The New Movie: Is Genesis History? Answer: It Depends on Who Is Doing the Interpreting

“I would rather be what God chose to make me than the most glorious creature that I could think of; for to have been thought about, born in God's thought, and then made by God, is the dearest, grandest and most precious thing in all thinking.” ― George MacDonald link

Is Genesis History was released for a one day showing in movie theaters on February 23. There will be some showings after that date. Check local listings.


My beliefs as an evolutionary creationist

I believe that God created the universe "ex nihilo." I believe that God is the creator of everything we see in the universe.

I believe that God created man specifically the moment he breathed life into the man.

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.(Genesis 2:7 NIV Bible Gateway)

In this account, I believe the dust of the earth could be our DNA. I do not believe it had to be literal dust like that which is hiding under my sofa at this particular moment.

Mankind's physical features do not separate us from the animal world. For example, God breathed life into man's nostrils. Most mammals have nostrils. Gorillas stand upright, have arms and legs, and two genders: male and female. So do men. I believe that the difference between mankind and other animals is this part of the above verse.

breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,

I believe that God's breath imparted our immortal soul which distinguishes us from the animal kingdom.

I also believe that the earth and universe are very old, billions of years, in fact. I also believe that God could have used the mechanism of evolution as scientifically described. In fact, I have evolved and now consider myself an evolutionary creationist but am open to all thoughts on the matter. However, I firmly believe the earth is quite old.

Whether or not anyone agrees with me, I am still a Christian and I take the Bible very seriously. Yes, the Bible has history in it. However, the Ancient of Days, the Creator of language, uses all sorts of devices in the Scriptures to bring us into His realm. He uses poetry, allegory, metaphor, type/anti type, symbolism, simile, parables, and even humor.

Therefore, the Bible has history but it has so much more. I believer that some of Genesis contains history and some of it contains word pictures to help us to understand the creation of the universe by a complex, Triune (try to easily define the Trinity) God who is incomprehensible to us mortals in any complete fashion. He has given us the Bible and it is perfect in that it brings us into some understanding of God. We see this in the Apostle's Creed which is agreed upon by most Christians, regardless of denomination.

However, no matter how deeply some might disagree with me on my understanding of creation, they must admit that I am a Christian who believes that God created the heaven and the earth. We merely disagree on His methods.

Tim Keller vs Tim Challies

I have no problem with the young earth creationists pushing their views on the matter even though I think they are dead wrong and that their science is deeply flawed.

However, they cross the line when they claim that young earth creationism is the only valid interpretation of Genesis. Tim Challies wrote Is Genesis History? as a movie review. Challies is a young earth creationist but he knows that many of his New Calvinist BFFs have become old earth creationists.

It’s not an easy time to be a six-day creationist. For some time now, the weight of conviction within the Evangelical world has swung toward views that demand an old earth. 

He appears to overlook his friend, Tim Keller, in the next statement. It always amuses me that within this tight crowd, they deliberately overlook some of the beliefs of their celebrity leaders. Tim Challies deeply admires Tim Keller.

While few Christians are full-out theistic evolutionists,

Keller wrote a post for Biologos in which he discusses his position. Biologos is the organization started by the world renowned scientist, Dr Francis Collins, in order to promote the idea that those who accept evolution can be deeply committed Christians. The following are some excerpts from Keller's paper which I urge everyone to read in its entirety.

The conclusion—we may read the order of events as literal in Genesis 2 but not in Genesis 1, or (much, much more unlikely) we may read them as literal in Genesis 1 but not in Genesis 2. But in any case, you can’t read them both as straightforward accounts of historical events. Indeed, if they are both to be read literalistically, why would the author have combined the accounts, since they are (on that reading) incompatible? The best answer is that we are not supposed to understand them that way. In Exodus 14-15 (the Red Sea crossing) and Judges 4-5 (Israel’s defeat of Syria under Sisera) there is an historical account joined to a more poetical ‘song’ that proclaims the meaning of the event. Something like that may be what the author of Genesis has in mind here.

So what does this mean? It means Genesis 1 does not teach that God made the world in six twenty- four hour days. Of course, it doesn’t teach evolution either, because it doesn’t address the actual processes by which God created human life. 

…If Adam and Eve were historical figures could they have been the product of EBP? (ed: Evolutionary biological processes) An older, evangelical commentary on Genesis by Derek Kidner provides a model for how that could have been the case. First, he notes that in Job 10:8-9 God is said to have fashioned Job with his ‘hands’, like a potter shaping clay out of the dust of the ground, even though God obviously did this through the natural process of formation in the womb 

…My conclusion is that Christians who are seeking to correlate Scripture and science must be a ‘bigger tent’ than either the anti-scientific religionists or the anti-religious scientists. Even though in this paper I argue for the importance of belief in a literal Adam and Eve, I have shown here that there are several ways to hold that and still believe in God using EBP.29 

Only the young earth interpretation is valid.

Tim Challies likes this movie because he says it offers "proof" regarding a young earth. Sadly, he overlooks the main point of the movie.

The bulk of the film is an examination of the earth, of life, and of man and the universe. In every case, Tackett goes on-scene with an expert in his field as they discuss one of these areas. They consider geochronology and its dating methods, they examine soft tissue that remains within dinosaur bones, they discuss the geologic evidence of a catastrophic and worldwide flood, they map the spread of humanity from a central point. Together, they build a compelling case that Genesis is meant to be a historical account of the world’s origins and earliest days. They show that the universe is providing evidence to back its claims. 

Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, a believer in an old earth but not in evolution, mentions the movie which has limited showing in theaters starting on February 23.

this movie presents a young-earth and global flood view as the only valid interpretation of the Genesis text.

Christians can believe in an old earth and evolution and still take the Bible seriously.

When a movie is released that calls into question the beliefs of serious Christians such as Keller, Collins and myself, then that movie is causing an unnecessary division in the body of Christ. One day, in heaven, we will be presented by all sorts of surprises. I believe that hows of creation will be one of those. Even then, God will still be God and we will still be part of that creation. Perhaps understanding the enigmas of creation will be an eternal process.

Comments

The New Movie: Is Genesis History? Answer: It Depends on Who Is Doing the Interpreting — 625 Comments

  1. I’ve heard it put this way: how much ink and paper is devoted to creation and how much is devoted to the three years of Jesus’ ministry? Thus, anyone who wants to hinge Christian belief on the first page or two of the Bible has an agenda.

  2. I have never heard of this movie, but I highly doubt it offers any ‘proof’ whatsoever.

    I never took ‘in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth’ to be part of the ‘first day’ anyways, so I never got YEC at all. I guess light is supposed to be the first day? but light comes from the sun. I basically don’t take any of this literally, i guess.

  3. We are often told, “Major on the majors, and minor on the minors.” But then minor issues like this get elevated to major issues through flawgical slight of hand. For example, Ken Ham has claimed that denying a young earth is equivalent to denying the atonement, which makes one a non-Christian.

  4. I hope to see this new film.

    I consider the OT and the NT to be more connected than many evangelicals find them to be.

    ‘ . . . there they were, “by the rivers of Babylon,” longing for home’

    I was fascinated the first time I read that, in Jewish tradition, Adam continued to ritually bathe in the rivers that flowed out from Eden, thereby maintaining a connection to it . . . and then I learned about the ‘purification’ rituals of the ‘mikvah’ and I remember asking an evangelical Christian if he thought that there was a ‘connection’ between the origin of the ‘mikvah’ tradition and the Christian practice of ‘baptism’ . . .

    he said ‘no’

    but I cannot say that myself, the transcendent imagery is so strong that there must be some element of meaning that ties the two together . . . although I can’t ‘know’ this, but I ‘sense’ it must be meaningful, if only in the hope and the yearning for a cleansing from sin and a returning to God.

    So I looked to the Eastern Church and found a more meaningful ‘answer’ in the ‘Theophany Liturgy’:
    ““Troparion (Tone 4)
    Be thou ready, Zabulon; prepare thyself, O Nephthalim. River Jordan, stay thy course and skip for gladness to receive the Sovereign Master, Who cometh now to be baptized. O Adam, be thou glad with our first mother, Eve; hide not as ye did of old in Paradise. Seeing you naked, He hath appeared now to clothe you in the first robe again. Christ hath appeared, for He truly willeth to renew all creation.

    Kontakion (Tone 4)
    In the running waters of the Jordan River, on this day the Lord of all crieth to John: Be not afraid and hesitate not to baptize Me, for I am come to save Adam, the first-formed man.”

    WHY DO THE OLD EARTH FOLK NOT EMPHASIZE MORE OF THAT WHICH CONNECTS GENESIS WITH CHRIST????

    WHY?

  5. Christiane wrote:

    WHY DO THE OLD EARTH FOLK NOT EMPHASIZE MORE OF THAT WHICH CONNECTS GENESIS WITH CHRIST????

    They do. It’s not fair to put all old-earthers into the same category because there are different old-earth views.

  6. Sorry, I missed this part. But my comment is even true of young-earthers. Many of them do emphasize the connection.

  7. Christiane wrote:

    i meant to write ‘young earth folk’ …. sorry for confusion, Ken

    No problem. My comment just above this one was supposed to be for you, but I messed up on getting your name into it. I saw your correction after I hist the post button. Too bad there is not a way to edit our mistakes.

  8. Is Genesis History was released for a one day showing in movie theaters on February 23.

    “Released for a one day showing” is not a good sign.
    Sounds like trying to avoid the bottom-of-the-barrel stigma of a direct-to-video release.

  9. @ Christiane:
    @ Ken F:
    Great discussion, as always. Adds to the post. Always interesting and thought-provoking. We can usually figure out the intent from the context and the direction of the discourse. All good.

  10. Insistence on young earth creationism is pernicious for another reason. It forces Christians to adopt a worldview in which the entire scientific endeavour, from astrophysics to biology, geology, paleontology and anthropology, is filled with hundreds of thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to learning yet are part of a global conspiracy to suppress Christianity. I have close friends and relatives who think this way, and you probably do too.

    Not only is this a malicious slander against countless honest people who know far more about their field than the creationists do, but it causes Christians to hurt themselves by rejecting scientific knowledge that is essential to their future well-being and that of their children: vaccines, medicine, environmental conservation, etc.

  11. Dee, I agree with you, God created. ……… Breath of life ……..old earth….. And so on.

    But not in six 24-hour days. I will revert back to a comment I made a few months ago : How did God create the sun and the moon in a 24-hour day when there was no 24-hour day until after He created the sun and the moon?

  12. The other reason that the NeoCalvinists propose a Young Earth Creation story, perhaps more important than even an argument about evolution, is the need to make women second-class and ‘obey’ and ‘submit’ to men in ‘all things’. The NeoCalvinists insist that they are interpreting the Bible “literally” from Genesis through the other books of the Bible.

    I heard it all at my ex-NeoCalvinist church in Silicon Valley [Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley].

  13. Velour wrote:

    The NeoCalvinists insist that they are interpreting the Bible “literally” from Genesis through the other books of the Bible.

    And thus using the Bible to hijack Science and other intellectual or researched endeavors? Power play?

  14. Stan wrote:

    I’ve heard it put this way: how much ink and paper is devoted to creation and how much is devoted to the three years of Jesus’ ministry? Thus, anyone who wants to hinge Christian belief on the first page or two of the Bible has an agenda.

    Excellent point!!!

  15. Nancy2 wrote:

    How long does it take for a ray of light to travel from the sun to the earth?

    93,000,000 miles / 186240 miles/sec = 8.3 minutes

  16. @Velour Agreed. Neo-Calvinists and other fundamentalist sects have far too much theological baggage that all hinges on a particular reading of Genesis 1-3 — everything from science denial to male dominance over women, denial of marriage equality, and original sin.

    The multitude of passages in the Bible that describe creation in completely different terms are always ignored in favour of the Adam and Eve story — which no other Old Testament author seems to have heard of.

  17. Godith wrote:

    Tim Keller being a theistic evolutionist is old news.

    Yes- to old coots like us. But they are sucking in new people every day so I like to remind folks about these issues. Have you ever read his Biologos paper? It is actually pretty decent.

  18. Paul D. wrote:

    malicious slander against countless honest people

    Yes, and it also makes God a liar. The only way to make it work is for God to have created the universe with the appearance of age, and to then old us accountable for believing the false evidence that he planted. It would mean that God went to great effort to deceive us into believing the universe is old when in fact it isn’t. What would God have to gain by being so deceptive?

  19. Paul D. wrote:

    Not only is this a malicious slander against countless honest people who know far more about their field than the creationists do, but it causes Christians to hurt themselves by rejecting scientific knowledge that is essential to their future well-being and that of their children: vaccines, medicine, environmental conservation, etc.

    I agree with you. I also know some families whose children have walked away from the faith over this issue and they still will not bend. It totally shocks me.

  20. In my wife’s church, young earth creationism has become synonymous with christianity (though my wife does not subscribe to it)

    The evidence is heavily in favour of an old universe of which an old earth is a part.

    I don’t think young earth creationism is a harmless endeavour. It is another way for literalists to control how and what people believe. I think it’s detrimental to the education of children and I’m fully prepared to tell my kids the church is wrong in this regard.

    I respect those whose faith can withstand the truths of the world which scientific research continues to reveal. Who can’t be humbled looking up at the night sky? Or at some of the “Best of Galaxies” photos posted here?

    If there is a God then such discoveries are gifts, not burdens and do not invalidate faith.

    I personally do not consider Genesis to be literal in any way. My dad was an avid reader and we had many books (like Reader’s Digest “The Last 2 Million Years”) that explained evolution. Both my parents had no trouble reconciling their faith and palaeontology. My mom’s take was that the bible was written to explain in simple terms what we had yet to discover for ourselves.

    Anyways – a christian is not defined by how they believe we came to be here. That wasn’t the point of the exercise.

  21. I wonder if the YOUNG Earth folks realize how much they are missing when they take something like the Book of Genesis and try to make it what it is not nor ever could be?

    There is a film about boys at a prep school studying poetry in a way that kills everything about it that it was meant to convey ….. and a teacher comes who shows them ‘another way’. I suspect that the ‘young Earth’ folk need to examine Genesis with new eyes because they are missing so much. (Of course, if they did, they might have to change some of their bedrock opinions upon which they have hung their ‘gospel’, and that may be too much to expect of them for now)

  22. Jack wrote:

    My mom’s take was that the bible was written to explain in simple terms what we had yet to discover for ourselves.

    Beautiful.

  23. @ Christiane:
    Introduction to Poetry
    I ask them to take a poem
    and hold it up to the light
    like a color slide

    or press an ear against its hive.

    I say drop a mouse into a poem
    and watch him probe his way out,
    or walk inside the poem’s room
    and feel the walls for a light switch.

    I want them to waterski
    across the surface of a poem
    waving at the author’s name on the shore.

    But all they want to do
    is tie the poem to a chair with rope
    and torture a confession out of it.

    They begin beating it with a hose
    to find out what it really means.
    —Billy Collins

  24. I don’t spend much time studying how our world started or how it will end. I do know that were I to take a class on the earth’s origen and be given a choice of Dr. Francis Collins or Pastor Tim Challies as instructors, I would choose Dr. Collins.

  25. @ JYJames:
    wow …..
    that parallels how many come to sacred Scripture in order to manipulate it’s words for their use, rather than let themselves be changed by it’s spirit

  26. Christiane wrote:

    I wonder if the YOUNG Earth folks realize how much they are missing when they take something like the Book of Genesis and try to make it what it is not nor ever could be?
    There is a film about boys at a prep school studying poetry in a way that kills everything about it that it was meant to convey ….. and a teacher comes who shows them ‘another way’. I suspect that the ‘young Earth’ folk need to examine Genesis with new eyes because they are missing so much. (Of course, if they did, they might have to change some of their bedrock opinions upon which they have hung their ‘gospel’, and that may be too much to expect of them for now)

    Dead Poets Society. Excellent movie.

  27. just saw a preview of ‘Is Genesis History’ over at imonk and I thought ‘you’ve got to be kidding’ ….. even some of the ‘actors’ were smirking as they talked nonsense and could hardly get their words out without cracking up ….

    all I can say is that there must be some BIG MONEY in back of this kind of thing;
    as maybe in some twisted way, the teaching of ‘young Earth’ as ‘history’ somehow serves a profiteer’s agenda ….. ?

    their next film out will probably be ‘Flat Earth: Where You Go If You Fall Off the Edges’

  28. Nancy2 wrote:

    How long does it take for a ray of light to travel from the sun to the earth?

    Around eight and a half minutes depending on where the earth is in its orbit around the Sun. (93,000,000 million miles from sun / 186,282 miles/sec for lightspeed gives you 499 seconds.)

  29. I have never heard of this movie, and if it is only for onre day, it is a deceptive marketing tool… i bet when it comes out in video/digital for, it will be titled, “major motion picture release” or some other deceptive marketing tool.
    As a practicing biengineering scientist, i have enough knowledge/experience, to evaluate the claims of YEC. I have yet to read one of the YEC scientific claims that is not at least basically wrong, if not outright deceptive.
    If fact, the level of outright deception in some of their arguments is shocking…

  30. Nancy2 wrote:

    How long does it take for a ray of light to travel from the sun to the earth?

    Current thinking is that it takes a photon about 100,000 years to journey from the inner depths of the sun, where it is generated, through the dense layers, and finally escape into space as visible light. Then it’s just 8.5 minutes to earth.

    But that’s those awful secular scientists that say these things. And I would imagine there is some debate about the inner workings of our sun.

  31. Pastor Wade Burleson supports the historicity of Genesis in his current Wednesday series. This is the link to the first lesson in the series. He provides supplemental information in numerous appendices documents. Seven of the planned 16 lessons are now available, including lesson notes, audio recordings that have the messages and Q & A’s.
    http://www.emmanuelenid.org/index.php/sermons/sermon-notes/58-sermon-notes-archive/bible-study-notes/we-are-family/725-we-are-family-introduction

  32. Ken F wrote:

    Ken Ham has claimed that denying a young earth is equivalent to denying the atonement, which makes one a non-Christian.

    Do you have a reference or link for your assertion of Ham stating this?

  33. I’m amused by this discussion. It follows me everywhere I go. My first doubts about the Bible came at age 7 when I came to the conclusion that dinosaurs could not fit into the ark. When I was in college, the young man I was dating suddenly broke off our courtship—after we had discussed the 6 days of creation. He then spread the word that I was no less than a theistic evolutionist. Some years later my now ex-husband said we could not marry until I bought into his 6 literal days of creation. I refused; he backed down. We married. But creation created discord throughout our nearly 20 years of marriage, which I tell about in my book. Perhaps that was one more reason why Challies did a hatchet job in his review.

    Well now I’m in the midst of another “battle” over the Bible. Every month I drive a hundred miles to visit a 16-year-old boy who is incarcerated for a very serious crime. I serve as his chaplain. His broken family has been very close to my own broken family for decades. Since being locked up the boy has become a very conservative Christian (having had no religious training in his own home). This past week he brought out 4 of Ken Ham’s books, hoping the stack would intimidate me and prove me wrong from our last month’s discussion. I seem to be getting nowhere in trying to convince him that believing in the Bible does not require believing in 6 literal days of creation. I fear for him. He’s very bright—loves science, especially astronomy. Too many young earth creationists have ended up leaving the faith altogether when they realized how utterly bereft of science creation “science” is.

    Every argument I make he answers with: Are you saying God couldn’t do that? As posted above: there could not be a 24-hour day until the sun was created. His reply would be: Are you saying God could not create a 24-hour day until the 4th day? God can do anything.

    When and if he comes to his senses, I hope my interaction with him will provide a soft landing. He does say that he looks forward to my visits more than any others, and he is very pleased that he is able to spar with me as an adult—-almost as though I were debating Ken Ham himself.

  34. raswhiting wrote:

    Do you have a reference or link for your assertion of Ham stating this?

    It was something I read from him many years ago. I don’t have that exact quote, but I just now did a quick search and found this: https://answersingenesis.org/why-does-creation-matter/the-necessity-for-believing-in-six-literal-days/

    The Bible is adamant though, that death, disease, and suffering came into the world as a result of sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin so man could be redeemed. As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and disease before sin, then the whole foundations of the message of the Cross and the Atonement have been destroyed. The doctrine of original sin, then, is totally undermined.

    These folks miss a few important points. Romans says the death we die is “death through sin” and that “death spread to all men.” It says nothing about death spreading to animals or that “death through sin” applies to animals (can animals sin?). This is an example of Ham turning a minor issues into major issue.

  35. raswhiting wrote:

    Do you have a reference or link for your assertion of Ham stating this?

    I do not have any links, and I have never read anything by Ham, but it has been my understanding that this is the accepted theological concern. This is what I have heard, though I do not remember where, or where all, I have heard it. If one does not accept the genesis stories as literal, then one does not accept any later idea of original sin, or death (even spiritual death) as the result of sin and one does not accept the prophecy of the seed of the woman as the coming one who crushes Satan’s head. In other words, the genesis stories in toto must be accepted as literal or else the entire stories have been shown to be not just assailable but actually false.

    If so, then ubsequently when the scripture says wheras by one man sin entered into the world…death by sin..sin passed to all men since all have sinned..that simply would not be true.

    Some people note the issue of female submission which would go under without a literal understanding of the creation stories, but more than that and far more threatening is the larger issue of demolishing the entire story of how come man needs a savior in the first place and by extension whether the idea of a promised conquering redeemer/savior is even a valid theory.

  36. Ruth Tucker wrote:

    As posted above: there could not be a 24-hour day until the sun was created. His reply would be: Are you saying God could not create a 24-hour day until the 4th day? God can do anything.

    Yeah, God can do anything – but that doesn’t mean that He does.

    A day? Consider the universe that God created. Is a day on Earth the same as a day on Jupiter? How long is a day on recently discovered planets? What is a day to God? Is He really that concerned about hours, seconds, minutes, and nanoseconds?

  37. raswhiting wrote:

    Do you have a reference or link for your assertion of Ham stating this?

    Here’s another pertinent link of Ham’s recent writings: https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/are-souls-at-stake/

    So to believe in millions of years is a gospel issue. This belief ultimately impugns the character of the Creator and Savior and undermines the foundation of the soul-saving gospel.

    So, the age of the earth and universe is not a salvation issue per se—somebody can be saved even without believing what the Bible says on this issue. But it is a salvation issue indirectly. Christians who compromise on millions of years can encourage others toward unbelief concerning God’s Word and the gospel.

    This is a lot like Piper’s double-speak. I very distinctly remember reading something from Ham approximately 20 years ago that equated believing in death before the fall with a denial of the atonement and being unsaved. He seems to have backed off from that view more recently. But he still has very strong words about those who believe in an old earth, as if we are lower tier Christians at best.

  38. @ okrapod:

    And. Jesus referenced the creation by God of mankind as male and female ‘in the beginning’ but when one argues from theistic evolution in the light of modern scientific evidence there was a beginning long before there was humanity, so the assumption can be made from one of Jesus’ own comments that He was taking the stories literally. This part of the issue goes not to solar days and such but rather to how to understand ‘beginning’ as related to creation. And it strikes right at the heart of how to understand Jesus’s words in general as well as on this specific issue.

    Once we say that the genesis stories are not literal we have to find ways to deal with just lots of stuff in scripture at the risk of tearing apart some people’s belief structures. I am not sure how wise that would be to do that for people who desperately? need to hang on to belief in literalism.

    In my comments here it should be obvious by now that I have in fact arrived at some very different understandings of some parts of scripture, and this is almost totally due to changes in my thinking about the literal and/or not of some portions of scripture including by not limited to the genesis stories. The church in my youngest years taught me a literal interpretation, but the public schools in the fourth grade showed me that this was not reliable. That would have been in the mid forties, for anybody who thinks this is a new problem within christianity.

  39. This sort of argument is a good way to loose my generation, Millennials. It is a “great” example of the church wasting its time and credibility on an issue that is unclear if any theological issue is unclear.

    Whatever the mechanism, I believe we are theologically committed to a couple ideas:
    1) God created the world (God was involved somehow minimally as the origin of life).
    2) A literal Adam and Eve must have existed or the federalism in Romans 5 falls apart (Adam as first man and Jesus as second man atoning for our sin).
    3) Related to point 2, a literal “Fall” must have taken place.

    How those events are covered are less important than they happened and are covered, IMO.

  40. It’s interesting you posted this now… yesterday I got a new book called “Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture After Genetic Science”. It’s in two parts – the first is by a scientist explaining how modern genetic research has found evidence for evolution and does not support the idea that we all descended from a single couple (ie Adam and Eve). Basically the wide genetic variation in humans can only be explainedby an initial population of at least 10,000. The latter is particularly devastating for those who believe that Genesis 1-3 should be read literally. The second part is by a theologian who shows that the New Testament references to Adam and Eve don’t require an actual Adam and Eve to be theologically valid. Both authors are evangelicals and it’s a further nail in the coffin of young earth creationism.

    I can recommend it – I think it’s going to be a significant and influential book once it starts to make an impact (it was published less than a month ago). However, it looks to be a fairly involved read, but that’s necessary to give the subject a rigorous treatment that will stand up to scrutiny. So only get it if you have a serious interest in the subject.

  41. raswhiting wrote:

    Do you have a reference or link for your assertion of Ham stating this?

    This link, which is a little older than the other two I just posted, is closer to what I read 20 years ago: https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/god-is-good/the-god-of-an-old-earth/

    The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death.

    Thus Christians who compromise with the millions of years attributed by many scientists to the fossil record, are in that sense seemingly worshipping a different god — the cruel god of an old earth.

    There’s no doubt — the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel.

    Let this be a challenge to the Church to return to the loving, holy, righteous God of the Bible.

    He does not explicitly state that believing in an old earth makes one unsaved, but it’s a distinction without a difference because he accuses us of worshiping a different God and destroying the Gospel.

  42. Ken F wrote:

    He does not explicitly state that believing in an old earth makes one unsaved, but it’s a distinction without a difference because he accuses us of worshiping a different God and destroying the Gospel.

    Typo: this part was not supposed to be part of the blockquote attributed to Ham.

  43. Divorce Minister wrote:

    How those events are covered are less important than they happened and are covered, IMO.

    Yes. This is very good. If God wanted us to know the precise details of “how” it happened he would have told us. The “who” is the main point of the story.

  44. @ okrapod:
    @ raswhiting:
    @ Ken F:
    I would be happy to provide links to this. In fact, it was the subject of a post that we have written about on this blog

    Ham has built his legacy on claiming that Christians who deny a 6000 year earth are undermining the Gospel and in particular, Christ’s death a Cross. He has accused others like Hugh Ross of Reason to Believe of being a heretic. There was a famous exchange in a debate which I watched in which Ham clearly made this claim. Hugh Ross was incensed. Ham is a dangerous man because he believes that 6 day creation is the only way to view the Bible. If you do not, you are flirting with heresy.

    I have made it a minor goal of this blog to refute Ham, not due to his shoddy science, but due to his claims of what constitutes Christianity. He has insulted some wonderful Christians who disagree with him. never forget, he only holds a bachelors degree in science. He does not have a doctorate. Even his token PhD astronomer, Jason Lisle, got his PHD. but never did peer reviewed science investigation.

    Ham does not allow peer reviewed critique in his *science* posts. He only allows said *peer reviewed* critique by those who agree with him. This is asinine and should be embarrassing to all Christians.

