Evidence for God from Science

Dave,

I asked if you wanted to discuss how OEC undermines scripture, and affects the character of God. Then you posted an article by Russell Humphreys, where he poses his scientific arguments against evolution. Let's stick to the topic of how you believe OEC undermines scripture, and affects the character of God.
You posted this:

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

So, let's stick to this topic, please. I have no interest in an article by Russell Humphreys. I want to hear why YOU concluded " that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way."

So, what do you say?

I'm moving this, and starting a new topic, so this thread won't get bogged down.

I'm moving this, and starting a new topic, so this thread won't get bogged down. Here's the link to the new topic:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=37045

I look forward to your reasons for your conclusions, Dave.

For all interested in the topic, lets keep the discussion respectful. We all know how these OEC/YEC discussions can quickly get out of hand.

Thanks

REPLY: I thought we could cover the whole shebang of a Young Earth / Theistic Evolution and the Theological implications of both since they are all inter-related . So , please...let us start with Young Earth Creationism and the evidence i presented by Prof. Humphreys (which sums up my own personal view as well)...then we can move to the Old Earth view which accomodates theistic evolution . So here are the evidences for a Young Earth and I await your rebuttal to each point :

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Spiral galaxy NGC 1232 in constellation Eridanus (photo courtesy of European Southern Observatory).

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.2

2. Too few supernova remnants.


Crab Nebula (photo courtesy of NASA)

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.


Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.



Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.


Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16

8. Biological material decays too fast.

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.


Radio Halo (photo courtesy of Mark Armitage)

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24

10. Too much helium in minerals.

Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.



With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.<Deevey, E. S., The human population, Scientific American 203:194–204 (September 1960). Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.30




14. History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.31 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.<Dritt, J. O., Man’s earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 73–78.

Dave, That's fine if you want to discuss Humphreys in the other topic. Frankly, what you posted from Humphreys, has no relevance to the statement you made:

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

Let's keep this on topic, and about how you have concluded that Day Age/Progressive creationism undermines scripture, and maligns God's character.

RickD wrote:Dave, That's fine if you want to discuss Humphreys in the other topic. Frankly, what you posted from Humphreys, has no relevance to the statement you made:

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

Let's keep this on topic, and about how you have concluded that Day Age/Progressive creationism undermines scripture, and maligns God's character.

Very well then....heres what I entirely endorse and embrace :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution ---

The atheistic formula for evolution is:


Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:


Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians :

Danger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and ‘life’ (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)

Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of the Gaps

The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Corinthians 8:6).

However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.2

Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:
â–  Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
â–  In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
â–  In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
â–  Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

Danger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God

The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario.

Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined

The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus . . . was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).3

Danger no. 6: The Biblical Basis of Jesus’ Work of Redemption Is Mythologized

The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:7). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.

Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:
â–  The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).
â–  The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).
â–  The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.
â–  Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history: ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
â–  The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:
1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Danger no. 8: Loss of Creation Concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:
â–  God created matter without using any available material.
â–  God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.

Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation.

Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.4

If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!

Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:
1. Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
2. Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

Conclusion

The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. Theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible
.

Wow Dave! Where should I begin?
First, while progressive creationism and theistic evolution have their similarities, there are differences. The same can be said for young and old earth creationism. Your original quote:

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

Stated specifically that it would be Day age/Progressive creationism that you had a problem with. Not Theistic, or any kind of macro evolution. So, while I could write a small book about all the inaccuracies and misrepresentations about Theistic evolution and Progressive creationism in what you posted, for the sake of keeping this on topic, I'll try to deal only with the inaccuracies about Day Age, in what you posted.

This first quote deals with Day Age, as well as TE.

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.

I suggest you read this article on the home site, to see what OEC's believe about millions of years of death and suffering.http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... years.html

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:
â–  Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
â–  In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
â–  In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
â–  Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The six days work, one day rest, is a template for things in the bible. If you do your homework, you'll see that there are plenty of things on the seven day scale, that aren't seven 24 hour days. This is but one example: Deuteronomy 15:12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free.

