Evidence for God from Science

i have seen many here on this forum mention their views on creation but for some reason i still have not completely made my decision on which i lean towards. i have seen and heard things from both sides that i do agree with but like i stated am not too sure on this matter. i wanted to know what is your take on this and why do you feel the way you do about OCE or YEC. also if possible could you leave some reference material that could help me learn more about these two view points on creation.

Zionist, first, you could do a search on the home site. There's a ton of info there, given from a OEC perspective. Also, http://www.reasons.org/ is a great site, as well. If you want to study from a theistic evolution perspective, http://www.answersincreation.org/, is a good site. I tried to find out as much as I
Could from differing views, before I made my decision.

The reason I chose OEC over YEC, was while YEC does hold to a literal biblical interpretation of the creation story in Genesis, OEC fits better with a literal interpretation of all creation stories, throughout all of scripture. Plus, I believe OEC holds to what I see in God's creation(nature).

Remember, despite what some will say, your creation stance, IS NOT a salvation issue. There are Christians on all sides of this issue. Just my opinion, fwiw.

I'll start by agreeing with Rick that OEC/YEC is not a "salvation issue." There are people who are just as saved on both sides of the aisle, and it's that way with most theological debates.

As for me, I strongly leaned OEC for years, but when it came down to it, as much as I tried, I couldn't get past the fact that it seems evident to me that Scripture teaches that there was no death before the fall, that the entirety of creation was cursed in the Fall, and that animals were originaly created as herbivores. That ends up rather naturally precluding OEC.

I'm very, very familiar with the arguments on those positions and have debated them extensively here. For me, the OEC understanding of Rom 5:12 and Gen 1:29-30 just don't quite work. So . . . YEC for me, I suppose.

I'm no Biblical scholar, nor am I Christian, but I don't see how Romans 5:12 conflicts with an OEC viewpoint. It clearly says that "man" entered death for "man" through sin into the world. It very clearly says death to "men" is all that is included in the statement...It doesn't even make sense to include animals by extension or added interpretation, because animals are incapable of sin, so they could not be condemned to death through sin because they do not sin at all. I guess, even if death by sin were supposedly given to animals here, no animal should die by natural causes because they would not have ever sinned in life.

As far as Genesis 1:29-30...I can sort of see how saying plants will be food for all animals seems to mean they are all vegetarians. Of course, even carnivores thrive indirectly off of the nutrients and calories of the plants, so I see no problem with interpreting that as saying that plants simply are the base of all animal life, and not as literally saying that tigers munched on ferns until one day they decided to kill other things for food...

That's fine, Ivel. If anyone is interested in my argumnets on those two passages in particular, we had a very long thread on the matter before. My comments start here (specifically on Gen 1:29-30):

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 952#p63952

They become more detailed (including an analysis of the Hebrew text) here:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=33474

I provide a detailed explanation of Rom 5:12 (in my view) in the first mentioned thread starting here:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 001#p77001

Happy reading!

Jac, I remember reading through that entire "carnivorous animals before the fall" thread. It's one of my favorite threads here. I learned quite a bit from it.

thnx rick for the info i will look into it and one thing i want to make clear is that i already know my view on how i choose to believe in creation will by no means interfere with salvation. salvation comes from God alone through Christ this much i know; in fact, God doesn't explain fully how he created everything just wanted us to know that he did and as far as i am concerned God works in the very natural as well as the super natural so i can agree on that in terms of OEC explaining creation in a natural sense but i can also see some aspects of YEC too so that's why i am looking into it. thnx again so far for all your inputs everyone and this is something that i'll definitely be looking into as it is interesting to me.

Dayage, are you sure you're not Rich Deem, or Hugh Ross, incognito? Your old earth creationism knowledge is incredible. If you don't mind me asking, where did you learn so much about the subject? I still consider myself fairly new to the subject, you must have been studying OEC for quite a while.

I'm on OEC who came from a theistic evolutionist background, but I agree with what Hugh Ross said in his debate with Kent Hovine that the only think that separates OEC from YEC are a few zeros. I just can't see how a burst of such incredible amounts of information can come about with some kind of direct intervention from God. You can call me a fresh out of the womb old earth creationist who is friendly with YEC .

You can call me a fresh out of the womb old earth creationist who is friendly with YEC .

Would that mean you are a "young old earth creationist"?

Jac3510 said:

I'm very, very familiar with the arguments on those positions and have debated them extensively here. For me, the OEC understanding of Rom 5:12 and Gen 1:29-30 just don't quite work.

That's interesting, Jac. Romans 5:12, is the very verse that allowed me to see that OEC, and animal death before Adam's sin, was biblical. I remember when I believed YEC, I kept hearing from Morris, Ham, et al, that Romans 5:12 proved no animal death before Adam's sin. Then I actually read the verse, in context of the rest of Romans 5(instead of a stand alone verse like some yecs require), and my eyes were opened, and I saw that it wasn't talking about animals at all.

RickD,

Dayage, are you sure you're not Rich Deem, or Hugh Ross, incognito?

I am more than honored that you would think so, but no.

Your old earth creationism knowledge is incredible. If you don't mind me asking, where did you learn so much about the subject? I still consider myself fairly new to the subject, you must have been studying OEC for quite a while.

I have been studying the subject for about 18 years. I try to read up on other views as well, as well as test my positions on sights like this. In fact those older debates with Jac3510 have caused me to go back and adjust the way I word my responses on the two sections he has mentioned here (Gen. 1:29-30 and Romans 5).

I came from a Y.E. position and thought that O.E. was crazy. Then I began to study what the Biblical text was actually saying and not saying and found the Y.E. position had to (in my opinion) distort a lot of scripture. I am not saying that I am the one who has all of the answers. I just try to bring as much evidence as I can to an issue and let others decide. I'm always going back over papers I've written and relooking at my opinions and making adjustments.

Then there is the science side. Y.E. have about 5 different positions on how the flood occured and the mountains were formed. They have about as many positions on how light could travel from distant galaxies to us in only six thousand years. I've noticed a lot of disagreement once you get past a six literal day creation and a global flood.

I have found that by looking at the work done by others, in the other creation camps, you can find a lot of insight that actually fits in and strengthens the DayAge position.

Anyway, you didn't ask for all of this, so thank you again for the kind words.

Dayage, it seems you and I came to OEC in a similar way. I just found OEC about 16 years after you.

RickD wrote:That's interesting, Jac. Romans 5:12, is the very verse that allowed me to see that OEC, and animal death before Adam's sin, was biblical. I remember when I believed YEC, I kept hearing from Morris, Ham, et al, that Romans 5:12 proved no animal death before Adam's sin. Then I actually read the verse, in context of the rest of Romans 5(instead of a stand alone verse like some yecs require), and my eyes were opened, and I saw that it wasn't talking about animals at all.

That's why I have always said that the difference in the positions, contrary to popular belief, is not theological. It's hermeneutical. That is, it's the method we use of interpreting a text. Saying "put it in context" is rather easy. Actually going through the process of doing that is another. If you go back through those older threads where I discussed the matter in detail with Danny and DA, you'll see me making those points (and specific applications to them) throughout.

At the end of the day, I have very little interest in systematic theology. In my view, the theology will take care of itself. We spend way, way, way to much time debating it. The only thing that really matters is methodology. Get people to agree on that, and you've won the war. Everything else is just "mopping up."

RickD wrote:

You can call me a fresh out of the womb old earth creationist who is friendly with YEC .

Would that mean you are a "young old earth creationist"?

Something like that hehe. I gotta remember to use that line the next time someone asks me lol