of the earth. We know very specifically how long it was from Adam to Jacob. Genesis 5 and 11 give us very specific genealogies with very specific dates. These aren't rounded off dates, these are years like 769, not 700, 650, 300. They are very precise dates. Given that they are very specific dates/genealogies, it is easy to conclude (do the math) that from creation of Adam to the birth of Jacob is 2168 years. Now, am I not correct that most biblical scholars agree on when Abraham was born and the dating all the way to Jesus?

So without any doubt, yes, it is clear. Have biblical scholars muddied the waters? Of course. When we go to Genesis 1, how can it be taken any way but literal? Someone has to do some great magic (illusion) to get the Hebrew reader to miss the very literal language and grammar that is found in the beginning of Genesis.

Now, what evidence is there contrary to this? In the example of the earth being flat, there was evidence against this. In reading Scripture, there was not any necessary reason to determine that the earth was flat. That view was forced onto the text. But in this case, the one forcing something on the text are those old age earthers who ignore the plain meaning of Scripture and even more specifically the Hebrew grammar.

Your entire argument is founded on the premise that Genesis 1 (and I would assume 2 as well) needs to be taken literally. But you provide no evidence for that other than, "if we take it literally, it seems very clear."

Imagine that archaeologists from 4200 C.E. rediscover Chicago. And they manage to dig up a number of Chicago Tribune articles. They come to believe that the Chicago Tribune always writes the truth, but then come upon a troubling "passage" similar to the following: "The glory of the Great Bull has left Chicago. And that bull had three horns. The first horn had six rings and its number was 23. The second horn supported the first horn. And the third horn was pierced in many places and greatly troubled."

If taken literally, there is a definite meaning regarding a three-horned bull leaving Chicago. But if we take into account the history and culture of the people, we discover that there are other ways to take it. In fact, reading it literally is not being true to the text.

So, are there other ways to read Genesis 1? Yes. But we seem to be building a house of cards here. If we disregard what the scientific community tells us, the literal interpretation probably makes a lot of sense. But we reject what the scientific community tells us because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. Until we set aside that loop, both science and other interpretations will never please us.

First, it is limited to natural phenomena. Secondly, it is bound to observable fact. Thirdly, is only ever descriptive, never explanatory. Fourthly, deals with probability. Fifthly, is always open to re-evaluation.

I'll accept these limitations, though I am not sure "observable fact" means the same thing to me, and although I believe science is descriptive, I think there are times when we would be fools not to see an explanation from what science describes.

ICR and AIG have articles on this issue. You might also look up Halton Arp. He disproved the idea of Redshift-Blueshift. Almost everything that "scientists" claim proves billions of years has been disproven.

Radiometric Dating - based of 3 faulty assumptions
1. Constant decay rate of radiometric isotopes (disproved by nuclear catalysis and photoremediation)
2. The belief that there was no daughter element. Mt. St. Helens disproved it
3. The belief the area remained undisturbed for billions of years.

Ice Core dating was disproven by WWII planes left on Greenland. According to Ice Core dating WWII occurred 100,000 yrs ago. C-14 dating has similar issues. Moon silt, ocean salinity, recent lava flows which were radiometrically dated all end up disproving the billions of years myth. So the idea of there having been billions of years has no evidence. Unless one is willing to believe that when we know the age of a rock radiometric dating is wrong and when we dont know the age of a rock, it's correct.

If I understand your post correctly, your conclusion is that all of the methods that scientists use have been conclusively shown to have to be irreconcilably flawed. If that is true, then any scientist who uses or accepts these methods is an idiot. Since the vast majority of scientists do believe in our ability to properly estimate age, they would all be idiots. And finally, because I cannot justify calling all scientists idiots when they know infinitely more about the field than I do, I cannot accept your conclusion.

 

[CharlieJ]

Caution: some of the resources recommended on this thread have been greeted with extreme skepticism, not only by the scientific community at large, but also by many Christian and creationist scientists. The idea that the speed of light is decaying at anything more than an infinitesimal rate is completely unfounded. The idea that universal expansion could cause starlight to make it to earth by natural causes has been virtually universally rejected both within and without the creationist community.

Often, people recommend books because they like the conclusions. This isn't an ethical practice, especially when it comes to science. I believe some of these bogus claims are dealt with in Poythress' Redeeming Science, which is (or was) available free online.

