Evidence for God from Science

Forum Monk wrote:I am not an old earth creationist.

I am not a young earth creationist.

I do not believe God deceived us.

So where does that leave us?

I don't have the benefit of knowing your history so I can't say. You have said what you are not but what <b>do</b> you believe about how old the earth is?

L

Canuckster1127 wrote: While I have some serious issues with the YEC position and some of how it is promoted I don't necessarily believe that one has to concede that God is a deceiver to take a YEC position.

If you believe it you should be able to explain it. Why do think being a YEC does not require you to believe it?

L

Leonov wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: While I have some serious issues with the YEC position and some of how it is promoted I don't necessarily believe that one has to concede that God is a deceiver to take a YEC position.

If you believe it you should be able to explain it. Why do think being a YEC does not require you to believe it?

L

Actually, no, belief does not require complete knowledge but rather in this instance I would say that if someone were YEC (and again I am not) they could attribute the apparent contradiction in terms of incomplete knowledge on our part.

Frankly, I believe there is more than sufficient scientific data to establish the age of the earth and universe, but as most of that science and observation is inferred and not scientifically recreatable, then if someone wants to believe that there are undiscovered data and or processes that give the illusion of apparent age, then that is not necessarily de facto evidence of intent on God's part to deceive us. It may simply be that our information is incomplete.

It's a tenuous position to be sure in my opinion. For anyone to assert they have enough information to assert that a circumstance requires acceptance that God is a "deceiver" is to presume they have complete information and ability to interpret it and pass judgment upon God from a position of equality and that simply is just not a viable position for me to hold, even as an Old Earther who believes that the argument that science supports an Old Earth holds some validity. Even with that validity, it is not foundational.

I can find plenty of issues to argue with my YEC brethren and I often do, and I may even become heated at time. But I don't question their sincerity in most instances, even if I do reject their conclusions.

When I said:

I am not an old earth creationist.
I am not a young earth creationist.
I do not believe God deceived us.
So where does that leave us?

I was asking a rhetorical question. I know where I am. I have much to respond to, so I am taking time to prepare my answers. I hope to clarify my position soon.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Leonov wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: While I have some serious issues with the YEC position and some of how it is promoted I don't necessarily believe that one has to concede that God is a deceiver to take a YEC position.

If you believe it you should be able to explain it. Why do think being a YEC does not require you to believe it?

L

Actually, no, belief does not require complete knowledge but rather in this instance I would say that if someone were YEC (and again I am not) they could attribute the apparent contradiction in terms of incomplete knowledge on our part.

Frankly, I believe there is more than sufficient scientific data to establish the age of the earth and universe, but as most of that science and observation is inferred and not scientifically recreatable, then if someone wants to believe that there are undiscovered data and or processes that give the illusion of apparent age, then that is not necessarily de facto evidence of intent on God's part to deceive us. It may simply be that our information is incomplete.

It's a tenuous position to be sure in my opinion. For anyone to assert they have enough information to assert that a circumstance requires acceptance that God is a "deceiver" is to presume they have complete information and ability to interpret it and pass judgment upon God from a position of equality and that simply is just not a viable position for me to hold, even as an Old Earther who believes that the argument that science supports an Old Earth holds some validity. Even with that validity, it is not foundational.

I can find plenty of issues to argue with my YEC brethren and I often do, and I may even become heated at time. But I don't question their sincerity in most instances, even if I do reject their conclusions.

I fully understand your position. However this question is very important to me. It is the way I can see to decide between creation and evolution. The answer tells me a lot about God. I have looked around the web for such a response and found none that work for me (including progressive creation and the earth being near a white hole). If no plausible explanation can be provided then I have to conclude that YEC is unworkable and reject it.

I also have no doubt that most YECs are sincere but that is no reason for me to not come to my own conclusion. I have to make a decision rather than deferring all the time otherwise I cannot ask any questions which follow on from it.

L

The most significant difference between YEC and OEC regardless of which side of the fence you want to walk. OEC does not reach its conclusion based on the reading of scripture. YEC does.

OEC starts with science then turns to the scirpture for confirmation. YEC starts with the scripture and then turns to science for confirmation.

Forum Monk wrote:The most significant difference between YEC and OEC regardless of which side of the fence you want to walk. OEC does not reach its conclusion based on the reading of scripture. YEC does.

OEC starts with science then turns to the scirpture for confirmation. YEC starts with the scripture and then turns to science for confirmation.

Forum Monk, repectfully, you couldn't be more wrong.

OEC has been around well in advance of modern science and was then and is now based first on exegesis of the Scripture. This is a common misconception and one fostered and promoted by many YEC proponents.

