AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

[Philip]

Is anyone here familiar with this website - "The GeoChristian? It's written from an evangelical and scientific viewpoint, challenging AIG's (Answers in Genesis) contentions about the Geologic evidences for a young earth. The owner of the website believes in an ancient earth, inerrant Scriptures, real Adam, Tri-Une God - see his scientific background below the links.

A response to and criticism of "Six Bad Answers from Answers in Genesis":

https://geochristian.com/2009/04/25/six ... is-part-1/

https://geochristian.com/2009/05/02/six ... is-part-2/

https://geochristian.com/2009/05/19/six ... is-part-3/

https://geochristian.com/2009/06/27/six ... is-part-4/

https://geochristian.com/2009/08/09/six ... is-part-5/

https://geochristian.com/2009/10/06/six ... is-part-6/


The author's scientific and evangelical background: https://geochristian.com/more-about-the-author/

Summary of Beliefs: https://geochristian.com/2013/01/01/creation-creeds-2/

[neo-x]

I believe in a real Adam and Eve as individuals—the first humans in the image of God—and that we are all descendants of this family

He lost me at the last part of the statement. I am fine with beliefs, the first two things in the above statement I can agree to. The last is simply not true.

[Kurieuo]

Neo, just wondering... do you believe our consciousness is far above that of any other species, homind or otherwise, to have existed? Could it be that "humans in the image of God" doesn't lay so much in the physical, but rather moreso in the behavioural side (i.e., higher level behaviour correlating to higher level consciousness)?

Here's a video I watched recently of Jordon Peterson talking about consciousness. He's doesn't really believe in God, but he freely mentions Judeo-Christian ideas, the logos and like. He mentions towards the end that we're the most complicated beings we know, in terms of consciousness no other life we know comes close.

As I see, there isn't necessarily a contradiction with embracing full human evolution and believing in a real Adam and Eve origins, given they could have been anatomically similar, but the "speciation" happened more in the realm of whatever consciousness is, rather than necessarily the physical. For all our scientific knowledge, we don't know terribly much about consciousness, and if we did, we'd have computers and robots with true intelligence and an ability to learn and think for themselves rather than mere articifial intelligence programmed in.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5GD69wFOA

[Philip]

quote]I believe in a real Adam and Eve as individuals—the first humans in the image of God—and that we are all descendants of this family

Neo: He lost me at the last part of the statement. I am fine with beliefs, the first two things in the above statement I can agree to. The last is simply not true.

Neo's statement has not one thing to do with the physical/geological evidences for an old earth! Now, while there MIGHT have been a greater humanity pre-existing Adam and Eve, it's important to note that A) Neo assumes there could have been nothing special or true about the creatures God called Adam and Eve, and B) he doesn't believe the Scriptures surrounding them. And while we can't go back to dissect them, we can examine geologic evidences - which is the point of this thread.

But it seems to me Neo cherry picks whatever miraculous things caused by God (anything that instantly supersedes the way He designed the capabilities and how things are to normally work). So he likes the Virgin birth, God becoming man - his dead body springing back to life after being dead for days, but he rejects Adam and Eve, referred to as real people and THE originators of why the Bible says there is a need for a Savior to begin with. He also appears to believe that humans were not planned, but a mere happenstance result of supposed evolution that might have turned out far differently - again, a massive contradiction to much Scripture. And so God Who created a universe did not plan man - didn't know every future thing, that included His perfect knowledge of Himself coming here as a man to endure a hideous death to save us? Because that is precisely what Scripture teaches! Why would one accept the miraculous surrounding Christ birth, death and Resurrection, and yet doubt God could not have made Adam and Eve as indicated?

Let's also not forget that these passages concerning Adam and Eve are also part of the OT, which Jesus confirmed the entirety of as being God-given/inspired and true. So either all-powerful God confirmed as His trustworthy Word an OT full of outright fiction, or it's true! He certainly knew ALL included in what He confirmed. Of course, there's the further issue that God could not protect His Word to man so as to keep it intact and unbesmirched by entanglement with the myths and lies of man! Or that the OT Jesus came to DIE to fulfill was and is filled with massive corruptions. But none of that makes any sense!

