Evidence for God from Science

Stu wrote:

YoungApolegist wrote:YECs have hurt many people's views of christianity, and many people have detracted from it. What do y'all have to say?

Uum no. YEC is what Christianity should be while OEC is Christianity bowing to fallible science. But that's my take. I think it's supposed to be 6 000 - 10 000 though.
I could argue that OEC has hurt Christianity.

Christianity is the finding the truth in our Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing else matters. Nature is God's other revelation and it should tie up with his Word. How do we find out about his natural revelation - Science.

Stu wrote:

YoungApolegist wrote:YECs have hurt many people's views of christianity, and many people have detracted from it. What do y'all have to say?

Uum no. YEC is what Christianity should be while OEC is Christianity bowing to fallible science. But that's my take. I think it's supposed to be 6 000 - 10 000 though.
I could argue that OEC has hurt Christianity.

You do realise that O.E.C existed a very long time before the science confirmed an old Earth and that the position was derived entirely from scripture.
Strawmen won't win you any credibility.

Even the Big Bang was described by some dude hundreds of years ago just from reading scripture and way before science ever confirmed it. Can't remember his name but I think there is an article on the main site.

Stu wrote:

YoungApolegist wrote:YECs have hurt many people's views of christianity, and many people have detracted from it. What do y'all have to say?

Uum no. YEC is what Christianity should be while OEC is Christianity bowing to fallible science. But that's my take. I think it's supposed to be 6 000 - 10 000 though.
I could argue that OEC has hurt Christianity.

This is probably exactly what the op was referring to.

"YEC is what Christianity should be."

Everyone please read this, and let it sink in.

Is this really what Christianity should be? Is one's creation beliefs really the basis for Christianity?

Don't trust Christ for salvation. Don't rest in Christ, and allow God to transform you. Don't love God and your neighbor.

Just believe in YEC, and you're fulfilling your duty as a Christian.


ONE'S CREATION BELIEF HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON SALVATION NOR DISCIPLESHIP OF A BELIEVER!!!!

Amen Rick

I think YEC has become a false idol for some.

Compromise can be useful in life. But when it comes to Christianity compromise is the slow poison that has been killing the church piece by piece over the years. When you compromise a little here and a little there, that trend tends to grow, not diminish, and that is just what has happened. And from my perspective OEC has added to that trend of compromise; Christianity has become the weaker for it, and leaves the Bible open to so many interpretations. No longer is the Bible a straightforward message from God that can be read and understood by all, but rather many parts now become a complex riddle to be deciphered by those with the requisite know-how.

Stu wrote:Compromise can be useful in life. But when it comes to Christianity compromise is the slow poison that has been killing the church piece by piece over the years. When you compromise a little here and a little there, that trend tends to grow, not diminish, and that is just what has happened. And from my perspective OEC has added to that trend of compromise; Christianity has become the weaker for it, and leaves the Bible open to so many interpretations. No longer is the Bible a straightforward message from God that can be read and understood by all, but rather many parts now become a complex riddle to be deciphered by those with the requisite know-how.

How does Progressive Creationism compromise the gospel or Christianity? Please be specific. Make sure you actually use examples of what OECs believe. Using straw man YEC arguments doesn't count.

Please give specific examples.

RickD wrote:How does Progressive Creationism compromise the gospel or Christianity? Please be specific. Make sure you actually use examples of what OECs believe. Using straw man YEC arguments doesn't count.

Please give specific examples.

I don't really have the energy to go into extensive detail right now, but will offer a short explanation.

Essentially if one picks up the Bible and reads for instance Genesis - reading it in isolation, most people would take it to mean literal days, no gaps.

OEC has allowed the authenticity of the Bible to be questioned. Introducing numerous alternate views allows for the Bible to be further questioned. If two massively opposing views (billions vs thousands of years) can be held then why can many other parts of the Bible not be interpreted in numerous other ways.

The Bible today has become watered down because everyone and Jerry has their own interpretation of it.

Here are the problems as I see it.

The purpose of redemption and Christ's death is rooted in a literal fall from grace for mankind. Mankind being a special creation, who was provided a special place (eden) to relate to God. Not to mention, a literal Satan, etc.
Further, the simplest reading of Genesis 1 does better comply with YEC. And that doesn't mean I'm saying there aren't well developed arguments for OEC.

Also, an old cosmos better complies with an atheistic worldview. That's a fact. In other words, if the earth is really only 6k-10k years old, then atheism falls flat on its face. Doesn't mean that OEC is wrong, only that is shares common ground with a foundational tenet of atheism. Theistic evolution even more so. Then for many in OEC, they believe in an old cosmos, but still hold to man being a special creation. This is absulotely laughable to the atheist.

For many YECers, they see special creation as foundational to the need for redemption. And so, yes, it can become a point of orthodoxy. They might say, "sure you can believe in billions of years and be a Christian." It just that for them, it doesn't seem to follow logically.