    The following are some quotes that prove what Ken F claimed.

    https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/the-authority-of-the-scriptures/

    “You cannot possibly believe the New Testament doctrine of the atonement and redemption in Christ unless you accept its teaching with regard to the fall, and with regard to sin. And that puts you directly face to face with the question of history. Man was either created, as Genesis tells us, perfect, and then fell; or else man has been slowly developing from the animal and has never been perfect at all. It is either one or the other.”

    https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/why-shouldnt-christians-accept-millions-of-years/

    “To accept millions of years of animal death before the creation and Fall of man contradicts and destroys the Bible’s teaching on death and the full redemptive work of Christ. ”

    “What is at stake here is the authority of Scripture, the character of God, the doctrine of death, and the very foundation of the gospel. If the early chapters of Genesis are not true literal history, then faith in the rest of the Bible is undermined, including its teaching about salvation and morality. I urge you to carefully read the other chapters in this book. The health of the church, the effectiveness of her mission to a lost world, and the glory of God are at stake.”

    https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/millions-of-years/the-disease-of-millions-of-years/

    “Ultimately, the issue over the age of the earth/universe is one of authority: will it be fallible sinful man’s authority, or will it be God’s? Should we take man’s fallible understandings about the past and reinterpret God’s Word, or do we judge man’s beliefs against the absolute authority of Scripture.”

    “When creationists take a strong stand that God created the earth six thousand years ago, they’re often accused of making this a salvation issue. Well, it isn’t a salvation issue—but it is!”

    “So to believe in millions of years is a gospel issue. This belief ultimately impugns the character of the Creator and Savior and undermines the foundation of the soul-saving gospel.”

    https://answersingenesis.org/sin/original-sin/evolution-and-original-sin/?utm_source=articlesmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_content=article2image&utm_campaign=20151003&mc_cid=e2c6fad03b&mc_eid=b499886c82\

    “This series by BioLogos on evolution’s impact on the atonement should serve as a wake-up call to Christians who have ignored the damage evolutionary teaching has done to the gospel message. The writers in this series are right about something: evolutionary beliefs have an enormous impact on the atoning work of Christ. But we must understand that this is always a negative impact. It undermines the historical foundation for the atonement, deemphasizes Christ’s work of atonement on the Cross, and destroys the basis for our hope for a deathless and Curse-less eternity.”

  45. Ken F wrote: Quoting KH:

    So, the age of the earth and universe is not a salvation issue per se—somebody can be saved even without believing what the Bible says on this issue. But it is a salvation issue indirectly.

    Ah, very much in line with the subordination of women being an indirect salvation issue. …….. Slippery slopes ???

  46. raswhiting wrote:

    Do you have a reference or link for your assertion of Ham stating this?

    Albert Mohler one of the theologians most vocal affirming YEC. Here is a link to one of his pronouncements: http://www.icr.org/article/5669/

    The concluding paragraph provides a good illustration of his arguments requiring a believe in YEC to accepting the gospel: “In our effort to be most faithful to the Scriptures and most accountable to the grand narrative of the Gospel, an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems, and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and why it matters.The universe is telling the story of the glory of God, the Ancient of Days.”

  47. Ian wrote:

    does not support the idea that we all descended from a single couple (ie Adam and Eve). Basically the wide genetic variation in humans can only be explainedby an initial population of at least 10,000.

    Even if you’re accepting the Bible as true, Cain and Abel married and had kids so there must have been others.

  48. Ian wrote:

    Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture After Genetic Science”

    Thank you for the recommendation.

    I believe in a historical Adam and Eve but I find no evidence in Scripture that they were the only people on the earth. For example, God gave them an immortal spirit at one point. Now, why did He remove them from the outside and put them inside the Garden? What was going on outside the Garden at that time?

    I have been chewing this over. Could it be that God selected these two to be the representatives for the human race as they experienced temptation and eventually fell into sin? I thought a lot about this when I read Perelandra-book 2 of CS Lewis’ Out of the Silent Planet trilogy which plays out the Garden on the planet Venus. Great book and quite thought provoking.

    Just as through Adam and Eve, sin entered the world, then redemption entered through Jesus Christ.

    Back to what was outside the Garden when Adam and Eve were inside. We have no idea how long they were in there. What was going on outside? It opens up all sorts of thoughts which do not preclude that there were other people which would not negate various people contributing to the gene pool.

    God did not tell us the whole scoop. Could God have created the earth in 6 days. Of course. But did He? God gave us science to explore this beautiful and complex creation. I think He has left evidence for us to find throughout the ages. That evidence, to me, appears to validate a billions year old earth as well as some sort of evolution. The fossil record indicate transition.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

    I do not fear science and what it discovers. None of it contradicts the Bible. It merely gives depth to the Bible and causes me to marvel at God’s universe.

  49. Jack wrote:

    Cain and Abel married and had kids so there must have been others.

    I agree with you.

    YEC believe that Adam and Eve went on to have lots of children and they intermarried. I find that theory plausible but I disagree with it based on the Bible’s clear admonition against incest.

    Once again, it is interesting to contemplate what was outside the Garden during this time period.

  50. @ OldJohnJ:
    From other comments made in this discussion on YEC it seems the AIG/ICR/SBC axis claims total truth on all that has to be said on the topic. Input from the same science that also provides for the technology supporting these communications over the internet is claimed to be irrelevant.

  51. @ dee:
    Ham and his bunch peddle lies. I listened to one sermon on how Jupiter’s volcanic moon Io is proof the universe is young. Heat can’t exist in space, ergo…
    Sheer idiocy. Io’s volcanism is well understood as a byproduct of gravity interaction in the Jovian system.
    And they have the audacity to tell me they espouse truth!?
    If I can’t trust them on this, any other message is worthless.

  52. dee wrote:

    YEC believe that Adam and Eve went on to have lots of children and they intermarried.

    The resulting inbreeding would go along way to explaining the human condition.

  53. dee wrote:

    Ken Ham Worte this his wife, Marnie was not only submissive, but very, very submissive.

    The men proclaiming evangelical patriarchy don’t want spouses, they want slaves.

  54. Ruth Tucker wrote:

    My first doubts about the Bible came at age 7 when I came to the conclusion that dinosaurs could not fit into the ark.

    That is why Ken Ham came up with the theory that dinosaur eggs were brought on the ark.Ruth Tucker wrote:

    He then spread the word that I was no less than a theistic evolutionist. Some years later my now ex-husband said we could not marry until I bought into his 6 literal days of creation. I refused; he backed down. We married. But creation created discord throughout our nearly 20 years of marriage, which I tell about in my book. Perhaps that was one more reason why Challies did a hatchet job in his review.

    I am so sorry. I have seen such needless pain caused over this issue. Thank you for your boldness in speaking out. Challies went after us a few years ago, claiming we were threatening him. It’s just his style. he’s kind of like John Piper-pretend they are big boys until they get challenged, particularly by women.

    Challies believes women must be so silent in church that they cannot read the Scripture out loud during the service. Can you imagine???

  55. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    As a practicing biengineering scientist, i have enough knowledge/experience, to evaluate the claims of YEC. I have yet to read one of the YEC scientific claims that is not at least basically wrong, if not outright deceptive.

    I am looking forward to your post on this blog.

  56. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    I do know that were I to take a class on the earth’s origen and be given a choice of Dr. Francis Collins or Pastor Tim Challies as instructors, I would choose Dr. Collins.

    I always knew you were brilliant!!

  57. Jack wrote:

    a christian is not defined by how they believe we came to be here. That wasn’t the point of the exercise.

    That is why Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis is so dangerous. They tell Christians that the age of the earth is the point which defines their Christianity.

  58. @ OldJohnJ:

    This is just the beginnings of their fundamental contradictions….. To explain away the fundamental evidence of the old earth from radioactive dating, the YEC ( some directly from AIG) have to resort to an argument that during the flood G$d changed the fundamental constants of matter to accelerate radioactive decay by millions of orders of magnitude….. after I picked my jaw off the floor, i realized i can not take anything these guys say scientifcally seriously…. the level of “non” sence is increadible…

  59. It’s really encouraging for me to find other believers who hold a variety of views on the age of the earth and universe, and dont’ think it’s a primary issue. In my little corner of the world, there isn’t much variety on this issue.

    Can I get on my soapbox for a minute?

    I’m not into geology, and don’t know much about biology. But astronomy… I find that fascinating, in an amateur sort of way. And the fact that we can see the rest of our galaxy, much less a bunch of other galaxies, suggests that light has been traveling a bit longer than 6,000-10,000 years.

    I did do some research on Dr. Del Tackett, who is the main person behind the Genesis as History movie. Interesting character, good speaker, but he seems to take the same position as other YEC leaders that the age of the earth is a foundational issue. He won’t come out and say it, but I get the feeling that if you asked one of them whether old earth types could be Christians, they would answer, “Just barely.”

    In a speech, Dr. Tackett seemed to deal with the starlight question by wondering if conditions were different before the fall. He thinks the 2nd law of thermodynamics might not have been in effect, and maybe the speed of light was different. Maybe it was almost instantaneous until the fall.

    Which makes no sense to me. We don’t just see stars, we see interactions, and very long processes of stellar development, and galaxies in various stages of colliding with each other. All of these processes take billions or years, and wouldn’t be happening if light had just slowed down. A lot.

    Which would have also wreaked havoc with the whole e=mc2 thing.

    Or maybe the clock on earth was a lot slower than the rest of the universe, so that 14 billion years there = 6000 years here, and now they are synced up for some reason. Which would be possible, if Earth had been at the center of a massive black hole that slowed time down.

    These aren’t testable theories. Even if they were true, there’s no way we could ever prove it. It’s little more than bad science fiction writing. [Just not L. Ron Hubbard bad.]

    What bothers me is that this way of thinking creates a massive wall that keeps scientifically minded people from faith. If YEC is foundational, and necessary for the “gospel,” then a scientist type would have to renounce almost everything they know about the world and their profession, convert to YEC first, then accept a very literal version of the Bible before they could actually encounter God. Am I taking this too far? Is that the impression you guys get?

  60. @ dee:

    ‘Now, why did He remove them from the outside and put them inside the Garden? What was going on outside the Garden at that time?’
    +++++++++++++++++++

    hi, dee. why do you believe in a literal Garden?

  61. @ OldJohnJ:

    “OldJohnJ UNITED STATES on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 12:07 PM said:
    @ OldJohnJ:

    “Input from the same science that also provides for the technology supporting these communications over the internet is claimed to be irrelevant.”
    +++++++++++++

    on what basis do they claim it is irrelevant? (i’m sure i can find this out myself…. being lazy here)

  62. @ GSD:
    You are EXACTLY correct, and you are just begining to bring up the issues of YEC. And this is a big deal…. the level of downright deception on the part of these YEC speakers is breathtaking….
    the only can get away with this due to ignorance of most people…. what they say is in contradiction to basic scientific principles..

  63. dee wrote:

    YEC believe that Adam and Eve went on to have lots of children and they intermarried. I find that theory plausible but I disagree with it based on the Bible’s clear admonition against incest.

    Hugh Ross also supports this view, but with a different take. If Adam and Eve were actually created as the first humans, they would have perfect DNA, in which case there would not be a problem with brothers and sisters having kids with each other. The bad effects of mutation would come many generations later. And the Bible’s commands against incest did not come until many generations later. I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure how it happened, but Ross’ view is at least plausible. Here is the link: http://www.reasons.org/articles/finding-a-wife-for-cain.

  64. dee wrote:

    Ken Ham Worte this his wife, Marnie was not only submissive, but very, very submissive.
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/11/05/you-are-a-heretic-if-you-dont-believe-as%C2%A0i-do%C2%A0/
    AIG write frequently on the need of women to submit.

    Only Stepford wives can go to Heaven?
    About a year and a half ago, my church (which I have avoided for a year) rented a Greyhound and took a bunch of people to Ham’s park on the church dime. I am not submissive. For better or for worse, I am outspoken. So, I opted out. I didn’t want to hitch hike home!

  65. GSD wrote:

    Am I taking this too far?

    Not at all. Your thinking is right on track. If a 6000-1000 year old universe is foundational to our faith, then so is the belief in a God who deceives humanity by creating the appearance of age. If YEC is true, then we cannot trust our senses. And we cannot believe Romans 1:20.

  66. elastigirl wrote:

    hi, dee. why do you believe in a literal Garden?

    If you want to blow your mind, read Paul Young’s book called “Eve.” His take on the creation of Adam and Eve is though provoking. If the complementarians did not already hate him, this book seals the deal

  67. @ GSD:

    “If YEC is foundational, and necessary for the “gospel,” then a scientist type would have to renounce almost everything they know about the world and their profession, convert to YEC first, then accept a very literal version of the Bible before they could actually encounter God.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    or before some christians will give credence to their encounter with God.

    (good grief, any human can actually encounter God regardless of their beliefs and practices on any subject.)

  68. dee wrote:

    I agree with you. I also know some families whose children have walked away from the faith over this issue and they still will not bend. It totally shocks me.

    At risk of violating TWW’s prime directive of sympathy for victims, I think it says more about their inability to pick and choose what they sign onto or don’t sign onto.

  69. @ elastigirl:

    Ever time you pump gas into your car, there is a good chance that some of that oil came from a well that was recenly drilled.. Oil exploration companies use the lastest geological theories, and technologies, to drill for oil! When you spend milliions and millions per well, you have a HUGH incentive to be as accurate as possible…. the technology, and and fundamantal science behind it all is quite impressive..

    Ken Ham is quick to say there is two types of science: imperical and historical….. he is the ONLY person i know that makes this distiction…. i guarentee the scientist that develop the theories of where the oil is would say they use science, and scientific theories, period, to understand where the oil is….. no distinction to them!

  70. OldJohnj gave us this quote from Mohler: “an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems, and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and why it matters.”

    Actually, he is absolutely correct about that. It is easier with far fewer complications from a theological standpoint, more straightforward, more uncomplicated. i do hope that Dr. Mohler does not think that those are the sole criteria for identifying truth. Again let me say that the ramifications of the philosophy of William of Ockham have their limitations.

  71. @ Nancy2:

    trapped in a bus all day with those people? (some of whom i’m sure are good and kind)

    but just “trapped in a bus” doing the group think / group thing all day is more than an enough. vooooof…. shivers.

  72. Ken F wrote:

    But it is a salvation issue indirectly. Christians who compromise on millions of years can encourage others toward unbelief concerning God’s Word and the gospel.

    Christians who reject science entirely can ‘encourage others towards unbelief’ too.

  73. @ Jeffrey J Chalmers:

    @ OldJohnJ:

    “Input from the same science that also provides for the technology supporting these communications over the internet is claimed to be irrelevant.”
    +++++++++++++

    on what basis do they claim it is irrelevant? (i’m sure i can find this out myself…. being lazy here)

    ….but on what basis does Al Mohler & co. claim that ‘Input from the same [old age earth] science that also provides for the technology supporting these communications over the internet’ is irrelevant?

    (or maybe i missed the answer in your comment entirely. didn’t do well in Physics for Poets, here.)

  74. Ian wrote:

    yesterday I got a new book called “Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture After Genetic Science”. It’s in two parts – the first is by a scientist explaining how modern genetic research has found evidence for evolution and does not support the idea that we all descended from a single couple (ie Adam and Eve).

    Interesting. I’m curious how they touch the issue of neanderthals and our genetic links to them.

  75. dee wrote:

    Once again, it is interesting to contemplate what was outside the Garden during this time period.

    How did Cain and Abel develop the tools and the skills to till the soil and shepherd animals (and protect their products) outside of the garden in less than a generation?
    Are the elaborate artistic rendentions of the sacrifices Cain and Abel brought to the altar anywhere close to reality? Do YECs believe those renditions?
    …….So many child-like questions ……..

  76. dee quoting Ham wrote:

    Man was either created, as Genesis tells us, perfect, and then fell

    If man had truly been perfect, how could he ever have fallen? (never mind, probably was eve’s fault 🙂 I remember reading Karen Armstrong’s book on genesis as a college student and this was basically what I wrote in my paper at the time.

  77. Nancy2 wrote:

    .So many child-like questions ……

    How did Adam and Eve know what death was when God warned them with death if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge?

  78. okrapod wrote:

    he is absolutely correct about that. It is easier with far fewer complications from a theological standpoint, more straightforward, more uncomplicated.

    I plan to write about why I think many young people are turning to the Calvinista crowd. My basic theory is your comment.

  79. elastigirl wrote:

    trapped in a bus all day with those people? (some of whom i’m sure are good and kind)
    but just “trapped in a bus” doing the group think / group thing all day is more than an enough. vooooof…. shivers.

    Some are good and kind. But. ……. The grand tour of the park, plus 7 hours round trip on the bus? I never would have made it …..

  80. Pretty much the entirety of christianity is based on the claim that it is true. So then if we conclude that some christian beliefs are in error, some doctrines built on disproven assumptions, what do we do then? Is there a backup plan? And how do we contain the secondary damage?

  81. Lea wrote:

    If man had truly been perfect, how could he ever have fallen?

    That’s one of the big problems with New-Calvinist thought. They overestimate man’s original condition as perfect rather than sinless, and then then overestimate man’s fall as totally depraved rather than mortal. They also overestimate the world/universe as prefect rather than good (or very good). And they blame the 2nd law of thermodynamics on the fall where in fact no work or biological process of any kind, pre-fall or post-fall, would be possible without it. These are very big mistakes, and not what the Bible actually says.

  82. dee wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    okra: he is absolutely correct about that. It is easier with far fewer complications from a theological standpoint, more straightforward, more uncomplicated.
    Dee: I plan to write about why I think many young people are turning to the Calvinista crowd. My basic theory is your comment.

    When you (generic) are a child, it is easy to believe the straightforward, uncomplicated. But when you grow, and learn, and think ….. things are not so straightforward, uncomplicated. IMO, the Calvinista crowd chooses to be lazy, and not grow and think and learn.

  83. @ elastigirl:
    I was speaking more generally about how science and technology in every day life support old earth understanding.
    But, more specifcally, internet needs energy, energy comes from fossel fuels and now solar, wind, etc. Old earth science tells, or helps us find, where the fossel fuels are.
    Solar energy is based, at the most fundamaental level, on quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, allong with modern physics, tells us mathematically the world is old. It get down to this, YEC say that the “constants” in these equation are not really “constant”! How convient…. they should not trust any of physics then, because at any minute these fundamental constants might change? Hay, maybe gravity might change tomorrow, and the kangroos in Australia, where Ken Ham is from where able to hop there?

  84. @ dee:
    And like other biblical literalists, they turn the Bible into an all or nothing proposition. Even the best and brightest physicists admit there’s mysteries in creation that we may never understand. I don’t think we should ever stop exploring but not knowing doesn’t abrogate faith. The Bible isn’t there to explain those mysteries. It’s a message not a textbook.

  85. The foundation of Calvinist theology is is that God has predetermined and predestined every event that occurs, no matter how small, yet hey refuse to follow their own theology to its inescapable conclusion. That is, God predetermined and predestined the human ‘fall’, therefore, God has to be the author of sin. Calvinists have performed innumerable mental gymnastics trying to explain why this is not so, but none of them make any sense.

  86. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    YEC say that the “constants” in these equation are not really “constant”! How convient…. they should not trust any of physics then, because at any minute these fundamental constants might change? Hay, maybe gravity might change tomorrow,

    Battle of Jerico – the sun stood still. The Bible says so. No wiggle room.

  87. Nancy2 wrote:

    Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
    YEC say that the “constants” in these equation are not really “constant”! How convient…. they should not trust any of physics then, because at any minute these fundamental constants might change? Hay, maybe gravity might change tomorrow,
    Battle of Jerico – the sun stood still. The Bible says so. No wiggle room.

    Science is based on no supernatural intervention….. that is why it is called “supernatual” …… biology says Christ could not have been raised from the dead…. again, supernatural… for that mater, science can not explain keading up to, and instance of the big bang… again, verging on “super” natural…
    But, if the world is young, we should not believe that the oil is where the oil companies drill…. and the oil companies make a ?$&@ allot of mobey using old earth science to know where to drill… despite Ken Hall’s phrase “were you there”…. nope, but the science tells us there should be oil “there” based on millions and millions of years in which the “constants” were “constant”

  88. Jack wrote:

    they turn the Bible into an all or nothing proposition.

    Even beyond this, it is a “my way or the highway” proposition. In other words an all or nothing as I – uppercase I – see it, now and forever. Amen.

    Narcissists.

    God’s Word does not change, but human understanding is constantly evolving. Scientific discovery is also ever-expanding.

    Oh dear, did I really type “evolving”? Chuckle.

  89. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    nope, but the science tells us there should be oil “there” based on millions and millions of years in which the “constants” were “constant”

    Perfect example: La Brea Tar Pits.

  90. Nancy2 wrote:

    Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
    nope, but the science tells us there should be oil “there” based on millions and millions of years in which the “constants” were “constant”
    Perfect example: La Brea Tar Pits.

    ??

  91. @ Nancy2:
    Yes…
    or G$d made the earth old, with not only oil in the ground, following an “old earth”, natural process of layering after layering… oh, and the he had to make it look like the animals got stuck in the ozzing oil, since they lived more than 6,000-10,000 years ago..

  92. Regarding Ken Ham and Answers In Genesis, this post might be of interest:

    http://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/answers-in-genesis-founder-ken-ham-employes-several-family-members-in-his-non-profit-organzation

    Ham and his family received over $450K from Answers In Genesis in the year 2012-13. I’m sure other years are similar. A nice little earner for them all.

    He was a teacher in Australia, before he realised that promoting YEC to Americans could make him a lot more money. It’s a classic example of someone finding a niche in the US Christian-industrial complex that enables them to become very rich. He clearly has a huge vested interest in promoting creationism.

    If fundamentalists want to ignore science, let them, but it scares me when mainstream evangelicals adopt the same approach.

  93. elastigirl wrote:

    on what basis do they claim it is irrelevant? (i’m sure i can find this out myself…. being lazy here)

    Using irrelevant is my choice of a term for the YECers complete and total refusal to accept mainline science.

  94. Ken F wrote:

    If a 6000-1000 year old universe is foundational to our faith, then so is the belief in a God who deceives humanity by creating the appearance of age.

    That’s it. That’s the point. The gap theory folks put it this way: God created the universe, 6000 years ago, with all the stars and galaxies at that moment. But like Adam, He created the universe with the illusion of age. Which means he also created gazillions of photons already in motion, showing an image of a universe that wasn’t there. Which means we aren’t really seeing what’s there, what’s real, but rather a very convincing projection. So the night sky is mostly like a really good observatory show, just a projection of a massive universe, which may or may not actually be there.

    In other words, the universe is the biggest con job imaginable, engineered by god as a test to see whether we would interpret His book completely literally, or whether we would be seduced by science.

    By the way, the latest science thinks that the number of galaxies is higher than we thought. Observations like the Hubble Deep Field have led to a higher number of 1 to 2 trillion galaxies, with around 100 billion stars each.

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-reveals-observable-universe-contains-10-times-more-galaxies-than-previously-thought

    Which makes the YEC god the biggest “con man” imaginable. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

    Thanks for letting me get that out of my brain. In the Christian community in the odd little place where I live, ideas like this aren’t welcome. It can make one feel very isolated, and a bit wacky. It’s so reassuring to be able to speak freely, even if we don’t completely agree, and be backed up by people smarter than myself.

  95. Wait, the gap theory says lots of time has really elapsed, the universe is not an illusion, but the Garden happened 6-10K years ago. Old universe, young humanity. I was speaking of the YEC crew.

  96. Ian wrote:

    If fundamentalists want to ignore science, let them, but it scares me when mainstream evangelicals adopt the same approach.

    Me too. There is just a lot of rallying around some extreme cause in the US. Religion. Politics. Even clothing: prairie dresses vs wardrobe failures. We seem to have grown weary with the ordinary and the same and crave the far out and the spectacular and the dramatic, not to forget the weird. We want bigger and better circuses. Not only Ham but lots of folks are finding plenty of money in turning evangelicalism into a circus.

  97. @ GSD:
    It gets worse. If he created the universe with the appearance of age, how do we know that it was not created a few minutes ago with the appearance of age? Where does the deception stop? Talk about slippery slopes.

  98. JYJames wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    turning evangelicalism into a circus.
    That about sums it up neatly.

    And a circus is, after all, entertainment. (Numbers, ratings, $$$.)

  99. elastigirl wrote:

    or before some christians will give credence to their encounter with God.

    (good grief, any human can actually encounter God regardless of their beliefs and practices on any subject.)

    You’re right, Elastigirl. I didn’t say that correctly. People can encounter God, the real God, in all sorts of ways. A friend of mine had a life-changing encounter while he was riding a bicycle! Watching Star Trek is also an option.

    I was reacting to the interview I saw with Dr. Tackett, the host of this new movie. He seemed to be saying that the reason Christianity is in decline in the west is that we don’t take the Bible literally, and we have abandoned a biblical worldview in favor of old earth and millions of years. Very similar to what Ken Ham teaches. My interpretation of that, of their solution, is that we need to recapture their “biblical worldview.” What this really means is that we all need to agree with their hyper-literal interpretation, and reject much of what science tells us, and then lost people will flock to the church again.

    And to me, it seems that they are adding a prerequisite to encountering God. It’s a lot like the early church, where there was a lot of discussion over whether a pagan must become Jewish first, and then follow Jesus. I get the feeling [and I could be wrong] that these guys are saying that average people won’t take the Bible seriously unless it is a hyper-literal, anti-science, YEC Bible, and that will lead them to an encounter with God.

    I think the reality is exactly the reverse. The YEC approach forces people into a false choice between faith and science. Especially college students. The YEC approach makes it harder for people to encounter God.

    Ironically, they pose YEC as a solution to an increasingly secular society. I think YEC is a major cause or our increasingly secular society.

    Here is the video, if you have time. All the usual suspects.
    https://youtu.be/5fQMfwHFs6Q

  100. @ GSD:
    You are not wacky….. i know what you mean though… the long term effect is to make you feel “inferior spirtually” which can then seap into your life in other ways…
    What really “gets my goat” is the “lack of integrity” in these YEC/fundamentaist in other aspects of their lives… i use to to think that they at least lived their lives in a consistent ” pious way”…. blogs like these, and the “information age” in general is showing me how corrupt and “decieving” many/most of these clowns are…. i could go on and on with examples..

  101. Ken F wrote:

    God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin so man could be redeemed.

    See, there you have it, the problem of evil solved! It’s all God’s doing. Wish I’d read Ken Ham long ago and not bothered to agonize over anything.

  102. GSD wrote:

    Ironically, they pose YEC as a solution to an increasingly secular society. I think YEC is a major cause or our increasingly secular society.

    “If at first you don’t succeed, DOUBLE DOWN AND SCREAM LOUDER!!!!!”

  103. OldJohnJ wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:

    on what basis do they claim it is irrelevant? (i’m sure i can find this out myself…. being lazy here)

    Using irrelevant is my choice of a term for the YECers complete and total refusal to accept mainline science.

    Mine is more like
    “I REJECT *YOUR* REALITY AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN!”
    — Mythbusters

  104. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    Yes…
    or G$d made the earth old, with not only oil in the ground, following an “old earth”, natural process of layering after layering… oh, and the he had to make it look like the animals got stuck in the ozzing oil, since they lived more than 6,000-10,000 years ago..

    The Omphalos Hypothesis. First proposed by Gosse in 1857 (two years before Darwin’s book), and promptly got him piled on from all sides. Didn’t fly then and doesn’t fly now for much the same reasons.