So, Neo, at what point did man need a Savior, and WHY? And how do you decide which miraculous Scriptural thing to believe, and which to reject? Because there is massive inconsistency in what you assert to be true?

Sorry to divert my own thread.

[neo-x]

quote]I believe in a real Adam and Eve as individuals—the first humans in the image of God—and that we are all descendants of this family

Neo: He lost me at the last part of the statement. I am fine with beliefs, the first two things in the above statement I can agree to. The last is simply not true.

Neo's statement has not one thing to do with the physical/geological evidences for an old earth! Now, while there MIGHT have been a greater humanity pre-existing Adam and Eve, it's important to note that A) Neo assumes there could have been nothing special or true about the creatures God called Adam and Eve, and B) he doesn't believe the Scriptures surrounding them. And while we can't go back to dissect them, we can examine geologic evidences - which is the point of this thread.

But it seems to me Neo cherry picks whatever miraculous things caused by God (anything that instantly supersedes the way He designed the capabilities and how things are to normally work). So he likes the Virgin birth, God becoming man - his dead body springing back to life after being dead for days, but he rejects Adam and Eve, referred to as real people and THE originators of why the Bible says there is a need for a Savior to begin with. He also appears to believe that humans were not planned, but a mere happenstance result of supposed evolution that might have turned out far differently - again, a massive contradiction to much Scripture. And so God Who created a universe did not plan man - didn't know every future thing, that included His perfect knowledge of Himself coming here as a man to endure a hideous death to save us? Because that is precisely what Scripture teaches! Why would one accept the miraculous surrounding Christ birth, death and Resurrection, and yet doubt God could not have made Adam and Eve as indicated?

Let's also not forget that these passages concerning Adam and Eve are also part of the OT, which Jesus confirmed the entirety of as being God-given/inspired and true. So either all-powerful God confirmed as His trustworthy Word an OT full of outright fiction, or it's true! He certainly knew ALL included in what He confirmed. Of course, there's the further issue that God could not protect His Word to man so as to keep it intact and unbesmirched by entanglement with the myths and lies of man! Or that the OT Jesus came to DIE to fulfill was and is filled with massive corruptions. But none of that makes any sense!

So, Neo, at what point did man need a Savior, and WHY? And how do you decide which miraculous Scriptural thing to believe, and which to reject? Because there is massive inconsistency in what you assert to be true?

Sorry to divert my own thread.

Poisoning the well is not going to help your case, Phil, something that you repeatedly do. But let's discuss the point of contention. The truth is, the data shows that humans simply can't come from a single couple, period. So whatever you believe is fine, just not expect me to call you out on it.

As for your questions, I have already addressed and negated it numerous times in the past so feel free to go back and check my responses. If not, I''ll breif them down.

EDIT:
Also Phil, since we'd be diverting the thread anyway, have you decided on the Sun and moon stopping still passage? I remember the last time we talked about it, you called it a literalism that no serious theologian would take seriously. And later that you haven't given it much thought and would like to revisit it. So I'd be curious what your position now is.

Thanks.

[neo-x]

Neo, just wondering... do you believe our consciousness is far above that of any other species, homind or otherwise, to have existed? Could it be that "humans in the image of God" doesn't lay so much in the physical, but rather moreso in the behavioural side (i.e., higher level behaviour correlating to higher level consciousness)?

Here's a video I watched recently of Jordon Peterson talking about consciousness. He's doesn't really believe in God, but he freely mentions Judeo-Christian ideas, the logos and like. He mentions towards the end that we're the most complicated beings we know, in terms of consciousness no other life we know comes close.

As I see, there isn't necessarily a contradiction with embracing full human evolution and believing in a real Adam and Eve origins, given they could have been anatomically similar, but the "speciation" happened more in the realm of whatever consciousness is, rather than necessarily the physical. For all our scientific knowledge, we don't know terribly much about consciousness, and if we did, we'd have computers and robots with true intelligence and an ability to learn and think for themselves rather than mere articifial intelligence programmed in.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n5GD69wFOA

K, it's a thoughtful video. I would reply a little later as I do think I have some thoughts on this.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Is anyone here familiar with this website - "The GeoChristian? It's written from an evangelical and scientific viewpoint, challenging AIG's (Answers in Genesis) contentions about the Geologic evidences for a young earth. The owner of the website believes in an ancient earth, inerrant Scriptures, real Adam, Tri-Une God - see his scientific background below the links.