Danger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God

The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario.

This is such a misrepresentation of theistic evolution, that I had to point it out. We have some TE's here that will tell you that they believe in a literal Adam, literal sin, and a literal Christ. This "Danger no. 4" seems to be erroneously lumping TE in with Darwinian Evolution.

Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined

The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus . . . was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).3

Nothing in OEC undermines anything about the atonement of Christ, including His incarnation. Frankly, I don't understand how this can be posted without any supporting details.

Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:
â–  The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).
â–  The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).
â–  The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.
â–  Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history: ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
â–  The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:
1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

This is a mixture of truth, interpretation issues, and complete misrepresentations on the part of the author.

There was a beginning of the universe(including time). And an end of this universe, time included, will come.

The total duration of the creation of the universe, was six days. Six long "days". The Hebrew word translated as "day", is yom. Yom has more than one literal meaning. One of which is a very long, finite, period of time. Ancient Hebrew didn't have two different words for 24 hour day, and long period of time.
The geneaologies weren't given to give an estimate of the age of the universe. Besides, Ussher' genealologies aren't complete, and are therefore inaccurate.
OECs don't disregard the bible. They only disagree with the YEC interpretation of the bible. There is a difference.

â–  God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.

Where does the bible say that the earth was created first?

Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:
1. Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
2. Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

I agree!!!

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

Again, this is lumping Theistic Evolutionists in with Atheistic Evolutionists. This is a horrible inaccurate misrepresentation.

Dave, is this really your basis for saying that OEC undermines scripture? Could you please reference where you got this information? Whoever wrote this, is ignorant of what TEs and PCs believe. These strawman arguments are along the lines of an atheist who doesn't like Christians, because we believe in three gods.

RickD wrote:Wow Dave! Where should I begin?
First, while progressive creationism and theistic evolution have their similarities, there are differences. The same can be said for young and old earth creationism. Your original quote:

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

Stated specifically that it would be Day age/Progressive creationism that you had a problem with. Not Theistic, or any kind of macro evolution. So, while I could write a small book about all the inaccuracies and misrepresentations about Theistic evolution and Progressive creationism in what you posted, for the sake of keeping this on topic, I'll try to deal only with the inaccuracies about Day Age, in what you posted.

This first quote deals with Day Age, as well as TE.

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.

I suggest you read this article on the home site, to see what OEC's believe about millions of years of death and suffering.http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... years.html

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:
â–  Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
â–  In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
â–  In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
â–  Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The six days work, one day rest, is a template for things in the bible. If you do your homework, you'll see that there are plenty of things on the seven day scale, that aren't seven 24 hour days. This is but one example: Deuteronomy 15:12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free.

Danger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God

The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario.

This is such a misrepresentation of theistic evolution, that I had to point it out. We have some TE's here that will tell you that they believe in a literal Adam, literal sin, and a literal Christ. This "Danger no. 4" seems to be erroneously lumping TE in with Darwinian Evolution.

Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined

The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus . . . was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).3

Nothing in OEC undermines anything about the atonement of Christ, including His incarnation. Frankly, I don't understand how this can be posted without any supporting details.

Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:
â–  The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).
â–  The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).
â–  The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.
â–  Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history: ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
â–  The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:
1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

This is a mixture of truth, interpretation issues, and complete misrepresentations on the part of the author.

There was a beginning of the universe(including time). And an end of this universe, time included, will come.

The total duration of the creation of the universe, was six days. Six long "days". The Hebrew word translated as "day", is yom. Yom has more than one literal meaning. One of which is a very long, finite, period of time. Ancient Hebrew didn't have two different words for 24 hour day, and long period of time.
The geneaologies weren't given to give an estimate of the age of the universe. Besides, Ussher' genealologies aren't complete, and are therefore inaccurate.
OECs don't disregard the bible. They only disagree with the YEC interpretation of the bible. There is a difference.