  105. dee wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:

    Ah, very much in line with the subordination of women being an indirect salvation issue. …….. Slippery slopes ???

    Ken Ham Worte this his wife, Marnie was not only submissive, but very, very submissive.
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/11/05/you-are-a-heretic-if-you-dont-believe-as%C2%A0i-do%C2%A0/

    AIG write frequently on the need of women to submit.

    Ever notice all this — YEC, Pin-the-Tail-on-The-Antichrist, Male Supremacy, Culture War Without End, Christian Homeschooling, Gothardism, Pearl & Ezzo, Trump — is increasingly a Package Deal, Take It or Leave It?

  106. dee wrote:

    Challies believes women must be so silent in church that they cannot read the Scripture out loud during the service. Can you imagine???

    All they need is a vagina (ovulating) and boobs, and a larynx that loops praise for the Manly Man’s Manliness. (just like in Pornography.)
    Everything else is superfluous and SIN SIN SIN.

  107. dee wrote:

    AIG write frequently on the need of women to submit.

    Wanna-be Commanders of Holy Gilead.

  108. Nancy2 wrote:

    Battle of Jerico – the sun stood still. The Bible says so. No wiggle room.

    As a dedicated Christian friend once commented. Relative to WHAT?

  109. Ken F wrote:

    God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin so man could be redeemed.

    The old “felix culpa, loosely translated as “happy sin” – we have evil to make redemption sooo much better!

  110. dee wrote:

    God did not tell us the whole scoop. Could God have created the earth in 6 days. Of course. But did He?

    “Of course God can make a Cow from a Tree. But has He ever done so? Bring evidence, or this is all idle speculation.”
    — some Medieval divine, I don’t remember the context

  111. Christiane wrote:

    ?

    their next film out will probably be ‘Flat Earth: Where You Go If You Fall Off the Edges’

    Do you know how today’s Flat Earth Society got started?

    From a Victorian movement called “Zetetic Astronomy” whose Mission Statement was to Defend SCRIPTURE from Vain Imagings of Men/Godless Science (like the world is round).

    A reproduction of a Flat Earth Society newsletter in Donna Kossy’s Kooks: A Guide to the Outer Limits of Human Belief has the nuclear-war-sized headline “TWO WITNESSES DECLARE EARTH FLAT!” over a photo of said “two witnesses”: a man with a huge black beard and fierce Old Testament Prophet look and a woman with a “baptized in vinegar and lemon juice” expression. An accompaning excerpt from the newsletter is all about the stupidity of the Heathen Greeks (who got their name “Greece” from the fact they ate Grease; I am NOT making that up).

  112. dee wrote:

    I agree with you. I also know some families whose children have walked away from the faith over this issue and they still will not bend. It totally shocks me.

    Defenders of the Faith/True Believers.

  113. Paul D. wrote:

    Insistence on young earth creationism is pernicious for another reason. It forces Christians to adopt a worldview in which the entire scientific endeavour, from astrophysics to biology, geology, paleontology and anthropology, is filled with hundreds of thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to learning yet are part of a global conspiracy to suppress Christianity.

    “If your Conspiracy Theory doesn’t fit the facts, INVENT A BIGGER CONSPIRACY!”
    — Kooks Magazine

    Until like the last verse of Bob Dylan’s “Talking John Birch Society Blues”, you get to the point that EVERYONE and EVERYTHING other than yourself HAVE to be part of The Conspiracy:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AylFqdxRMwE

    The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.

  114. okrapod wrote:

    OldJohnj gave us this quote from Mohler: “an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems, and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and why it matters.”

    Actually, he is absolutely correct about that. It is easier with far fewer complications from a theological standpoint, more straightforward, more uncomplicated.

    It is a childs view, meant to be expanded upon as they grow, imo.

  115. okrapod wrote:

    Ian wrote:

    If fundamentalists want to ignore science, let them, but it scares me when mainstream evangelicals adopt the same approach.

    Me too. There is just a lot of rallying around some extreme cause in the US. Religion. Politics. Even clothing: prairie dresses vs wardrobe failures. We seem to have grown weary with the ordinary and the same and crave the far out and the spectacular and the dramatic, not to forget the weird. We want bigger and better circuses. Not only Ham but lots of folks are finding plenty of money in turning evangelicalism into a circus.

    And, sadly, a lot of what happens in the US tends to make it way back across the pond eventually.

  116. Lea wrote:

    okrapod wrote:

    OldJohnj gave us this quote from Mohler: “an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems, and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and why it matters.”

    Actually, he is absolutely correct about that. It is easier with far fewer complications from a theological standpoint, more straightforward, more uncomplicated.

    It is a childs view, meant to be expanded upon as they grow, imo.

    The problem is that our God-given brains tell us that God did something different to what Mohler’s simple reading suggests. But we’ve been there before:

    Only a few hundred years ago, Mohler’s theological ancestors were saying that if the earth moves, then the Bible is false. They used the same reasoning as today – a simple, straightforward, literal reading of the Bible told them that the earth is stationary. But they were wrong. They eventually accepted the science, and Christianity didn’t fall apart.

    Then the focus shifted to slavery. Again, Mohler’s theological (and denominational this time) ancestors rejected abolitionism for the same reason. A simple, straightforward, literal reading of the Bible told them that God was happy with slavery. They were wrong.

    Those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat its mistakes…

  117. It seems that most of the persons reading this blog are old-earthers. I believe in a young earth but am bothered by the anger/snark surrounding this issue…a judgement mentality that condemns others who disagree. I personally think Ken Ham comes off as arrogant and I also thing that he does not have much scientific training so I respect other guys who are true scientists that also believe in a young earth. Personally I think there are problems presented by the evolutionary crowd, and that no one has all their ducks in a row on this issue. But I hope that the old-earthers can also show a little grace to the young-eathers, as I wish to show to those who disagree with me. I am reaaallly bothered when the “literal” crowd says you HAVE to believe in the literal interpreation to be a Christian. This bothers me a lot…the attitude of people surrounding this issue.

  118. abigail wrote:

    I am reaaallly bothered when the “literal” crowd says you HAVE to believe in the literal interpreation to be a Christian. This bothers me a lot…the attitude of people surrounding this issue.

    Abigail, I think that all the incivility comes from the YEC crowd. I’m not aware of any from the old-earthers, who conduct themselves with integrity. But if I’ve failed to do so, I apologise.

  119. abigail wrote:

    … anger/snark surrounding this issue…a judgement mentality that condemns others who disagree … But I hope that the old-earthers can also show a little grace to the young-eathers, as I wish to show to those who disagree with me.

    To be honest many of us have. Most of the time we just walk away or keep silent while people make rude comments to us. I have been there so many times ….

    As Dee can tell you, when she wanted to do a 10 week session on old and young earth in our Sunday school class I said this might not go well. It didn’t. We would up with about 1/2 of the class walking out and basically calling us various things like stupid, not really a Christian, etc…

    When EVERY SINGLE TIME we do try and have a discussion in the real world (not on a blog) we are basically treated with rudeness or utter disbelief that we attend a Christian church.

    At times it can be really dispiriting.

    All the while these YEC true believers happily trust their iPhone mapping, electronics of all kinds, MRI before needed surgery, turn on the light switch and like the nuclear power from down the road, and yet talk about the evil science that says YEC isn’t scientific.

  120. @ abigail:

    I think YEC is wrong and unscientific. I don’t think people who believe in it are not christians, though. That’s the difference.

  121. @ abigail:

    The issues of young/old earth, scientifcally speaking, has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. An old earth stands by itself, based on phyisics and geology. YEC constantly link the two concepts, and paint a conspiracy on top of it! A read of history shows that geologist we developing old earth thinking before Darwin came along, and radioactive dating, which comes out of quantum mechanisc and thechemistry of isotopes was also Completely independent of evolutionary biology. However, YEC reutinely create this worldwide comspiricy theory, and attack the character of scientist saying it all about destroying christainity….. that is the last thin on their minds..

    I am a practicing scientist at a “secular” university, and i do not one respectable scientist that belives in a young earth… unless they are just keeping it to themselves

  122. @ Lea:

    Lea, that is a GREAT point… it never crossed my mind that a YEC is not a Christain, at least in the past i never thought that…. but, now as i dig really deeply into it, the level of decption and outright misrepresentation of facts/statements/data makes me wonder…. but that is based on behavior, not a scientific belive….
    But i also have had my faith Attacked to many times to count by YEC….

  123. GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    When EVERY SINGLE TIME we do try and have a discussion in the real world (not on a blog) we are basically treated with rudeness or utter disbelief that we attend a Christian church.
    At times it can be really dispiriting.
    All the while these YEC true believers happily trust their iPhone mapping, electronics of all kinds, MRI before needed surgery, turn on the light switch and like the nuclear power from down the road, and yet talk about the evil science that says YEC isn’t scientific.

    Exactly.

    I had never heard anything more idiotic than Young Earth Creation at my ex-NeoCalvinist/9 Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church. My grandmother, who died at 102 years of age, was a Presbyterian. She and her sister both graduated with degrees in the hard sciences in the 1920’s from a well-known university. They worked on the teams of Nobel Prize-winning researchers.

    My grandmother and her friends believed in an Old Earth and were still Christians. They weren’t mutually exclusive, like they are to Young Earthers.

    I am so glad to be out of that hot mess of a church. Grandma was right!

  124. @ Jeffrey J Chalmers:
    Hi JEFFREY,
    I think the worst I have seen is when people say that God is ‘testing’ their faith by leaving evidence of Old Earth geology to tempt them away from YEC …… to me this is a kind of blasphemy against God, but I wonder if such people even realize that it is an insult to Him ???

  125. @ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
    I guess people feel threatened when what they cling to as their security is challenged. Perhaps fear is the motivation for their reactions to perspectives that too closely examine what they themselves have never questioned?

    An awful lot of ‘negative’ in religious circles arises from fearfulness,
    hence all these man-made ‘gospels’ that are so far from the Good News.

  126. abigail wrote:

    This bothers me a lot…the attitude of people surrounding this issue.

    Abigail, you are right about the need to show grace
    and I am as guilty as the next one in failing to do so

  127. Nancy2 wrote:

    A day? Consider the universe that God created. Is a day on Earth the same as a day on Jupiter? How long is a day on recently discovered planets? What is a day to God? Is He really that concerned about hours, seconds, minutes, and nanoseconds?

    You have the same questions I keep asking. What do we know so far? We know that the worlds of the very big and the very small (and just maybe by extension, the worlds of the very long and the very short also) do not play by the same rules. Einstein and Bohr argued incessantly about this… does too! … does not! … does too! …
    You’re a mathophile, and as you can see, if we convert this to an infinite series problem, it goes precisely nowhere.
    You might enjoy this you tube vid lecture given by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He seems to bridge the gap between the pendulum extremes of atheistic science and Ken Ham’s theological agenda:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utvFJ0v6-iU

  128. Muff Potter wrote:

    You might enjoy this you tube vid lecture given by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He seems to bridge the gap between the pendulum extremes of atheistic science and Ken Ham’s theological agenda:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utvFJ0v6-iU

    I love Gerald Schroeder’s effort to follow the old Judaic tradition of ‘resolving’ differences between extreme points of view. I remember reading his book “The Science of God” long ago. He is working from the principle that ‘time’ is relative, and he does an interesting job in his arguments.

    Is he ‘right’? Or does he raise more questions than provide answers?

    I think he makes room for mystery in the midst of opposing people who ‘know that THEIR SIDE is right’.

    The people who create a space for opposing sides to come and sit down and to ponder something together …. those people are a blessing in our world, yes.

  129. @ Christiane:

    This is a great question…. when a YEC calls us a “compromiser” ( or worse) how should we react? I was on a mission trip with another group i did not know, and when the leader knew i did not believe in YEC, we came at me multiple times…. i was willing to not bring it, but he keep asking me, so i said i can not hold YEC, there is to much evidence otherwise….. we went the usual path, and i never questioned his “spiritual” faith, but boy he did to me….

    I believe in pursuit of truth, and intregrety… I can not hold YEC becuase it violates both of these principles…. given how much Christains like to through around “Truth” with a capital “T”, and integruty, it seems that i should be able to call a spad a spad…. but “keep the peace” i typically keep my mouth shut..

  130. abigail wrote:

    I believe in a young earth but am bothered by the anger/snark surrounding this issue…a judgement mentality that condemns others who disagree.

    It’s a very emotional topic for many people on both sides. I used to be YEC because I did not know any better. When I switched to OEC I had friends who were generally concerned for my salvation. In my own experience, YECs are have been pushy and abusive. I’ve experienced many YECs who make this a major issue almost on par with salvation. But I’ve never seen an OEC treat YECs in the same manner as they treat us. But this is just my own experience.

    Also, the debate is much more nuanced that YECs make it sound because there is much more going on than just whether or not Darwinian evolution is true. Darwinian evolution has its weak points, such as trying to explain the Cambrian Explosion (which put turned the evolutionary tree upside down), but scientists are generally trying to follow the evidence where it leads. YECs cannot follow the evidence where it leads because it leads in the wrong direction for them.

  131. Nancy2 wrote:

    A day? Consider the universe that God created. Is a day on Earth the same as a day on Jupiter? How long is a day on recently discovered planets? What is a day to God? Is He really that concerned about hours, seconds, minutes, and nanoseconds?

    I read one author who presented that case that time itself changed in a relativistic way as the universe expanded. Meaning that when the universe was very compressed time was running much more slowly relative to how we see it today. I don’t remember the details, but it was interesting. I think the bottom line is it does not really matter than much how God did it. The exquisite fine-tuning of the universe and the impossibly improbable series of events required for a plant to sustain advanced life pretty strongly speak to the need for a supernatural agent.

  132. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Do you know how today’s Flat Earth Society got started?
    From a Victorian movement called “Zetetic Astronomy” whose Mission Statement was to Defend SCRIPTURE from Vain Imagings of Men/Godless Science (like the world is round).

    The flat earth / geocentric model was still being promoted by American creationists in the 60s, particularly among Missouri Synod Lutherans — who, along with Seventh-Day Adventists, were the main proponents of young earth creationism until modern institutions like the ICR and Ken Ham’s AIG popularized creationism among mainstream evangelicals.

  133. Ken F wrote:

    I’ve experienced many YECs who make this a major issue almost on par with salvation. But I’ve never seen an OEC treat YECs in the same manner as they treat us. But this is just my own experience.

    That has also been my experience, having been a member of a NeoCalvinist/9Marxist church that believed in a Young Earth. Young Earthers, including pastors/elders, deacons, and other church members were positively hateful to people who believed in an Old Earth, going as far as to accuse them of not being Christians, and not being “Biblical”, and not believing in the “Inerrancy of Scripture [the Chicago Statement].”

    By the way, I reject the Chicago Statement because the men behind it, in my opinion, are evil. They believe in slavery, including for non-Christians [apparently anyone not in lock-step with their crazy beliefs], deny the Holocaust took place, and hate the Jewish people.

  134. Velour wrote:

    The other reason that the NeoCalvinists propose a Young Earth Creation story, perhaps more important than even an argument about evolution, is the need to make women second-class and ‘obey’ and ‘submit’ to men in ‘all things’. The NeoCalvinists insist that they are interpreting the Bible “literally” from Genesis through the other books of the Bible.

    I heard it all at my ex-NeoCalvinist church in Silicon Valley [Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley].

    Slapping my forehead!
    Of course!
    Any weak links in the chain-mail armor of Genesis means the vaunted Order Of Creation is suspect and who knows WHAT those filthy women will want to do, next, if the patriarchs can’t make them take the fall for The Fall.
    It all makes sense — of a twisted, manipulative sort.

  135. @ abigail:
    For me, this is a highly charged topic.
    This may get me censured but here goes.
    I’ve yet to hear a YEC argument that doesn’t involve some form of dishonesty.
    But let’s say YEC is true. Why does it default to the Christian God? Why not the Norse gods or the Hindu gods or the Egyptian gods?
    I’ll have to bow out of this thread. I can’t be ‘balanced’ in this discussion.

  136. Muff Potter wrote:

    You might enjoy this you tube vid lecture given by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He seems to bridge the gap between the pendulum extremes of atheistic science and Ken Ham’s theological agenda:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utvFJ0v6-iU

    I was more mesmerized by what was written on the board than the lecture.
    I’ve never seen creation expressed like this before: the first “day” = 14 billion years, with each “day” decreasing in length. TTBOMK, the “days” come close to meshing with scientific studies. Interesting view.

  137. Ken F wrote:

    @ GSD:
    It gets worse. If he created the universe with the appearance of age, how do we know that it was not created a few minutes ago with the appearance of age? Where does the deception stop? Talk about slippery slopes.

    THAT particular one is actually called “Last Thursdayism”.

  138. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    YEC say that the “constants” in these equation are not really “constant”! How convient…. they should not trust any of physics then, because at any minute these fundamental constants might change? Hay, maybe gravity might change tomorrow…

    According to Mohammed abu-Hamid al-Ghazali, that is EXACTLY the case.
    “IN’SHAL’LAH…”

  139. dee wrote:

    Ken Ham Worte this his wife, Marnie was not only submissive, but very, very submissive.

    Fred Phelps’ wife was also “very, very submissive”. Reverend Hubby would wail on his (and presumably her) kids right in front of her with a pickaxe handle for ten screaming minutes at a stretch and she’d just sit there blubbering, unable to lift even a finger to protect them.

  140. I will put my cards on the table and saw that I lean towards a literal six day creation and a young earth. However as we agree it is not a salvation issue and I dislike the lack of grace that many creationists have shown on this matter. I think it is fair to give a hearing to other views as surface readings of Scripture applied without understanding the original languages or historical context can result in serious error.

    I also don’t agree with how many creationists take creationism as their control text and starting point. Our control texts should be Christ’s command to “love one another” and to love your neighbour as yourself. I remember reading an correspondence between Answers in Genesis and a gay man and AiG were rude and abusive to him. I have met other creationists who have been rude and mean to people for having pre-marital sex. I know another that slammed theistic evolutionists for “departing from the gospel”. That alienated a large portion of the body of Christ.

    I know many people here disagree with me on this issue but I much prefer being on here with you all. You show much more love and grace which is far more value to God. 1 Corinthians 13: “if I know all mysteries and all knowledge but do not have love it profits me nothing”. It doesn’t matter how much one knows and how much campaigning someone does for a particular ideology if it is not motivated by love.

  141. ZechZav wrote:

    I know many people here disagree with me on this issue but I much prefer being on here with you all. You show much more love and grace which is far more value to God. 1 Corinthians 13: “if I know all mysteries and all knowledge but do not have love it profits me nothing”. It doesn’t matter how much one knows and how much campaigning someone does for a particular ideology if it is not motivated by love.

    Spot on.

    Thank you.

  142. JeffT wrote:

    The foundation of Calvinist theology is is that God has predetermined and predestined every event that occurs, no matter how small, yet hey refuse to follow their own theology to its inescapable conclusion. That is, God predetermined and predestined the human ‘fall’, therefore, God has to be the author of sin. Calvinists have performed innumerable mental gymnastics trying to explain why this is not so, but none of them make any sense.

    The Westminster Confession proves your point:

    “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

    That is like saying “I am the author of this book and I wrote absolutely everything in it. But I am not responsible for any of the mistakes in there”.

  143. abigail wrote:

    am reaaallly bothered when the “literal” crowd says you HAVE to believe in the literal interpreation to be a Christian. This bothers me a lot…the attitude of people surrounding this issue.

    The “literalist” mentality is dangerous and I used to be in this camp. Literalism and legalism are twins and it is an adherence to the letter and not the spirit. It is rigid commitment to the book and not to the author of it. What God wants from us is not rigid adherence to a particular creed or dogma but a heart full of love for him, love for our brothers in Christ and love for our neighbours.

  144. ZechZav wrote:

    That is like saying “I am the author of this book and I wrote absolutely everything in it. But I am not responsible for any of the mistakes in there”.

    Very good analogy. Considering how strongly Calvinists claim precision in the theology, I have never been able to understand why they fail to acknowledge this glaring inconsistency. It’s not the only inconsistency in this confession, but it’s a big one.

  145. ZechZav wrote:

    It doesn’t matter how much one knows and how much campaigning someone does for a particular ideology if it is not motivated by love.

    “A new commandment I give to you, that you lovecriticize one another over minor doctrinal disputes, even as I have lovedcriticized you, that you also lovecriticize one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one anothertear into one another over doctrinal disputes that have nothing to do with salvation.”

  146. Jack wrote:

    I’ve yet to hear a YEC argument that doesn’t involve some form of dishonesty.

    I make a distinction between people who just don’t know, and people who do know and lie.

  147. @ Lea:
    Lea is correct….. but, it is my experience that when you try to explain the scientific problems with YEC, those that are just repeating what they have heard get mad and resistant.
    There are many case discribed in the internet, and my own personal experiences that when you try to dicuss the scientific problems with YEC, the YEC quickly changes the arguement to an attack on your belief in the Bible….. it happens time after time…. so, YEC goes after you personally, not your scientifc argument…

  148. ZechZav wrote:

    their control text and starting point. Our control texts should be Christ’s command to “love one another” and to love your neighbour as yourself.

    Wow, “Control text”. Good term. Excellent explanation.

  149. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    @ Lea:
    Lea is correct….. but, it is my experience that when you try to explain the scientific problems with YEC, those that are just repeating what they have heard get mad and resistant.
    There are many case discribed in the internet, and my own personal experiences that when you try to dicuss the scientific problems with YEC, the YEC quickly changes the arguement to an attack on your belief in the Bible….. it happens time after time…. so, YEC goes after you personally, not your scientifc argument…

    There are few, if any, scientists who are YEC. The boffins who understand the science far better than people like us simply do not regard YEC as a valid reading of the Bible.

  150. Let me make this personal, in a scientific sort of way!
    Just last week I as the oral surgeon, and had an X-ray. They put a lead blanket on my, and the tech hid behind a lead wall when she “pushed the button”. Why, because we trust the quantum mechanics and the constants that are used to design and operated the equipment so that we did not get “cooked” by the X-rays. The same for MRI, but in that case, a screw-up would not necessarily result in our getting cooked. NASA has a satellite that is just leaving our solar system. We can talk to it, and we do, because we understand, in this case, Newtonian physics and its constants to a very, very, very accurate level (this satellite has a weak radio, so we really have to know where we are looking). So, modern technology, which we all depend on, and trust in the case of X-rays and MRI are based on modern physics.
    Fast forward to YEC’s “RATE” project.
    A group of YEC geologists put together a study to try to refute radioactive dating of rocks. When a geologist digs up a radioactive rock, they can date it by measuring the various amounts of different radioactive elements. Science knows the radioactive break down pathways of rocks, and the ½ life of these elements. It is relatively straight forward to “back out” how old the rock is by knowing the amounts of the different elements since we know their radioactive breakdown pathway. There are nice web pages explaining this as well as the American Scientific Affiliation, which the Dee’s have a link to at the top of their blog.
    So, after their “RATE” study, the published a many hundred page document.. Buried in it, they admit that there would have to be period of time when the constants are not “constant” and the rate of radioactive decay would have to accelerate at an absurdly rapid rate… and it happened during the flood! A simple energy balance says that it would probably boil off the oceans.. and I would hate to see what the ark looked like! This is the level of contortions the YEC have to go to try to explain a young earth… and they do know what they are talking about!

  151. @ Lea:
    There are a few of reasons I am passionate on this topic.
    1 education is the key to the future. The YEC movement has an agenda to dress their religion up as science. They start with a much translated bronze age myth and bash the “evidence” to fit or just plain make it up, or cry “conspiracy!”. We need scientists & engineers to stay competitive and solve the problems we all face. America should be proud of its tradition of innovation. YEC undermines that.
    2. My wife’s church is wholly into YEC belief. It is in the Sunday school curriculum to challenge secular education. Kids are supposed to write on exams something to the effect “I don’t really believe this but I’m writing it to obtain the required mark”. This way God knows what side they really are on. This isn’t some live and let live exercise. I’m going to be fighting this war very close to home. My plan had been to let the kids go to church and decide for themselves what to believe. How are they supposed to accept Christian truth when the church is lying to them? My wife is not open to switching churches and all the evangelical ones in our area are into biblical literalism. Fun times ahead. Yay.

  152. abigail wrote:

    It seems that most of the persons reading this blog are old-earthers. I believe in a young earth but am bothered by the anger/snark surrounding this issue…a judgement mentality that condemns others who disagree.

    You’re right, Abigail, it’s not helpful to direct snark at everyone who holds a different perspective. My snark was really directed at Del Tackett, the guy who made this movie that played on Fathom. My concern with prominent YECs like this is that they have the potential to influence lots of US Christians, and convince them that YEC is the only valid view for a believer.

    I hope that snark didn’t spill over to sincere believers like yourself, who hold the view that their interpretation is not the only valid possibility. For me, this isn’t just about creation theories, but also about issues like the Atonement, predestination, eschatology, ecclesiology, and other ologies that I can’t think of without more coffee.

    We need to be able to discuss all of the secondary [but very important] issues. My concern is that people like Ham and Tackett are elevating the creation debate to a primary issue, and taking it off the table of discussion.

  153. @ Jack:
    Tell your wife and church that i am ine of thoses ” evil secular professors…. it is not the first time i have been called by good church people…
    The irony is that i went to IFB, YEC 7-12 grades, and i was told it was “pious” to study and work hard in school… i like math and science, contiuned to pursue and do well at it, and noe I am a compromising secular scientist, even evil in some good christains minds….

  154. PS, sorry for typos, and i am not makiing it up…. i have literally been criticized for doing what i am good at!!!! I am a evil secular scientist leading people away… or so The story goes

  155. Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    Buried in it, they admit that there would have to be period of time when the constants are not “constant” and the rate of radioactive decay would have to accelerate at an absurdly rapid rate…

    I think the YECs have also said that the speed of light might have been different in the past. The problem is that the speed of light is a fundamental constant that affects virtually everything, and the universe simply couldn’t hold together if it changed. As far as I know, all the YEC reasoning is not science.

    I’m much happier with an approach which looks at the universe and asks “what did God do” and then reads the Bible accordingly, rather than deciding what the Bible says and requiring science to agree.

  156. Ian wrote:

    I’m much happier with an approach which looks at the universe and asks “what did God do” and then reads the Bible accordingly, rather than deciding what the Bible says and requiring science to agree.

    Great comment.

  157. @ Ian:
    Ian is correct, I have heard them say that as well….. that is why I keep harping on “constants”… and YEC willing to say constants are not “constant” when their back is against the wall…. they will also try blow smoke about “evolution”, but i prefer to stick to physics….. and constants…..
    i was “trained” by campus crusade to use the ” modernistic” approach of Josh McDowell “Evidence that demands a verdict”… O.K., physics demands thus verdict, changing the rules and saying, well the constants are “constants” unless we need to change them to fit our YEC narative fundamentally goes againt this moderistic appologetic!
    Try using this logic in a court of law!!

  158. Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    they admit that there would have to be period of time when the constants are not “constant” and the rate of radioactive decay would have to accelerate at an absurdly rapid rate… and it happened during the flood! A simple energy balance says that it would probably boil off the oceans.. and I would hate to see what the ark looked like! This is the level of contortions the YEC have to go to try to explain a young earth… and they do know what they are talking about!

    At my ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church many of them used these same silly arguments. It was akin to being around people who insist that 2+2=5.