 

[J. Dean]

A point to be made about this: a colleague of mine (a science teacher) has said that science is more educated guessing than is generally known.

 

[Constantlyreforming]

Science means little in this question. God's Word is clear. 6 days of creation, ex nihilo.

GI Williamson said this on a blog recently:

" The best thing I’ve ever read on the creation issue is an article by Oswald T. Allis of Old Westminster. He rightly pointed out that the way to settle this issue is by using the analogy of Scripture. What he meant was that we need to compare Christ’s acts of creation performed during his earthly incarnate acts of creating the universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). He created “old wine” and did so virtually instantaneously. Why, then, should we not believe that he created an universe that looks old to us, and an Adam that looked about 30 years old, recently (a few thousand years ago). I have yet to hear a convincing argument against this superb article by Dr. Allis. You can read it yourself by going to the the OPC web site with this: http://opc.org/OS/pdf/OSV4N4.pdf

This is where I stand. THe second Adam was created, he was created with apparent age...as a man. THe universe can also be created with apparent age....light and all.

 

[JohnGill]

ICR and AIG have articles on this issue. You might also look up Halton Arp. He disproved the idea of Redshift-Blueshift. Almost everything that "scientists" claim proves billions of years has been disproven.

Radiometric Dating - based of 3 faulty assumptions
1. Constant decay rate of radiometric isotopes (disproved by nuclear catalysis and photoremediation)
2. The belief that there was no daughter element. Mt. St. Helens disproved it
3. The belief the area remained undisturbed for billions of years.

Ice Core dating was disproven by WWII planes left on Greenland. According to Ice Core dating WWII occurred 100,000 yrs ago. C-14 dating has similar issues. Moon silt, ocean salinity, recent lava flows which were radiometrically dated all end up disproving the billions of years myth. So the idea of there having been billions of years has no evidence. Unless one is willing to believe that when we know the age of a rock radiometric dating is wrong and when we dont know the age of a rock, it's correct.

If I understand your post correctly, your conclusion is that all of the methods that scientists use have been conclusively shown to have to be irreconcilably flawed. If that is true, then any scientist who uses or accepts these methods is an idiot. Since the vast majority of scientists do believe in our ability to properly estimate age, they would all be idiots. And finally, because I cannot justify calling all scientists idiots when they know infinitely more about the field than I do, I cannot accept your conclusion.

No if they accept these methods which are based on erroneous assumptions they are self-deceived. Also, not all scientists believe in the billions of year age of the earth. You imply in such a statement that a person who believes in a young creation is not capable of being a scientist. There are many scientists who believe in a young creation who would disagree with you.

Odd how you go from "any who do" to "most" to "all". Furthermore, you presented a bifurcation fallacy. These scientists don't have to be idiots when they accept the faulty dating methods. As I stated, they're self-deceived. They need these faulty dates to support their religion of evolutionism. I suggest reading about the history of the philosophy of Anaximander and how it led to the idea of a great age for the earth. Just as the veneer of "science" was added to Anaximander's philosophy by Darwin, so too has the veneer of "science" been added to the age of the earth. It's an example of confirmation bias when one claims "science" has proven the earth is billions of years old. And if you wish to claim their methods work, then I repeat the following: Why is it that when we know the age of a rock (19th century lava flows & Mt. St. Helens eruption) that radiometric dating is always wrong? But when we don't know the age of a rock the method is always right? You've also failed to deal with people getting radically differing results from the same specimen or even the faulty assumptions of radiometric dating that I posted above.

Not accepting my conclusion that all these methods are flawed doesn't deal with the fact that they are flawed. Do what the scientists have failed to do, prove they work.

 

[Reformed Philosopher]

No if they accept these methods which are based on erroneous assumptions they are self-deceived. Also, not all scientists believe in the billions of year age of the earth. You imply in such a statement that a person who believes in a young creation is not capable of being a scientist. There are many scientists who believe in a young creation who would disagree with you.

There may be many scientists who believe in a young earth creation, but the PEW Research Center notes that 97% of scientists believe that humans and other living things have evolved over time (source)Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. So you are going to claim that 97% of scientists have managed to deceive themselves and you (presumably with little expertise in the field) are going to save them?