â–  God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.

Where does the bible say that the earth was created first?

Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:
1. Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
2. Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

I agree!!!

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

Again, this is lumping Theistic Evolutionists in with Atheistic Evolutionists. This is a horrible inaccurate misrepresentation.

Dave, is this really your basis for saying that OEC undermines scripture? Could you please reference where you got this information? Whoever wrote this, is ignorant of what TEs and PCs believe. These strawman arguments are along the lines of an atheist who doesn't like Christians, because we believe in three gods.

Thanks for responding. Ive watched a few of Reasons to Believe DVD series on Cosmology and have read up on Dr. Hugh Ross...and while i respect both , I will remain a YEC and a 6 literal day Creationist because that is the only logical way to interpret Genesis which God meant for us to understand -- like reading a newspaper . Theistic Evolutionists/Day Age/ Progr. Creationists all have to read MUCH into the simple text in order to make the Genesis conform to their view . One of the most aberrant teachings I noticed on RTB's DVD series on Creation, was how our Moon was formed from an asteriod hitting a big chunk of Earth off ! Simple reading of Genesis shows that our Moon along with everything else was made FULLY FORMED and fully functioning right from the get-go and was complete ...then on the following day, something else was made FULLY FORMED and fully functioning. God didnt need millions of years to make our Cosmos nor did he really need 6 literal days, for, he could have made everything in a millisecond -- the reason God does things is for them to be AN EXAMPLE in our own daily lives...thus a 6 day work-week and taking a day off for worship and rest from our normal way of making a living (creating wealth) . I also have the Hugh Ross vs. Ken Ham DVD Debate and i found AIG's standpoint far more compelling. Here is an online critique of Dr. Hugh Ross for your consideration on various issues...and again, i post this in all respect for him and his Christian Ministry as i have gotton alot of good Teleological evidences from his website (www.reasons.org) . For your review : http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/ ... &search=Go . Regards.

Simple text? There's a reason that there are arguments about what Genesis means. Ancient Hebrew is not "simple text", especially considering that many cultural and literary aspects of 3500-year old writings are not clear to modern-day writers. You can bash YECs or evolutionists or whatever because they have to infer things from the Bible, but many of them are looking at it from a modern-day context, not simply taking the writings at face value. For instance, the "6 days" concept makes little sense because for God there was no such thing as a "day" prior to the end of his creation. The second translation of "yom" makes more sense to many because it is not presuming that God used our way of telling time. Plus, it helps account for why the Earth looks older than 4000 years old or whatever. Theistic evolution would make sense because it solves the mystery of "if there are thousands of large extinct species buried underneath us, how did they coexist with us and how did they magically go extinct and why is there no recorded history of humans ever being around them?"

, I will remain a YEC and a 6 literal day Creationist because that is the only logical way to interpret Genesis which God meant for us to understand -- like reading a newspaper .

I'm a 6 literal day creationist, as well. 6 long, literal days. . Remember, Genesis was written in Hebrew, not English. The original texts were the texts that were inspired, and inerrant. Try reading through Revelation like a newspaper. Is Revelation completely literal as well?

. Theistic Evolutionists/Day Age/ Progr. Creationists all have to read MUCH into the simple text in order to make the Genesis conform to their view .

Anybody can be guilty of reading too much into the text to make it fit their worldview. For example, some YECs believe Adam's sin was the cause of animal death, even though the bible doesn't say that animals died as a result of the fall of man. Another example would be when you said:

Simple reading of Genesis shows that our Moon along with everything else was made FULLY FORMED and fully functioning right from the get-go and was complete

even though that is your interpretation. The bible does not say the moon was created fully formed from the "get go". Please post the verse that says so.