  159. Lea wrote:

    Jack wrote:
    I’ve yet to hear a YEC argument that doesn’t involve some form of dishonesty.
    I make a distinction between people who just don’t know, and people who do know and lie.

    Great point. One thing I put a lot of blame on was the rally cry of inerrancy about 40 years ago. And the Chicago Statement that codified cognitive dissonance in scripture interpretation. IMO, That was a knee jerk response to all the really smart cool people trashing scripture as a whole. The result , For some reason, was that “literal and inerrant” became synonymous. Scripture is not either in totality. It became sinful to take ancient communication devices and the pagan backdrop into consideration. So defending scripture was the key, not increasing understanding. In the SBC, I read about Ralph Elliott and his book on Genesis that evidently caused a stir in SBC academic circles before my time.

    It was part of our society approaching every issue with an “either/or” mentality and shutting down discussion.

  160. abigail wrote:

    But I hope that the old-earthers can also show a little grace to the young-eathers, as I wish to show to those who disagree with me.

    I love your name. My daughter is Abigail and I named her after Abigail Adams who I admired as a teenager.

    Let me explain the problem from the other side. Most conservative churches today insist on a YEC viewpoint. If one disagrees with this, as I did in a former church, you can get kicked out of Sunday school classes (as happened to a friend of mine), be told you are bordering on heresy or even told you are a heretic, etc.

    YEC adherents hold the sway in many churches today and attack, as happened to me in a Sunday school class I taught in which I allowed a respectful debate from both sides of the issue. The YE cavalry descended on my class and caused people to stand outside the door. They were so rude that I had to insist that questions be handed in on index cards. It finally got so bad, I refused to continue to be the moderator.

    Frankly, it is the YEC zealots who have caused this mess. That is why some of us who hold to other points of view need to be strong in countering the other side. We are the minority speaking out.

    This blog goes after abuse in churches. I believe that many churches abuse those who do not hold to YEC so I have decided this bog will advocate for the OEC/EC/TE.

    I attend a church whose denomination considers YEC an important issue. However, my church does not mention it at all. There is a respect there that is missing in many churches.

    So, when you read anger directed to the YEC position, remember that there are those of us who have been hurt by churches regarding this and be sensitive to us.

    However, as CS Lewis said, “No one goes to hell for believing that God has a white beard.” I think all of us need to be sensitive and give each other freedom to pursue the right of conscience.

  161. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    Tell your wife and church that i am ine of thoses ” evil secular professors

    And I must be one of those mislead heretics who like “evil secular professors.”

  162. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Reverend Hubby would wail on his (and presumably her) kids right in front of her with a pickaxe handle for ten screaming minutes at a stretch and she’d just sit there blubbering, unable to lift even a finger to protect them.

    I did not know this.

    BTW: I overlooked in old email from you. Just discovered it. Can you give me an update on how things are going medically?

  163. @ Velour:
    If I had been a “good little christain”, i would have gone to Christain Heritage college or Los Angeles Baptist college , (pushed by my IFB HS).
    Los Angles Baptist College became The Master’ University of John MacArthur fame…..

  164. Jack wrote:

    The YEC movement has an agenda to dress their religion up as science. They start with a much translated bronze age myth and bash the “evidence” to fit

    A bit like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08TrO1dSVWQ

    My apologies if this is the wrong place to add a little levity. I know you’re concerned about your wife and your kids, and how they’ll deal with that mess. I hope you all get through it.

  165. GSD wrote:

    My concern with prominent YECs like this is that they have the potential to influence lots of US Christians, and convince them that YEC is the only valid view for a believer.

    So what does that say about lots of U.S. ixtians? Are they that tied up in what others believe and write books on that they can’t critically think for themselves?

  166. Ian wrote:

    Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:
    Buried in it, they admit that there would have to be period of time when the constants are not “constant” and the rate of radioactive decay would have to accelerate at an absurdly rapid rate…
    I think the YECs have also said that the speed of light might have been different in the past. The problem is that the speed of light is a fundamental constant that affects virtually everything, and the universe simply couldn’t hold together if it changed. As far as I know, all the YEC reasoning is not science.
    I’m much happier with an approach which looks at the universe and asks “what did God do” and then reads the Bible accordingly, rather than deciding what the Bible says and requiring science to agree.

    I would also add that biological evidence thought to support evolution is found not only in the fossil record, but abundantly in genetics and molecular biology. I have not seen YEC address these issues in a consistent way. (I look forward to reading the new book on Adam and the Genome.) In fact, I have never heard of anyone refusing genetic or molecular testing for a medical condition, or declining molecular-based cancer therapies, etc, because they don’t trust the underlying science because it’s not biblical. (Even guidelines for antibiotic use are partially determined by the potential for selection or “evolution” of a bacterial population to lead to resistance.) It seems disingenuous to condemn scientists for the work they do, yet be perfectly willing to benefit from the science when it suits you.

  167. @ caroline:
    Yup…. further torment for us that know all of this, and the YEC continued attacking modern biology, yet the sure benefit from it… and they DO NOT like it when you point this out!!

  168. okrapod wrote:

    We seem to have grown weary with the ordinary and the same and crave the far out and the spectacular and the dramatic, not to forget the weird. We want bigger and better circuses.

    Lewis warned us about it, too.

    “The horror of the Same Old Thing is one of the most valuable passions we have produced in the human heart—an endless source of heresies in religion, folly in counsel, infidelity in marriage, and inconstancy in friendship… by inflaming the horror of the Same Old Thing we have recently made the Arts, for example, less dangerous to us than perhaps, they have ever been, “low-brow” and “high-brow” artists alike being now daily drawn into fresh, and still fresh, excesses of lasciviousness, unreason, cruelty, and pride.”

  169. @ Jeffrey J . Chalmers:
    I try not to get into the debate, because it never ends well. But once I was told that molecular biology is man-made knowledge, an attempt to understand things that are beyond us. I replied, “Well so is theology!”

  170. @ Muff Potter:

    You’ve heard the pejorative term ‘Cafeteria Catholic’?
    I don’t consider it a pejorative at all, because I see myself a salad bar Protestant. I don’t eschew the salad bar altogether because I don’t like the garbanzo beans, I simply pick and choose what I put on my plate.
    For me, Christianity is not an all or nothing proposition.

  171. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    @ Velour:
    If I had been a “good little christain”, i would have gone to Christain Heritage college or Los Angeles Baptist college , (pushed by my IFB HS).
    Los Angles Baptist College became The Master’ University of John MacArthur fame…..

    Oh that explains it. My ex-senior pastor [Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley] went to John MacArthur’s The Master’s College and The Master’s Seminary. He rounded out his sub-par education at these cult schools by buying two advanced degrees from a Missouri diploma mill, including a Phony Degree (cough Ph.D.) for $299. In other words, you get what you pay for!

  172. @ dee:

    hi, dee. i’m sure this is not a neat-&-tidy question, but i’m interested to know the how/why you believe in an actual Garden of Eden. And i understand if there’s not enough time to respond.

  173. Ian wrote:

    I’m much happier with an approach which looks at the universe and asks “what did God do” and then reads the Bible accordingly, rather than deciding what the Bible says and requiring science to agree.

    My view on science has always been science is the how, God is the why.

  174. Muff Potter wrote:

    So what does that say about lots of U.S. ixtians? Are they that tied up in what others believe and write books on that they can’t critically think for themselves?

    My concern is for kids who are being educated without a wider view of science. At least the ones in public schools and most colleges are going to be exposed to other ideas and can decide for themselves.

  175. Christiane wrote:

    I wonder if the YOUNG Earth folks realize how much they are missing when they take something like the Book of Genesis and try to make it what it is not nor ever could be?
    There is a film about boys at a prep school studying poetry in a way that kills everything about it that it was meant to convey ….. and a teacher comes who shows them ‘another way’. I suspect that the ‘young Earth’ folk need to examine Genesis with new eyes because they are missing so much. (Of course, if they did, they might have to change some of their bedrock opinions upon which they have hung their ‘gospel’, and that may be too much to expect of them for now)

    That is so true. There is a lot going on in the Genesis account that is different from the old pagan creation stories. The God in Genesis seems more transcendent than the gods in pagan myths and yet the God in Genesis is depicted as walking with people. People are from dust like the animals but God breathed life into Adam. Genesis borrows from middle-eastern cosmologies but has important differences. The stars are objects and not gods or other beings. An ancient pagan being told of the Genesis account would find it shockingly “godless” – just one mysterious god is mentioned, and people rarely see this god and only a few people on special occasions hear his voice.

    But of course, the literalists miss a lot of this. With them, the main thing is to support the literal, historical, and scientific truth of the ancient Israelite cosmology and above all else avoid seeing this cosmology as a vehicle to describe more important things. So they pour the wine onto the ground and venerate the empty wine bottle. They count the number of years in the genealogies and insist on a 24 hour “day.” Finally, they might argue about what is a “Biblical” view of fossils or maybe what the Christian view of the speed of light should be – it doesn’t matter that these things are not mentioned in the Bible. And by the way, if you think fossils are from ancient creatures or that the speed of light has always been a constant, then you don’t understand the Bible because you aren’t “saved.”

    I am saddened at how many churches get caught up in this – every time science discovers something new or old – maybe a previously unknown fossil or a new discovery about DNA – whatever it is, people like Ken Ham will decide what the “Biblical” view is of things that aren’t even mentioned in the Bible and many churches will fall right into line and use this as a litmus test to see if you are “saved.”

    I think the Catholic Church is great about accepting science and the Bible – without fundamentalist literalism and without a “liberal” tendency to gloss over difficult texts – I think it is refreshingly balanced. I am not Catholic myself but I think a lot of Protestent or non-denominational churches could learn a lot from the Catholic approach to the Bible and science. But I think sola scriptura often gets turned into a wodden literalism so that any reading that is not literalistic is seen as an attack on the Bible.

  176. All cultures have creation stories, sometimes called “myths”. All of them may contain some truths about the creation of that culture.

    The ancient Hebrews appear to have adopted a creation story that is a conjunction of at least two such stories, and, according to the best available research, was rendered into written form during the Babylonian exile, although there may have been earlier writing that contained it.

    But what is says about God is likely the true part of that story. Some things in Genesis appear to be not only improbable but impossible — people living hundreds of years, as an example. And the last chapters of Genesis likely have some basis in history, understood from verbal transmission for generations before being put in writing.

    Even Exodus contains some things that are highly improbable as presented, but may reflect the culture’s understanding of otherwise unexplainable events. But the general trend of the story likely reflects history.

    But none of the above matters. The oral traditions of a culture underlie its written traditions and establish concepts that are critical to that culture. That oral culture produced modern ideas of “original sin”, a loving and benevolent God (rare in ancient cultures), etc. That all humans have a tendency to act solely on their own behalf and take undo advantage of others is a “sin nature” that requires some form of redemption if society is to be anything but a rapacious nightmare.

    I believe that Jesus was God in a human body, died to rescue me from my sin nature, and, as I have accepted his death and resurrection as true, will provide for me in the afterlife. And I have held that belief through 60 years, including an extensive education in science and cultural anthropology, as well as law.

  177. I find this a difficult subject to discuss because I am not trained in science and usually evolution people do not answer my questions but rather mock, intimidate or shame me into silence. I am told I “believe in a little man in the sky”. No; I believe the universe exists within this being I call God and through his infinite intelligence/wisdom and creative power. “For in Him we live and move and have our being.” “and in Him all things hold together.”

    Some read Genesis and see a cartoon. I read it and see that in the beginning, God created space and matter (God created the heavens and the earth), energy (light), time (separated the light from the darkness), the earth/planets (Let there be an expanse / Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear), life (Let the earth sprout vegetation), reproduction (Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind), mankind (Let Us make man in Our image) etc, etc. Okay, maybe I am not using the precise scientific words for the aspects of creation that Genesis relates but my feeling is that while it is worded in simplicity an untrained people can understand, it also contains profound truth, and in a beautiful, poetic form. I don’t see silly stories but rather simplified accounts.

    Could God create in six literal days? What is a “day”? How is “day” defined? Did it only begin when the earth began to rotate around the sun? Or was the solar system modeled on a pre-existing concept that God wanted to represent in another form?

    We are formed of the dust of the earth; yes our bodies are made up of the same elements the earth is formed of, yet arranged and infused with the mystery of life. And when we die, our bodies break back down into those elements and return to the earth.

    Some things are beyond our knowledge. From the time I was a little girl to this day, I am perplexed that adults make forceful proclamations about things they cannot know. We can grope, we can ponder, we can believe, but we cannot know. Is there something inherently wrong with saying “I don’t know”? I can’t know?

    The age of the earth, as measured by our current abilities is very old. Yet, if I understand correctly, we have only a record of mankind of around 6,000 years? Isn’t it likely that there is much more to the epoch of the universe than what could fit in one chapter of a book intended to be understood by all? Yet that book can be true, as far as it goes. Perhaps the mistake is that we read our own ideas into the spaces between the lines and try to define things much too far.

    There are a few differences between evolution and special creation. In creation we have things created in a state of perfection, falling into a broken condition, and continuing in a state of “groaning”, awaiting redemption. In evolution, we have an imperfect beginning and things continuing on a path to betterment (in theory but do we see this in reality?) In creation, God begins with one human being, separates it into two, and begins the human race, a brotherhood of all. In evolution, we have the miraculous development of many humans and (what I find amazing) there are apparently enough male and female coincidentally developing that are capable of reproducing, leading to strains of humanity, some of which may be “further along” than others. In creation, death is an interloper, an enemy who will ultimately be defeated. In evolution, it is a natural process that is a needful part of progress towards betterment. These concepts are very different.

    Anyways, I hope my meanderings don’t lead to mocking or exclusion. I’m probably saying things that those trained in science see as foolish or ridiculous. I cannot imagine expanding the definition of “Christian” beyond a believer in Jesus Christ. I am content that we see things differently and would hope we could live in peace with each other, learning from each other, and not feeling threatened by each other, all of us who go by the name Christian but who see the beginning through different lenses.

  178. When my children were very young, I was listening to a conversation they were having in the backseat when we were driving one time. They were discussing whether or not God created cookies. Did God create cookies or does mom make cookies? This discussion went on for awhile and finally my oldest son articulated that God created the ingredients (butter, wheat, etc) and people made up the idea of cookies out of those.

    I think a lot of the time our discussions on origins are actually on a similar level, as compared to the wisdom and knowledge of God.

  179. Ian wrote:

    I’m much happier with an approach which looks at the universe and asks “what did God do” and then reads the Bible accordingly, rather than deciding what the Bible says and requiring science to agree.

    Is it possible to dig into the universe around us, seeking knowledge and understanding, without having to have an allegiance to a specific belief about origins? Can a person leave that space open? I ask this honestly.

  180. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Fred Phelps’ wife was also “very, very submissive”. Reverend Hubby would wail on his (and presumably her) kids right in front of her with a pickaxe handle for ten screaming minutes at a stretch and she’d just sit there blubbering, unable to lift even a finger to protect them.

    God help the man who would try to harm one of my kids.

  181. siteseer wrote:

    Is there something inherently wrong with saying “I don’t know”? I can’t know?

    I think it is a mark of intelligence and maturity to realize there are things you don’t know. We joke about young people who think they know everything but there is an element of truth. The more you learn, the more you are aware of how much you absolutely do not know.

    siteseer wrote:

    Yet, if I understand correctly, we have only a record of mankind of around 6,000 years?

    IIRC, this is mostly the written record of mankind, not counting cave paintings and such. Sumerian writings are about 5000 years ago.

  182. siteseer wrote:

    Yet, if I understand correctly, we have only a record of mankind of around 6,000 years?

    There is a record of mankind that is far older than 6,000 years but the Young Earthers won’t hear of it. Sigh.

    I am so glad to be free of an insufferable NeoCalvinist church that demanded that we believe in a Young Earth or accused of us not “being saved” or not “being Christians” or
    “not being Biblical”.

  183. Paul D. wrote:

    The flat earth / geocentric model was still being promoted by American creationists in the 60s, particularly among Missouri Synod Lutherans — who, along with Seventh-Day Adventists, were the main proponents of young earth creationism until modern institutions like the ICR and Ken Ham’s AIG popularized creationism among mainstream evangelicals.

    Does the Bible teach anything about the earth being flat? I don’t remember reading anything about it in the course of my readings.

  184. siteseer wrote:

    Does the Bible teach anything about the earth being flat?

    I think the Hebraic cosmology had a flat earth and dome of a sky. John Walton’s son created a fascinating graphic of it once. It helps you understand the mental image of the people with whom God was trying to communicate.

    And there are flat-earthers today. I was shocked to find lots of seemingly serious videos on Youtube.

  185. GSD wrote:

    Thanks for letting me get that out of my brain. In the Christian community in the odd little place where I live, ideas like this aren’t welcome. It can make one feel very isolated, and a bit wacky. It’s so reassuring to be able to speak freely, even if we don’t completely agree, and be backed up by people smarter than myself.

    I have always felt somewhat isolated in the context of church. I’m a very skeptical person yet a believer; apparently an unusual combination. But lately I’m finding Christians believe even wackier stuff than I realized. Has anyone heard of a theory where there are portals and Jesus traveled to the moon and all kinds of other bizarre stuff? Like Okrapod said, people are going further and further to circus-like extremes.

  186. dee wrote:

    How did Adam and Eve know what death was when God warned them with death if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge?

    And imagine being put to the test with no prior experience of being tricked or lied to.

  187. Ken Ham’s Noah’s Ark Diorama was covered recently on Huffpo’s News of the Weird: http://huff.to/2kZWGH3

    The article’s comments section is interesting and apropos to this TWW discussion with respect to how science or pseudo science play out in the faith community.

  188. @ siteseer:
    I realized along time ago I would not fit in closely with most church groups, and church leadership… to be honest, church leadership does not sound like fun…. at least at a secular university( where i work) there is no pretense to holiness, while at a church there is, but my experience, and WW shows, the politics at churches is just as bad or worse…
    This way, i do not have to worry about my defending being a scientist/engineer….. when i taught a sunday school that had science issues related to it, i only agreed if my retired pastor taught it with me! He and i, overall, agree and he is well respected….

  189. @ JYJames:
    One wonders what will become of the children of pseudo-science in the real world? Once a child is taught to say that the reality of ‘the natural world’ is not a part of God’s Creation, but some ‘trick’ God played on them to test their faith in YEC? What then?

    one of the features of mental illness is an inability to handle reality

    in the Freudian model, “the word ‘ego’ means a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality testing, control, planning, defense, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory. The ego separates out what is real. It helps us to organize our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us.”

    at some point, some Christians seem to have abandoned the orthodox teaching that God is the God of the natural world as well as the supernatural world (the Creator of all that is visible and invisible)

  190. @ JYJames:
    it IS a matter of importance that Christian people recognize the Hand of God in the natural world also, I think

    “….the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God.
    The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the Hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”
    (‘Gaudium et Spes’)

  191. @ siteseer:
    I don’t see God as the trickster in the Garden …. it was that ‘other entity’ …..

    “The infernal serpent; he it was, whose guile,
    Stirred up with envy and revenge, deceived
    The mother of mankind.”
    (Paradise Lost)

  192. @ siteseer:
    siteseer wrote:

    When my children were very young, I was listening to a conversation they were having in the backseat when we were driving one time. They were discussing whether or not God created cookies. Did God create cookies or does mom make cookies? This discussion went on for awhile and finally my oldest son articulated that God created the ingredients (butter, wheat, etc) and people made up the idea of cookies out of those.

    I think a lot of the time our discussions on origins are actually on a similar level, as compared to the wisdom and knowledge of God.

    the wisdom of the children 🙂

    ” Barukh ata Adonai Eloheinu, melekh ha’olam, hamotzi lehem min ha’aretz.
    Translation:
    “Blessed are You, LORD our God, King of the universe, Who brings forth bread from the earth.”

  193. siteseer wrote:

    But lately I’m finding Christians believe even wackier stuff than I realized. Has anyone heard of a theory where there are portals and Jesus traveled to the moon and all kinds of other bizarre stuff?

    Sure you weren’t listening to Coast to Coast AM?
    Because that sounds like their open phone lines at 2 Ayem.

  194. JYJames wrote:

    Ken Ham’s Noah’s Ark Diorama was covered recently on Huffpo’s News of the Weird: http://huff.to/2kZWGH3

    The article’s comments section is interesting and apropos to this

    When I went down that link just now, the article had no comments section at all.

  195. siteseer wrote:

    Anyways, I hope my meanderings don’t lead to mocking or exclusion. I’m probably saying things that those trained in science see as foolish or ridiculous.

    Open-minded curiosity is never foolish, IMO. (Math person here, not science.).
    I have read that the probability of all of the chemicals and elements in the human body coming together by chance to form a living being is less than 1 in 480,000,000,000. Imagine the chances of all things in creation happening by chance!
    I believe there was a Garden of Eden, and I have always wondered where it is/was. Since I was a small child, this verse has stumped me: “So he drove out the man; and he placed at the of the garden of Eden Cheribum, and a flaming sword which turned every way …….” Was the garden really on earth? If so, where are the Cheribum and the flaming sword? Were they there for a limited time only? Was the garden destroyed in the great flood? I am curious. …… I would like to know. ……. But: Who knows? Does it really even matter?
    Like you said ……. Jesus. He is the alpha and omega.

  196. dee wrote:

    BTW: I overlooked in old email from you. Just discovered it. Can you give me an update on how things are going medically?

    Another Prostate Cancer Scare, going on five-six months with no end in sight.

    Last September (6 months after discontinuing the Finasteride), my PSA shot up to 6 (similar to its peak during the last scare) with 20% free PSA (twice that of its value then). By the nomograms, 20% chance of cancer (half that of then).

    So the urologist schedules further tests a few months later, i.e. this February.

    A week ago: In the past few months, PSA shot up from 6 to 7, free PSA dropped from 20 to 15% = 30% chance of cancer. (Still less than the 40% of three years ago, but getting there.)

    DREs have been uniformly negative throughout.

    I’m now on an antibiotic schedule to rule out prostate inflammation/fluctuation, with yet another appointment and biopsy go/nogo decision in two months. I will probably be getting the needle-shooting ultrasound dildo after that — removing my prostate twelve biopsy needles at a time.

    AND since last fall, my mailbox and email inbox have been crammed with junk mail and spam from cemeteries and funeral homes.

  197. JYJames wrote:

    Ken Ham’s Noah’s Ark Diorama was covered recently on Huffpo’s News of the Weird: http://huff.to/2kZWGH3

    Specifially, a new diorama showing “The Wickedness of the pre-Flood world”. Naturally they couldn’t show anything Sexual or REALLY evil, so it’s a gladiatorial arena including Giants and a T-Rex.

  198. @ Jeffrey J Chalmers:

    “to be honest, church leadership does not sound like fun”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    gosh, no. i observe professional christians selling their soul to the institution. One assoc. pastor in particular, in my memory — he had to do and say things that i am certain went against what his values & what he believed. on many occassions i expected to see him crossing his fingers behind his back.

    for what reason? the paycheck? keeping the peace? for God? to protect the investment of a portion of his life devoted to that church?

  199. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    When I went down that link just now, the article had no comments section at all.

    If you click on the speech balloon on the left hand side, the comments will pop up. (It’s tiny, underneath the FB and Twitter icons.)

    So sorry to hear about your health worries, HUG. I hope you’ve got people to help you through it all.

  200. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    you have my prayers …… my husband has been going through this for years and surviving but it is no fun ……. he is surviving but it is an on-going battle to try to keep those PSA indicator numbers down ….. he did initial radiation, then from time to time hormone shots (no, his voice didn’t change), and a close watch is kept on his PSA ……. the problem is ‘monitored’ and ‘managed’ but we are assured that the likelihood is that it won’t kill him

    all I can say is for you to try to co-operate with all of your doctors and stay with any treatment that keeps the PSA numbers down … that’s important

  201. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    comments section

    Huffpo changed the location of comments and it can be a little tricky to find. There is a speech bubble (gray colored) below the share icons of FB and Twitter, etc. Click on that speech bubble to open up a pop-up column on the right side of the screen with comments.

  202. Christiane wrote:

    Once a child is taught to say that the reality of ‘the natural world’ is not a part of God’s Creation, but some ‘trick’ God played on them to test their faith in YEC? What then?

    Christiane wrote:

    it IS a matter of importance that Christian people recognize the Hand of God in the natural world also, I think

    I agree. The natural world or Creation is in and of itself a revelation of Creator God.

    We can understand God through Creation, although, as Francis Schaeffer used to point out (even though he had anger management problems and was at times abusive to his wife Edith), because of sin, there is a wrinkle in Creation, and we need to understand that, too.

  203. @ Serving Kids in Japan:
    No apologies required. I loved Alf when it was on. My wife is not a YEC believer. Her position is it’s harmless and we know better to educate the kids. We disagree on how harmless it is. At least we’ve never been all in with the church. Never signed the membership covenant. I was raised in a liberal household. While I have no issue with my kids being exposed to Christianity, I don’t want them in an environment where they are pressured to believe that YEC is the “Christian” worldview.

  204. @ dee:
    Thanks. This blog continually demonstrates that christianity and critical thinking aren’t mutually exclusive.

  205. Nancy2 wrote:

    I was more mesmerized by what was written on the board than the lecture.

    You noticed the huge exponents (in absolute value) too huh?
    The thing I really noticed in the lecture part, is that it was once thought that the cosmos was constant, eternal and always in existence. If you dared to think (out loud) otherwise as an academic, it could spell the end of your career.
    On a positive note, I think it also illustrates that science always lends itself to revision so long as you (generic you) can devise a measuring scheme that others can replicate.

  206. siteseer wrote:

    When my children were very young, I was listening to a conversation they were having in the backseat when we were driving one time. They were discussing whether or not God created cookies. Did God create cookies or does mom make cookies? This discussion went on for awhile and finally my oldest son articulated that God created the ingredients (butter, wheat, etc) and people made up the idea of cookies out of those.

    I think a lot of the time our discussions on origins are actually on a similar level, as compared to the wisdom and knowledge of God.

    I completely agree with this perspective. I don’t mind that some come to a different answer than I do, so much as that some shut down the questioning altogether. Or they proclaim that asking is a sign of a weak faith.

    All of our ideas about creation are likely very simplistic and child-like compared to the real truth from a divine perspective. I’m tempted to think that multiple truths can be valid here. Sort of like I can tell my kids that they are gifts from God created in His image. Or I can tell them that they were born because their father and I loved each other very much. Or someday I may have to tell them the icky biological facts behind how they came to be here. All of those very different stories are true although they might seem contradictory to a child.

  207. JYJames wrote:

    there is a wrinkle in Creation, and we need to understand that, too

    I believe Schaeffer was referring to the teaching of St. Paul to the Romans (chapter 8), this:
    “19For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21thath the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

    22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved.”

    But perhaps Schaeffer AND St. Paul also thought about this great prophecy from the Book of Job:
    “”As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.
    26 “Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall see God; 27 Whom I myself shall behold, And whom my eyes will see and not another.”

    Or maybe Schaeffer read Tolkien’s LOTR where Sam says ““Is everything sad going to come untrue? What’s happened to the world?”

    ?

  208. Muff Potter wrote:

    The thing I really noticed in the lecture part, is that it was once thought that the cosmos was constant, eternal and always in existence.

    The Eternal Cosmos of Aristotle.