Odd how you go from "any who do" to "most" to "all". Furthermore, you presented a bifurcation fallacy. These scientists don't have to be idiots when they accept the faulty dating methods. As I stated, they're self-deceived. If you wish to claim their methods work, then I repeat the following: Why is it that when we know the age of a rock (19th century lava flows & Mt. St. Helens eruption) that radiometric dating is always wrong? But when we don't know the age of a rock the method is always right? You've also failed to deal with people getting radically differing results from the same specimen or even the faulty assumptions of radiometric dating that I posted above.

I admit that I did equivocate "most" into "all," which was a superficial logical problem with my argument. But I think we can say that "any who do" and "most" are the same, as we are talking about 97% of scientists.

I can't presume to know the solutions to the questions you've posed. My point is simply that I'm unwilling to claim all scientists are "self-deceived," liars, or idiots because they're telling me something that isn't easy for me to accept. I don't really understand why radiation treatments help fight cancer, but when the doctors tell me they do, I don't start pointing out perceived problems and claiming they're wrong, that would be hubris. Similarly, there are seemingly simple problems regarding relativity and I don't completely understand the theory, but when physicists tell me it works, I'm willing to take their word.

Not accepting my conclusion that all these methods are flawed doesn't deal with the fact that they are flawed. Do what the scientists have failed to do, prove they work.

There are plenty of real scientists who I'm sure would be much more equipped to deal with your question. I'm sure some of them would be willing to discuss it, on the condition that you keep an open mind and trust that they're not "self-deceived," liars, or idiots.

 

[au5t1n]

My point is simply that I'm unwilling to claim all scientists are "self-deceived," liars, or idiots because they're telling me something that isn't easy for me to accept.

What I find difficult to understand is why you are not as quick to apply this logic to the Holy Spirit. It obviously isn't easy for you to accept that "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11), but shouldn't you be slower to cast doubt on the Holy Spirit's veracity and knowledge than you are to do the same on scientists?

Also, you're assuming here that the scientists in question are approaching the data objectively rather than with a religious pre-commitment to Darwinism. Even if they had such objectivity, you're also forgetting that the majority of scientists work in areas of research that have little, if anything, to do with macroevolution and simply believe what they were taught in school concerning it, as we all are prone to doing. Finally, you're forgetting the point made earlier that scientific data can, at best, tell us what would have needed to happen naturally in the absence of a supernatural miracle. If a scientist had analyzed the wine Jesus made, he might have concluded that by the laws of science, such wine would require years to produce and could never be produced from water. And he would be right, in the absence of a miracle.

 

[Mushroom]

So what percentage of these 97% of scientists are believers? Those that aren't, and I suspect that number to be rather high, can be classified as self-deceived pretty simply. As Austin points out, how can these folks garner a greater level of confidence in a Christian's mind than what the Holy Spirit has stated in God's word?

If you haven't noticed this yet, Benjamin, it's going to come as a shock to find that there are people of vastly superior intelligence who are willing to believe some very incoherent things. Their intellect is not proof of the veracity of their beliefs.

 

[JohnGill]

No if they accept these methods which are based on erroneous assumptions they are self-deceived. Also, not all scientists believe in the billions of year age of the earth. You imply in such a statement that a person who believes in a young creation is not capable of being a scientist. There are many scientists who believe in a young creation who would disagree with you.

There may be many scientists who believe in a young earth creation, but the PEW Research Center notes that 97% of scientists believe that humans and other living things have evolved over time (source)Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 1. So you are going to claim that 97% of scientists have managed to deceive themselves and you (presumably with little expertise in the field) are going to save them?

Odd how you go from "any who do" to "most" to "all". Furthermore, you presented a bifurcation fallacy. These scientists don't have to be idiots when they accept the faulty dating methods. As I stated, they're self-deceived. If you wish to claim their methods work, then I repeat the following: Why is it that when we know the age of a rock (19th century lava flows & Mt. St. Helens eruption) that radiometric dating is always wrong? But when we don't know the age of a rock the method is always right? You've also failed to deal with people getting radically differing results from the same specimen or even the faulty assumptions of radiometric dating that I posted above.

I admit that I did equivocate "most" into "all," which was a superficial logical problem with my argument. But I think we can say that "any who do" and "most" are the same, as we are talking about 97% of scientists.