For many in OEC, i see a lot of manuevering to maintain their academic integrity. "Science says..." "The consensus says......" At the end of the day, all Christians must believe that a dead man, who was actually God in the flesh, was raised back to life. There is no reconciling this with anything, scientifically speaking. So guess what. You still look like a damn fool to atheists whether you think the earth is 6k or 6 billion years old. The OECer says, this is secondary, and it may very well be. But for the YECer, much of this appears to be granting authority to secular consensus, which for them weakens biblical authority, and ultimately corrupts essential doctrines. Certainly the age of the earth itself may not be secodary, but many would argue that it does undermine essential doctrine.

In all my years on this forum, reading and studying the arguments, I can tell you that no one here, or even Hugh Ross himself, has convinced me that secular science isn't the ultimate authoritative lens for interpreting Genesis for OEC advocates.

I would agree that an isolated reading of Genesis heavily implies a young Earth created in six days, with the Sun being created after the Earth. It is for this reason that I reject Genesis as BS. The Earth is not 6000 years old, even mildly scientifically educated people know this, and this is why YEC makes Christianity look like a laughing stock and an embarrassment to the outside world. And since this appears to be what Genesis is saying, maybe rightfully so. Even if the world really is 6000 years old, it would appear God made it so that he *really* wanted people to believe that its 4 billion years old by observing nature. Maybe if the Earth were 6000 years old it would better help fight atheism, but its not.

Does God expect people to undergo such intense cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and just outright delusion in order to follow him the way he intended? I should hope not.

The bible has ALWAYS had people interpreting it.
The Pharisees , the Saudacess, the Essenses, they ALL interpreted it differently.
It is important to understand a few things about the bible, the most important book we have:
1) It was written FOR us BUT NOT TO Us.
2) To understand the literal context of any book/letter of the bible, you must first understand the literary genre of that particular book/letter.
3) God MUST accomdate His understanding to OUR understanding ( which is always culturally dependent).
4) The bible is progressive revelation, it does NOT contradict itself, it clears itself up as it goes along.
5) The bible was written by various authors and copied and edited as it was passed down the generations so it has not only the "personality and perspective" of the original authors, but all those that have "touched" it since.
6) The bible makes NO CHRONOLOGICAL claim on the AGE of the Earth or the Universe, ie: it does NOT state a specific date or time from whence creation began.
7) Salvation is based on what Christ has done for US, not what is written in the bible.
The bible points to Christ it does not "superseed" Him and it is only a "finger pointing the way to Christ" and we must always be cautious that we do NOT "concentrate on the finger and miss all the heavenly glory".
I am sure there are more points than these of course.

What HAS hurt Christianity are those whom insist that THEIR view of the time-referenced passages in Genesis reveal anything about the sincerity of one's devotion to holding to the truth of Scripture, their dedication to Jesus, or where they are spiritually - and I say that whether one is a YEC or an OEC, or whether something in-between. Also, I say that based upon those that believe that the Genesis accounts of Creation (and other references in Scripture) are FACTUAL and that Adam & Eve were REAL, instantly created adult human beings who really lived the events as described, fell into sin and that the resulting fall is the result. Those that view the Genesis accounts as largely allegorical and not entirely factual - I believe that any such person with these beliefs, regardless of HOW LONG they believe the time lengths described, can be legitimately criticized, as I think their beliefs are highly problematic and they stand on a theologically slippery slope littered with much uncertainty and misunderstanding. So, even with those believing the accounts are mostly allegorical, it's not their view of the time issue that I would criticize, because I see no impact on ANYONE, personally, spiritually, or instructionally practical that truly matters BEFORE God began interacting with and instructing Adam.

Arguing over Creation time is a total WASTE of time - not to mention frequently divisive. There are people reading this forum who need to know and believe in the truth of Who Jesus is, and yet they so often stumble across forum posts with Christians OECs and YECs absolutely skewering each other, often with disrespect, great anger, hostility and venom. Can't you just hear such unbelievers after reading such explosive arguments - "Yeah, if THAT is what Christians are like, I guess I'm far better off just the way I am."

Philip wrote:What HAS hurt Christianity are those whom insist that THEIR view of the time-referenced passages in Genesis reveal anything about the sincerity of one's devotion to holding to the truth of Scripture, their dedication to Jesus, or where they are spiritually - and I say that whether one is a YEC or an OEC, or whether something in-between. Also, I say that based upon those that believe that the Genesis accounts of Creation (and other references in Scripture) are FACTUAL and that Adam & Eve were REAL, instantly created adult human beings who really lived the events as described, fell into sin and that the resulting fall is the result. Those that view the Genesis accounts as largely allegorical and not entirely factual - I believe that any such person with these beliefs, regardless of HOW LONG they believe the time lengths described, can be legitimately criticized, as I think their beliefs are highly problematic and they stand on a theologically slippery slope littered with much uncertainty and misunderstanding. So, even with those believing the accounts are mostly allegorical, it's not their view of the time issue that I would criticize, because I see no impact on ANYONE, personally, spiritually, or instructionally practical that truly matters BEFORE God began interacting with and instructing Adam.