  209. @ JYJames:
    Best comment in the HuffPo & Ham thread:

    “This sounds like a really poor production SciFi Channel movie…”

  210. @ Christiane:
    I studied at L’Abri with the Schaeffers, Os Guinness, et al, right before they left due to health issues, and turned it over to their kids, I believe.

    Schaeffer mentioned that issues folks have with faith are often addressed in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. He was adamantly against those who ignored the OT for the Gospel, and then those that go even further and perform Romans or the Epistles (Piper) with mind-bending gymnastics.

    Schaeffer emphasized critical thinking, scientific research, history, and the value of art (fine and performing).

    Then, as son Frank writes, the Schaeffers got derailed by politics ($$$/donors) + religion = not so good.

  211. dee wrote:

    HUG

    I am so sorry. Did they say your Gleason was a good 7 or not so good?

    No biopsy yet. Only a 30% chance from the nomograms. I was on Finasteride for BPH for the past 2 1/2 years, which would have had a secondary effect of damping out anything Gleason 6 or less. Thing is, last biopsy (twelve-core) three years ago was negative on all cores.

    But it’s all the junk mail & spam funeral/graveyeard ads coming out of nowhere that get me. (“Reserve your burial plot NOW!” types.) Do they monitor your medical records or something?

  212. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “This sounds like a really poor production SciFi Channel movie…”

    There are those really bad SciFi films where the guy sits in the theatre watching the film with his moose and robot friend, and they talk through the film … How hilarious it would be to put them in the theatre with some of this ridiculous “Biblical” science, and have their running commentary!

  213. @ Ian:
    Thank you for sharing this! I’m downloading mine from the iBooks store now. Really looking forward to reading it.

  214. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    But it’s all the junk mail & spam funeral/graveyeard ads coming out of nowhere that get me. (“Reserve your burial plot NOW!” types.) Do they monitor your medical records or something?

    When my late husband had heart failure, then lived for a time, then eventually died, it was the church(es) we were involved with that seemed to monitor his health, for theology purposes – to be healed or not, that was the question. Everyone seemed to have some type of Biblical formula, and then they were ready to place blame (however, they were not ready to change their theology).

    I don’t know if TWW has ever posted about this type of thing, however, it would be a good discussion. Many would probably have stories to tell about the overreach of their local church, and how they were or were not helpful in light of the situation.

  215. JYJames wrote:

    Huffpo changed the location of comments and it can be a little tricky to find. There is a speech bubble (gray colored) below the share icons of FB and Twitter, etc. Click on that speech bubble to open up a pop-up column on the right side of the screen with comments.

    In the course of looking at the article, I wound up on Ham’s twitter page. Good grief:

    Christians who claim they allow all views re Genesis are not allowing the view that states there’s only one view–take it as literal history

    Those who claim they’re tolerant of all views of marriage are intolerant of those who say marriage is only 1 man & 1 woman based on Bible

    No one can say they allow all views re gender-what about those who say there’s only one view that’s true based on authority of God’s Word

    :-\

  216. JYJames wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “This sounds like a really poor production SciFi Channel movie…”

    There are those really bad SciFi films where the guy sits in the theatre watching the film with his moose and robot friend, and they talk through the film … How hilarious it would be to put them in the theatre with some of this ridiculous “Biblical” science, and have their running commentary!

    Ah, yes… Joel and the Bots from MST3K:

    “In the not-too-distant future —
    Next Sunday, AD;
    There lived a man named Joel,
    Not too different from you or me;
    He worked at Gizmonics Institute,
    Just another face in a red jumpsuit;
    He did a good job cleaning up the place,
    But his bosses didn’t like him
    So they shot him into Spaace!

    “We’ll send him cheezy movies,
    The worst we can find
    (La la la la)
    He’ll have to sit and watch them all
    And we’ll monitor his mind!”

  217. siteseer wrote:

    This discussion went on for awhile and finally my oldest son articulated that God created the ingredients (butter, wheat, etc) and people made up the idea of cookies out of those.

    Kudos to God for inventing chocolate chips, dark chocolate in particular.

  218. @ Jeffrey Chalmers:
    I attended an AofG church from 2000 to 2004 regularly. Never heard a word regarding YEC. Seems this emphasis on biblical literalism really gathered steam after the church went through the purpose driven Life program.

  219. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    But it’s all the junk mail & spam funeral/graveyeard ads coming out of nowhere that get me. (“Reserve your burial plot NOW!” types.) Do they monitor your medical records or something

    Don’t know but after I was diagnosed with diabetes, I started seeing ads for glucose monitors & diabetes medication.
    Take care of yourself. I hope all works out.

  220. No body wanted to hear Galelio’s opinion in his time. The universities of his time taught the earth was the center, most people believed the earth was central and the church adopted this cosmogony because it was popular. What the YEC’s have done is laydown legitimate scientific issues, the movie just scratched the surface of what is out there. Most comments in his time would have looked similar to those above asserting he was crazy, but the science won.

  221. @ Velour:
    Thanks, Velour, love to you, too.

    Chronic/fatal illness paints a not-so-pretty pic of the church. Guess we all have to grow up sometime, somehow.

    A clergyman walked into the ICU and our son turned and said we were Buddhist (LOL); he was fed up with religious overreach.

  222. @ Bunyan33:
    First, if YEC “science” has any intellectual content it would be published in the standard scientific literature. The fact is all of their “content” has been thoroughly refuted by (primarily Christian) conventional scientists. See the American Scientific Affiliation website, http://www.asa3.org , for comprehensive details.

    I have dealt with two YEC papers in a guest post, http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/10/fraud-in-science-are-some-young-earth-proponents-being-disingenuous/

    The two YEC papers linked at AIG have been changed since I wrote the post but there is no reason to change my conclusions.

    Equating YEC to Galileo is totally spurious. The current YEC supporters are the intellectual and religious equivalents of those that persecuted Galileo.

  223. Bunyan33 wrote:

    What the YEC’s have done is laydown legitimate scientific issues, the movie just scratched the surface of what is out there.

    Not really. Young Earthers want to keep everyone in the Dark Ages. They major in minors.
    They denounce Christians as “unbelievers” who say the earth is far older than Young Earthers claim. (YEC’s also supported slavery.) The things that Young Earthers should be doing — like loving people — they can’t and won’t do.

  224. Bunyan33 wrote:

    No body wanted to hear Galelio’s opinion in his time.

    I’m afraid that it is the YEC who have taken the part of the church in going after those who understand the science associated with an ancient earth. The YEC are in control of the doctrine in many churches today. We are the Galelios, attempting to bring scientific truth to the church.

  225. @ Bunyan33:
    This movie is a mystery to me…. never heard of it except this post.
    What are the legitimate scientific issues for a young earth? I have been looking fir them for fourty years? Lets discuss!

  226. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    @ Bunyan33:
    This movie is a mystery to me…. never heard of it except this post.
    What are the legitimate scientific issues for a young earth?

    SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!

  227. This movie is a mystery to me…. never heard of it except this post.
    What are the legitimate scientific issues for a young earth? I have been looking fir them for fourty years? Lets discuss!

    I think that since the text of Genesis implies 6 day creation along with passage with ten commandments it gives us an opportunity to explore this scientifically.

    Old earth concepts arose prior to radiometric dating. When radio metric dating did arrive on scene only evidence supporting it was looked for and accepted. YEC needs to account for old dates like rubidium-strontium and other slow decay radioisotopes, and they have given their thoughts on it. The flip side is Carbon 14 isotopes found in Coal layers, and diamonds are vastly out of place (Carbon 14 at max can give dates up to 100,000 years old found in layers supposed millions of years) This is a problem. But not for YEC. I believe it is easier to account for daughter elements showing old age but not why there is still carbon 14 in layers is shouldn’t. This argument heavily favors a YEC model of the earth in my opinion.

  228. My comment on Gal@ dee:
    I appreciate that comment but without discussing the actual science it remains an assertion that I disagree with.

  229. @ OldJohnJ:

    From your article….

    Reproducibility is the key

    Very briefly, spectacular breakthroughs claimed in the field of semiconductor sciences were ultimately shown to be fraudulent. Lack of reproducibility of published results was a major part of uncovering this fraud. The Wikipedia article indicates that this affair lead to retraction of 8 articles published in SCIENCE and many others in first rank journals, revocation of a major award and also revocation of his doctorate. The sanctions received by Schon amount to a professional death sentence.

    YEC did a major work on radiometric dating carbon 14 and helium leaking from the granite crystals calculating release of helium etc. finding upper limits for the release of helium a slippery atom. This is testable and repeatable science, looking at issues that show youthfulness in the earth, since you have a commitment to old earth scenario you may not look for the youthfulness. I read the RATE project book published by YEC and continue to search for the response in literature especially why is there carbon 14 in diamonds. I haven’t found a great response. Your assertion that they are not published is not true in a sense, you may want to understand how the concept of grand canyon was overturned from a millions of years process to a quick process of major draining lake system. I suspect a closet YEC may be out there, but this is a major point in the movie you need to see it.

  230. @ Bunyan33:

    “YEC needs to account for old dates like rubidium-strontium and other slow decay radioisotopes, and they have given their thoughts on it.”

    From what I have seen, YEC thoughts verge on fraud… See the AIG article that OldJohn cites..
    Further, to try to explain this away, YEC claim that the rate of decay of these elements have to change at levels that are absurd. They then go on to claim that there is a conspiracy to hid inconsistencies.
    I can tell you that if a scientist could come up with a way to rapidly increase the radioactive decay of heavy elements, he/she would be a hero!, she/he would have solved our storage of nuclear waste problem, which is a HUGH problem!

    The flip side is Carbon 14 isotopes found in Coal layers, and diamonds are vastly out of place (Carbon 14 at max can give dates up to 100,000 years old found in layers supposed millions of year
    I want to see the data, and sound reproducible studies which show “issues” I am a practicing experimental scientist, and I can always show individual experiments which contradict common thoughts.. key is it reproducible, by others.. .. Also, Carbon 14 is fundamentally different than dating using heavy elements.. and can be problematic… this has been well documented..

  231. @ Bunyan33:

    See this web page:
    https://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

    I have this similar problem.. I am studying Fe in a variety of cells, including cancer stem cells. One of the challenges I have is that Fe is so common, that the background Fe from pipes makes highly accurate estimates of the concentration of Fe difficult..
    I would want to see not just the data of Carbon 14, but the controls used to make sure the samples are not being contaminated…

  232. Bunyan33 wrote:

    From your article….

    I stand by my conclusions in the Fraud post. The RATE “papers’ I quote confirm that age of the Grand Canyon rock formations tested. Arguments not related to the statistics of the tests are used to claim the entire concept radioactivity based age determinations are invalid.

    At this time the ASA resources page that deals with this topic is out of service. When it comes back up I’ll supply links to detailed rebuttals of the claims you have made about C14 dating and radiometric dating in general.

  233. Bunyan33 wrote:

    Your assertion that they are not published is not true in a sense, you may want to understand how the concept of grand canyon was overturned from a millions of years process to a quick process of major draining lake system.

    Wait, what?

    Question: Have you ever BEEN to the Grand Canyon???

  234. Bunyan33 wrote:

    @ OldJohnJ:
    From your article….
    Reproducibility is the key
    Very briefly, spectacular breakthroughs claimed in the field of semiconductor sciences were ultimately shown to be fraudulent. Lack of reproducibility of published results was a major part of uncovering this fraud. The Wikipedia article indicates that this affair lead to retraction of 8 articles published in SCIENCE and many others in first rank journals, revocation of a major award and also revocation of his doctorate. The sanctions received by Schon amount to a professional death sentence.
    YEC did a major work on radiometric dating carbon 14 and helium leaking from the granite crystals calculating release of helium etc. finding upper limits for the release of helium a slippery atom. This is testable and repeatable science, looking at issues that show youthfulness in the earth, since you have a commitment to old earth scenario you may not look for the youthfulness. I read the RATE project book published by YEC and continue to search for the response in literature especially why is there carbon 14 in diamonds. I haven’t found a great response. Your assertion that they are not published is not true in a sense, you may want to understand how the concept of grand canyon was overturned from a millions of years process to a quick process of major draining lake system. I suspect a closet YEC may be out there, but this is a major point in the movie you need to see it.

    Where/when was the concept of Grand Canyon was overturn from a millions of years process to a quick process of major draining?
    I have been down to the bottom of the Grand Canyon twice, and I personally saw the layer of layer that was laid down through a sedimentary process.. How did that happen by the draining of a lake?? Further, while the higher rock is sedimentary, the bottom stuff is the oldest around and really HARD… clearly a different layer..

  235. dee wrote:

    Bunyan33 wrote:

    No body wanted to hear Galelio’s opinion in his time.

    I’m afraid that it is the YEC who have taken the part of the church in going after those who understand the science associated with an ancient earth. The YEC are in control of the doctrine in many churches today. We are the Galelios, attempting to bring scientific truth to the church.

    I find it more the other way the church and especially Vatican holds a long earth position. Despite compelling evidence of youthfulness. Of note resistance to the ideas found here on this site, not discussing things like problem with the moon slowly moving away from the earth, dialoguing how that fits or does not fit with the 2 major view points being discussed. You need to understand there are now former athiests that have left their former beliefs due to the science leading in this direction of YEC model.

  236. @ Bunyan33:

    “You need to understand there are now former athiests that have left their former beliefs due to the science leading in this direction of YEC model.”
    +++++++++++++++

    please give names of such individuals so I can understand what it is you tell me I need to understand.

  237. @ Bunyan33:
    I felt the “Is Genesis History” movie was like going to the auto mechanic. When presented with one problem at a time you can fix it then… fix another… etc. But when you can see every problem with your old car at once its worth considering totaling the car and evaluating a whole different one.

  238. @ OldJohnJ:

    So the testing of the Lava Dome at Mt. St Helens that erupted in 1980 reveals age of I think 1.2 million years old, or some other date way off. My questionis was a wand waived and determined this a fraud or was the test was repeated and found different results?

  239. Bunyan33 wrote:

    Of note resistance to the ideas found here on this site, not discussing things like problem with the moon slowly moving away from the earth, dialoguing how that fits or does not fit with the 2 major view points being discussed.

    Dropping this into the comments without references is not a valid way to make your point. The orbital dynamics of the moon are well explained by non YEC science. If you feel otherwise you need to put up some valid references.

  240. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    They have the Kentucky Creation Museum and Ark Experience theme park.

    It’s officially the Creation Museum, not the Kentucky Creation Museum. And it’s only barely in Kentucky, by just a couple of miles. To folks in my area, Northern Kentucky is a separate state.

    I just discovered that the Ark Park is several miles from the Museum. Didn’t know that. I’m wondering how attendance is doing over the cold winter months.

  241. @ Jeffrey J . Chalmers:
    Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn’t have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

    Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn’t work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

    This is the answer from your article regarding out of place carbon 14. The point I can make here is there is not a retesting of YEC data. It is just a such strongly held belief that they completely dismiss it. Go do the test repeat the methodology show it a fraud with science and not with theory. I suspect if they repeated the methodology they would find the same answer and have the same problem getting it published.

  242. @ Bunyan33:

    I want to see the data myself.. I have read several YEC articles and radioactive dating, and, in my opinion, they are FRAUD. The are trying to say that dating is inaccurate because there are are errors.. of course there are errors, there are errors in every measurement we make. But the errors used to date the earth at billions of years are within acceptable bounds.. that does not through out the whole measurement technique.. just places limits on it..

    With respect to Carbon 14, the article I listed stated that contamination is so prevalent for Carbon 14, that low levels of it in sample just means that it has been contaminated… that makes sense, just like my low levels of Fe measurements are suspect because I could be seeing Fe from pipes.. If you do have levels of Carbon 14 above a certain concentration, you can not trust the measurements..period… That makes sense.. so, the question remains.. what does the YEC data say? I want to see it myself..

    In my 35 years as a scientist, I have not observed a single “conspiracy” against YEC… in fact, scientist I know would love to over through current scientific thinking… if proven write through independent experiments, they would be world famous!! Think cold fusion! If they had been proven correct, they would have disproved major physics theories… and made potential cheep energy!

  243. @ Jeffrey J . Chalmers:
    Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    @ Bunyan33:
    The web page below has very good articles refuting the YEC claim that the Grand Canyon is young:

    http://www.oldearth.org/grandcanyon.htm

    Jeff, I see many articles in there. I have read some of these critiques before. In the movie they spend a few moments discussing the wind blown sand dune and underwater dune formations. They have distinct measured angles at which they form. In real time now on earth one can measure wind blown sand dune angles/underwater formations. The YEC assertion is that the present measured angles of sandstones formations grand canyon and beyond match underwater formations. I did not find a refutation of the actual measurements in the articles provided. I did find a confident disbelief that, that much material could indeed be moved. I would like to see what the response is to the measured angles of the sandstone dunes and how they match under water formation more so than wind blown formations.

    Regarding rapidity of canyon formation I think the work done on the Missoula flood is adequate to support rapid formation of canyons and the grand canyon in theory, you can simply choose to see it or not. I personally have a hard time figuring out where did all that sediment go??

  244. Bunyan33 wrote:

    see rapid decay of elements occurring through my power line every day from nuclear power plants, I have yet to see decay slowed down…

    Nuclear power is primarily carefully induced fission not radioactive decay. Many of the decay products are radioactive. The nuclear power industry would worship anyone who could speed up radioactive decay thus significantly reducing their waste disposal problems.

  245. Bunyan33 wrote:

    You need to understand there are now former athiests that have left their former beliefs due to the science leading in this direction of YEC model.

    This sort of comment is typical of the YEC approach. You need to provide links when you make a statement like this. That is what we do on this blog and I expect it of you as well.

  246. Christiane wrote:

    and then I learned about the ‘purification’ rituals of the ‘mikvah’ and I remember asking an evangelical Christian if he thought that there was a ‘connection’ between the origin of the ‘mikvah’ tradition and the Christian practice of ‘baptism’ . . .
    he said ‘no

    I’ve had that conversation, myself! The mechanics of baptism are not ever explained — which is why we have different practices among denominations. At no point in the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles — there’s no explanation of the ceremony that John The Baptist was known for. . . which led me to conclude it must have been known to the readers. The original target audience didn’t need it explained because it was something familiar & common.

    the ritual bath of the mikvah is a logical source. some people are against logic in their religion,tho.

  247. dee wrote:

    This sort of comment is typical of the YEC approach.

    It’s an ‘argument from authority’ in which case a random ‘former atheist’=authority.

  248. @ Bunyan33:
    Please understand that most of us have heard these arguments before. Each time we post on creation, we always get someone who has gone through Ken Ham’s “How. to prove they are wrong” seminar.

    Here is what you need to know. Those of us who recognize that science clearly indicates in Old Earth are also deeply committed Christians. We want to do the right thing and we have studied the issues carefully. Why would we want to do otherwise?

    It is perfectly fine for you to believe in Ken Ham’s peer reviewed science. Faith is an important part of our lives. CS Lewis said that “No one goes to hell for believing that God has a white beard.”

    In the meantime, we shall go on observing nature, recognizing hat that the Bible is not ALWAYS supposed to be interpreted literally or all of us would believe that the earth has four corners.

  249. Bunyan33 wrote:

    Radiocarbon dating doesn’t work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years

    Ok question. How old do you think the earth is?

  250. @ Lea:

    As my husband always says “If young earth science was compelling, then their would be young earth atheist scientist.” He also says “If any scientist could prove the earth was 6,000 years old, he would receive a Nobel Prize and every scientist in the world would love to win the Nobel Prize.”

    Now the YEC has been taught by Ken Ham to respond “There is a conspiracy in science, keeping such data out of the hands of the public.”

    I would then respond: Did you know that secular scientists were not thrilled when the Big Bang theory was discovered? Why? Because it proves that this universe had a beginning. Now we are left with only two possibilities

    The universe was created at one point in time.
    The universe is constantly (eternally) expanding and contracting.

    The Big Bang was a gift to Christians. It amuses me that so many preachers railed against the theory since it backs up Genesis. In the beginning (our beginning) was the Word. The Word spoke and the universe leapt into existence.

  251. Greaves wrote:

    the ritual bath of the mikvah is a logical source. some people are against logic in their religion,tho.

    I agree with you.

  252. Bunyan33 wrote:

    YEC did a major work on radiometric dating carbon 14 and helium leaking from the granite crystals calculating release of helium etc. finding upper limits for the release of helium a slippery atom.

    For references to dating methods please see: http://resources.asa3.org/FMPro?-db=asadb49.fm4&-format=%2fasadb%2fcollection.html&-lay=layout1&-sortfield=first%20author&-sortfield=volume_no&-sortorder=descend&combo_tag=edited-collections&-lop=or&-max=2147483647&-recid=35975&-find=
    First, I believe you would benefit from reviewing radiometric dating methods. My favorite references is “Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective” by Wiens, the first reference on the above linked page.

    A little below the Wiens link is “Assessing the RATE Project” by Randi Isaac. This is followed by a reply to Isaac from RATE authors and additional comments by Isaac. A little bio info on Isaac is in order. He recently retired as ASA’s executive directory. He finished his working career in research management at the IBM Watsson Labs.

    If you choose to respond please cite what you feel are scientifically solid sources.

  253. @ Lea:

    If you believe the Bible accurately recorded Mary as Jesus Mother then you may believe who’s parents Mary were and so on backward. If you follow the lineages and the stated ages in the Bible we can calculate in the 6,000-7,000 range I do not want to be dogmatic about it but often YEC will say 6 -10,000 years old.

    That is if you believe God gave us revelation in the Bible, I do. It has been right in so many archeologic finds and so forth.

    So then I ask the question is there any proof of this…

    Go back to 1994 sitting in my dorm room I read an article from a creationist astronomer that used his belief in the young universe to create prediction on what I believe was the Mariner, first satellite to head out to outer planets, would find regarding the magnetic field of those planets. His prediction was magnitudes closer than secular astronomers… it was all down hill from there… a scientific model that better predicts findings is usually a better scientific model. That is about the time I calculated all the lineages for my self on paper.

  254. dee wrote:

    @ Lea:I have a picture of me on all four corners!

    Me too!

    Bunyan33 wrote:

    If you follow the lineages and the stated ages in the Bible we can calculate in the 6,000-7,000 range I do not want to be dogmatic about it but often YEC will say 6 -10,000 years old.

    Why didn’t you just say ‘I think it’s 6-10k’?

  255. @ OldJohnJ:

    John, Define what you consider scientifically solid resources. You see if you try to talk to a faithful Catholic, and I love Catholics but have come to a realization, on scripture they will always differ to the Vatican. There is no other interpretation than what the Vatican says.

  256. Bunyan33 wrote:

    That is if you believe God gave us revelation in the Bible, I do.

    Revelation is sort of vague. The bible is full of history, allegory, and practical advice.

    Bunyan33 wrote:

    It has been right in so many archeologic finds and so forth.

    This is stuff from the ‘history’ part of things!

    Ugh.

  257. To all, I love this dialogue. You are all gracious in discussing. I am leaving with my family to Basket Ball games in Menominee, WI. Shortly (1:00). I hope to return to this discussion this evening…

  258. Lea wrote:

    dee wrote:

    @ Lea:I have a picture of me on all four corners!

    Me too!

    Bunyan33 wrote:

    If you follow the lineages and the stated ages in the Bible we can calculate in the 6,000-7,000 range I do not want to be dogmatic about it but often YEC will say 6 -10,000 years old.

    Why didn’t you just say ‘I think it’s 6-10k’?

    I don’t know just trying to put my thought process in. I think employing logic and helping others understand where you are coming from helps them to know why you arrived where you are at in your thought process.

  259. @ Bunyan33:
    I referred you to two particular authors that are professionally able to deal with the topics being discussed in this conversation. They are also Christians by their profession of faith in joining the ASA. YEC authors have not been able to raise issues of sufficient depth that mainline secular scientists consider valid. I would hope you are encouraged that their are scientists also affirming Christianity that are willing to participate in the YEC/OEC debate. If you are unable to read and comment on what they have written perhaps this conversation is over.

  260. dee wrote:

    Now the YEC has been taught by Ken Ham to respond “There is a conspiracy in science, keeping such data out of the hands of the public.”
    I would then respond: Did you know that secular scientists were not thrilled when the Big Bang theory was discovered? Why? Because it proves that this universe had a beginning. Now we are left with only two possibilities

    If YECs are so certain, why are more of them going into the science field as educated professionals (Ph.D.) and scientifically proving YEC???

  261. @ OldJohnJ:

    John Just taking a few minutes to start the article you cited. The following quote is amazingly what YEC believe…

    “An hourglass measures how much time has passed since it was turned over. (Actually it tells when a
    specific amount of time, e.g., 2 minutes, an hour, etc., has passed, so the analogy is not quite perfect.)
    Radiometric dating of rocks also tells how much time has passed since some event occurred. For igneous
    rocks the event is usually its cooling and hardening from magma or lava. For some other materials, the
    event is the end of a metamorphic heating event (in which the rock gets baked underground at generally
    over a thousand degrees Fahrenheit), the uncovering of a surface by the scraping action of a glacier, the
    chipping of a meteorite off of an asteroid, or the length of time a plant or animal has been dead.”

    The riddle of this conversation is which hour glass best represents reality. Carbon 14 in a diamond is awfully hard to explain, shouldn’t be there. I choose that hour glass, you choose others. It is much easier to decay faster than slower unless I have missed something in the energy to entropy lectures. The same reason that it took so long to find the purpose of the appendix is the same reason that it will take along time for creationists to develop these arguments. Belief against it causes one to not take it seriously, even though they are using the same scientific methodology.

    The appendix serves for harboring healthy bacteria to replenish the gut and in early development has influences with foods relative to immune response.

  262. Bunyan33 wrote:

    That is if you believe God gave us revelation in the Bible, I do. It has been right in so many archeologic finds and so forth.

    There have been vast numbers of archeological finds all over the world that have absolutely nothing to do with Biblical scripture. …….just sayin’

  263. dee wrote:

    I would then respond: Did you know that secular scientists were not thrilled when the Big Bang theory was discovered? Why? Because it proves that this universe had a beginning.

    When he first proposed the Big Bang, Fr Lematiere got piled on for “introducing RELIGION into a Scientific problem.” (Fr Lematiere had degrees other than just his ordainment.)

    Now we are left with only two possibilities:
    1) The universe was created at one point in time.

    i.e. the Jewish idea of time as linear, progressing from a beginning point into a future, possibly to an end point.

    2) The universe is constantly (eternally) expanding and contracting.

    i.e. the Hindu/Buddhist idea of time as cyclical, an endless wheel of repeating cycles.

  264. Greaves wrote:

    there’s no explanation of the ceremony that John The Baptist was known for. . . which led me to conclude it must have been known to the readers. The original target audience didn’t need it explained because it was something familiar & common.

    That’s what causes historians to tear their hair out — the now-forgotten details and tropes of a historical period that nobody ever bothered to record because “Everybody Knows That!”

  265. @ dee:
    I was “trained” in the YEC mindset in the 1970’s, way before Ken Ham was on the sense, and none of the YEC arguments that I have read are valid when one truly studies the science.. So while Bunyan33: cites “atheists” that are now YEC, I am a well trained YEC creationist that, after studying the issues thoroughly is not now. I have a practicing, well published and funded bioengineering professor doing research. I am not alone, but know many people that started as YEC, and changed after really studying the scene…..
    I might also add that I have never seen any conspiracy against YEC, despite being trained that I would see it. In fact, most scientist dream of being able to “over through” a current paradigm… that is what makes you famous… not “going along with the crowd!” Look at Einstein!!