2. I can't presume to know the solutions to the questions you've posed. My point is simply that I'm unwilling to claim all scientists are "self-deceived," liars, or idiots because they're telling me something that isn't easy for me to accept. I don't really understand why radiation treatments help fight cancer, but when the doctors tell me they do, I don't start pointing out perceived problems and claiming they're wrong, that would be hubris. Similarly, there are seemingly simple problems regarding relativity and I don't completely understand the theory, but when physicists tell me it works, I'm willing to take their word.

Not accepting my conclusion that all these methods are flawed doesn't deal with the fact that they are flawed. Do what the scientists have failed to do, prove they work.

3. There are plenty of real scientists who I'm sure would be much more equipped to deal with your question. I'm sure some of them would be willing to discuss it, on the condition that you keep an open mind and trust that they're not "self-deceived," liars, or idiots.

1. Assuming the accuracy of the percentage which is debatable as such surveys are notoriously self-serving to Darwinists, why should it come as a surprise to you that scientists who hold to an unbelieving worldview are self-deceived? Assume 97% to be correct, it should come as no surprise that they are self-deceived. The vast majority of people on the planet are non-christian and therefore self-deceived. It should not be surprising that scientists who hold to an ungodly worldview are also self-deceived.

2. First, I have never accused these "scientists" of being idiots or liars. I dont appreciate your implication that I have. We're not discussing their intellect, but their worldview which is anti-Christian and therefore demonstrates their self-deception. Anti-Christian worldviews are automatically self-deceived worldviews. Cancer treatments are immaterial to this discussion. And if you had researched Relativity you would know that there are physicists who disagree with it, non-Christian physicists. Just as some physicists believe in the big bang and some in steady state.

3. Once again you have implied that those who disagree with radiometric dating and other such dating methods or your 97% are incapable of being real scientists. That's not only flawed reasoning, but an insult to those scientists who don't believe in radiometric dating for the very reasons I stated previously. Furthermore, as a Christian I am forbidden by God to keep an "open mind" on such issues. To do so is sin. I am commanded to start with a Biblically based worldview and acknowledge that ALL worldviews contrary to scripture are not only self-deceived worldviews, but extremely sinful worldviews. As I stated, all scientists who hold to views contrary to scripture ARE self-deceived. And the great age of the earth view, which originated not from science, but apart from science by 19th Darwinian philosophers, is contrary to scripture and therefore anti-Christian and a self-deceived worldview.

You have also failed to deal with the historical origins of the idea for great ages of the earth. Such a view didn't originate from science, but in its current form from 19th century Darwinian philosophers. As I pointed out, the veneer of "science" was added later to this view. Any evidence that has been found to disagree with this idea has been discounted, ignored, and ridiculed. That is not science; that is anti-Christian prejudice masquerading as science. And as Christians we are forbidden from entertaining the notion that it could be true.

If you wish to accept great ages for the earth, then you must accept all that goes with it or be guilty of irrationality by logical contradiction. And what goes with the great ages idea is particle to people evolution. That is a denial of sin and Christ himself. You seem to be taking as indisputable fact, the opinions of self-deceived men over the teaching of Scripture. That is an horrendous foundation for thinking and can only lead to foolishness.

 

[earl40]

The image of God in man and the fall into sin are "explanatory" of man's state. Sociology, psychology, etc., are but "descriptions" of what humans do. The problem here, as Jay Adams has pointed out, is that psychologists very often invade the domain of theology. They use "insight" to gain trust and exercise dominion over others. The fact is, without an ultimate explanation of the human condition, the psychologist has nothing "normative" with which to evaluate what humans do.

Of course if they do indeed have a Christian worldview they can explain and describe exactly is wrong and how this falls short of what is normal and good in God's eyes...right?

 

[Reformed Philosopher]

So what percentage of these 97% of scientists are believers?

The survey claims that 8% of scientists believe that God guided evolution, 4 times as many as believe that humanity has always existed in its current state. I'm not sure that's relevant, as I do not accept your premise that because unbelievers are self-deceived about something (their own guilt), they are self-deceived about everything.

I also do not want to claim that it is impossible for them to be wrong. What I am protesting is the willingness to believe that we (mostly uneducated in the ways of science) dare to condemn them as fools or deceived. "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom" (Proverbs 11:2).

