Evidence for God from Science

Hi Everyone, I just registered on this website, but have been studying the differences between young earth and old earth for a little while. I started researching with the mind set of being open to which side makes more sense biblically and logically with the limited ability I have to understand some of the complicated science involved. I have a question for the old earth believers. I would appreciate answers from people secure in their beliefs in old earth creationism only. What are the problems that you haven't found an answer for or feel confident about on your side. One issue that I can't find an answer for is Job 40:17. I'm not confident with the behemoth being a hippo or elephant because of the "tail sways like a cedar" part of the verse. Is it possible that the behemoth is an extinct animal? Sorry for the long opening post. I'm looking forward to your answers. Thanks

Oops, I may have posted in the wrong forum. I just noticed a thread about walking with dinosaurs where part of my question was already addressed.

RickD wrote:I'm not confident with the behemoth being a hippo or elephant because of the "tail sways like a cedar" part of the verse.

Ever been whipped by the tail of a Great Dane?
.
.

Rick,

Like you I see this verse as creating a problem. There are certainly extinct dinos that fit the description to a T. And living animals that fit parts, but not all. Crocs don't eat grass. Elephants and Hippos don't have tails like a cedar. As a YEC who has posted here a while, you are probably just spinning your wheels with these kinds of threads. You are free to post what you like, but I'm just speaking from experience. I doubt you are going to sway anyone's opinion. I've been part of this forum for a while now, and no one has convinced me to abandon my YEC views. I find it much more edifying to find the areas where we agree and strengthen one another. Not that there will not be disagreements. There will be.

jlay, Thanks for the reply. Years ago I would have considered myself a yec. Until I actually started to study the subject on my own. I've come to the conclusion that the oec, especially the day-age makes the most sense to me. Saying that, I'm looking at the areas where yec's say there are flaws in the oec models to find out how the biblical translation may have been lost, or scientists may be wrong. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, and our universe was created by God. So I have no agenda as to which side more realistically presents its case. I started my studying to find the truth, and believe as a Christian God will show me the truth on this subject as I study and pray. The behemoth question is one I had because I can't figure out the answer from an oec point of view. As far as the leviathan, I can most definitely see that as a large croc. Some people seem to lump the 2 different descriptions of behemoth and leviathan into one. As I read Job, they are two different animals. The oec/day-age view has very few questions that remain unanswered in my mind. The yec model that Kent Hovind and Ken Ham teach, have too many scientific problems. It also seems that the two of them have an agenda of some sort. Where as Hugh Ross seems to give the reason why he believes what he does with humility and honesty. Hugh Ross also makes the oec model easy to understand for someone like me with a simple mind.

jlay wrote:Rick,

Like you I see this verse as creating a problem. There are certainly extinct dinos that fit the description to a T. And living animals that fit parts, but not all. Crocs don't eat grass. Elephants and Hippos don't have tails like a cedar. As a YEC who has posted here a while, you are probably just spinning your wheels with these kinds of threads. You are free to post what you like, but I'm just speaking from experience. I doubt you are going to sway anyone's opinion. I've been part of this forum for a while now, and no one has convinced me to abandon my YEC views. I find it much more edifying to find the areas where we agree and strengthen one another. Not that there will not be disagreements. There will be.

jlay, nowhere in Job 41 does it describe leviathan as eating grass as you have stated. Job 40 describes behemoth as eating grass, and I don't think anyone would think that the rest of behemoth's description is talking about a croc. I'm searching for the truth on this subject, so I don't think I'm spinning my wheels. I don't know how my post makes you think I'm trying to sway anyone's opinion. I'm just asking for opinions. If I came across as trying to cause a disagreement, that's not what I intended. I'm trying to solve the disagreements in my own mind. Thanks

You sited job 40.

Sorry if I misunderstood earlier croc references as applying to 41.
I said spinning your wheels because initially your posts came across as a YECer trying to argue against OEC. Since you explained your position, it is much more clear what you are driving at. Please continue.

There is a middle ground between YEC and OEC. Well...it isn't middle ground in the sense of compromise and «I'll meet you half way». Schroeder's creation perspective allows you to have your cake and eat it too, allows you to step through the looking glass and reconcile a lot of the puerile YEC/OEC disputes.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

FL

Maybe it's possible, just possible, that Job is wrong?

I guess I'm just looking for things that oe creationists see as flaws in their own old earth model. I guess I'm looking for opinions from people secure enough to give me truthful answers about supposed flaws or apparent flaws in their own position.

touchingcloth wrote:Maybe it's possible, just possible, that Job is wrong?

Wrong about what?

RickD wrote:I guess I'm just looking for things that oe creationists see as flaws in their own old earth model. I guess I'm looking for opinions from people secure enough to give me truthful answers about supposed flaws or apparent flaws in their own position.

Do you believe in a young earth? If so then you are so, so wrong.

He's already said that he leans towards OEC

zoegirl wrote:He's already said that he leans towards OEC

Old or young creationism is a crock of unscientific nonsense...YEC more so.

touchingcloth wrote:

zoegirl wrote:He's already said that he leans towards OEC

Old or young creationism is a crock of unscientific nonsense...YEC more so.

Why? Because you say so?