  266. Lea wrote:

    Question: Have you ever BEEN to the Grand Canyon???

    I was several years ago; the experience was ruined for me because all I could think of was the Creation-vs-Evolution Jihad.

  267. Nancy2 wrote:

    Bunyan33 wrote:
    That is if you believe God gave us revelation in the Bible, I do. It has been right in so many archeologic finds and so forth.

    There have been vast numbers of archeological finds all over the world that have absolutely nothing to do with Biblical scripture. …….just sayin’

    I was just thinking…what is the explanation for how the native americans got here in this group? Conventional wisdom says something like 10/13k years ago crossed from Russia (by boat or whatever) etc. although I think I’ve heard other theories. Do they just back the dates up?

  268. Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    I might also add that I have never seen any conspiracy against YEC, despite being trained that I would see it.

    If you “have never seen any conspiracy”, you have just PROVEN that you are part of The Conspiracy.
    The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.

  269. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    Question: Have you ever BEEN to the Grand Canyon???

    I was several years ago; the experience was ruined for me because all I could think of was the Creation-vs-Evolution Jihad.

    That that could ruin it for you amazes me. I’ve been some cool places, but that beat it all for the sheer majesty of it all.

  270. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    I have been told that several times.. I have been deluded/corrupted by the system, and anything I say is suspect because I am part of the evil, secular humanistic system…..

  271. Lea wrote:

    I was just thinking…what is the explanation for how the native americans got here in this group? Conventional wisdom says something like 10/13k years ago crossed from Russia (by boat or whatever) etc. although I think I’ve heard other theories. Do they just back the dates up?

    Don’t know! Ice age, walked across Bering Strait?….around the coasts by boats? I’ve heard both.

    Archaeologists believe that the continent of Australia was inhabited by humans at least 40,000 years ago! …. Probably by boat, hopping between land bridges at a time when sea levels were low.

    According to Biblical chronology, the Noahic flood would have been about 2300 BC. ……….. Since then, Ice ages, low sea levels, population explosions, population extinctions ……… spread of human population worldwide: the Great Pyramids, Machu Picchu, Easter Island, Stonehenge. ~~~~~~ all before recorded history? IMHO, a whole lotta things would have had to happen extremely fassssttttt, in less than 3,000 years, for YEC to be true.

  272. Nancy2 wrote:

    IMHO, a whole lotta things would have had to happen extremely fassssttttt, in less than 3,000 years, for YEC to be true.

    Yes! Exactly. Really, really fast.

  273. Greaves wrote:

    the ritual bath of the mikvah is a logical source. some people are against logic in their religion,tho.

    Astonishing isn’t it? How they (generic they) will divide (and not amicably) over full immersion or no, infant baptism, and whether or not you’re ‘saved’ by it. Each claiming to be ‘Biblical’ in their rationale, and yet as you’ve pointed out, completely oblivious as to whom it was written to and under what circumstances.

  274. Bunyan33 wrote:

    The riddle of this conversation is which hour glass best represents reality. Carbon 14 in a diamond is awfully hard to explain, shouldn’t be there. I choose that hour glass, you choose others. It is much easier to decay faster than slower unless I have missed something in the energy to entropy lectures.

    Please carefully read all of BOTH articles I mentioned. The Isaac review of RATE and the subsequent responses answer the questions you raise. The exhibition of C14 ages in the 100K range are explained sources cited by Isaac. Anyone who does or has done precision measurements quickly learns there are limitations to the sensitivity and accuracy of any instrument.None of the C14 ages discussion discredits the billions of year age estimates by other decay systems.

  275. Muff Potter wrote:

    Greaves wrote:
    the ritual bath of the mikvah is a logical source. some people are against logic in their religion,tho.

    Astonishing isn’t it?

    Who needs logic when you have The Plain Reading of SCRIPTURE(TM)?

  276. I have not finished reading all 300+ comments yet, so I apologize if this was already mentioned.

    The problem with taking Genesis 1 as literally true is that it reflects a view of the earth and sky that is consistent with what many ancient cultures believed but which is not tenable today. To put it plainly, no one today, not even young earth creationists, believe there is a physical barrier in the sky that separates the waters above from the waters below. But it was a common belief in ancient cultures that matches up with observation. The sky does look like a dome, the fact that it is blue may be explained by there being water on the other side, and the fact that it rains may be explained by that water coming through openings in the sky.

    Given that the physical description of the world matches what the writer of Genesis 1 believed, but not what we believe, the question becomes what was the writer trying to say. I think the writer was trying to say creation was harmonious, directed by God, and above all, good. Babylonian stories described creation as being the result of a god’s conflict with a primeval sea creature, so perhaps the point of Genesis 1 was to contrast with that?

  277. @ OldJohnJ:
    As a practicing, mostly experimental scientist, with over 150 peer reviewed publication, I agree with this statement..

  278. @ Greaves:

    baptism — i think it’s interesting that baptism was practiced by many disparate religions in the ancient world. It all seems to have centered around purification, regeneration, and new birth.

    i tend to think that it was a human cultural idea, which God co-opted to get a point across. i think sacrifice is in the same category.

    i haven’t done anything resembling a comprehensive study, but based on articles i’ve read, it seems things like sacrifice and baptism didn’t originate with Jewish / Christian religions. Rather the jewish and christian religious cultures adopted some of the common practices to help explain God and their growing/changing understanding about God.

    I believe God was involved in this process. I think God works within human culture — more like coming alongside rather than invading from the outside.

    i’m not able to really concentrate at the moment…. so my thoughts aren’t fully formed or articulated here. it’s all interesting, though. fun to be tangential.

  279. @ Bunyan33:
    Maybe you can help me. Why do evangelical people hold to the ‘canon’ of the New Testament that was confirmed by the early Church Councils;
    rather than to go back, examine what the Councils had looked through, and come up with their OWN canon for the New Testament ????

  280. Christiane wrote:

    @ Bunyan33:
    Maybe you can help me. Why do evangelical people hold to the ‘canon’ of the New Testament that was confirmed by the early Church Councils;
    rather than to go back, examine what the Councils had looked through, and come up with their OWN canon for the New Testament ????

    That’s a great question, Christiane.

    I was troubled that NeoCalvinist pastors/elders and church members at my ex-church constantly slammed the Catholic Church but failed to understand that the canon of Scripture came from the Roman Catholic Church (and what was read at Mass).

  281. Bunyan33 wrote:

    You see if you try to talk to a faithful Catholic, and I love Catholics but have come to a realization, on scripture they will always differ to the Vatican. There is no other interpretation than what the Vatican says.

    And fundagelical protestants don’t do the same thing with their versions of Scripture, deferring all the while to what the gurus in their camps say?

  282. GSD wrote:

    That’s it. That’s the point. The gap theory folks put it this way: God created the universe, 6000 years ago, with all the stars and galaxies at that moment. But like Adam, He created the universe with the illusion of age. Which means he also created gazillions of photons already in motion, showing an image of a universe that wasn’t there.

    And to that argument I can only reply that if God in His sovereignty wants to deceive me into thinking the universe is old, how can I help but be deceived?

    Maybe the universe was created last Thursday, along with all our memories of last Wednesday? You can’t disprove that one, either.

  283. @ Velour

    Christiane wrote:

    rather than to go back, examine what the Councils had looked through, and come up with their OWN canon for the New Testament ????

    Ummm, actually the ‘protestant bible’ does differ from the ‘catholic bible’ and the protestant reasons for determining canonicity vary a tad from the RCC reasons. There is a good article on this in Wiki.

  284. Velour wrote:

    That’s a great question, Christiane.

    Indeed it is (a great question) Velour.
    Did you know that the King James Bible included the Apocrypha at one time?

  285. okrapod wrote:

    Ummm, actually the ‘protestant bible’ does differ from the ‘catholic bible’ and the protestant reasons for determining canonicity vary a tad from the RCC reasons.

    That’s what I was thinking. Didn’t the protestants remove some books? Haven’t looked at it in a while.

  286. Muff Potter wrote:

    Did you know that the King James Bible included the Apocrypha at one time?

    Precisely a good example. I have an anglican-approved translation that does contain the apocrypha and also a couple more protestant bibles which do not.

    This is a good example of what I was saying to Christiane and Velour. Protestants do in fact do their own thing when it comes to scripture, and for their own reasons.

  287. @ Bunyan33:

    The rate of radioactive decay is based on the values of physical constants such as the speed of light, the charge of an electron, and Planck’s constant. If any of these values have changed during the past few billions of years there would be evidence, and to my knowledge there is no evidence that the speed of light was ever different than it is now.

  288. @ okrapod:
    these days, with the text changes ‘carved in stone’ and then ‘uncarved’ by the neo-Cal folks, I think it possible that taking a good look at ALL extant materials offered to the early Councils for examination might be something evangelical people WOULD do;
    but for some reason, the canon is trusted. I just don’t understand this. Do people feel that the Church, at the time of the early Councils, was ‘authoritative’ enough to decide on what writings should be considered ‘inspired’?

    Why would evangelical people concede that authority to the Church and its Councils? The ‘canon’ listing itself is separate from the inspired writings. Why is the ‘canon’ trusted?

    I have never understood this.

  289. Christiane wrote:

    Why would evangelical people concede that authority to the Church and its Councils?

    They don’t. Read the article.

    Now you do know that there are baptist evangelicals and there are anglican evangelicals and this is two different things regarding the issue of the authority or lack of it of the early church including councils. So, the word evangelical has to be be qualified as to what type of evangelical you are talking about.

  290. @ Muff Potter:

    My point on the Catholic Church is more about science in that only mainstream publish journals will be excepted in this discussion. Not logic or reason alone.

    If you read John Sanfords work about progressive decline in the human genome. You will find a published Phd that helped create the gene gun that inserts DNA into nucleus of cells.

    You will also find a scientist that accepts YEC based his area of expertise.

    We can post articles or actually talk. In the end we will learn what has influenced our thinking. You can find any of what I talk about if you desire, google will find it.

  291. @ okrapod:

    And while we are discussing ‘evangelicals’ of various kinds, the Rt. Rev. N. T. Wright has said that he is an evangelical. Okay, if he says so, but he is not the sort of evangelical we usually discuss here.

  292. okrapod wrote:

    And while we are discussing ‘evangelicals’ of various kinds, the Rt. Rev. N. T. Wright has said that he is an evangelical. Okay, if he says so, but he is not the sort of eva

    The word “evangelical” has been added to, twisted, and redefined. I’m not sure what it means anymore.

  293. Lea wrote:

    Didn’t the protestants remove some books?

    That whole area of what is canonical and what is not is fascinating, and partly IIRC goes back to arguments about translation from the septuagint vs other manuscripts, and even what was the original language that the particular text was written in, and other stuff which I have long since forgotten. I do think that tracing down some of the arguments is good for giving an insight into how people think about this.

  294. okrapod wrote:

    I do think that tracing down some of the arguments is good for giving an insight into how people think about this.

    yes!

  295. Christiane wrote:

    Why would evangelical people concede that authority to the Church and its Councils? The ‘canon’ listing itself is separate from the inspired writings. Why is the ‘canon’ trusted?
    I have never understood this.

    The disconnnect that I’ve seen in NeoCalvinists, and others like them, is that they think they invented the Bible. They have no appreciation for history, let alone giving credit to those that so many of them hate and openly despise — Catholics.

  296. dee wrote:

    In the meantime, we shall go on observing nature, recognizing hat that the Bible is not ALWAYS supposed to be interpreted literally or all of us would believe that the earth has four corners.

    Actually? It depends entirely on how one wants to construe four corners. If the ‘four corners’ are four points in 3-space (no three co-linear and all four not on the same plane) a unique sphere is easily derived.
    That’s the beauty of the Hebrew Bible.
    It’s multi-dimensional.

  297. Great discussion. I have a question to any YEC or even intelligent design advocate.

    If the universe was created, why does it default to the Judeo-Christian God?

    And why does it default that Genesis tells the story?

    Faith is a great mystery but I don’t think you can scientifically quantify it.

    I watched Ken Ham debate Bill Nye, and Ken kept saying was “I have a book…”

    If I don’t believe in the book then it your main argument just failed.

    You’re just playing to the house.

    Which is just what biblical literalists want. No questions. Pat answers. Relaxing in safety of their own delusions.

  298. Robert wrote:

    GSD wrote:

    That’s it. That’s the point. The gap theory folks put it this way: God created the universe, 6000 years ago, with all the stars and galaxies at that moment. But like Adam, He created the universe with the illusion of age. Which means he also created gazillions of photons already in motion, showing an image of a universe that wasn’t there.

    And to that argument I can only reply that if God in His sovereignty wants to deceive me into thinking the universe is old, how can I help but be deceived?

    Maybe the universe was created last Thursday, along with all our memories of last Wednesday? You can’t disprove that one, either.

    However, the claim that we are all descended from Adam and Eve can be disproved. The genetic research says there is no way the genetic variations in people can be possible if you start with a single couple.

  299. @ Velour:
    ah, the ‘history’ …. I don’t even think credit is due to men for how the sacred Scriptures have brought life into Western Christianity …. I see the Hand of God guiding the men who fostered the preservation of the Scriptures prior to the printing press:

    if you trace the history of sacred Scripture in Britain from the King James Bible back into previous centuries, you will come to Tyndale, Wyclif, and before them, Alcuin.
    And before Alcuin, to Ceolfrith and to the ‘Lindisfarne Gospels’ which were copied and illuminated beautifully (in the tradition of the Book of Kells) in the ‘scriptorium’ room at Lindisfarne Abbey (founded by Aiden).
    You see, the tradition of the ‘scriptoriums’ (rooms where Scripture was copied by hand) goes back even further to the time of the Septuagint scholars who were set to work on the island in the harbor of Alexandria and produced a Greek translation of the Old Testament, through Saint Jerome and his Vulgate tradition, through Cassiodorus and his reworking of Jerome’s Vulgate of the old Latin texts.

    The Lindisfarne Gospels represent the ancient tradition of ‘recieving what was handed down and preserving it to pass on intact’,
    and in the scriptorium on Lindisfarne, the hand-written sacred texts were copied with great care according to that tradition.
    The printing-press would not be invented for another eight centuries into the future, so these monastic scriptoriums were an important connection for the sacred writings to be preserved and passed on.

    It’s good to know something of the history of how sacred Scripture ended up in your hands . . . there was a long line of people who cared greatly that this should happen, and they too were members of the Body of Christ and a part of the heritage of all Christian people.

    BTW, the first Viking raid in the 900’s was an attack on Lindisfarne, where the monastery was plundered and where many were slaughtered. That also, is a famous part of British history and soon the Vikings made colonies in Britain and for a time a portion of Britain was ruled by them during the ‘Danelaw’. They were converted to Christianity . . . so their forbears came to rob and kill, and instead their descendents found a ‘pearl of great price’, the holy faith of Our Lord.
    Not a bad thing to know about, I think.

    P.S. The ancient Anglo-Saxon Chronicles tell of that first Viking raid on ‘Holy Island’ ( Lindisfarne ).

  300. okrapod wrote:

    @ Velour
    Christiane wrote:
    rather than to go back, examine what the Councils had looked through, and come up with their OWN canon for the New Testament ????
    Ummm, actually the ‘protestant bible’ does differ from the ‘catholic bible’ and the protestant reasons for determining canonicity vary a tad from the RCC reasons. There is a good article on this in Wiki.

    Yes, there are differences. But Protestants took the Catholic Bible and edited it and don’t give credit where credit is due. And I say that as a Protestant.

  301. @ Ian:

    I am waiting for the literalists to figure out how Eve was genetically female if she was taken from Adam’s side.

    If all of scripture has to be understood literally, then the obvious conclusion is that some of what it says is literally nonsense. However, if we remove the requirement for universal literal understanding then we rescue scripture from being merely ancient mythology and can appreciate what it was trying to say.

  302. Velour wrote:

    Yes, there are differences. But Protestants took the Catholic Bible and edited it and don’t give credit where credit is due.

    What does that even mean? Protestants are aware of the general history of the church. It’s not a big secret.

    Do Catholics want every bible to come with a ‘thank you catholics’ notation?

    Amusingly, looking to see how many extra books there are in the catholic bible (7) I just came across what looks like the catholic version of inerrancy, using similar arguments in reverse. So that was fun.

  303. @ Lea:

    The bible doesn’t ‘belong’ to Catholics or Protestants. Protestants became protestant by reading the same bible the catholics were reading and coming to different conclusions.

  304. okrapod wrote:

    @ Ian:
    I am waiting for the literalists to figure out how Eve was genetically female if she was taken from Adam’s side.

    I have yet to hear how they explain neanderthal DNA.

  305. okrapod wrote:

    the literalists

    they are strangely ‘literalists’ only when they choose to be ….. not on everything, no

    when they say something is to be taken literally, it isn’t because all Scripture is literally taken, but because THEY SAY that a PORTION, chosen by THEM, is to be seen as literal

    it makes no sense …… going back to their ‘roots’, who was it that authoritatively decided what could be taken literally, and what they refused to take literally ?????

    ?

  306. Lea wrote:

    The bible doesn’t ‘belong’ to Catholics or Protestants. Protestants became protestant by reading the same bible the catholics were reading and coming to different conclusions.

    but how did they know to read ‘the catholic bible’?

    why was that the standard they chose to base their beliefs on???

    something just doesn’t make sense here (at least to me)

  307. Bunyan33 wrote:

    I have read the rate papers. I find them convincing. Have you read them?

    Yes, I have read them. My most careful reading and conclusion was based on the second YEC age document referenced in my “fraud” post (Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, pp. 269–284 (2003). My conclusion was and still is that the RATE group has essentially confirmed the geological ages for the Grand Canyon generally accepted by the secular science community. But, in the absence of any convincing evidence from their data they engage in hand waving using the term discordant that has no meaning in statistical analysis.

    Your question prompts a similar one: Have you read the critiques of the RATE project by Randy Isaac that I referred to?

    Finally, if the RATE effort is legitimate science why has it not been published in an appropriate refereed journal? If the work is legitimate and they can sustain their claims against the obvious rejoinders one or more of them can expect a trip to Stockholm and a big check from the king of Sweden. There is no conspiracy to keep YEC claims out of the science mainstream. The bigger a change proposed for current science the more high quality data and corresponding theoretical advances will be required. I don’t see that any such data or theory has been achieved. Face up to it, gaining acceptance of YEC claims will require nothing short of a complete revolution in science. The YEC community has not yet taken the first baby step along this path.

  308. Lea wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    Yes, there are differences. But Protestants took the Catholic Bible and edited it and don’t give credit where credit is due.
    What does that even mean? Protestants are aware of the general history of the church. It’s not a big secret.
    Do Catholics want every bible to come with a ‘thank you catholics’ notation?
    Amusingly, looking to see how many extra books there are in the catholic bible (7) I just came across what looks like the catholic version of inerrancy, using similar arguments in reverse. So that was fun.

    Perhaps you haven’t been exposed to evangelical, Protestant Christians who are constantly slamming Catholics as not being “real Christians” and “not being saved” but who at the same time use Bibles/canon that were put together by Catholics. Evangelicals act like they alone put together the canon. They didn’t.

  309. okrapod wrote:

    @ Ian:
    I am waiting for the literalists to figure out how Eve was genetically female if she was taken from Adam’s side.

    Adam, tee hee ….. that poor boy musta really been drownin’ in a sea of estrogen!

  310. Lea wrote:

    I have yet to hear how they explain neanderthal DNA.

    This is a very interesting book on the subject of human origins from an old earth perspective: https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Model-Approach-Origin-Humanity/dp/1886653119/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488242469&sr=1-1.

    It might not be correct, but it seems to fall within the range of plausible. It addresses many of the questions here, such as Neanderthal DNA, size of initial human population, migration of early humans, how long ago the first humans lived. The authors admit to mistakes they made in their first edition, which I find respectable. As for endorsements, Ken Ham is highly critical of Hugh Ross (understatement of the day). I’m still not sure what to make of it, but I’m glad I read it.

  311. Velour wrote:

    Perhaps you haven’t been exposed to evangelical, Protestant Christians who are constantly slamming Catholics as not being “real Christians” and “not being saved” but who at the same time use Bibles/canon that were put together by Catholics. Evangelicals act like they alone put together the canon. They didn’t.

    I’ve seen it come flyin’ from both sides. Also, a lot of KJO shouts from baptist church pews.

    Concerning the bible …… what confuses me is why out with the Apocrypha, and in with Paul’s letters?

  312. Jack wrote:

    If the universe was created, why does it default to the Judeo-Christian God?

    That might not be the right question. I think a better question is, “If the universe was created, which religious theory best agrees with what we can discover from the universe?” If you put the “God’s eye view” point of reference on the surface of the earth (“the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters”), the first chapter of Genesis could be a pretty accurate description of what took place over a few billion years. The sun was there but there was no light on the surface of the earth because of the opaque atmosphere, etc. Ultimately, I don’t believe it is critical to find a perfect match between Genesis and science, but what if there is more of a match than we recognize because we are not looking at it correctly?

  313. Nancy2 wrote:

    Concerning the bible …… what confuses me is why out with the Apocrypha, and in with Paul’s letters?

    Rather than dive into the Catholic/Protestant debate, try looking into the Orthodox view. Like so many other issues of our faith, they never went down some of the rat trails that the Catholics and Protestants went down. I’ve only barely looked at this particular topic from an Orthodox perspective, so I will leave it to others to explain.

  314. Del Tackett is the same propaganda-spinner who hosted the terrible “Truth Project” for Focus on the Family. It was a piece of rot. I stood up in Sunday school and critiqued it. People came up to me afterwards and thanked me.

    By the way, Tackett’s Ph.D. is NOT in theology, science or even philosophy. It’s in marketing.

    I’m more qualified to teach than he is.

  315. Janey wrote:

    By the way, Tackett’s Ph.D. is NOT in theology, science or even philosophy. It’s in marketing.

    Maybe that is why he is good at slinging it!

  316. Ian wrote:

    the claim that we are all descended from Adam and Eve can be disproved.

    That is why I do not think that Adam and Eve were the only humans at the time of the Fall. God removed Adam from the rest of the world and placed him in the Garden.

  317. Jack wrote:

    I watched Ken Ham debate Bill Nye, and Ken kept saying was “I have a book…”
    If I don’t believe in the book then it your main argument just failed.
    You’re just playing to the house.

    It is difficult to default to the Bible when discussing science. All truth is God; truth. If we are careful to speak the truth in regards to science, it will grind Christians credibility. I have found some scientists who were startled when I said I believe that the earth is very old. They thought all Christians believed in a young earth.

  318. Muff Potter wrote:

    If the ‘four corners’ are four points in 3-space (no three co-linear and all four not on the same plane) a unique sphere is easily derived.
    That’s the beauty of the Hebrew Bible.

    Does that make you a four point creationist?

  319. Bunyan33 wrote:

    If you read John Sanfords work about progressive decline in the human genome. You will find a published Phd that helped create the gene gun that inserts DNA into nucleus of cells.
    You will also find a scientist that accepts YEC based his area of expertise.

    TWW posted an article looking at the background of the scientists who agree with Ham based on his AIG website. It was a rather sad list. He even listed nutritionists (BTE-I love nutritionists-but just like this nurse/business person, they are not trained in the basic science on a PhD level.)

    Where are the Howard Hughes professors? Where are the members of the national Academy of Sciences?

    You can always get a scientist to take a contrarian point of view. We wrote an article about it here.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/06/27/doug-wilson-and-the-american-family-association-hivaids-conspiracy-theorists/

    Once again, if the YEC science was compelling there would be young earth atheists. And ,whoever could prove it would win a Nobel prize. Then, the atheists would come up with a reason that a young earth is a natural event.

  320. Jack wrote:

    I watched Ken Ham debate Bill Nye, and Ken kept saying was “I have a book…”

    I watched that debate. It was terrible. Bill had the upper hand, but did not play nearly it as well as he could have. Ham was rude, dismissive, and played only to his YEC audience. It was an embarrassment. Neither of them is a real scientist, so I guess we should not expect much.

  321. Another short off-topic announcement. Shauna and her son Billy in Texas also are in need of financial assistance for rent, phone bill, and other basics. Shauna has a part-time job
    at a grocery store and is looking for full-time work. She has been sick lately too, so pray for her healing. And pray for her son Billy too. Thank you.

    “And here are Shauna and her son Billy’s needs from the Open Discussion thread.
    Shauna on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 09:33 AM said:
    Update: please pray for rent 654.10 left , phone is shut. off need 142.68 so billy and i can communicate(he stays after school everyday to get help from teachers), utilities 176.96, food and gas are always up in the air i just manage day to day with that basically its whatever funds are left it always seems to work out. Prayer for these things and extra work my manager hired two people and now im back to 20 hours. Its very upsetting but what can i do? Im trying to stick it out and pick up extra hours so far no luck. All but three people have dropped me from cleaning. The other 3 just all of a sudden dropped me without saying anything. These were people who are former members of the church who contacted me when they read our story. I have my sense of the intrest in us and hiring me but i will let you all decide. All i can say is this isn’t coincidental. Im going to keep moving forward and although it stings God is always consistent in providing and sheilding us from harm. Please pray for my heart as it doesn’t feel to good to feel like you were used . i hope im wrong but my prior dealings with anyone connected there have revealed agendas. Kicking myself as i should have known better. Anyways lesson learned i just dropped billy off at work and i go into work soon. We have no way of communicating so please pray i can somehow get work without a phone talk about a challenge. Im using open wifi where my son works right now.
    Please pray as im sick with a very vicious cold. Im taking everything to fight it i just hope i haven’t taken to many didferent cold medicines.”

    http://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk

  322. Lea wrote:

    Bunyan33 wrote:

    Your assertion that they are not published is not true in a sense, you may want to understand how the concept of grand canyon was overturned from a millions of years process to a quick process of major draining lake system.

    Wait, what?

    Question: Have you ever BEEN to the Grand Canyon???

    Have any science people here seen this video or could comment on it? I saw it many years ago and thought it was fascinating but I have no scientific training to evaluate it by. I wish it was available to watch online. https://www.amazon.com/Mount-St-Helens-Explosive-Catastrophe/dp/0932766714

  323. Lea wrote:

    Do Catholics want every bible to come with a ‘thank you catholics’ notation?

    🙂
    This Catholic wants to know one thing:
    on whose authority do you claim that the New Testament is ‘inspired’?
    Having sorted that out, and realizing that the ‘canon’ is not ‘inspired’ in the same sense;
    on whose authority do you accept that the canon of the New Testament is inspired?

    I’ve read a lot. But this is/will be always a mystery to me. Once people take sacred Scripture out of the context of its history and walk away with it,
    who then gets to have the authority to decide what parts of it to interpret literally or not literally? And WHY?

    too many questions? yep

    and lots of answers that haven’t helped

    But I thank people who have tried to help with my confusion. At some point ‘authority’ comes up, but it what context and in what ways?

    I don’t think it’s wrong to ask, no. I do know one thing: a person picks up the bible in a motel room and opens it and maybe they read something that changes their whole life,
    and that is NOT a coincidence ….. so if you want to do any ‘thanking’, it won’t be to the servants of the Word, no …. the sacramental power within the sacred Scriptures is not the product of men.

  324. Bunyan33 wrote:

    @ OldJohnJ:

    I have read the rate papers. I find them convincing. Have you read them?