What I find difficult to understand is why you are not as quick to apply this logic to the Holy Spirit. It obviously isn't easy for you to accept that "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11), but shouldn't you be slower to cast doubt on the Holy Spirit's veracity and knowledge than you are to do the same on scientists?

I believe that all truth belongs to God, and that the Holy Spirit uses a wide variety of means to communicate that truth to us. If he can use the mouth of a donkey (Numbers 22), a disembodied hand (Daniel 5), and King Neco (2 Chronicles 35), I see no problem believing that the Holy Spirit can communicate truth to us through mainstream science.

So, when we seem to be getting two different truths, I think we need to have a sit down and think things through very carefully. Is it possible that our current science is wrong? Yes. In fact, judging by the frequency of past paradigm-shifting scientific discoveries, it's almost certainly wrong (or at least incomplete). But I have two reasons for not worrying too much about science: 1) Scientists are already working to find holes in the current theories, that's how a scientist can make a name for him/herself; and 2) I don't know a fraction of what most scientists know about science, so injecting my own opinions in the debate would be something like a fish trying to correct Michael Jordan's shooting technique.

But, where I feel this conversation is most seriously lacking is the theological side. We have a possible point of contention, and it doesn't even make us reconsider our position? There is no possible way that we could be wrong? The literal interpretation is the only conceivable explanation? As a student of theology, I want to see these things considered, instead of being glossed over as we march to war against scientists.

Honestly, I'm not willing to take a side in the larger discussion, because I have so many unresolved questions in my head. But I will fight anyone who is dogmatic on one side or the other, at least until they can give me satisfactory answers to my questions. "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid" (Proverbs 12:1).

Regarding the appearance of age argument, that is both entirely plausible and a completely different argument. My problems with that are epistemological, not scientific (science would have nothing to say in that argument).

Furthermore, as a Christian I am forbidden by God to keep an "open mind" on such issues. To do so is sin.

And as Christians we are forbidden from entertaining the notion that it could be true.

One can only have a closed mind when they are certain that they are correct. And you're telling me that's what God wants from us?

And no, we're not. We're commanded to "test the spirits." James writes, "But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere" (James 3:17)

You have also failed to deal with the historical origins of the idea for great ages of the earth. Such a view didn't originate from science, but in its current form from 19th century Darwinian philosophers.

I'm unfamiliar with how the view originated, but if it was a philosopher who came up with an idea that turned out to fit the scientific evidence really, really well, I'd say he was pretty lucky.

Any evidence that has been found to disagree with this idea has been discounted, ignored, and ridiculed.

So your claim is that 97% scientists willingly discount a theory that better explains the evidence because they're engaged in an anti-Christian conspiracy? When some of them are Christians? This doesn't set off any red flags in your mind?

Scientists strive to make new discoveries that radically change our understandings of the way the universe works. A few months ago, some scientists believed that they had broken Einstein's theory by shooting particles faster than the speed of light. Had they been right (they weren't), they would have been famous around the world. Although science shows no mercy to bad theories, it is actively hunting for the best one.

And what goes with the great ages idea is particle to people evolution. That is a denial of sin and Christ himself.

That's a fairly big logical jump. Just because I'm advocating a different understanding of Genesis 1 & 2, and God's method of creation does not mean that I am denying either sin or Christ. I would still be happy to say the creeds with you.

 

[Mushroom]

But I have two reasons for not worrying too much about science:

And then:

I want to see these things considered, instead of being glossed over as we march to war against scientists.

Strange to be marching to war against a group you don't worry much about.

But the real problem is this:

There is no possible way that we could be wrong?

It is a certitude that WE are wrong; we see through a glass darkly. It is impossible that God is wrong. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that God is not constrained to carry out His purposes within the confines of natural phenonema. The donkey spoke. The wine appeared well-aged. The universe was created in 6 days. Attempting to use 'science' or many other philosophies and artifices to deny the supernatural character of those acts is an art long practiced by God's enemies. Believing the earth was flat had no bearing on what scripture states, believing that the earth is billions of years old does. David may have believed the earth was flat, and God did not correct that inconsequential error - but he did believe that the universe was created in 6 days, and to believe otherwise would have denied the veracity of God's word.