God didnt need millions of years to make our Cosmos nor did he really need 6 literal days, for, he could have made everything in a millisecond -- the reason God does things is for them to be AN EXAMPLE in our own daily lives...thus a 6 day work-week and taking a day off for worship and rest from our normal way of making a living (creating wealth)

I agree. Genesis 2:2 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Remember, In Hebrew, the word yom can literally mean something other than a 24 hour day. So, Hugh Ross, and other OECs do hold to a literal interpretation of scripture. Just not such a "concrete" interpretation as many YECs.
If you're going to hold to a concretely literal interpretation of the English bible, then what do you make of this verse? Genesis 1:16 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Don't we know from observation and science, that the moon is not a light, but it only reflects the light of the sun? Or, is that a evolutionary conspiracy? The English bible, when read "like a newspaper" says that the moon is a light. I could provide many other examples, but you get the point.

You still haven't even begun to prove your quote:

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

I'm beginning to think that you really haven't thought through your YEC beliefs as thoroughly as you made it seem. Please help me out here. Prove your statement.

Dave, I am a theistic evolutionist and I find your statements misrepresenting the case on a lot of points which you made. The overall tone represents we are all sinners for even going for an interpretation which is not a YEC one.

Do the Jews interpret it as a day event or an age event?
Since it was written by them in their language, i guess they would have some authority on it.

Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Do the Jews interpret it as a day event or an age event?
Since it was written by them in their language, i guess they would have some authority on it.

Dan

Daniel, it's interesting that you mentioned this. I used to be a Young Earth Creationist, and I was listening to the Dennis Prager radio show. The guest on the show was a Jewish Rabbi, who was asked the question about what the word for "day", in Genesis means. He was the first person I had ever heard who said yom could be properly translated as a long period of time. Not just as a 24 hour day, as some creationists believe. When I heard that, it was one of those "Eureka!" moments. It just hit me. That's how I began my own study and comparison between Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, which led me to Hugh Ross and Rich Deem, and this site. So, I have an unknown Jewish Rabbi to thank for sparking my interest that has led me here.

RickD wrote:

, I will remain a YEC and a 6 literal day Creationist because that is the only logical way to interpret Genesis which God meant for us to understand -- like reading a newspaper .

I'm a 6 literal day creationist, as well. 6 long, literal days. . Remember, Genesis was written in Hebrew, not English. The original texts were the texts that were inspired, and inerrant. Try reading through Revelation like a newspaper. Is Revelation completely literal as well?

. Theistic Evolutionists/Day Age/ Progr. Creationists all have to read MUCH into the simple text in order to make the Genesis conform to their view .

Anybody can be guilty of reading too much into the text to make it fit their worldview. For example, some YECs believe Adam's sin was the cause of animal death, even though the bible doesn't say that animals died as a result of the fall of man. Another example would be when you said:

Simple reading of Genesis shows that our Moon along with everything else was made FULLY FORMED and fully functioning right from the get-go and was complete

even though that is your interpretation. The bible does not say the moon was created fully formed from the "get go". Please post the verse that says so.

God didnt need millions of years to make our Cosmos nor did he really need 6 literal days, for, he could have made everything in a millisecond -- the reason God does things is for them to be AN EXAMPLE in our own daily lives...thus a 6 day work-week and taking a day off for worship and rest from our normal way of making a living (creating wealth)

I agree. Genesis 2:2 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Remember, In Hebrew, the word yom can literally mean something other than a 24 hour day. So, Hugh Ross, and other OECs do hold to a literal interpretation of scripture. Just not such a "concrete" interpretation as many YECs.
If you're going to hold to a concretely literal interpretation of the English bible, then what do you make of this verse? Genesis 1:16 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Don't we know from observation and science, that the moon is not a light, but it only reflects the light of the sun? Or, is that a evolutionary conspiracy? The English bible, when read "like a newspaper" says that the moon is a light. I could provide many other examples, but you get the point.

