Gen 1 Defies Physics Laws

[zoegirl]

I wanted to clear the air a bit....

I, and so far as I have always heard from all of the other Old Earth Creationists here, are quite willing for others to hold to a Young Earth. We may not agree with it, and are willing to deabte with it, but in the end, Salvation is not contingent on what you hold as to the age of the earth.

However, what is so flagrantly offensive, is that we are not extended the same. AS if somehow these people have a window into our hearts and minds and are capable of judging our faithfulness.

We are compromising scripture, we are told. We are being bad Christians....WE are not faithful.....we are doubters.

But we hold to the inerrancy of the scripture (we simply hold that the Hebrew tells us different meanings). We simply believe that God's creations is also a trustworthy witness to His creative acts, and that both His word and His creation would agree.

So that's great if you want to believe the Earth is young. Just don't throw at us that it is somehow indicative of a greater faith.

[Seraph]

I wanted to clear the air a bit....

I, and so far as I have always heard from all of the other Old Earth Creationists here, are quite willing for others to hold to a Young Earth. We may not agree with it, and are willing to deabte with it, but in the end, Salvation is not contingent on what you hold as to the age of the earth.

However, what is so flagrantly offensive, is that we are not extended the same. AS if somehow these people have a window into our hearts and minds and are capable of judging our faithfulness.

We are compromising scripture, we are told. We are being bad Christians....WE are not faithful.....we are doubters.

But we hold to the inerrancy of the scripture (we simply hold that the Hebrew tells us different meanings). We simply believe that God's creations is also a trustworthy witness to His creative acts, and that both His word and His creation would agree.

So that's great if you want to believe the Earth is young. Just don't throw at us that it is somehow indicative of a greater faith.

couldn't have said it better myself

[Kurieuo]

I wanted to clear the air a bit....

I, and so far as I have always heard from all of the other Old Earth Creationists here, are quite willing for others to hold to a Young Earth. We may not agree with it, and are willing to deabte with it, but in the end, Salvation is not contingent on what you hold as to the age of the earth.

However, what is so flagrantly offensive, is that we are not extended the same. AS if somehow these people have a window into our hearts and minds and are capable of judging our faithfulness.

We are compromising scripture, we are told. We are being bad Christians....WE are not faithful.....we are doubters.

But we hold to the inerrancy of the scripture (we simply hold that the Hebrew tells us different meanings). We simply believe that God's creations is also a trustworthy witness to His creative acts, and that both His word and His creation would agree.

So that's great if you want to believe the Earth is young. Just don't throw at us that it is somehow indicative of a greater faith.

couldn't have said it better myself

AMEN. I've thought about this and I think us moderators may need to begin coming down on Christians of any position (OEC or YEC) who disrespects the other by challenging another's faith or Christianity simply because due their position on creation. If you think another may not be Christian and they are weak in their faith because of their stance on creation then take it to another board please.

On the other hand, discussing the Scriptural, scientific and other merits of your position against another is fine. Baseless attacks on the faith of another Christian due to their position on creation will not be tolerated any longer if I have anything to do with it. And if from this day forward you feel you are not being shown respect as a Christian when discussing OEC/YEC creation positions, please report the offender to me and I will investigate.

Thanks.

Kurieuo

[dad]

I wanted to clear the air a bit....

I, and so far as I have always heard from all of the other Old Earth Creationists here, are quite willing for others to hold to a Young Earth. We may not agree with it, and are willing to deabte with it, but in the end, Salvation is not contingent on what you hold as to the age of the earth.

However, what is so flagrantly offensive, is that we are not extended the same. AS if somehow these people have a window into our hearts and minds and are capable of judging our faithfulness.

We are compromising scripture, we are told. We are being bad Christians....WE are not faithful.....we are doubters.

Compromise, yes. That is the nature of the beast. The reason d'etre for the old age bible interpretations. They are a result of a perceived need to conform to science, no?
As for the 'bad', 'not faithful' bit, no. Sorry. Don't take it personal. The idea of bringing the bible into conformity with the wisdom of man is the issue there, not your Christianity, salvation, or goodness.

But we hold to the inerrancy of the scripture (we simply hold that the Hebrew tells us different meanings). We simply believe that God's creations is also a trustworthy witness to His creative acts, and that both His word and His creation would agree.

Be honest. Many old agers fabalize the book to such a degree, you may as well toss it out.

So that's great if you want to believe the Earth is young. Just don't throw at us that it is somehow indicative of a greater faith.

It is a little deeper than that. The spirit of compromise extends to the flood, where they say things like, 'Oh, it wasn't REALLY a worldwide flood, and there wasn't REALLY water up there that came down, maybe it was just a little local thing' and, 'There was not REALLY a tower of Babel, angels marrying girls, thousand year lifespans, an actual garden of Eden, and etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. There is no end to it, once you start down that road.

For those that actually try to believe the bible as the words of the Almighty, that sort of thing resonates loudly, and clearly as halting between two opinions. If God be God, then....why not take Him at His word, and hang the consequences?

[Kurieuo]

I wanted to clear the air a bit....