    The RATE project has been widely rejected as bad science. It admits that the evidence points to an old earth, but then claims that radioactive decay rates were hugely bigger in the past. But that would produce a lot more heat and radiation, which would have destroyed the earth and everything on it! They don’t have a credible answer for that.

    See (for example):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RATE_project

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htm

    http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationism_and_young_earth/accelerated_decay.html

  325. Christiane wrote:

    on whose authority do you claim that the New Testament is ‘inspired’?

    Maybe some of the confusion involves this, that there is a strain of thinking in protestantism that does not think that the bible is ‘inspired’ in the way that the makers of the chicago statement of inerrancy want people to think. Which is why, obviously, they thought they had to come up with the statement.

    So I see three different strands of thinking here concerning the bible, so far.

    One is the catholic idea of authority, that the church has made certain statements about certain writings, that the church has the authority to make those statements, therefore the statements are true.

    One is a strand of thinking among protestants which agrees with the chicago statement of trying to explain what ‘inspired’ looks like in application, but which does not address the issue you have brought up as to what does this say about what they think about some organizational or individual authority behind their thinking.

    And there is the stand of thinking that thinks that there is truth to be found in the bible but that not all of it is truth in some totally inclusive way and that truth must be dug out of the bible in the same way that one approaches any historical documents. This is not a theory of inspiration but rather an academic approach to a collection of ancient writings.

    This third idea, in whatever way it is expressed, has been seen as the great threat to christianity under the name of higher criticism and its ilk, and this is the major reason for the great ‘battle for the bible’ in evangelical thinking. The battle for the bible people are trying to rescue the idea of inspiration by discrediting the academics and returning to some more inclusive idea of inspiration while at the same time not saying because the catholic church said/says so because they do not believe in the authority of the catholic church.

    Now watch this, why are the YEC people so insistent on YEC? They believe that if YEC proves untrue then their idea of ‘inspired’ totally crumbles and they are left with nothing. They do not say ‘the church says’ and also they are bitterly opposed to an academic approach to scripture such as one sees from historians, scientists, textual critics, archaeologists, and the entire bevy of ‘liberal’ theologians. These people have no place to fall when their idea crumbles. The do not default to any church authority. They do not default to any idea that there is truth in the bible but not the sort of determinative and comprehensive truth that comes under some definitions of the word ‘inspired.’

    You are making a legitimate question to the YEC/ Chicago Statement kind of people. They indeed ought to take the question seriously.

    As to the third group, your question is ‘what is your authority for believing in inspiration’ and their answer is ‘we don’t believe in inspiration in any way that you are suggesting’.

  326. @ okrapod:
    This is a great analysis, OKRAPOD.
    As for the ‘catholic’ authoritarian viewpoint, essentially, the Church pre-dates the writing of the New Testament Scriptures and the formation of the canon. It is said that the Word was prayed and preached before it was written down (oral tradition), so there is some grounds to the ‘authority’ of the ones who received the ‘deposit of faith’ and passed it forward to those who came after them.

    That second group, this:
    “One is a strand of thinking among protestants which agrees with the chicago statement of trying to explain what ‘inspired’ looks like in application, but which does not address the issue you have brought up as to what does this say about what they think about some organizational or individual authority behind their thinking.”
    Yes, I would like to ask my question(s) of this group. (Honestly, to me it seems their ‘inerrancy’ claims are more for their ‘interpretations’ of Scripture than for the Scriptures themselves.)

    That third group seems to operate fearfully. And they would certainly disagree with my concept of sacred Scripture as ‘sacramental’ in its power to touch the minds and hearts of mankind in a way that resonates with their very souls. For this group, the need to ‘control’ the great biblical narrative seems sadly far stronger than their need to allow the Scriptures to transform their lives. These people are their own ‘authority’ and they are frightened and threatened, and I find that very sad.

    Thanks for this, OKRAPOD. Your insights are always thoughtful and helpful.

  327. Christiane wrote:

    That third group seems to operate fearfully. And they would certainly disagree with my concept of sacred Scripture as ‘sacramental’ in its power to touch the minds and hearts of mankind in a way that resonates with their very souls. For this group, the need to ‘control’ the great biblical narrative seems sadly far stronger than their need to allow the Scriptures to transform their lives. These people are their own ‘authority’ and they are frightened and threatened, and I find that very sad.

    Are you sure you want to say exactly that? Embedded in the thinking of the catholic church is third group thinking in that the catholic church does not believe sola scripture but also accepts sacred tradition based on the concept that the church has the authority to make authoritative statements about more things than just what does/does not constitute the canon of scripture. This is a core issue of the reformation.

    Dominus iesus from the congregation for the doctrine of the faith contains the statement that while no further ‘revelation’ is expected on the issue being discussed some times there does develop further ‘understanding’ on issues. He is saying that there are sources which impact understanding beyond ‘revelation’ per se. This is third group thinking.

    When either protestants or catholics take into consideration scientific research, or findings dug up by historians, or reasoning, or the attitude of new information concerning ancient cultures and how that influences thinking about meanings in scripture, or more information as to some more meanings of some word in greek, and take into consideration other writings on the subject from the past and what that might mean-all these things are third world thinking. And both catholicism and mainline protestantism are notorious for this. Example: the catholic position on sacred tradition is not sola scriptura and evangelicals think you all compromise the position of the scripture in doing this. Example: the acceptance of ideas of biological evolution and old earth-nobody thought up evolution from scripture but the catholic church permits that belief. And scholarship-both the catholic church and mainline churches listen to and consider scholarship.

    I am a third group thinker. Mainline protestantism of the non-hyperconservative style is third group thinking, And, IMO, in the issue of third group thinking catholics have to say ‘we’ and not ‘they’ on this one.

  328. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Ian, thanks for this reference. It’s a very good summary of the problems of the ICR’s RATE effort.

    Glad to have helped. I’m sure there’s plenty more online. Google is always your friend in cases like this.

    RATE is a good example of trying to make the facts fit a pre-determined conclusion. If you didn’t have a need to say that the earth is 6000 years old, you wouldn’t dream of suggesting an explanation (accelerated nuclear decay) for which there is zero evidence for and lots of evidence against.

  329. @ OldJohnJ:
    I agree… To say that RATE project data/hypothesizing supports YEC with any scientific evidence is double speak/Brave new world speak at it finest!

  330. @ Ian:
    It’s a little frustrating at times here in the state of Georgia. Even well educated individuals more often than not will say “the only valid reading of Genesis is literal … ” and wonder why you can’t accept their interpretation of 4000+ year old writings in a ancient language from an unrecognizable culture. All such readings require interpretation. Genesis chapter 11 recognizes we will not understand each other.

  331. OldJohnJ wrote:

    @ Ian:
    It’s a little frustrating at times here in the state of Georgia. Even well educated individuals more often than not will say “the only valid reading of Genesis is literal … ”

    Every time someone hits me up with “Plain Meaning of SCRIPTURE”, I remember the plague of Demon Locusts in Revelation “plainly meaning” helicopter gunships armed with chemical weapons and flown by long-haired bearded Hippies.

  332. elastigirl wrote:

    i haven’t done anything resembling a comprehensive study, but based on articles i’ve read, it seems things like sacrifice and baptism didn’t originate with Jewish / Christian religions. Rather the jewish and christian religious cultures adopted some of the common practices to help explain God and their growing/changing understanding about God.

    I’ve often thought this myself. Throughout the OT, we seem to witness God taking the practices dreamed up by men — like sacrifice and circumcision — and adapting them for His own purposes, giving them new significance. I think even Jesus did something like this, using the unleavened bread and the wine from the Passover meal, to create a new kind of memorial meal, in order to remember a new work of God and a new kind of freedom.

  333. Janey wrote:

    By the way, Tackett’s Ph.D. is NOT in theology, science or even philosophy. It’s in marketing.

    So was the guy who founded Campus Crusade and it’s “Multiplying Ministry” MLM pyramid structure.

    Well, they say that the most common profession for ex-preachers is Used Car Salesmen.

  334. okrapod wrote:

    @ Ian:
    I am waiting for the literalists to figure out how Eve was genetically female if she was taken from Adam’s side.

    “AND THEN ANOTHER MIRACLE HAPPENED…”

  335. Robert wrote:

    Given that the physical description of the world matches what the writer of Genesis 1 believed, but not what we believe, the question becomes what was the writer trying to say. I think the writer was trying to say creation was harmonious, directed by God, and above all, good. Babylonian stories described creation as being the result of a god’s conflict with a primeval sea creature, so perhaps the point of Genesis 1 was to contrast with that?

    That’s how I’ve seen this issue, for many years. It never made sense to me to think of Genesis being intended to refute Darwin, when it predates him by several millennia.

  336. Christiane wrote:

    but for some reason, the canon is trusted. I just don’t understand this. Do people feel that the Church, at the time of the early Councils, was ‘authoritative’ enough to decide on what writings should be considered ‘inspired’?

    No, SCRIPTURE was dropped down from Heaven directly from God, WORD FOR WORD.

    Exactly like the origin story of the Koran, except in Kynge Jaymes Englyshe instead of classic Meccan Arabic.

    After which there is only “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN!”

  337. Muff Potter wrote:

    And fundagelical protestants don’t do the same thing with their versions of Scripture, deferring all the while to what the gurus in their camps say?

    During my time in-country, the “gurus in their camps” were Hal Lindsay, Watchman Nee, and the “Dake” who did the Dake’s Annotated Bible. And what the gurus said superseded the Bible. (Direct Special Revelation?)

  338. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “plainly meaning” helicopter gunships armed with chemical weapons

    returning to our regularly scheduled post: some 40 years ago after joining an American Baptist church I checked out a book on age determination methods published by the Vatican. A recent brief search on their web site didn’t yield any info. Besides the content the book was notable in that the paper used was sufficiently dense and heavy that spare copies could be used for radiation shielding bricks. Perhaps you know better how to navigate their web site.

  339. If..then

    If: protestants had always though about scripture the way that the Chicago statement declares,
    Then: there would have been no need for them to issue that statement.

    Conclusion: this is not the traditional protestant way of thinking.

    There is lots more going on here than merely draining the pond of the dreaded liberal theologians, but I am not sure exactly what. Other than power and money of course. And political influence once one has formed a sizable constituency. I hope I am wrong, but such does seem to be the history of religions from time to time.

  340. Just for my own understanding, those who feel that the Genesis account is more of a fable, or a story made up by a human being to kind of describe how we came to be here, do you see the account of the new testament as different? Do you believe that Christ actually came in the flesh or do you see that also as a fable but with a deeper meaning? An allegory?

  341. siteseer wrote:

    Just for my own understanding, those who feel that the Genesis account is more of a fable, or a story made up by a human being to kind of describe how we came to be here, do you see the account of the new testament as different? Do you believe that Christ actually came in the flesh or do you see that also as a fable but with a deeper meaning? An allegory?

    Siteseer, this is also a standard Jesus Juke from both the Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins sets, arc-welding Genesis 1 to Salvation. Because if YEC isn’t word-for-word literal, neither is Christ’s death and Resurrection and in denying one you automatically deny the other. Q.E.D.

  342. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Siteseer, this is also a standard Jesus Juke from both the Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins sets, arc-welding Genesis 1 to Salvation. Because if YEC isn’t word-for-word literal, neither is Christ’s death and Resurrection and in denying one you automatically deny the other. Q.E.D.

    Yes, I’ve heard that reasoning, and I was trying to figure out how to word my question so it didn’t seem like I was trying to do that to anyone. I readily admit my own faith is hanging from a shoe string and I have no desire to cast doubt on anyone else’s faith. I know we have people from a wide range of perspectives here and I would sincerely like to know how other people see it.

  343. @ Ian:

    Given a significant amount of my research involves the use of some of these constants… (I use VERY high magnetic fields) the concept that these YEC “scientist” have to resort to claiming that these fundamental constants have to change by the HUGH amounts, at the specific times of their choosing, to explain the data is just jaw dropping.. I think it really is worse than the medieval practice of putting gargoyles on churches to keep the evil spirits out..
    Unfortunately, the average person does not know how wacky/crazy/absurd/etc this idea is…

  344. siteseer wrote:

    Just for my own understanding, those who feel that the Genesis account is more of a fable, or a story made up by a human being to kind of describe how we came to be here, do you see the account of the new testament as different? Do you believe that Christ actually came in the flesh or do you see that also as a fable but with a deeper meaning? An allegory?

    I see the NT as a different literary genre to creation. I presume you mean the gospels in particular – these are clearly written as factual accounts of Jesus’s life. Also relevant is that the earliest NT manuscript fragments have been dated close to the actual events.

    Genesis 1-11 is an origins story, written to explain about God and the creation (including people). The creation account is both similar and different to other ancient near east creation stories. This is a relatively recent discovery. The cosmological model is the same, but the role of God and people is different. Authoritative – yes, inspired – yes, history – no, science – no. But the amazing truths presented in Genesis, that God is the eternal all-powerful creator, and that people represent the pinnacle of creation, made in the image of God, but fallen and sinful, are the absolute foundation of everything we believe. We do well to focus on those, rather than arguing over the details of how God created everything.

  345. siteseer wrote:

    Just for my own understanding, those who feel that the Genesis account is more of a fable, or a story made up by a human being to kind of describe how we came to be here, do you see the account of the new testament as different? Do you believe that Christ actually came in the flesh or do you see that also as a fable but with a deeper meaning? An allegory?

    I have to confess. For myself, I don’t know whether the NT happened exactly as written. I have my doubts. For those who believe without reservation, you go into the territory of faith.
    That being said, I am more convinced of Christianity’s claims by those who live through that faith.
    – Christian friends and family who do not judge me by what I do or do not believe.
    – Christians working in my city for greater good of their fellow humans – ie the Sally Ann truck handing out hot drinks and blankets to the homeless on the coldest nights of the year.
    – The comfort of a faith that I barely cling to during the very painful and trying time of my father’s death.
    This is more convincing than a $100 million ark in the middle of Kentucky. Or prattle about changing constants, or denial of fossils, or illusions of the speed of light, or “irreducible complexity”

  346. dee wrote:

    Go ahead, Muff, and totally confuse me. My math skills are weak!!!

    No worries dee, I’m totally confounded by Francis Collins and probably have weak reading skills to boot! On the one hand he says that he subscribes to the Christian religion and will allow for the existence of a Creator as a primary first cause (Darwin did too), and on the other, he lambasts ID (intelligent design) as pseudo-science.

    It’s almost as if TE (theistic evolution) takes the approach of deism, with The Almighty as a kind of prime clockwork mover who gave the mainspring a couple of good tweaks and then let it run with no further intervention (and certainly not the supernatural kind). I’ve said before (my opinion only) that his site (biologos) has very little for the reasonably intelligent lay person and is more a forum for highly trained specialists talking shop. I don’t think it’s possible for those with just a smattering (if that) of biological science knowledge to make an informed assessment of TE for themselves. It would be like like trying explain integration by trigonometric substitution to those with a only bare bones understanding of elementary algebra.

    At day’s end we all have our own resonant frequencies and what appeals to us as very different human beings. Again, of all the ixtian sites, TWW has the most civil and welcoming climate for different belief paradigms.
    May the force be with you.

  347. Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    @ Ian:

    Given a significant amount of my research involves the use of some of these constants… (I use VERY high magnetic fields) the concept that these YEC “scientist” have to resort to claiming that these fundamental constants have to change by the HUGH amounts, at the specific times of their choosing, to explain the data is just jaw dropping.. I think it really is worse than the medieval practice of putting gargoyles on churches to keep the evil spirits out..
    Unfortunately, the average person does not know how wacky/crazy/absurd/etc this idea is…

    Jeffrey, I have a degree in a technical subject and have done a fair amount of physics in the past, so I also have an understanding of this stuff (but not to the same extent as you, I’m sure). Apart from the fact that it’s utter nonsense, YEC just makes Christians the laughing stock of the scientific community, and it’s also a huge barrier to scientists becoming Christians. But, as you suggest, there needs to be a lot of work done to explain to people why YEC science is badly wrong.

    PS how powerful are your magnets? I have a couple of friends who work in medical imaging – their MRI scanners tend be around 1T

  348. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    still more problematic for literalists are Adam’s nipples . . . .

    in evolution, the progression is haunted by vestigial organs from a time, an age, ‘before’ 🙂

  349. Jack wrote:

    I have to confess. For myself, I don’t know whether the NT happened exactly as written. I have my doubts. For those who believe without reservation, you go into the territory of faith.
    That being said, I am more convinced of Christianity’s claims by those who live through that faith.
    – Christian friends and family who do not judge me by what I do or do not believe.
    – Christians working in my city for greater good of their fellow humans – ie the Sally Ann truck handing out hot drinks and blankets to the homeless on the coldest nights of the year.
    – The comfort of a faith that I barely cling to during the very painful and trying time of my father’s death.
    This is more convincing than a $100 million ark in the middle of Kentucky. Or prattle about changing constants, or denial of fossils, or illusions of the speed of light, or “irreducible complexity”

    The Convert
    By G. K. Chesterton
    “After one moment when I bowed my head
    And the whole world turned over and came upright,
    And I came out where the old road shone white.
    I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
    Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
    Being not unlovable but strange and light;
    Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
    But softly, as men smile about the dead

    The sages have a hundred maps to give
    That trace their crawling cosmos like a tree,
    They rattle reason out through many a sieve
    That stores the sand and lets the gold go free:
    And all these things are less than dust to me
    Because my name is Lazarus and I live.”

    my own experience with grief and with God’s comforting is enough of blessing to take away that fearfulness that was presenting as doubt

  350. siteseer wrote:

    Just for my own understanding, those who feel that the Genesis account is more of a fable,

    I accept that the entire Bibl, OT and NT, is God’s primary message to all of us. The Bible is intended to be a message about God and His work for all time. In particular, the four Gospels are the heart of its message. This statement is the easy part.

    Since I am one of the commentators taking strong exception to the literal interpretation of Gen 1-11 I’ll pass on my views of this early part of the Bible. I view these chapters as a series of parables. They are not meant to be understood literally but they do convey truth about God primarily and incidentally about our universe. They establish why, but by design do not attempt to convey scientific information about our place in the cosmos. I believe they were written with the fore knowledge of the understanding of science that was to come to a culture that had no concept of what we now understand as science. The parables conclude with a warning that we will find difficulty in understanding others with different languages, from different cultures and with different backgrounds.

  351. Ian wrote:

    Apart from the fact that it’s utter nonsense, YEC just makes Christians the laughing stock of the scientific community, and it’s also a huge barrier to scientists becoming Christians. But, as you suggest, there needs to be a lot of work done to explain to people why YEC science is badly wrong.

    What creationists miss is that the scientific community believes the earth is billions of years old, not to try to undermine the Bible, but because of the preponderance of evidence. Geologists used to believe many geological features were the result of a global flood, but had to abandon that model because the features either required more time to form than allowed by the story of Noah, or weren’t formed at the same time as other features attributed to the Flood.

    So if you want to overturn the past couple of centuries of science, you have to deal with the evidence. If you want to say Carbon dating is invalid because the C14 half-life changed, you have to come up with a way that could happen, and you have to find evidence that it did in fact happen. Otherwise you aren’t doing science.

  352. siteseer wrote:

    Do you believe that Christ actually came in the flesh or do you see that also as a fable but with a deeper meaning?

    If the NT is true, this is probably the most important question in the world. If the NT is not true, then it probably does not matter one way or the other. Many people have tried to prove the veracity of the NT, so I won’t attempt to retrace any of that.

    Rather than trying to prove that the NT is true, another approach is to attempt to explain the rise of Christianity apart from the NT being true. One would have to explain why a group of zealous Jews would abandon their original faith and propagate something they knew not to be true, explain the references to early Christians in Roman writings and Christian relics, explain the rapid rise of this new faith when it was not in vogue with Jews or Romans, explain the collection of the NT in light of more recent evidence showing that the entire NT was likely written before AD 70, and other factors. Occam’s razor cannot be used to prove something is true, but it certainly is a factor that should be taken into account when trying to come up with a theory.

    I could be wrong, but I am betting on the NT being substantially true, including the belief that Jesus is indeed God in flesh.

  353. @ Ian:
    Our permanent magnets are the order of 1-2 T, and we build separators that are able separate out red blood cells when they are deoxygenated… the cool thing, we are able to mathematically predict all of this by starting with the quantum mechanical understanding (spin states) of the iron in the heme group of the hemoglobin.. The fact that these fundamental constants “are constant” allows us to do this…
    But, if I listen to YEC, i guess I am a compromising christian to believe they are constant? I guess I have just “bought into the system”, or some such thing.. never mind that what I do works, and works well…

  354. Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    But, if I listen to YEC, i guess I am a compromising christian to believe they are constant?

    I’ve been a compromiser for more than 20 years. YEC is like a new form of Gnosticism – only certain enlightened individuals are able to believe it. If it is an essential belief, it means there were no true Christians for the first 1900+ years of Christianity.

  355. okrapod wrote:

    I am waiting for the literalists to figure out how Eve was genetically female if she was taken from Adam’s side.

    The genetics is simple since men are able to produce both X and Y chromosomes. But I don’t think that is the real problem. From a genetics viewpoint, the virgin birth is much more problematic since Mary could not have produced a Y chromosome. It’s possible that the stories were entirely made up. It’s also possible that God performed miracles and that the stories are fundamentally true. I don’t think there is much one can do to convince a person one way or the other.

  356. @ Ian:

    So that’s a no you have not read them. Too bad. I did find it curious that purified natural gas is used for C-14 calibration (I read a few of what you sent me yesterday but not the last 3 here I will try to look at them) why purified, it would seem there should be plenty of carbon atoms in things like diamonds or coal that are ancient and would give a calibration to 0.00 C-14 atoms found. So to say taking a diamond to a certified lab is bad science is wrong, what you need to clarify is that it is bad conclusions, its the same science. Then we need to decide why is it a bad conclusion. You can argue for contamination etc. and that is how you conclude that is fine. I conclude it means something different.

  357. Bunyan33 wrote:

    I conclude it means something different.

    Your arguments make no sense at all, and rely on fringe cases that have to be interpreted in very narrow ways. YEC is about ideology, not science. I don’t believe there is any way to 1) convince a YEC zealot that they are wrong, and 2) stop a YEC zealot from trolling those who disagree.

    To be fair, not all YEC believers are zealots. Many have simply not taken the time and effort to investigate for themselves. Many have become convinced that to believe otherwise is sin because of what they have been told by YEC teachers. The teachers of YEC are the ones who will be held accountable one day.

  358. Ken F wrote:

    The genetics is simple since men are able to produce both X and Y chromosomes.

    Umm. So if Eve got one of her x chromosomes from Adam, where did she get the other one (the one that comes from the female parent)?

  359. Generally to who ever…

    Why has Dawkins said that maybe aliens seeded life here on earth is it impossible that it started on its own??

    Why did the paleontologist Gould in the 70’s propose the concept of punctuated equilibrium?? Does this mean the fossil record does not support gradualism??

  360. @ Ken F:

    I take offense to zealot…if the diamond C-14 data came in higher than the purifies natural gas calibration then how can one say, its contamination?

  361. @ Jeffrey J . Chalmers:

    Take heart, Jeffrey. Being considered a dupe who has been deceived by the system is mild compared to what they could say. They could be saying that it is because of sin in your life, sin that you want to hang on to, horrible unspeakable sin that keeps you from Christ and this is why you refuse to believe the scripture because it might lead you to forsake your sin and turn to Christ. Therefore you quench the Spirit, which just might be the unforgivable sin, but you have only yourself to blame. And besides, they might not want their children/grandchildren to play with your children/grandchildren because of the need to separate from destructive influences in the world. The latter being you and your ideas. But since God is not mocked you will be sorry for your rebellion against Him for all eternity.

    If you were IFB at some point you might recognize some of that style of thinking?

  362. okrapod wrote:

    @ Jeffrey J . Chalmers:

    Take heart, Jeffrey. Being considered a dupe who has been deceived by the system is mild compared to what they could say. They could be saying that it is because of sin in your life, sin that you want to hang on to, horrible unspeakable sin that keeps you from Christ and this is why you refuse to believe the scripture because it might lead you to forsake your sin and turn to Christ. Therefore you quench the Spirit, which just might be the unforgivable sin, but you have only yourself to blame. And besides, they might not want their children/grandchildren to play with your children/grandchildren because of the need to separate from destructive influences in the world. The latter being you and your ideas. But since God is not mocked you will be sorry for your rebellion against Him for all eternity.

    If you were IFB at some point you might recognize some of that style of thinking?

    I attend IFB school from 7-12 grade!!

  363. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Face up to it, gaining acceptance of YEC claims will require nothing short of a complete revolution in science. The YEC community has not yet taken the first baby step along this path.

    John, I do believe you are right. It will be a major overhaul. I believe that it will happen. I think resistance to creationist ideas are healthy. I believe that the RATE team was earnest in their effort. I am happy to hear you read the papers. I will read the rebuttal you sent.

    Why am I crazy to think it will happen. I find the soft tissue T-REX matrix found by Mary Schwietzer very compelling. While many stick to their beliefs, I am finding it harder and harder to imagine it any other way than mega flood. They are uncovering more soft tissues from fossils.

    The petrified forest in Wyoming is now seen as one catastrophic event, similar to Mt St Helens event…others are coming I believe.

    I live in the Mississippi Valley in WI. A pretty flat plain from the base of the bluff to the other side exists(1.5 miles I estimate), all the wing dams man has put in the river cannot keep the Mississippi passable and they dredge it yearly, basically one of (I am guessing) hundreds of under fit river systems. Rivers that are impotent to make such a wide flat surface in the valleys they occupy unless something major happened in the past. I think that speaks mega flood and/or major post ice age drainage in our area.

    Punctuated equilibrium concept speaks of a fossil record that does not demonstrate a slow gradual evidence that evolution would demand.

    Genetically we are seeing a winding down of Gods amazing creation, the data supports it, the following title says it all. The right conclusion is in the title, my opinion.

    J Theor Biol. 1995 Aug 21;175(4):583-94.

    Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?

    Kondrashov AS1.

    I will stop right there for now, but if you have the time to listen to John Sanford talk on genetics what he terms “down not up” it is quite interesting.

  364. okrapod wrote:

    So if Eve got one of her x chromosomes from Adam, where did she get the other one (the one that comes from the female parent)?

    That’s why I wrote that genetics is not the biggest problem (but it is a problem). The same question could be asked about where God got the chromosomes from the dirt to make Adam (and where did Adam get his mitochondrial DNA without having a mother?). If God actually formed Adam out of the ground supernaturally with all the right pieces and parts (including genetics), there is no reason he could not have formed Eve out of Adam’s side (or from the dirt, or from a cat, etc.) with all the right pieces and parts. The key word is “if.” If Adam and Eve were created supernaturally, we’ll probably not find any evidence since science only relates to nature, not supernature. But this sounds a lot like the “God of the Gaps” argument. Likewise, I don’t suspect we’ll ever find conclusive proof that Adam and Eve were not created. My personal guess is that we will never find anything conclusive one way or the other. I suspect it’s a matter we have to take by faith, one way or the other.

  365. Bunyan33 wrote:

    @ Ian:

    So that’s a no you have not read them. Too bad. I did find it curious that purified natural gas is used for C-14 calibration (I read a few of what you sent me yesterday but not the last 3 here I will try to look at them) why purified, it would seem there should be plenty of carbon atoms in things like diamonds or coal that are ancient and would give a calibration to 0.00 C-14 atoms found. So to say taking a diamond to a certified lab is bad science is wrong, what you need to clarify is that it is bad conclusions, its the same science. Then we need to decide why is it a bad conclusion. You can argue for contamination etc. and that is how you conclude that is fine. I conclude it means something different.