A response to and criticism of "Six Bad Answers from Answers in Genesis":

https://geochristian.com/2009/04/25/six ... is-part-1/

https://geochristian.com/2009/05/02/six ... is-part-2/

https://geochristian.com/2009/05/19/six ... is-part-3/

https://geochristian.com/2009/06/27/six ... is-part-4/

https://geochristian.com/2009/08/09/six ... is-part-5/

https://geochristian.com/2009/10/06/six ... is-part-6/


The author's scientific and evangelical background: https://geochristian.com/more-about-the-author/

Summary of Beliefs: https://geochristian.com/2013/01/01/creation-creeds-2/

I actually am familiar with The GeoChristian.
Ik AiG has bad arguments, I can see through them whenever they are played out for the Youth Group-which ain't much these days.
But what irks me is how creation is defined to be just a young earth idea, ignoring evidence, and misleading ignorant, deceived, but well intentioned believers. Like how they say evolution has not a scrap of evidence for- -_-. Or how the big bang is merely a chaotic explosion instead of a rapid expansion, and they seem to not know that is was made by a Catholic Priest in order to explain HOW GENESIS AND SCIENCE CAN MIX! And that for a long while cosmologists didn't want to accept it BECAUSE OF THAT REASON. Not accept it because it supposedly is trying to disprove God. Ugh.
Philip, does that annoy you too?

[Philip]

Neo: Poisoning the well is not going to help your case, Phil, something that you repeatedly do.

No, Neo - I just like to point out that you appear to find various miraculous parts of Scripture untrue, and you do so because you think it is scientifically proven to be so. And in such situations, you don't merely assert something in Scripture can't be possible in some unknown way or that it's just impossible for it to be true in a literal way, or that we just can't know. Its that you just categorically dismiss it as not being true AT ALL, even though Jesus authenticated the entire OT as truth. And, your explanations have rarely made those of us who've read them over and over have a clear understanding of what you believe or why. But you appear to believe God to be mostly hands off, as you apparently see much of what would be miraculous - or even just the normal, everyday miraculous (that things keep functioning as designed, etc. - per God's enabling it) as God micromanaging things. But then you strangely latch on to certain aspects of the miraculous. But it's clear that you think that what science asserts - a science of which understandings are progressive and always changing - that what you think it has proven negates various Bible passages. You've said so repeatedly about various things. That's all I'm pointing out, is you cherrypick what to believe can be true in God's Word - which is different than affirming it to SOMEHOW be true, perhaps in ways we cannot understand them - which is a very different thing. And it just appears your greatest measure of truth is always current science - an immensely prideful thing when one contemplates that God is unlimited in His abilities, against the thin backdrop of what man can know (compared to God, Who has no limitations).

Neo: Also Phil, since we'd be diverting the thread anyway, have you decided on the Sun and moon stopping still passage? I remember the last time we talked about it, you called it a literalism that no serious theologian would take seriously. And later that you haven't given it much thought and would like to revisit it. So I'd be curious what your position now is.

I will address my thoughts on that - but not in this thread. I'll open another - please give me some time.

[abelcainsbrother]

Is anyone here familiar with this website - "The GeoChristian? It's written from an evangelical and scientific viewpoint, challenging AIG's (Answers in Genesis) contentions about the Geologic evidences for a young earth. The owner of the website believes in an ancient earth, inerrant Scriptures, real Adam, Tri-Une God - see his scientific background below the links.