I, and so far as I have always heard from all of the other Old Earth Creationists here, are quite willing for others to hold to a Young Earth. We may not agree with it, and are willing to deabte with it, but in the end, Salvation is not contingent on what you hold as to the age of the earth.

However, what is so flagrantly offensive, is that we are not extended the same. AS if somehow these people have a window into our hearts and minds and are capable of judging our faithfulness.

We are compromising scripture, we are told. We are being bad Christians....WE are not faithful.....we are doubters.

Compromise, yes. That is the nature of the beast. The reason d'etre for the old age bible interpretations. They are a result of a perceived need to conform to science, no?

Just because AiG believe Day-Age OEC are compromising God's Word does not mean it is so. This in fact needs to be argued and it begs the question to simply assume it. How is the compromise actually happening? Especially since beliefs inherent in the Day-Age position regarding the days in Genesis can be traced traditionally back to the early Christian thinkers and "fathers" of Christianity including Irenaeus and Augustine. Thus, it is not based in a need to conform to science, but rather could it just be that the Day-Age interpretation of Scripture, a position upheld by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, better fits what we know about the world because it is the more correct interpretation of Scripture?

As for the 'bad', 'not faithful' bit, no. Sorry. Don't take it personal. The idea of bringing the bible into conformity with the wisdom of man is the issue there, not your Christianity, salvation, or goodness.

But are you not in fact questioning the Christianity of Zoegirl and other Day-Age proponents by this idea (AiG's) of "compromise"? Surely you are. To assume outright that Scripture is being compromised by such people who attempting to force it into alignment with scientific understandings is certainly not paying them respect as Christians.

Furthermore, do you not see it also takes the wisdom of man to interpret Scripture, or are you claiming to have some sort of direct inspiration from God in your understanding of Scripture?

So that's great if you want to believe the Earth is young. Just don't throw at us that it is somehow indicative of a greater faith.

It is a little deeper than that. The spirit of compromise extends to the flood, where they say things like, 'Oh, it wasn't REALLY a worldwide flood, and there wasn't REALLY water up there that came down, maybe it was just a little local thing' and, 'There was not REALLY a tower of Babel, angels marrying girls, thousand year lifespans, an actual garden of Eden, and

Perhaps the only thing of relevance there against Day-Age proponents is that of the flood which is generally viewed as being local by Day-Age proponents based on very good Scriptural arguments in my humble opinion. The others are entirely non-related issues, and it is interesting that many Day-Age proponents still believe in thousand year lifespans, the garden of Eden being actual, the tower of Babel and God confusing the language, etc, etc if there is indeed a spirit of compromise rife in those who hold to a Day-Age OEC position as you portray.

For those that actually try to believe the bible as the words of the Almighty, that sort of thing resonates loudly, and clearly as halting between two opinions. If God be God, then....why not take Him at His word, and hang the consequences?

You mean why not take the wisdom a man's interpretation of God's words (namely Answers in Genesis'), right? Or are you yourself claiming divine inspiration and superiority with your own interpretation of God's Word?

[IRQ Conflict]

Sorry, Irqconflict

Meant to get back to you on this.

Don't sweat it, I am very busy myself.

Here is a short list of resources on how YEC's distort science

http://www.answersincreation.org/bookre ... romise.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/ttmcls.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/youngministry.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/ttmcls9.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/ttmcls2.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/ttmcls3.htm
http://www.answersincreation.org/ttmcls6.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... #Planetary
http://www.doesgodexist.org/MarApr01/AV ... elens.html
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ ... ml#preface

(the last two are obviously non-Christian, but I felt I should be a varied in my sources as possible)

A large class of "evidences" presented by young-Earth advocates involve measuring rates of various Earth processes, then attempting to extrapolate them backwards for millions of years*. Generally, the purpose is to show that the process in question would build up to absurdity if it were allowed to continue through "evolutionary timescales." The fallacy of most claims of this type is a failure to recognize the importance of equilibrium. Most processes on Earth are in a state of balance**, in which one process (such as erosion of the continents) is counteracted by others (such as emplacement of new continental material by volcanoes and tectonic uplift). Generally, processes on Earth do not build up without limit, because there is always another process that opposes the build-up, leading to the establishment of equilibrium**. The method for dealing with young-Earth claims of this type is to look for the limiting process that imposes equilibrium. In some cases the balancing process has simply been overlooked, and the young-Earth claim is laid to rest by pointing it out. Other times the balancing process is not well understood or even unknown, which may seem to lend credence to young-Earth claims. However, in these cases we simply revert to the unexplained mystery. Unless we can prove that no balancing process exists (and in most cases that cannot be done), we should adopt the working hypothesis that there is a yet-to-be-discovered process that provides the equilibrium, rather than jumping to the assumption of a supernatural explanation***. Examples of the One-Sided Equation Fallacy include Influx of Magma from Mantle to Form Crust, and Erosion of Sediment from Continents, Maximum Life of Comets, and Helium-4 in the Atmosphere

* This is all based on the assumption of a constant which is not something we have been able to prove or disprove.
** It does appear that OEC can't make up it's mind in the very same paragraph. Either it is, or it isn't.
This is an interesting stand to take. What this tells me is that OEC will call upon equilibrium to support their theory, yet when there is no apparent equilibrium it is sufficient to say we just don't know. How is that proof of OEC?
*** Wow, now this is interesting and does show the anti Word science first mentality that I see in a lot of OEC circles.

rather than jumping to the assumption of a supernatural explanation

I've got some news for you, all that is created is not only created by the Supernatural but is also sustained by the Supernatural.

sa 40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?
Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counselor hath taught him?
Isa 40:14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?
Isa 40:15 Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.