Arguing over Creation time is a total WASTE of time - not to mention frequently divisive. There are people reading this forum who need to know and believe in the truth of Who Jesus is, and yet they so often stumble across forum posts with Christians OECs and YECs absolutely skewering each other, often with disrespect, great anger, hostility and venom. Can't you just hear such unbelievers after reading such explosive arguments - "Yeah, if THAT is what Christians are like, I guess I'm far better off just the way I am."

So true Philip.

Stu wrote: Essentially if one picks up the Bible and reads for instance Genesis - reading it in isolation, most people would take it to mean literal days, no gaps.

If you read it in it's original language it would say no such thing. If I could read Hebrew I would read it was 6 yom, so it is open to interpretation what yom would mean, I have read a few rabbi opinions and they all agree that they are all correct interpretations of the text.

OEC has allowed the authenticity of the Bible to be questioned. Introducing numerous alternate views allows for the Bible to be further questioned. If two massively opposing views (billions vs thousands of years) can be held then why can many other parts of the Bible not be interpreted in numerous other ways.

The Bible today has become watered down because everyone and Jerry has their own interpretation of it.

So you think your understanding of the entire Bible is 100% correct and lines up perfectly with the early church fathers, with the rabbi's that lived thousands of years ago and with the original writers of the books? Sounds very arrogant to me.

I could make the exact same claims against the YEC movement considering it is only a recent addition.

FIXED THAT FOR YOU
YEC has allowed the authenticity of the Bible to be questioned. Introducing numerous alternate views allows for the Bible to be further questioned. If two massively opposing views (billions vs thousands of years) can be held then why can many other parts of the Bible not be interpreted in numerous other ways.

The Bible today has become watered down because everyone and Jerry has their own interpretation of it

jlay wrote:Here are the problems as I see it.

The purpose of redemption and Christ's death is rooted in a literal fall from grace for mankind. Mankind being a special creation, who was provided a special place (eden) to relate to God. Not to mention, a literal Satan, etc.
Further, the simplest reading of Genesis 1 does better comply with YEC. And that doesn't mean I'm saying there aren't well developed arguments for OEC.

Also, an old cosmos better complies with an atheistic worldview. That's a fact. In other words, if the earth is really only 6k-10k years old, then atheism falls flat on its face. Doesn't mean that OEC is wrong, only that is shares common ground with a foundational tenet of atheism. Theistic evolution even more so. Then for many in OEC, they believe in an old cosmos, but still hold to man being a special creation. This is absulotely laughable to the atheist.

The whole idea of God is laughable to the atheist, we are not trying to appeal to the secular crowd so the point is mute.

For many YECers, they see special creation as foundational to the need for redemption. And so, yes, it can become a point of orthodoxy. They might say, "sure you can believe in billions of years and be a Christian." It just that for them, it doesn't seem to follow logically.

Are you saying YEC is orthodoxy?

For many in OEC, i see a lot of manuevering to maintain their academic integrity. "Science says..." "The consensus says......" At the end of the day, all Christians must believe that a dead man, who was actually God in the flesh, was raised back to life. There is no reconciling this with anything, scientifically speaking. So guess what. You still look like a damn fool to atheists whether you think the earth is 6k or 6 billion years old. The OECer says, this is secondary, and it may very well be. But for the YECer, much of this appears to be granting authority to secular consensus, which for them weakens biblical authority, and ultimately corrupts essential doctrines. Certainly the age of the earth itself may not be secodary, but many would argue that it does undermine essential doctrine.

Another mute point, why would we care how we seem to atheists. My understanding of doctrine may be fairly simple but I have yet to see a good argument of how OEC weakens Biblical authority and corrupts essential doctrine.

In all my years on this forum, reading and studying the arguments, I can tell you that no one here, or even Hugh Ross himself, has convinced me that secular science isn't the ultimate authoritative lens for interpreting Genesis for OEC advocates.

Science is not secular, another mute point.

The whole idea of God is laughable to the atheist, we are not trying to appeal to the secular crowd so the point is mute.

It may not have been meant as such, but I certainly would hope that Christians ARE trying to appeal to the secular crowd. Of course, but not to accommodate their false beliefs or dumb down or dilute the truth of the Gospel, but to make its message and contexts better understood, so as to touch their hearts and minds, to be open and receptive to Jesus. We have to constantly remember how strange, alien and out of touch this ancient collection of God's Scriptures must seem to unbelievers and others who don't understand its meanings. To them, Christians seem like superstitious and closed-minded people unwilling to realistically engage the modern world.