A response to and criticism of "Six Bad Answers from Answers in Genesis":

https://geochristian.com/2009/04/25/six ... is-part-1/

https://geochristian.com/2009/05/02/six ... is-part-2/

https://geochristian.com/2009/05/19/six ... is-part-3/

https://geochristian.com/2009/06/27/six ... is-part-4/

https://geochristian.com/2009/08/09/six ... is-part-5/

https://geochristian.com/2009/10/06/six ... is-part-6/


The author's scientific and evangelical background: https://geochristian.com/more-about-the-author/

Summary of Beliefs: https://geochristian.com/2013/01/01/creation-creeds-2/

I'll be honest,I did not know about this web-sight but now that you have posted it and I see that they are members of "The Affiliation of Christian Geologists" I think most of these are Gap Theorists.however the Affiliation of Christian Geologists keep it a secret that they are Gap Theorists for now.As you may know William Buckland is important to Gap Theorists because he was a Christian Geologist who was an ordained minister who became Oxford's very first Geology Professor in 1818(look how long it was before 1859 when Charles Darwin's "The origin of Species" came out and totally changed science since then) and he taught the Gap Theory,so many Christian Geologists still honor Buckland and even agree with his take on Geology.

[abelcainsbrother]

I believe in a real Adam and Eve as individuals—the first humans in the image of God—and that we are all descendants of this family

He lost me at the last part of the statement. I am fine with beliefs, the first two things in the above statement I can agree to. The last is simply not true.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.It is important to put scripture first over what man and science says.You often seem to put science first over what scripture says.Many Theistic Evolutionists seem to think Genesis was written more as poetry and read it that way,atleast some do,maybe not all.But I have a problem with this. I think the most important thing to notice about this is how they are trying in a Christ-like way to convince YEC's of their errors when it comes to Geology and how they try to make everything fit into Noah's flood.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

I believe in a real Adam and Eve as individuals—the first humans in the image of God—and that we are all descendants of this family

He lost me at the last part of the statement. I am fine with beliefs, the first two things in the above statement I can agree to. The last is simply not true.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.It is important to put scripture first over what man and science says.You often seem to put science first over what scripture says.Many Theistic Evolutionists seem to think Genesis was written more as poetry and read it that way,atleast some do,maybe not all.But I have a problem with this. I think the most important thing to notice about this is how they are trying in a Christ-like way to convince YEC's of their errors when it comes to Geology and how they try to make everything fit into Noah's flood.

What if Genesis 1 is a mix of poetry and literalism? I see a rough similarity between it and what we find in science, yet it also takes ideas from surrounding cultures to teach truths.

[neo-x]

Neo: Poisoning the well is not going to help your case, Phil, something that you repeatedly do.

No, Neo - I just like to point out that you appear to find various miraculous parts of Scripture untrue, and you do so because you think it is scientifically proven to be so. And in such situations, you don't merely assert something in Scripture can't be possible in some unknown way or that it's just impossible for it to be true in a literal way, or that we just can't know. Its that you just categorically dismiss it as not being true AT ALL, even though Jesus authenticated the entire OT as truth. And, your explanations have rarely made those of us who've read them over and over have a clear understanding of what you believe or why. But you appear to believe God to be mostly hands off, as you apparently see much of what would be miraculous - or even just the normal, everyday miraculous (that things keep functioning as designed, etc. - per God's enabling it) as God micromanaging things. But then you strangely latch on to certain aspects of the miraculous. But it's clear that you think that what science asserts - a science of which understandings are progressive and always changing - that what you think it has proven negates various Bible passages. You've said so repeatedly about various things. That's all I'm pointing out, is you cherrypick what to believe can be true in God's Word - which is different than affirming it to SOMEHOW be true, perhaps in ways we cannot understand them - which is a very different thing. And it just appears your greatest measure of truth is always current science - an immensely prideful thing when one contemplates that God is unlimited in His abilities, against the thin backdrop of what man can know (compared to God, Who has no limitations).

Let me reiterate:
1. God can do anything.
2. I believe in miracles.
3. There is evidence that certain things like Adam and Eve being the couple that populated the world as we see today, is not true. So then I conclude that it wasn't a miracle. The difference is, I am not negating miracles. I am simply saying this didn't happen as such. Now as I have said before if tomorrow we find Jesus' body then the miracle of resurrection is false. Evidence, then, is important.

Science simply doesn't assert, it has data and evidence to show for it. To offhandedly ignore it, is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.

So, God can do miracles and has done miracles. It's not a question of whether God can do miracles, but did he at certain points?
I can totally believe that God seeded the first couple to raise all mankind, however, the evidence suggests he didn't do it that way.