Isa 40:17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
Isa 40:18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

Isa 40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Isa 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Psa 147:4 He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names.
Psa 147:5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Jer 31:37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Job 26:14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?




YEC theories are (or at least should be) based on the Word first, observation second. Thats not to say that we deny the obvious, rather the things we don't fully understand. That is why we reject theories that seem to oppose the Word of God and we know to look elsewhere or rather try to see if that same evidence can be viewed through the light of scripture. If it can we label it as a possible valid theory. Do we deny our observations and twist science to tow the Biblical line? As Ken Ham pointed out we all have the same evidence but the outcome is going to be different based on our presuppositions.

I have to leave this for future edit. Too much work to do this weekend.

[zoegirl]

This is all based on the assumption of a constant which is not something we have been able to prove or disprove.

what constant/s and why do you think they have not been proven?

** It does appear that OEC can't make up it's mind in the very same paragraph. Either it is, or it isn't.
This is an interesting stand to take. What this tells me is that OEC will call upon equilibrium to support their theory, yet when there is no apparent equilibrium it is sufficient to say we just don't know. How is that proof of OEC?

No, it says that YEC "science" does not fully take into account ALL the variables for equations. Read through the examples. FOr instance, they claim that the universe couldn't be old because the accumulation of moon dust isn't as high and yet they don't take into account solar events that take AWAY moon dust.

This just shows willful ignorance (at the least) and willingness to manipulate data to suit their ends (at the worst).

There are plenty of examples of equilibrium. The moon dust was simply one example. Laying down sedimentary material and erosion would be another example. THe one builds up and the other takes aways...so ANY equation that extrapolates using sedimentary rates must ALSO use rates of erosion in order to fully examine the age question.

Imagine a scenario with two people who are playing with blocks. One person is building a tower with blocks and the other is taking away blocks from that tower. Another person who is studying the rate of the increase of the height of the tower and sees that the tower is not that high, especially when they look at the rate that the person is building the tower. They say "LOok!, according the the rate that Person A is building the tower, that tower should be 5 feet tall, and because is isn't, because it is only 2 ft tall, that means Person A could not have been building that long!!". And yet, we see that Person A building rate must also include Person B taking away rate in order to have a more complete idea of the total time PErson A and PErson B have been building.

This is what YEC's do with a LOT of data. "Look, the moon dust has not accumulated that much!!! That means the earth and moon are young!" Forgetting to take rates of moon dust "erosion" from solar events.

See, what you are doing is making quick generalizations before reading and studying the material. Read through the examples. Believe me. It makes me ashamed when I read how blatantly they mess with God's creation. It makes GOd and His followers look, not faithful, but ignorant.

we should adopt the working hypothesis that there is a yet-to-be-discovered process that provides the equilibrium, rather than jumping to the assumption of a supernatural explanation***.
*** Wow, now this is interesting and does show the anti Word science first mentality that I see in a lot of OEC circles.

No, this statment refers to the often cited argument of "God of the Gaps". Whatever we don't understand "God did it!". (Please do not misunderstand me, God did it!) But we think that every time a mystery presents itself, we must throw our hands in the air and simply say..."God poofed it" , instead of using our GOd given minds and God given mandate to be good stewards of HIs creation to figure out in some miniscule way How HE DID IT. And the God of the Gaps puts us in a very tenuous position, because everytime we claim that something is so puzzling and mysterious that God must be the answer, then as soon as a "natural" process is found, we unwittingly give people a reason to reject God.

God worked supernaturally through natural processes. And we live every day life with this idea in mind, don't we? We walk around our towns and cities trusting in these very "natural" processes He esatblished. Now we also know through scripture that He maintains and holds creation, but we reconcile these ideas very easily in daily life. We trust in predictable physical forces, these very "natural" forces and yet we understand that these come from and came from a very supernatural, MIght, Glorious, creator.

So this statment ultimately is saying that we should not simply throw our hands up when we do not understand something.

Again, you throw these verse at us thinking this is some sort of revelation, or somehow implicates us in our ignorance of scripture. "I've got news for you" How arrogant and judgemental of you!! "Well, golly gee, us OEC'ers have never read this before....wow !!"( sarcasm fully implied) Do you not think that we have examined scripture? Do you even have any idea of how much each of us has studied scripture and PRAISED God for His unfathomble ways?!?? Again, you bring up scripture as if we skip through life never reading it, a very serious charge and implication! GOod grief, the creation is AMAzing no matter How God created it and the very fact that He alone knows fully and has full power over creation brings me down to my kness. I don't care how much we figure out about the cell, DNA, the universe, or our brain, any revelation will reveal more about God's majesty.