You still haven't even begun to prove your quote:

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

I'm beginning to think that you really haven't thought through your YEC beliefs as thoroughly as you made it seem. Please help me out here. Prove your statement.

Quite the contrary...Ive thoroughly thought thru both YECism and OECism , have listened to a few debates on DVD between Scholars , examined the word 'Yom' , and have had exchanges with other Christians on this entire issue...and I find YEC more compelling and true to the Genesis account of Creation whom God wanted us to know in a plain and simple context just as he does for his global plan of salvation. Ive heard many of the rebuttals youve made here , and I find them non-compelling . Ive provided the 10 Dangers List as well as Hugh Ross' interpretation of Genesis as a critique...and Id rather put my energies into other areas on this Forum. But I do thank you for the exchange Rick. Dave.

Thanks for responding. Ive watched a few of Reasons to Believe DVD series on Cosmology and have read up on Dr. Hugh Ross...and while i respect both , I will remain a YEC and a 6 literal day Creationist because that is the only logical way to interpret Genesis which God meant for us to understand

Dave, as a YECer I can say that this statement contains a few problems. You say literal 6 day is the ONLY logical way. This implies that literal means that a 'day' as mentioned in the tex must refer to a 24 hour period. And, that anyone not holding to that is not being literal. However, historical grammatical asks, "what did this mean to the original audience?" Is the original text intended to infer 24 hour time periods to the original audience? This is a problem since the actual cycle which determines a 24 hour period did not come to be until day 4.
Many OECers would hold to a literal interpretation, but their literal understanding of the Hebrew "yom" is going to be different.
To say your way is the only logical way is fallacious. It says that one must have presuppositions of YEC before they even approach the text. It's circular.
As one who held the same belief, I found I was wrong, and that one can have a 'literal' interpretation and still be OEC. And, can also concurrently approach the text logically. That doesn't mean there aren't problems with day-age, progressive creation, etc. Many if not most here who are OEC, reject theistic evolution. It is true that Darwinian evolution is incompatible with YEC on any level, and equally true that DE is at least compatible with OEC models. That however, does not disqualify OEC. To say that OEC is false simply because it might better accomadate DE is a consequential fallacy.

If there are any specific doctrines (soteriology) which are corrupted by Day-Age then we need to be able to specifically address those, or admit our wrong and move along.

Quite the contrary...Ive thoroughly thought thru both YECism and OECism , have listened to a few debates on DVD between Scholars , examined the word 'Yom' , and have had exchanges with other Christians on this entire issue...and I find YEC more compelling and true to the Genesis account of Creation whom God wanted us to know in a plain and simple context just as he does for his global plan of salvation

Dave, I have no problem with you, or anyone who has honestly thought through and studied the issue, and believes YEC more true to the Genesis account, because, like I said before, it's not a salvation issue. But, from the copy and paste in your post, it's clear that whatever YEC sources you learned from, greatly misrepresent Progressive Creationism, and Theistic Evolution. Some prominent YECs, including Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, and Jason Lisle, are notorious for misrepresenting opposing views. I'm not going to let your posts go unnoticed, with the glaring inaccuracies you posted.

You made a post, that I called you on, as a brother in Christ, to back what you said. It is clear that you have no basis for your misrepresentation, as you didn't even address what I pointed out to you. Progressive Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists here, are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and you made a claim against what they believe, with no valid points of your own. You just copied and pasted a post from some Young Earth Creationist, who completely misrepresented other Christians.

I'll give you one more chance to honestly give YOUR reasons for posting what you did here. Please, address this, and stop misrepresenting your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

Which specific scripture and major doctrines make no sense under a Day Age philosophy? How does Day Age Creationism malign God's character?

The earth is 6000 years old????!!!

Do you honestly believe this?


Do religious people believe anything science says? If not, please stop using anything developed by science as it is obviously ALL lies (e.g medicines and just about everything you see around you) and continue with your primative beliefs.