Now, Jesus' resurrection can't be explained by any known laws or mechanisms of nature, therefore it indeed is a miracle.

Especially, since TOE explains it, you don't need a miracle to get to Adam and Eve. And at this point, I believe many OEC's insist on the miracle angle needlessly, despite their obvious acceptance of other substitutions they have made in the Bible, like day being ages and accepting the age of the universe is billions of years.

If anything I should say you are the one who doesn't believe the Bible obviously. You insist that creation didn't happen in 6 days. Why? because you also hold scientific data sacred and understand that if the data shows the earth is old then obviously this must mean the scriptures 6 days can't be true. But you cherry pick where you regard data and where you don't. In the matter of days being ages, you do that because of scientific evidence but strangely don't accept other evidence which flies in the face of your belief.

I have clearly stated before that the evidence doesn't match the bible and therefore I give up inerrancy. I can't make any sense of it. When you take TOE you can't be selective about it as to which parts you agree with and which you don't.

Then what is happening here? Pot calling the kettle black?

I can see that scientific evidence is the backbone of OEC. Yet you call me out for regarding the same evidence. The only difference here is, I am taking the evidence completely and I can see it doesn't fit the biblical narrative. You choose the parts that fit well and disregard those which may cost you inerrancy, which is wrong and ends up in a patchwork that just isn't very convincing.

I was beyond stupified when you said the sun and moon didn't stop still. The bible clearly says it did. And you were adamant that God can do anything in your own words from your posts "God is unlimited in His abilities" yet you don't believe that happened. Why? Are you saying that this is as impossible as saying that all mankind came from Adam and Eve?
Clearly, you have different standards. Whereas scientifically both are equally impossible.

I have been clear enough in stating in what I believe and why, so if you still have questions you can ask me why. I hope that helps you clear things up as you don't seem to understand it per your own admission.

Neo: Also Phil, since we'd be diverting the thread anyway, have you decided on the Sun and moon stopping still passage? I remember the last time we talked about it, you called it a literalism that no serious theologian would take seriously. And later that you haven't given it much thought and would like to revisit it. So I'd be curious what your position now is.

I will address my thoughts on that - but not in this thread. I'll open another - please give me some time.

Sure.

[RickD]

Neo puts down Phil for supposedly picking and choosing what science he believes.

All while Neo picks and chooses which scripture he believes.

Sorry,

Can't help but laugh at the irony.

[neo-x]

Neo puts down Phil for supposedly picking and choosing what science he believes.

All while Neo picks and chooses which scripture he believes.

Sorry,

Can't help but laugh at the irony.

EDIT ADDED LATER: You are right, this is not what I wanted to do.

All while Neo picks and chooses which scripture he believes.

Sadly I don't choose. There is no other way to look at it when you evaluate the evidence.

And actually, I have said that Phil chooses to believe scripture and science both wherever he thinks it fits best with his views. He doesn't have to really. I mean to say that all humans came from a couple is as impossible as saying that all creation came in 6 days, but he chooses one and rejects the other. The same way he rejects that the sun and moon stopped still. If you can believe that one couple can produce all humankind then it is no different or impossible to say that the other two can't happen. But he rejects it based on exactly - scientific evidence. And if I use the same evidence and take it to its logical conclusion in a consistent way then I am called into question. No matter how wrong my conclusions are, atleast I am being consistent. It is the double standard which I am pointing out.

I don't blame anyone for choosing to hold evidence in regard. I do that and I consistently also have to admit, despite the fact that I don't like to that I have to give up inerrancy. That is the logical conclusion, I accept it however distasteful it may be. But Phil is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

[neo-x]

Actually, Mods I regret writing the posts above. that is what irked me always when Phil used to write these kinds of accusatory posts for some time now. However, this is not the kind of debate I want to have. I am sure Phil will agree. It will simply be who did what how wrong everyone is. I just want to stick to the issue in the original post.

Any questions Phil, you can pm me. I am deleting my posts above.

K, I will reply to your post.

Edit:
Just realized I can't delete the posts. Can the mods do that please?