But why these verses are somehow ammunition for YEC'ers instead of ALL Christians remains a mystery to me. YOu use these scriptures to imply something about a group of Chrisitans, instead these verses should only be used to increase God. None of these verses loses validity with the idea of the universe being older than 6000years. In fact, I think it INCREASES the grandeur and mysteriousness of God.

[dad]

Just because AiG believe Day-Age OEC are compromising God's Word does not mean it is so.

Of course not. I never even read that, or looked at AIG much. The compromise part is history, I think, and the perceived need to align the bible with science.

Especially since beliefs inherent in the Day-Age position regarding the days in Genesis can be traced traditionally back to the early Christian thinkers and "fathers" of Christianity including Irenaeus and Augustine. Thus, it is not based in a need to conform to science, but rather could it just be that the Day-Age interpretation of Scripture, a position upheld by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, better fits what we know about the world because it is the more correct interpretation of Scripture?

Can you evidence that? I don't remember reading about any major Christian explaining away of the creation story, or general timeframes, in the early Christian era. Maybe you mean a few 'free' thinkers??

But are you not in fact questioning the Christianity of Zoegirl and other Day-Age proponents by this idea (AiG's) of "compromise"? Surely you are.

Not at all. There are Christians who don't believe the bible. There are Christians that have different interpretations of things, and one example is prophesy. I doubt you could find two YEC churches that agreed on most things in prophesy of the end times. Are you questioning the Christianity of AIG? Believing the bible, and being a Christian, do not always go together. I was brought up a catholic, and was not a bible believer. It is my opinion so far that the popularity, and rise of the old age interpretations of scripture are the direct result of a perceived need to make the bible conform to the knowledge of man.

To assume outright that Scripture is being compromised by such people who attempting to force it into alignment with scientific understandings is certainly not paying them respect as Christians.

They might not be aware of that. I have enough respect to tell the truth, and would expect those getting the news to adjust. Now, maybe I am misinformed, and you have proof that the old age beliefs were a major belief long before science began to rise. In that case, I would adjust.

Furthermore, do you not see it also takes the wisdom of man to interpret Scripture, or are you claiming to have some sort of direct inspiration from God in your understanding of Scripture?

I think we all need inspiration, and God's help. The bible is given by inspiration, and takes some inspiration to understand in any depth. Like Jesus said to a desciple one time,
Mt 16:17 - And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Perhaps the only thing of relevance there against Day-Age proponents is that of the flood which is generally viewed as being local by Day-Age proponents based on very good Scriptural arguments in my humble opinion. The others are entirely non-related issues, and it is interesting that many Day-Age proponents still believe in thousand year lifespans, the garden of Eden being actual, the tower of Babel and God confusing the language, etc, etc if there is indeed a spirit of compromise rife in those who hold to a Day-Age OEC position as you portray.

I do not address the day age thing anyhow, but the general non belief in what the bible says. That crops up in all the key stories, as folks try to explain them all away. Jesus talked of the flood, and how it swept them all away.

You mean why not take the wisdom a man's interpretation of God's words (namely Answers in Genesis'), right? Or are you yourself claiming divine inspiration and superiority with your own interpretation of God's Word?

I don't use AIG. I used to be into flood geology, but found that it really does not cover all the evidence. I used to look at that site for explanations. There are those that believe that the bible is the inspired word of God, and I am one of them. I do not agree with everything they say, but I agree with the body of believers that believe that the flood really happened, and the garden, and creation, and etc. I would like to think I had some little inspiration along the way, to help decide what to pick from the bible commentaries, and etc as being most correct. Don't you? Or do you think it is some rarity to actually have God help us understand things, if we ask?? Asking for His help is scriptural.

[IRQ Conflict]

what constant/s and why do you think they have not been proven?

Sorry, I misread the statement and made an assumption whilst posting. I didn't get home till 2 am. (yes I'm whining)

** It does appear that OEC can't make up it's mind in the very same paragraph. Either it is, or it isn't.
This is an interesting stand to take. What this tells me is that OEC will call upon equilibrium to support their theory, yet when there is no apparent equilibrium it is sufficient to say we just don't know. How is that proof of OEC?

No, it says that YEC "science" does not fully take into account ALL the variables for equations. Read through the examples. FOr instance, they claim that the universe couldn't be old because the accumulation of moon dust isn't as high and yet they don't take into account solar events that take AWAY moon dust.

This just shows willful ignorance (at the least) and willingness to manipulate data to suit their ends (at the worst).

Sorry, re-reading my comments I find what I wrote and what I meant were slightly different. At any rate my response here was targeting the statements:

Most processes on Earth are in a state of balance**,

and

because there is always another process that opposes the build-up, leading to the establishment of equilibrium**

Both positions found within words of each other. Does what goes up must come down always happen? I'm not a scientist so I haven't looked into this phenomena.

There are plenty of examples of equilibrium. The moon dust was simply one example. Laying down sedimentary material and erosion would be another example. THe one builds up and the other takes aways...so ANY equation that extrapolates using sedimentary rates must ALSO use rates of erosion in order to fully examine the age question.