OEC certainly points to modern science as confirming and I have no doubt there are individuals who may work in this manner in arriving at their conclusions, but it is a gross overstatement, and misrepresentation to present the OEC position in this manner.

If you wish to demonstrate otherwise, please feel free to attempt to do so.

Regards,

Bart

Leonov wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Leonov wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: While I have some serious issues with the YEC position and some of how it is promoted I don't necessarily believe that one has to concede that God is a deceiver to take a YEC position.

If you believe it you should be able to explain it. Why do think being a YEC does not require you to believe it?

L

Actually, no, belief does not require complete knowledge but rather in this instance I would say that if someone were YEC (and again I am not) they could attribute the apparent contradiction in terms of incomplete knowledge on our part.

Frankly, I believe there is more than sufficient scientific data to establish the age of the earth and universe, but as most of that science and observation is inferred and not scientifically recreatable, then if someone wants to believe that there are undiscovered data and or processes that give the illusion of apparent age, then that is not necessarily de facto evidence of intent on God's part to deceive us. It may simply be that our information is incomplete.

It's a tenuous position to be sure in my opinion. For anyone to assert they have enough information to assert that a circumstance requires acceptance that God is a "deceiver" is to presume they have complete information and ability to interpret it and pass judgment upon God from a position of equality and that simply is just not a viable position for me to hold, even as an Old Earther who believes that the argument that science supports an Old Earth holds some validity. Even with that validity, it is not foundational.

I can find plenty of issues to argue with my YEC brethren and I often do, and I may even become heated at time. But I don't question their sincerity in most instances, even if I do reject their conclusions.

I fully understand your position. However this question is very important to me. It is the way I can see to decide between creation and evolution. The answer tells me a lot about God. I have looked around the web for such a response and found none that work for me (including progressive creation and the earth being near a white hole). If no plausible explanation can be provided then I have to conclude that YEC is unworkable and reject it.

I also have no doubt that most YECs are sincere but that is no reason for me to not come to my own conclusion. I have to make a decision rather than deferring all the time otherwise I cannot ask any questions which follow on from it.

L

Understood. I have rejected YEC as untenable despite having been brought up and taught that position and holding it earlier in life. There is sufficient evidence in my opinion first exegetically and then scientifically to call YEC into question and reject it and I argue from that position.

As such, I think it is a legitimate question to ask if a YEC position places God in the role of a deceiver and I think if you push hard enough there are many YEC supporters who in fact, have to face that question.

That said, however, I won't make a generic statement that forces all YEC supporters into that position. I think most are sincere and either have not fully faced those issues or have come up with a scenario such as I present to explain a posibility that is based on Man's lack of complete understanding rather that God actively seeking to deceive, the latter of which I have to reject out of hand.

The more creative and tortured a logic construct has to be to support a position, the more it needs to be challenged in my opinion.

Regards,

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:OEC has been around well in advance of modern science and was then and is now based first on exegesis of the Scripture. This is a common misconception and one fostered and promoted by many YEC proponents.

I'll have to say, Canuckster, if I may respectfully call you that, I had no idea so many YEC have put forth this idea previously, since the idea came to me this morning as I was thinking about this topic.

The only possible exegesis of an older earth, I am aware of would be the mistaken idea that the day of genesis could be 1000 years to God based on the scripture in Peter in which he speaking specifically of the return of Christ and the culmination of the age. Many had the idea that after 6 days the sabbath rest would come. This was an attempt to conclude that after 6000 years of existence, God would return and usher in the 1000 years of peace.

Some tried to extend this analogy backward to the days of Genesis, but in my opinion it is a classic case of taking the scripture out of context. If you know of some other exegesis which points to or hints to a old earth that does not begin with a preconceived view I would be interested to hear it.

OEC certainly points to modern science as confirming and I have no doubt there are individuals who may work in this manner in arriving at their conclusions, but it is a gross overstatement, and misrepresentation to present the OEC position in this manner.

No sir, I don't think it is a gross overstatement or misrepresentation. Many people at one time or another believed in YEC but the doubt came from the science classroom. Faced with what appeared to be overwhelming evidence against what they first believed, they have come to reject their former beliefs. Now the only way to resolve the 'faith' delimma, that results when holy scripture and secular science do not align is (a) reject the science and claim the scripture is true, (b) keep the science but go back to the scripture and change its meaning. Nevertheless, Canuckster (again forgive me for the abbreviation), the merger of pure science and biblical precepts is very problematic because science at its very core rejects God and seeks to explain everything without God. Nowhere is intelligence or guidance mentioned in the Big Bang theory, no where in evolution. From a purely religious point of view, these theories are anti-christ. So what should do, whitewash the corruption with God paint (forgive the choice of words). To me, its like when the bible speaks of walking over graves. On the outside its neat and trimmed but on the inside is a dead mans bones.