---------- Post added at 06:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 AM ----------

So your claim is that 97% scientists willingly discount a theory that better explains the evidence because they're engaged in an anti-Christian conspiracy?

ALL unbelievers are engaged in a conspiracy against Christianity. It is encumbent upon their natures. The 8% who claim Christianity and hold to evolution are either sorely mistaken or mere professors. They've got to endure the cocktail party sneers, so their professed faith is tested, and in some found lacking. That adds nothing to this discussion. No red flags.

But there is evidence, some of it posited in this thread, that refutes the contentions of 'mainstream' science, and it is discounted out of hand by this majority you speak of, because it unravels the carefully woven cover that veils their need to answer to a holy God. Be careful that you haven't drunk the Koolaid, brother. Copernicus and Galileo were wrong, the universe is not heliocentric. Don't buy into the dialectic that they were martyrs for the truth.

 

[Reformed Philosopher]

Strange to be marching to war against a group you don't worry much about.

To clarify, I don't worry much about scientists. But I feel like the Christian community is marching to war against them, or at least preparing for a war. I'm hoping that we can avoid that.

It is a certitude that WE are wrong; we see through a glass darkly. It is impossible that God is wrong.

Agreed.

My concern is not Scripture, which I hold to be unequivocally true in all that it purports to teach. But any time we read the Bible, we necessarily interpret. Even taking the literal meaning is an interpretational decision. Whenever we claim something, we are never simply proclaiming God's view, we are injecting a human element in as well.

So I think it's important to always be humble about our interpretations and our theology, always willing to consider that we've misunderstood. We are so fallible that it would be funny if it wasn't so scary and sad. That is why I am begging for a willingness to critically assess the options; not because I doubt God, but because I doubt us.

It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that God is not constrained to carry out His purposes within the confines of natural phenonema.

Again, this seems like a comment about the appearance of age theory. If this is what God did, I agree that it would be silly to use science to try to explain it. I would be happy to discuss the philosophical questions I have regarding that, but I think it would be prudent to first resolve the science-religion conflict in the new and old earth question. The appearance of age debate accepts as a premise that scientists are right when they claim that the evidence supports an old earth. That is a premise that Chris and Austin seem very opposed to, so my hope is that we can reach an understanding there before we move on. That way, when we accept it as a premise, I won't be accused of betraying the faith.

---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

ALL unbelievers are engaged in a conspiracy against Christianity. It is encumbent upon their natures.

Is that Biblical? I've never gotten that impression from my reading of the Bible, but perhaps you could point me towards scriptural evidence that indicates that unbelievers are conspiring against us. Paul writes that we were enemies of God (and unbelievers may still fall into that category), but I'm not sure that would support the idea that they are actively working to subvert truth or fool Christians. I would agree that they subconsciously deny their own guilt.

But there is evidence, some of it posited in this thread, that refutes the contentions of 'mainstream' science

You're playing two sides here. Either the universe looks old or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then there is no problem with using science, because all scientific evidence really contributes to the young-earth theory. If this is true, then we have to figure out why the vast majority of scientists (including 4/5 Christian scientists) don't support the young-earth theory.

If the universe appears old, then scientists are right, but we're left with the philosophical questions of the appearance of age theory or we're left with an interpretational problem regarding the six days of creation.

Copernicus and Galileo were wrong, the universe is not heliocentric.

The solar system is heliocentric, isn't it? I really can't figure out what you're trying to advocate here. In your opinion, is science in any way reliable?

 

[au5t1n]

I believe that all truth belongs to God, and that the Holy Spirit uses a wide variety of means to communicate that truth to us. If he can use the mouth of a donkey (Numbers 22), a disembodied hand (Daniel 5), and King Neco (2 Chronicles 35),

How do we know that any of these things really happened if our interpretation of Scripture is so deeply untrustworthy that we could be misunderstanding something as simply and clearly communicated as, Keep the sabbath day holy because God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh? At that point literally everything in Scripture is subject to doubt. My Presbyterian ecclesiology involves a number of necessary inferences from approved examples, and thus there could be some aspect of that in which my interpretation is wrong or could be improved (e.g. Are there two offices with different functions of the eldership or three offices? I believe the former, but some other Presbyterians the latter). There is no inference required for Exodus 20:11. It states plainly that God created the earth in six days with as much simplicity and directness -- within the context of a listing of Ten Commandments, which is not a passage that anyone would argue is poetic or a Literary Framework -- as the examples of events you gave in the quote above. There is as much reason to doubt, Scripturally, that God created in six days as there is to doubt that he spoke through a donkey or a disembodied hand or King Necho. The scientific method, by the way, tells us that donkeys cannot speak. And we can accept that conclusion within the context of the limitations of science, as long as we do not use it to overthrow infallible special revelation in Scripture that a donkey did, in fact, once speak.