Imagine a scenario with two people who are playing with blocks. One person is building a tower with blocks and the other is taking away blocks from that tower. Another person who is studying the rate of the increase of the height of the tower and sees that the tower is not that high, especially when they look at the rate that the person is building the tower. They say "LOok!, according the the rate that Person A is building the tower, that tower should be 5 feet tall, and because is isn't, because it is only 2 ft tall, that means Person A could not have been building that long!!". And yet, we see that Person A building rate must also include Person B taking away rate in order to have a more complete idea of the total time PErson A and PErson B have been building.

This is what YEC's do with a LOT of data. "Look, the moon dust has not accumulated that much!!! That means the earth and moon are young!" Forgetting to take rates of moon dust "erosion" from solar events.

Moon dust hasn't been used as a valid argument in serious YEC circles for around 15 years. I do not consider Kent Hovind a viable source of YEC theory as he was warned over the years about using arguments that were in fact discredited or unprovable. Not to mention he recently was convicted of tax evasion and has been sentenced to the pen. Pity though, he really has a talent for teaching and debating.

But we think that every time a mystery presents itself, we must throw our hands in the air and simply say..."God poofed it" , instead of using our GOd given minds and God given mandate to be good stewards of HIs creation to figure out in some miniscule way How HE DID IT.

Being a 'good steward' has little if anything to do with trying to figure out how God did something.

And the God of the Gaps puts us in a very tenuous position, because everytime we claim that something is so puzzling and mysterious that God must be the answer, then as soon as a "natural" process is found, we unwittingly give people a reason to reject God.

I agree, and further look at the way He created man from the dust of the earth and woman from mans rib. Is that how we come into being to this day? Of course not. But that is how the Bible tells us we originally came into being. Is what we can observe from studying human pro-creation tell us anything about how God created man from the dust? I doubt it. Does that mean God lied? Of course not!

Does that mean we should make every effort to show how He did it? I think the word 'fruitless' is appropriate here and in many cases the very study of the origin of the universe is similarly fruitless. As we can both agree that theory no matter what side of the debate your on is not proof of anything.

And also I do not believe we should abandon our study of Gods creation, just that it needs to be looked at first Spiritually then naturally and some things will never be discovered before Christ comes back.

So this statment ultimately is saying that we should not simply throw our hands up when we do not understand something.

Is that what you think YEC is all about? Or that it is my position on the matter?

Again, you throw these verse at us thinking this is some sort of revelation, or somehow implicates us in our ignorance of scripture. "I've got news for you" How arrogant and judgemental of you!! "Well, golly gee, us OEC'ers have never read this before....wow !!"( sarcasm fully implied) Do you not think that we have examined scripture? Do you even have any idea of how much each of us has studied scripture and PRAISED God for His unfathomble ways?!?? Again, you bring up scripture as if we skip through life never reading it, a very serious charge and implication! GOod grief, the creation is AMAzing no matter How God created it and the very fact that He alone knows fully and has full power over creation brings me down to my kness. I don't care how much we figure out about the cell, DNA, the universe, or our brain, any revelation will reveal more about God's majesty.

But why these verses are somehow ammunition for YEC'ers instead of ALL Christians remains a mystery to me. YOu use these scriptures to imply something about a group of Chrisitans, instead these verses should only be used to increase God. None of these verses loses validity with the idea of the universe being older than 6000years. In fact, I think it INCREASES the grandeur and mysteriousness of God.

Why do you read more into the posting of Scripture than is necessary? Did you not follow what I was trying to argue?
The item you quoted from G&S seemed to me to indicate that our fallible ideas and observations should supersede the Word. And indeed the deliberate manipulation of the context of the word Yom in Genesis is one such example.

I feel thourouly justified in my defence of the Gospel and my belief that God created the universe and everything in it in a literal 6 day period.

Why are you accusing me of telling you that you are going to hell for believing in OEC? It is God alone that judges the hearts and minds of men.

Lets not get into jumping to conclusions about jumping to conclusions shall we? I want this to be as fruitful a debate as possible without name calling and accusations.

My belief in what Genesis says is 180 degrees to yours does not mean I'm trying to call you down. And in my attempts to discuss this I may inadvertently step on some toes either through ignorance of fact or fruedian (SP?) slip (aka 'brain fart).

Please do not be offended so easily. To do so gives Satan a position here that we don't want.

Mat 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Mat 18:22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

[Kurieuo]

dad,

Obviously I am Day-Age OEC, and I appreciate that you attempted to focus upon the points raised rather than my Christianity.

Especially since beliefs inherent in the Day-Age position regarding the days in Genesis can be traced traditionally back to the early Christian thinkers and "fathers" of Christianity including Irenaeus and Augustine. Thus, it is not based in a need to conform to science, but rather could it just be that the Day-Age interpretation of Scripture, a position upheld by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, better fits what we know about the world because it is the more correct interpretation of Scripture?

Can you evidence that? I don't remember reading about any major Christian explaining away of the creation story, or general timeframes, in the early Christian era. Maybe you mean a few 'free' thinkers??