Canuckster1127 wrote:As such, I think it is a legitimate question to ask if a YEC position places God in the role of a deceiver and I think if you push hard enough there are many YEC supporters who in fact, have to face that question.

The interesting thing, is, IMO, this thread was started by one many label as YEC and I can assure you he did NOT vote that God creating with age is deceptive.

The fact is, this thread is not about YEC or OEC. It is about the nature and purpose of God. There are some (apparently very few on this board) who believe that God had a specific reason and purpose for creating all things in six days.

The fact is, this thread is not about YEC or OEC. It is about the nature and purpose of God. There are some (apparently very few on this board) who believe that God had a specific reason and purpose for creating all things in six days.

It's not about YEC or OEC and yet you frame the question around a presupposed time period of 6 days. Granted perhaps you're using the term days in the context of Gen 1 & 2 itself and the Hebrew word Yom which can mean either, the daylight portion of a day, a 24 hour day or a period of time.

Please point out to me who these people are that would deny the purpose of God. Maybe we can elicit an explanation or clarification from them.

Canuckster1127 wrote:It's not about YEC or OEC and yet you frame the question around a presupposed time period of 6 days. Granted perhaps you're using the term days in the context of Gen 1 & 2 itself and the Hebrew word Yom which can mean either, the daylight portion of a day, a 24 hour day or a period of time.

I don't beleive yom means anything except day when used in genesis 1 and 2.

Please point out to me who these people are that would deny the purpose of God. Maybe we can elicit an explanation or clarification from them.

With all due respect, this is twisting my statement into something I did not say. I did not say there were people here who deny the purpose of God. I said that are some who believe he had a specific purpose for creating in six days. There's a big difference.

Forum Monk,

Here's a simple reference to a noted authority with regard to the presence and indeed the majority view of OEC through much of the Older Church, well before the question became framed differently in the age of modern scientific theory. Interestingly both YEC and OEC have adapted to that occurance, one in accordance with it and one in reaction to it.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... ndex.shtml
_________________________________________________________
Walter Kaiser

Seminary President
Professor
Author
Back to Top

Brief Background: Dr. Walter Kaiser is currently President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and the Colman M. Mockler Distinguished Professor of Old Testament. He is the author of numerous books including, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, Toward an Old Testament Theology, The Messiah in the Old Testament, and, most recently, A History of Israel.
RTB Endorsement

I have found Dr. Hugh Ross to be a man of integrity and sound wisdom as he has continued to offer "Reasons to Believe" to an increasingly skeptical generation of seekers. In my conversations with him on the interpretation of Genesis one and two, I found him solidly committed to the inerrancy of Scripture and to sound principles of interpretation. I commend his works to all for their thoughtful reflection on the magnificence of our great Creator Living Lord.

Walter C. Kaiser

In His Words

I would opt for the day-age theory, given all that must take place on the sixth "day" according to the Genesis record. Incidentally, this day-age view has been the majority view of the church since the fourth century, mainly through the influence of Saint Augustine.

Source: Book - Hard Sayings of the Bible page 104.

Online Work

Interview - Creation Update, March 25, 2004
Author of

Book - Hard Sayings of the Bible
Book - Hard Sayings of the Old Testament
Book - Toward an Old Testament Theology
Book - The Messiah in the Old Testament
Book - A History of Israel

____________________________________________________

We can discuss this further if you wish and certainly one appeal to authority doesn't resolve the issue. Hopefully it will serve to examine the issue more if you desire.

BTW, Canuckster or Bart is just fine. I've been called much worse.

I don't beleive yom means anything except day when used in genesis 1 and 2.

I presume you mean a 24 hour solar day then? How do you explain the measure of such a day when the Sun was not created until the 4th day?

With all due respect, this is twisting my statement into something I did not say. I did not say there were people here who deny the purpose of God. I said that are some who believe he had a specific purpose for creating in six days. There's a big difference.

Thanks for the clarification. I was not intentionally seeking to twist your words and obviously read into them something you were not intending to say. I believe most here, whether OEC or YEC would hold to God's purpose being present and driving creation.

Not all here are Christians of course, so you have to deal with each person as to that issue, individually.

Forum Monk wrote:I am not an old earth creationist.

I am not a young earth creationist.

I do not believe God deceived us.

So where does that leave us?

This is a very confusing statement by you Monk.. Where does this leave us? Where does this lead to your understanding of the Bible? Please explain your position more throughly... Also God does not deceive, but people can screw God's word to fit their demeanor.