ETA: Let me also add that all the events you mentioned are examples of special revelation from God under the Old Testament. The Bible is special revelation, but the scientific method is not. It does not infallibly reveal truth the way God has in the Scriptures and did from time to time directly prior to the completion of the canon of Scripture.

That's a fairly big logical jump. Just because I'm advocating a different understanding of Genesis 1 & 2, and God's method of creation does not mean that I am denying either sin or Christ. I would still be happy to say the creeds with you.

You said in the "Facts aren't Facts" thread (http://www.puritanboard.com/f50/facts-arent-facts-73618/index2.html#post941298) that Genesis presents a false cosmology due to a misunderstanding of its human author, which is a denial of the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, whether you realized it or not. I'm not trying to be mean, but this view is dangerous and doesn't lead anywhere good. The same Genesis also provides the basis for believing humanity is fallen into sin and requires an atonement. That is the point JohnGill was making in saying Darwinism is a denial of sin and Christ himself. He wasn't attacking your personal soteriology.

 

[Reformed Philosopher]

At that point literally everything in Scripture is subject to doubt.

I would say that all of our beliefs should constantly be subjected to doubt. Those that are true have nothing to fear, and the ones that are false may someday be destroyed. In this way, we can gain a better understanding of God and his world.

In the same way, I do not mind doubting Scripture and would be happy to examine the meanings of those other passages to discover the truth. However, I think it should be done in a separate thread as it is not particularly relevant to this one.

There is no inference required for Exodus 20:11.

Of course there is. You're trying to use it to prove a point. If there was no inference, it would prove no point other than that the quote exists and that it is a series of words, one following another.

I think it would be good to discuss this passage, especially because the point of Exodus 20 is not at all about the age of the earth or the time taken to create it. While it does seem clear, that verse is a sidenote in the chapter and I would be interested in seeing what experts have said about it. However, I wonder how fruitful a discussion would be, as one side seems extremely dogmatic and it is my impression that anyone interpreting it any way other than supporting a 6-day creation would be rebuked and rejected.

You said in the "Facts aren't Facts" thread that Genesis presents a false cosmology due to a misunderstanding of its human author, which is a denial of the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, whether you realized it or not.

Well, I think Genesis fairly obviously presents a cosmology that is different than the one we have. I guess if you tie the credibility of Scripture to its description of the solar system, you might have a reason to pause. I think Genesis gives us fantastic truths about God and his relationship to us, and I have no problem believing that Scripture is true in everything it's trying to teach us. I'm just not sure that Genesis 1-2 were trying to teach us what the solar system looks like. I don't see much danger there, since the messages I take from Genesis 1-2 (God's sovereignty, God's imminence, God's singleness, etc) are much more important than whether there's a dome above the earth.

Is it necessary to believe that the Biblical authors were right about every detail to believe the core tenets of our faith? Would our religion crumble if Joshua only sent out 22,000 men (not the 30,000 described in Joshua 8:3)? What if the belt Jeremiah bought was cotton or some other cloth (Jeremiah 13)? I really don't think those details are the points we should be taking from the passages.

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

[/COLOR]

You have also failed to deal with the historical origins of the idea for great ages of the earth. Such a view didn't originate from science, but in its current form from 19th century Darwinian philosophers.

this is simply not true.
the scientific work in geology that gave rise to the concept of deep time was initially done by Christians in the 18th C initially looking for proof of the Noahic flood.

there are 2 excellent books on james hutton
Jack Repcheck: The Man Who Found Time: James Hutton and the Discovery of the Earth's Antiquity.
Stephen Baxter: Ages in Chaos: James Hutton and the Discovery of Deep Time.

the geological theory deep time was in place 3 generations before darwin.