I am happy to provide references from the writings of Augustine and Irenaeus that "day" (yom) in Genesis did not necessitate the 24-hour period of time or morning to sunset, and that is can be understand as an unspecified length.

Irenaeus said:

• Thus, then, in the day they eat, in the same did they die... For it is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. ... On one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of creation)... He (Adam) did no overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit... for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them."

Augustine wrote in the 'The City of God': "As for these 'days,' [Genesis creation days] it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think—let alone explain in words—what they mean." In 'The Literal Meaning of Genesis' he writes: "But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." Elsewhere in the same book he writes:

• Seven days by our reckoning after the model of the day of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its settings; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them.

Furthermore, Origen wrote of the first six days as representing the time of work for men, and the seventh (Sabbath) day, lasting the full duration of the world:

• He [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world's creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties will ascend to the contemplation (of Celestial things) and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings.

Thus, the belief the the days of Genesis 1 were longer than a standard 24-hour day existing long before modern science emerged.

But are you not in fact questioning the Christianity of Zoegirl and other Day-Age proponents by this idea (AiG's) of "compromise"? Surely you are.

Not at all. There are Christians who don't believe the bible. There are Christians that have different interpretations of things, and one example is prophesy. I doubt you could find two YEC churches that agreed on most things in prophesy of the end times. Are you questioning the Christianity of AIG? Believing the bible, and being a Christian, do not always go together. I was brought up a catholic, and was not a bible believer.

I disagree that one can be Christian and not believe what is taught in the Bible. The teachings of the Bible and being a Christian are intimately tied together since Scripture contains the truth of Christ one needs to be a Christian.

Perhaps as a Catholic you were listening to the RCC without referring to Scripture yourself. This mind you may not have necessarily been a bad thing since the many teachings would have no doubt still come from from Scripture and traditions of respected theologians throughout history who interpreted it. Ultimately Catholics are Christian because they hold to orthodox teachings found in Scripture. You may not have considered yourself a Bible believer as a Catholic, but then the soteriological beliefs of the RCC are that one is saved by being a part of the Church who have the authoritative position of interpreting Scripture and guiding Christ's flock. Thus, while it may not have been your place as a Catholic to necessarily read and interpret God's Word, the RCC was still responsible for guiding you according to God's Word, and thus you very much would have followed teachings that are Biblical.

Am I questioning the Christianity of AiG? Not in anything I have here said. I question their interpretation of Scripture on creation being an authoritative and divinely inspired interpretation to the extent that any other interpretation compromises or goes against God's Word (when in fact any other position is simply going against a YEC interpretation of God's Word). If on the other hand I said that AiG are compromising God's Word, then I am making a statement that brings into question AiG's Christianity. I do tend to believe that the YEC position in fact became solidified out of a fideist reaction to the extreme skepticism, rationalism and scientism found in the Enlightenment which attempted to usurp God particularly Christianity, and I certainly believe the YEC position is wrong. However, I don't question the Christianity or desire of YECs to adhere to God's Word simply because they just have a different take on the words in Scripture.

To assume outright that Scripture is being compromised by such people who attempting to force it into alignment with scientific understandings is certainly not paying them respect as Christians.

They might not be aware of that. I have enough respect to tell the truth, and would expect those getting the news to adjust. Now, maybe I am misinformed, and you have proof that the old age beliefs were a major belief long before science began to rise. In that case, I would adjust.

Hopefully I provide enough evidence of early writings to allow you to make such an adjustment.

Furthermore, do you not see it also takes the wisdom of man to interpret Scripture, or are you claiming to have some sort of direct inspiration from God in your understanding of Scripture?

I think we all need inspiration, and God's help. The bible is given by inspiration, and takes some inspiration to understand in any depth. Like Jesus said to a desciple one time,
Mt 16:17 - And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And you believe Day-Age proponents do not have such inspiration, whereas YECs have it?? If you do not believe this, then why say Day-Age proponents compromise Scripture rather simply say that they are wrong in their interpretation of Scripture? Do you not see the difference?

Perhaps the only thing of relevance there against Day-Age proponents is that of the flood which is generally viewed as being local by Day-Age proponents based on very good Scriptural arguments in my humble opinion. The others are entirely non-related issues, and it is interesting that many Day-Age proponents still believe in thousand year lifespans, the garden of Eden being actual, the tower of Babel and God confusing the language, etc, etc if there is indeed a spirit of compromise rife in those who hold to a Day-Age OEC position as you portray.

I do not address the day age thing anyhow, but the general non belief in what the bible says. That crops up in all the key stories, as folks try to explain them all away. Jesus talked of the flood, and how it swept them all away.

And Day-Age believers accept the flood swept all the ungodly who lived at that time also. We would simply stress it was "the world of that time" (2 Peter 3:6) which was deluged and destroyed, and not the more extreme position that it was the whole entire surface of planet earth which was deluged and destroyed.

You mean why not take the wisdom a man's interpretation of God's words (namely Answers in Genesis'), right? Or are you yourself claiming divine inspiration and superiority with your own interpretation of God's Word?

I don't use AIG. I used to be into flood geology, but found that it really does not cover all the evidence. I used to look at that site for explanations. There are those that believe that the bible is the inspired word of God, and I am one of them. I do not agree with everything they say, but I agree with the body of believers that believe that the flood really happened, and the garden, and creation, and etc. I would like to think I had some little inspiration along the way, to help decide what to pick from the bible commentaries, and etc as being most correct. Don't you? Or do you think it is some rarity to actually have God help us understand things, if we ask?? Asking for His help is scriptural.

To a large degree we need to take a positive stance as Christians regarding certain teachings, namely those surrounding who Christ is, his purpose and how this affects us. I would only claim that another is compromising Scripture if thought their interpretation was so distorted as to make them less than true Christians. To say Day-Age proponents compromise Scripture causes an unnecessary divide between YEC and OEC Christians who both equally value Scripture and who are both equally saved through Christ.

[zoegirl]

Irq conflict.

It does seem like you use scripture to imply that those of us who support OEC are somehow compromising God's word.

I just wanted to point out that old earth creationists tend to ignore context and cut and paste scripture to fit within the confines of what they believe to be true. ie 'presuppose'

How in the world can this be taken any other way other than a slap in the face of our faith and understanding of Gods word?

Then for any debate, you bring up scripture as if that then implies that if only we would read scripture we would get the point! ALl of the scripture you bring up is fine, great, wonderful, and I agree with it all! But we can use these scripture verses as well. My point is, why should these verses be exclusively for YEC?

YEs, I react strongly, because you charge that we do not lift God up to the same arena that YEC'ers do.

If you truly do not hold to this, then gladly will I back off, but I've not seen anything to say that you think we are on equal footing.

And being a good steward means that you have to understand what you are stewards over. How can we be good stewards of the earth, its resources, and its creatures, our bodies, our planet, our environment unless we seek to understand God's established rules and laws of these? Adam and Eve were given a mandate to be stewards over the creation. Does that not mean that they were supposed to learn and understand to the best of their ability God's creation?

We don't doubt this principle with money...everybody understands that to be good stewards of our money means that we should understand how to use money and the principles of interest, etc.

So why should our responsibility to God's creation be any different?

[zoegirl]

Also, moon dust may not be used now but it is still the easiest example to provide (plus I have heard people still use it).

Read through all of the examples I provided, there are plenty of other ways they deliberately ignore variables.

[dad]

I am happy to provide references from the writings of Augustine and Irenaeus that "day" (yom) in Genesis did not necessitate the 24-hour period of time or morning to sunset, and that is can be understand as an unspecified length.

Irenaeus said:

• Thus, then, in the day they eat, in the same did they die... For it is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. ... On one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of creation)... He (Adam) did no overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit... for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them."

Well, OK. Someone out there believed that stuff. I should adjust to that. The question is now, was this sort of thing widespread, and widely accepted?

Augustine wrote in the 'The City of God': "As for these 'days,' [Genesis creation days] it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think—let alone explain in words—what they mean." In 'The Literal Meaning of Genesis' he writes: "But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." Elsewhere in the same book he writes:

• Seven days by our reckoning after the model of the day of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its settings; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them.

Furthermore, Origen wrote of the first six days as representing the time of work for men, and the seventh (Sabbath) day, lasting the full duration of the world:

• He [Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world's creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep festival with God who have done all their works in their six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties will ascend to the contemplation (of Celestial things) and to the assembly of righteous and blessed beings.

Thus, the belief the the days of Genesis 1 were longer than a standard 24-hour day existing long before modern science emerged.

You know, I used to have a quiver of respect when I heard the name Augustine. Don't know why, I guess he is well known, or something. The more I hear from the guy, the less respect I have for anything he has to say. I can't recall a single quote from the guy I liked. Not that I read much about him, but from when people quote him.
Anyhow, the question remains, was the old ages thing widely accepted, even in the catholic church?

I disagree that one can be Christian and not believe what is taught in the Bible. The teachings of the Bible and being a Christian are intimately tied together since Scripture contains the truth of Christ one needs to be a Christian.

Well, fine. We disagree. My take is that anyone that asks Jesus in his or her heart is saved, and a Christian. Not all those really know the bible, or much care, as we think they maybe should.

Perhaps as a Catholic you were listening to the RCC without referring to Scripture yourself.

Right. I had no idea what the bible actually said.

This mind you may not have necessarily been a bad thing since the many teachings would have no doubt still come from from Scripture and traditions of respected theologians throughout history who interpreted it. Ultimately Catholics are Christian because they hold to orthodox teachings found in Scripture. You may not have considered yourself a Bible believer as a Catholic, but then the soteriological beliefs of the RCC are that one is saved by being a part of the Church who have the authoritative position of interpreting Scripture and guiding Christ's flock. Thus, while it may not have been your place as a Catholic to necessarily read and interpret God's Word, the RCC was still responsible for guiding you according to God's Word, and thus you very much would have followed teachings that are Biblical.

Well that all sounds good. But I lived in a place where the service was in another language, so it was all greek to me anyhow. About all I think was of value was the catechism classes. I was happy to find out we didn't need to go to church. Never looked back.

Am I questioning the Christianity of AiG? Not in anything I have here said. I question their interpretation of Scripture on creation being an authoritative and divinely inspired interpretation to the extent that any other interpretation compromises or goes against God's Word (when in fact any other position is simply going against a YEC interpretation of God's Word).

I agree with the Yec. I no longer think they have a good grip on how it all happened, trying to explain it by flood geology, and such.

If on the other hand I said that AiG are compromising God's Word, then I am making a statement that brings into question AiG's Christianity. I do tend to believe that the YEC position in fact became solidified out of a fideist reaction to the extreme skepticism, rationalism and scientism found in the Enlightenment which attempted to usurp God particularly Christianity, and I certainly believe the YEC position is wrong. However, I don't question the Christianity or desire of YECs to adhere to God's Word simply because they just have a different take on the words in Scripture.

We are looking at that here. So far you have shown that a few sort of had strange ideas about what a day could be, but not that it was a major part of what bible believers really thought at all. Unless it is evidenced to have been a well accepted mainstream part of Christian beliefs, the issue of why it did become a big part still remains. And when. The underlying principle seems to be a desire to comply with science, to a point of reinterpreting the bible. And the concept as I understood it, really only became a player as science came to the fore.

I think the OECs have a desire to believe the bible, but that the desire to please man has led to butchering the text.

Hopefully I provide enough evidence of early writings to allow you to make such an adjustment.

So far, it could just be a couple of quacks, as famous as they might be. What is not demonstrated is that the OEC was a mainstream major belief, before science started to get going. I'm afraid you need to make the adjustment to that reality.

And you believe Day-Age proponents do not have such inspiration, whereas YECs have it??

Not at all. I am a fan of Mother Teresa, and read some supposed prophesies she made. I think they are great. I think all sorts of nominal bible believers have been inspired. But not about their old age creation belief. Not at all. Have you ever met any that even CLAIMED thet WERE!!!!!??? I rest my case!

If you do not believe this, then why say Day-Age proponents compromise Scripture rather simply say that they are wrong in their interpretation of Scripture? Do you not see the difference?

I said I think that the old agers hold to compromise theories. The compromise being with science, so called. They try to have it both ways.

And Day-Age believers accept the flood swept all the ungodly who lived at that time also. We would simply stress it was "the world of that time" (2 Peter 3:6) which was deluged and destroyed, and not the more extreme position that it was the whole entire surface of planet earth which was deluged and destroyed.

Thanks for admitting that. I find it ridiculous. How else could only Noah, and co be spared, if it was not a global flood?? How could the mountains be covered? Why would he take animals on the ark, if there was a whole rest of the planet, full of them?? That is a classic example of the stark differences of what I consider to be real bible believers, and those that try to fabalize, and explain it all away. (however saved, and well intentioned they might be, -in case there are sensitive ones out there, not sure of their salvation)

To a large degree we need to take a positive stance as Christians regarding certain teachings, namely those surrounding who Christ is, his purpose and how this affects us. I would only claim that another is compromising Scripture if thought their interpretation was so distorted as to make them less than true Christians.

Well, I consider them merely weaker brethren. Weaker brethren that were led down the garden path, without the garden!

To say Day-Age proponents compromise Scripture causes an unnecessary divide between YEC and OEC Christians who both equally value Scripture and who are both equally saved through Christ.

First of all I call the old age beliefs compromise theories, because they seek to compromise with science, and try to make the bible fit that. Not because some seek to compromise the bible itself. They are trying to salvage it. But it doesn't need their help, thank you very much. I think most OECs and YECs would agree on the new testament, to a great extent. That is all we need to be Christian. The rub comes, in the creation debate, where we need to bring in the old testament. We have to ask, what is the REAL reason that the old age beliefs became popular in the last few centuries? I think most of us know deep down, what the answer there is.

[Kurieuo]

Hi dad,

As you are so sure that Day-Age OECs are in your own words "butchering" Scripture, perhaps you would be willing to participate in a set debate with me along the lines of: YEC or Day-Age OEC. Which is more Biblical?

I would argue for the side that Day-Age beliefs are more Biblical, whereas you can argue that YEC beliefs are. Sound interesting? We would need to set some guidelines, for example, how the writings and responses should be set out such as openings, number of responses, closings, length of responses, time to respond, etc. But I am up for it if you are.

Kurieuo

[dad]

Hi dad,

As you are so sure that Day-Age OECs are in your own words "butchering" Scripture, perhaps you would be willing to participate in a set debate with me along the lines of: YEC or Day-Age OEC. Which is more Biblical?

I would argue for the side that Day-Age beliefs are more Biblical, whereas you can argue that YEC beliefs are. Sound interesting? We would need to set some guidelines, for example, how the writings and responses should be set out such as openings, number of responses, closings, length of responses, time to respond, etc. But I am up for it if you are.

Kurieuo

Sounds a bit formal. Why not say what you think, here and now? No offense, but I don't feel [edit. ..that OEC is worth a big debate] The bible is really not all that complicated. The days were quantified with mornings and evenings, and plants were made a few days before the sun was made, ruling out long ages. Why not admit the reason you think you need to come up with long ages? Save us all a lot of time.