    I’m not sure what I haven’t read – please explain.

    There are plenty of explanations online debunking RATE’s comments on C14 in diamonds, and everything else about YEC for that matter.

  366. Ken F wrote:

    YEC is like a new form of Gnosticism

    noun: Gnosticism

    a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit

    I don’t think that definition fits. YEC have a very big and powerful God (same God you believe in also, but see his creative act in terms of miraculous, not to say you do not hold a miraculous intervention) that created in 6 days and they are attempting to stay literal to the Creation story, Genesis account and genealogies given from Adam to Christ. I would say, myself and YEC are trying to not be heretical in any sense.

    Jesus is able to instantly heal a blind man. Jesus can create the world out of nothing…

  367. Bunyan33 wrote:

    I don’t think that definition fits.

    This is why I am so reluctant to try to engage in conversations with YECs. I did not equate YEC with gnosticism. I used a simile:

    A simile is a figure of speech that makes a comparison, showing similarities between two different things. Unlike a metaphor, a simile draws resemblance with the help of the words “like” or “as”.

    My point was not that YEC’s believe what gnostics believe (they don’t), but to point out that YECs seem to rely on a form of knowledge that only they can properly understand. The unwashed masses (those of us who are part of the conspiracy) cannot understand these things. In that sense (and that sense only), they are like the gnostics.

    For someone who so strongly claims to interpret the Bible literally, you did not literally interpret what I wrote.

  368. Bunyan33 wrote:

    I find the soft tissue T-REX matrix found by Mary Schwietzer very compelling.

    I’m fairly certain that she is Old Earth. She attends a local church.

  369. @ Bunyan33:
    Let me offer up this. Your points seems to be from someone looking through the wrong end of a telescope. And extrapolating what you see into opinions to fit preconceived ideas. And studiously avoiding many places you might aim the telescope. Much less turn it around.

  370. @ Bunyan33:
    You touch on a lot of things in this comment. Let’s stick to just one: the age of the Earth. If the YEC community cannot seriously challenge the present radiometric dating paradigm then all the other issues you raise are insignificant. I gave a reference to Wiens on the ASA site. What serious deficiencies are in his paper? I’ve shown that the best RATE can do is to confirm the conventional ages for a certain geological feature along the Grand Canyon.

  371. I don’t believe in science aside from computer science and basic physics (certainly not particle physics) and basic non-evolutionary biology (medical biology). Science has simple lied to much, especially cosmology, space scoence, and evolutionary biology. So I have no problem believing Genesis 1.

    Yet I’m struck by the double entendre of the question “Is Genesis History?” For many people Genesis is history because they’re so completely brain washed into false flag operation like the moon landings (that they mysteriously cannot repeat, haha, so much for science) and on the strength of the moon landing hoax buy every claim of science, so Genesis is history to them because they’re brainwashed against thr possibility that any of it could be histor-ical.

  372. OldJohnJ wrote:

    First, I believe you would benefit from reviewing radiometric dating methods. My favorite references is “Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective” by Wiens, the first reference on the above linked page.
    A little below the Wiens link is “Assessing the RATE Project” by Randi Isaac. This is followed by a reply to Isaac from RATE authors and additional comments by Isaac. A little bio info on Isaac is in order. He recently retired as ASA’s executive directory. He finished his working career in research management at the IBM Watsson Labs.

    I have read those articles. I believe that affirming C-14 in diamonds and coal would most certainly be a poorly received outcome by the scientific community.

    I recognize that C-14 was present, was it valid in Issac’s eyes to determine that these were recent deposits and C-14 was intrinsic, no. He would assert contamination and instrument leftovers are to blame for the presence of C-14 in those tests, due to the scant levels. But there was C-14. More testing by YEC may be warranted, maybe not.

    Since I hang my hat on no one argument. I look to many other YEC claims and contemplate earth history.

    I think they do add up as I begin to view them all.

  373. Bunyan33 wrote:

    @ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
    Which of the 8 different moon formation theories do you ascribe to? They all have problems…

    I’m literally the Guy Behind the Curtain here. I work for Dee to keep things running. I also call balls and strikes. My comment was meant to show you that you are coming from a very minority position here and need to back up your claims with some proof.

    And based on AIG’s statement of faith (excerpted here)

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

    Nothing they say is science. You can’t say that anyone who disagrees with OUR interpretation of the bible in terms of science is wrong and we will not entertain anything they have to say and claim to be doing science. It just isn’t so.

    So if you want to provide science based references find them somewhere else.

    This is a fundamental position of TWW. Now as long as you are not rude and don’t talk in endless circles you can engage.

  374. @ Bunyan33:

    The vast majority of your argument seems to hinge on this c-14 diamond stuff. Sounds flimsy to me.

    And your point earlier about floods…there have been all kinds of catastrophes and floods over time. They have done all sorts of things to the earth. That doesn’t mean they all happened at once.

  375. @ Ken F:

    Thank you for the clarification. I remember watching Mt. St Helens erupt 1980 went there this summer. Large forces major changes on the face of the earth.

    I have been contemplating how the continents have sunk multiple times according to billions of years time scale. From what reading I have done present plates of earth are buoyant and do not sink. How has say North America sank multiple times?? Is there a mechanism proposed? I will start looking for that answer…

  376. Lea wrote:

    @ Bunyan33:

    And your point earlier about floods…there have been all kinds of catastrophes and floods over time. They have done all sorts of things to the earth. That doesn’t mean they all happened at once.

    The vast majority of your argument seems to hinge on this c-14 diamond stuff. Sounds flimsy to me.

    No all the geologic problems such as Mississippi Valley formation does not demand it all happened at once. There is a record in the Bible I do accept though.

    I read “Folklore in the Old Testament” By James George Fraser. Chronicled all the stories of remote villagers around the world. Several main themes were evident
    1. God Created
    2. Man Sinned
    3. There was a flood sent by the “God” of said culture
    4. The flood was massive in most cases and destroyed everything
    5. A selected man survived with animals in the boat or structure they built.
    6. There was a confusion of Language

    I think this matches well, Flood stories in Australia, South America, North America Islanders….

    After the confusion of Languages at Babylon they were dispersed each carrying the stories up to the confusion of language. Fraser calls it all Myth but why were there these themes and so similar, I believe they carried the stories with them, and to varying degrees the stories changes with each group of people.

  377. Lea wrote:

    The vast majority of your argument seems to hinge on this c-14 diamond stuff. Sounds flimsy to me.

    The C14 dates touted by bunyan33 are flimsy as they are at the very limits of the dating technique. This is carefully discussed in the Randy Isaac reviews of RATE but is not accepted by mr. bunyan33.

  378. john smith wrote:

    Science has simple lied to much, especially cosmology, space scoence,

    No. They (generic they) did not “lie”. They simply goofed on their best guess conclusion derived from a grid of measurable data. There’s a difference.

  379. Muff Potter wrote:

    I’m totally confounded by Francis Collins and probably have weak reading skills to boot!

    Being as all of the science involved is way over my head, I have to defer to what others can explain to me. And it’s not like I could study up a bit and then digest it! What I find incredibly encouraging is there are people who do understand the science at that depth who are also believers in Christ.

    At day’s end we all have our own resonant frequencies and what appeals to us as very different human beings. Again, of all the ixtian sites, TWW has the most civil and welcoming climate for different belief paradigms.
    May the force be with you.

    Amen to that and amen!

  380. Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    I have this similar problem.. I am studying Fe in a variety of cells, including cancer stem cells. One of the challenges I have is that Fe is so common, that the background Fe from pipes makes highly accurate estimates of the concentration of Fe difficult..

    My husband has benefited so much from this type of research (and I, by extension). I just want to say thank you for following where the truth led you and giving your skills to such a worthy endeavor.

  381. siteseer wrote:

    At day’s end we all have our own resonant frequencies and what appeals to us as very different human beings.

    ” Not for nothing one face, one character, one fact, makes much impression on him, and another none. It is not without pre-established harmony, this sculpture in the memory. The eye was placed where one ray should fall, that it might testify of that particular ray.”
    (from Emerson’s ‘Self-Reliance)

  382. siteseer wrote:

    What I find incredibly encouraging is there are people who do understand the science at that depth who are also believers in Christ.

    🙂

  383. Bunyan33 wrote:

    Jesus is able to instantly heal a blind man. Jesus can create the world out of nothing…

    I fervently believe this too. In fact I revel in the supernatural exploits of Messiah in the New Testament as much as I do in say the literal tale of the Red Sea crossing in the Hebrew Bible (I believe it really happened at a fortuitous spot on the Gulf of Aqaba).
    Not a popular viewpoint in present day progressive ixtian zeitgeist I know, but then again I’m a salad bar Protestant and sign onto whatever suits my fancy, without giving a rat’s rip about what the experts say.

  384. Bunyan33 wrote:

    I have read those articles. I believe that affirming C-14 in diamonds and coal would most certainly be a poorly received outcome by the scientific community.

    I recognize that C-14 was present, was it valid in Issac’s eyes to determine that these were recent deposits and C-14 was intrinsic, no. He would assert contamination and instrument leftovers are to blame for the presence of C-14 in those tests, due to the scant levels. But there was C-14. More testing by YEC may be warranted, maybe not.

    Since I hang my hat on no one argument. I look to many other YEC claims and contemplate earth history.

    I think they do add up as I begin to view them all.

    See this paper for a consideration of C-14 in diamonds and coal. The conclusion is that it has to come from contamination.

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm

    The more I look at YEC, the more I realise that it is completely flawed. The methods they use are flawed, and the idea of starting with the outcome predetermined (a young earth) is totally unscientific.

  385. @ Muff Potter:

    Muff Potter wrote:

    john smith wrote:

    Science has simple lied to much, especially cosmology, space scoence,

    No. They (generic they) did not “lie”. They simply goofed on their best guess conclusion derived from a grid of measurable data. There’s a difference.

    I’m talking about the fake images from NASA that are CGI and various hoaxes of fake fossils evolutionists have put out over the years (for example Piltdown Man). And the fake Climate Change data. These are lies. Not wrong guesses based on data.

  386. Muff Potter wrote:

    Not a popular viewpoint in present day progressive ixtian zeitgeist I know, but then again I’m a salad bar Protestant and sign onto whatever suits my fancy, without giving a rat’s rip about what the experts say.

    please don’t ever change! 🙂

  387. john smith wrote:

    I’m talking about the fake images from NASA that are CGI and various hoaxes of fake fossils evolutionists have put out over the years (for example Piltdown Man). And the fake Climate Change data. These are lies. Not wrong guesses based on data.

    My work here is done. This fellow understands the Truth about the Globular Conspiracy.

    You’re all rubbish.

    Up Yours,
    Roger Bombast

  388. GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:

    Most of the time [when YEC vs Anything Else comes up] we just walk away or keep silent while people make rude comments to us. I have been there so many times ….

    I resolved, not long ago, not to engage in any kind of discussion with Christians regarding YEC. Instead, I’ve been working on some courteous, calm-assertive conversation killers.

    I assume “john smith” is a parodist, though, so I was willing to respond in kind.

  389. john smith wrote:

    @ Muff Potter:

    Muff Potter wrote:

    john smith wrote:

    Science has simple lied to much, especially cosmology, space scoence,

    No. They (generic they) did not “lie”. They simply goofed on their best guess conclusion derived from a grid of measurable data. There’s a difference.

    I’m talking about the fake images from NASA that are CGI and various hoaxes of fake fossils evolutionists have put out over the years (for example Piltdown Man). And the fake Climate Change data. These are lies. Not wrong guesses based on data.

    What fake CGI NASA images? CGI is a recent invention (remember what computer graphics was like in the 1980s!) – most of the space programme was before it.

    Fake fossils – not sure they were “put out by evolutionists”. And who exposed them? Evolutionary scientists !

    Climate change – I don’t follow this closely, but I know there has been some fraud (a problem that affects all branches of science) but equally there is a strong scientific consensus on the subject.

    In general, remember that there are many thousands of scientists working all over the world in any given field. The scientific system relies on disclosure, reproducibility, and peer review. Errors (whether deliberate or accidental) do get found out.

    But the key thing is that science has been responsible for huge advances in every aspect of life. Despite the controversy over origins, many people say that the protestant worldview – in particular the belief that there is order in the creation, taken directly from Genesis – has been a hugely positive factor in the development of science. And without science, all we’d have is superstition.

  390. OldJohnJ wrote:

    gaining acceptance of YEC claims will require nothing short of a complete revolution in science.

    Bunyan33 wrote:

    John, I do believe you are right. It will be a major overhaul. I believe that it will happen. I think resistance to creationist ideas are healthy.

    It would indeed be a revolution, and TBH a very exciting one given the possibilities it would open up: rather like what would have happened had CERN ruled out the Standard Model Higgs or (better still) had discovered neutrinos that really did go faster than light. (Whether humanity is ready for the consequences of faster-than-light travel is another matter.)

    But I don’t think the full implications, or scope, of such a revolution are widely appreciated.

    The fundamental axiom behind the scientific method; its heart, soul, beginning, middle and end; is not “we want to explain away God” but that the physical universe works according to laws that are the same everywhere, have always been the same, and are the same for everyone. If that’s true, it has consequences about the world around us, and indeed, scientists and engineers – Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, and any other theology we care to name – have done a decent job of producing working tech based on those consequences. (To keep to good practice, I once again cite yourself as the TWW reference to working technology.)

    The fundamental axiom behind YEC; its heart, soul, beginning, middle and end; is not that the earth is young but that the Bible, as translated into modern english, is literally and exactly true. That, too, has consequences if correct, and those consequences go far beyond merely coming up with alternative theories based on existing data. Those theories would imply testable predictions: it should be possible to reproduce settings as described in the New Testament, for instance, in which every sick person was healed. If not, there must be reasons why: it might be, as Jesus once stated to the Apostles, because of our small faith. In which case, there should be something we can do about that. It might be that God has changed his mind; it might be that, just as the Bible has superseded both Jesus as God’s ultimate revelation of himself to humanity, and the Holy Spirit as God’s indwelling presence among us *, that something even greater and more perfect will supersede the Bible.

    The implications are endless, and extraordinary. Like OldJohnJ, I am eagerly awaiting announcements from creation researchers.

    * I don’t believe it has, incidentally.

  391. Ian wrote (in response to “john smith”:

    What fake CGI NASA images?

    I refer the Honourable Gentlemen to my comment on parodists…

  392. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    YOU’RE BACK!!! Many of us were concerned about you due to your extended sabbatical from commenting on TWW. Your input was missed in many good discussions.

  393. Bunyan33 wrote:

    I have been contemplating how the continents have sunk multiple times according to billions of years time scale.

    Who teaches this? I have never read anywhere that the current continents have sunk multiple times.

  394. Ken F wrote:

    Who teaches this? I have never read anywhere that the current continents have sunk multiple times.

    You have now.

  395. Ken F wrote:

    YOU’RE BACK!!! Many of us were concerned about you due to your extended sabbatical from commenting on TWW.

    Thankyou for your kind words.

    I paused from commenting, while considering an appropriate follow-up to a singularly inappropriate incident here. Deebs have emailed me in the last couple of days with some food for thought; I’m going out running the noo as God often speaks to me when I do that. I don’t know why; it may be an Eric Liddell thing (though I’m built for endurance rather than speed).

  396. Ian wrote:

    Climate change – I don’t follow this closely, but I know there has been some fraud (a problem that affects all branches of science) but equally there is a strong scientific consensus on the subject.

    IIRC, that scandal was less about fake data than that they would not hand over the original data or lost it or destroyed it or something. Which is not great science. Other issues are with the urban heat island affect (some data collection sites used to be in less populated areas and now are not, so naturally hotter). One example I saw was from a site that was literally on fire (500 degrees or something) and nobody caught it and removed it. Most of that is not really fraud, it’s just bad science.

  397. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I paused from commenting, while considering an appropriate follow-up to a singularly inappropriate incident here.

    Understandable. I do that sometimes.

  398. okrapod wrote:

    @ Jeffrey J . Chalmers:

    Take heart, Jeffrey. Being considered a dupe who has been deceived by the system is mild compared to what they could say. They could be saying that it is because of sin in your life, sin that you want to hang on to, horrible unspeakable sin that keeps you from Christ and this is why you refuse to believe the scripture because it might lead you to forsake your sin and turn to Christ.

    In such denunciations (at least every time I’ve heard it), the SIN is always SEXUAL(TM).

  399. Christiane wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    still more problematic for literalists are Adam’s nipples . . . .

    in evolution, the progression is haunted by vestigial organs from a time, an age, ‘before’

    “Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples”, Steven Jay Gould, (I don’t remember which collection it’s in)

  400. Bunyan33 wrote:

    John, I do believe you are right. It will be a major overhaul.

    The place to start your overhaul is not at the borderlands (C14, recent geology) but rather at the core. Perhaps the most reliable radiometric dating technique is the Uranium-Lead systems in zircon crystals. This system is considered one of the best for the billions of year age estimates of geologic samples. If there are reliable systems for indicating ages of billions of years why fuss over whether C14 is good for 100K or just 50K years into the past.

  401. @ Ken F:

    I am looking at the walls of the Mississippi valley with at least 500 ft of sedimentary rock some of the layers of the sandstone here evidently extend all the way to the grand canyon, that means we were under the ocean, was it 1x 2x 3x 4x have the oceans covered the North American continent?.

    If we went under the ocean again and laid more sediment on top of the Mississippi valley here and elsewhere I would see the features of the Misssippi, the unglaciated area, the grand canyon etc. features of erosion between the layers.

    Presently right now every time I take a drive I look for erosional features, and disruptions between the layers of sandstone, I just am not finding them. When you look at all the layers in the grand canyon they are relatively flat and lack erosional features between the layers.

    I am struggling to see eons of time in the layers of sediment, it makes more sense to me that it was a catastrophic event and our continent went under 1 x, massive forces deposited huge volumes of sand across the continent.

  402. Bunyan33 wrote:

    I am struggling to see eons of time in the layers of sediment, it makes more sense to me that it was a catastrophic event and our continent went under 1 x, massive forces deposited huge volumes of sand across the continent.

    I would gladly accept YEC teaching if it truly made sense. But it doesn’t. I don’t believe that you are open to facts that do not conform to YEC ideology. Consequently, there is not much point in having a discussion.

  403. @ Ken F:
    As I’ve mentioned before, YEC will only accept the bible and nothing else, then bashes “evidence” to fit. I saw a video of Kirk Cameron and some other clown explain how bananas were designed to fit in the hand ergo…

    Biblical literalism is the cause of much misery that has been documented on this blog. YEC is just one way to corral the faithful into an all or nothing approach to Christianity.

    No matter what the evidence, be it scientific, archaeological, paleontological, geological, historical, genetic, physical – whatever you present, will not be accepted.

    If you accept all of the bible exactly as written, with no input from your own conscience, with no critical thinking, then you get complementarianism, you get intolerance.

    For me, reading Genesis, I do not think that the point of the story was to decry knowledge. God created the tree, why do that if knowledge is so horrible? I believe the point of the story is that the fall came about because Adam and Eve disobeyed and partook of something for which they were not ready. I don’t believe that knowledge was created to be withheld. It is more a lesson in listening to our darker side. Sort of how Alfred Nobel invented TNT with the intent of saving the lives of countless miners using the inherently unstable nitro-glycerin in blasting yet it was co-opted to make better weapons of war.

    While I don’t believe in the literal Genesis, I think the actions of Adam and Eve were more akin to kids opening a gift before Christmas and bearing the consequences of having the knowledge before God could prepare them for it.

    Keep in mind, I have zero training in Theology – this is just random thoughts, not intended to promote any one belief.

  404. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Perhaps the most reliable radiometric dating technique is the Uranium-Lead systems in zircon crystals. This system is considered one of the best for the billions of year age estimates of geologic samples

    I retain the possibility of flaws in counting radiometric atoms and then assigning a date to them. Dr. Steve Austin is criticized in his Lava Dome Measurements at Mt. St Helens with dates of 350,000 – 2.8 million years old, on a 6 year old formation. A skeptic cited below here in final conclusion does feel Dr. Austins contribution was meaningless but when you read through the discussion the following quote emerges.

    https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146

    “If we allow both sides to have their say, and do not bring a bias preconditioning us to accept whatever one side says and to look only for flaws in the other side, a fair conclusion to make is that both sides make valid points. Austin does indeed identify a real potential weakness in potassium-argon dating.”

    I do not feel I need to lay all my chips on radiometric dating but in the end they are just atoms in rocks and do not have a meaning until we ascribe it. It may seem to favor old age but as in many things science does change its mind as evidence arises.

    Consider Junk DNA we could probably cite a lot of peer reviewed journals on positive claims for Junk DNA. Junk DNA is soon to be a vestige of science, as we begin to understand just how amazing our genome is.

  405. Ken F wrote:

    I would gladly accept YEC teaching if it truly made sense. But it doesn’t. I don’t believe that you are open to facts that do not conform to YEC ideology. Consequently, there is not much point in having a discussion.

    I’m OK with that. I am not here to convince anyone. I like to hear the ideas mull it over. The arguments do make sense, what I think you mean to say is that there is not enough evidence to support the claim.

    Consider YEC witnesses large canyon formed at Mt. St Helens in short amount of time and its dimensions are several scales smaller than Grand Canyon. YEC looks at grand canyon and postulates maybe this was also carved with a lot of water in a short amount of time. Considering many similarities of features.

    Look at how long it took for the Missoula Flood and formations that resulted to be recognized, this is a revision of Geology as the evidence unfolds. It takes time, maybe 100 more years considering geology has been under the influence of Uniformatarian Dogma for at least 150 years.

  406. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    In most of my experiences the “sin” is sexual also.. IFB definitely have a hang-up/preoccupation with sex.. I also thought is was kind of amusing, because many of these “preachers” were obese.. but I sure do not remember hearing about the sin of gluttony..

  407. Jack wrote:

    While I don’t believe in the literal Genesis, I think the actions of Adam and Eve were more akin to kids opening a gift before Christmas and bearing the consequences of having the knowledge before God could prepare them for it.

    Pandora’s box?

  408. @ siteseer:
    While I am not looking for praise from what I do, I do find it interesting that some of the real zealous creationist making very negative comments about scientist, especially biologically oriented scientist.. yet I have never seen one of them live out their preaching by boycotting modern medicine, or modern physics, which depends on all of the “constants” that YEC claim have to change to explain radioactive decay rates that we observed..
    This is what “gets” me… question the motives/spiritual beliefs of any of us working in this field.. trust me, it can be downright NASTY, yet use all of the benefits from it.. Yup, really truthful/honest/consistent!

  409. @ Bunyan33:
    Remember, I was “trained”, from 7-12 grade in YECism… and, as I learned real science, I not found ONE single example/evidence for YEC, in the hard sciences, suggesting YEC… in fact, whenever I take the time to really look into the YEC arguments, I find, at minimum, dishonest misrepresentation of facts, if not outright fraud… If I tried to do in my publications what they YECer do, at minimum my papers would be outright rejected…

  410. Bunyan33 wrote:

    Consider YEC witnesses large canyon formed at Mt. St Helens in short amount of time and its dimensions are several scales smaller than Grand Canyon. YEC looks at grand canyon and postulates maybe this was also carved with a lot of water in a short amount of time. Considering many similarities of features.

    Mt St Helens likewise serves as a great point to counter YEC. YECs seem to believe that either all of the major features of the earth formed slowly through uniform processes, or they all showed up all at the same time in the great flood. But real scientists don’t believe either. They see a long timeline littered with a combination of both uniform and catastrophic processes. For YECs to be consistent, they would have to postulate that the Mt St Helens eruption occurred during the global flood. But they don’t. It proves that even YECs believe that not all instances of catastrophic processes must be from the same global flood event. YECs cherry pick their data to prove their ideology rather than letting the investigation go where the evidence leads.

  411. @ Jack:

    I am looking for a few answers. Why does the concept of punctuated equilibrium exist? I assume it means fossil record does not actually show gradualism.

    Why can I not see bioturbation between layers of sediment, erosional features etc? The sand stone layers seem flat and go on for 1000 miles or more with pretty seamless boundries. YEC has an answer and so does old earth

    Why do dinosaur bones 57 million years old have soft tissue still? YEC has an answer and so does old earth

    Questions that I find a more satisfying answers in YEC. I could list a 100 more…

  412. Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    whenever I take the time to really look into the YEC arguments, I find, at minimum, dishonest misrepresentation of facts

    I don’t find the following fraudulent.

    http://creation.com/bishop-bells-brass-behemoths

    Pretty accurate depictions of dinosaurs. I see the depictions of the Sauropods on that grave marker in the 1490’s and contemplate what they were thinking, did they see these amazing animals that they included them on the grave stone. It doesn’t prove any thing but I interpret that as an example that man did walk with dinosaurs. I read Job’s descriptions that were recorded and see Sauropods.

  413. Bunyan33 wrote:

    I retain the possibility of flaws in counting radiometric atoms and then assigning a date to them.

    If you cannot find within the YEC community serious, by that I mean results that will withstand pointed evaluations in the open peer reviewed literature, scientific challenges to the U-Pb age determinations stand as claimed and you have no recourse but to state your personal preferences. This is inadequate for any general discussion concerning the age of the earth, let alone the postulated age of the universe. You are merely grasping at straws.

  414. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    You sir are very welcome. We missed you and the levity you bring. TWW is still like Al Andalus of old before the inquisition took over.

  415. Bunyan33 wrote:

    Why do dinosaur bones 57 million years old have soft tissue still? YEC has an answer and so does old earth

    What is your point, then?

    On the plus side, I learned a lot of neat stuff looking this up!

    After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.”The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots,” Schweitzer said. “They basically act like formaldehyde.”

  416. I was curious about the whole “distant starlight” question, so I’ve been trolling Youtube, looking for YEC types who can explain their answer. Here are the main ones I found.

    – Starlight in Transit. I had heard of this one before, and it still seems like a giant illusion. It’s the idea that God created stars with the illusion of age, by also creating all of the photons already in position between here and there.

    – The Black Hole. The idea is that on Day 4 of Creation [Thursday], there was some sort of distortion that caused time to go really slow on Earth, while the rest of the universe experienced normal time. So while a day passed here, 14.7 billion years or so passed there. And their proof is that gravity wells slow time down, which is true. [Problem is, you would need a lot of gravity to stretch a day to 14.7B years. A factor of 5-10 trillion or so.]

    The White Hole. This is the opposite of the Black Hole. There was some sort of anomaly that sped time up in the rest of the universe, while it progressed normally on Earth. They actually call it a white hole, without defining what that is. [Because it doesn’t exist, except in bad science fiction. MST3K level sci-fi.]

    Time Slows Down. When God made the universe, everything worked differently. Light traveled much faster, almost instantaneously. Then, for some reason [probably the Fall], it started slowing down, until it stabilized at its current speed. [This is the solution that Del Tackett, the host of the Genesis as History movie, seems to reference.]

    Light Changes Speeds. The idea is that we can’t measure the speed of light going one-way, so we have to use a mirror to bounce it back. Which means, we know the average 2-way speed, but not how fast it’s going on its way out, and its way back. What if… Light travels almost instantaneously when it leaves the source, but the mirror slows it down? What if we are seeing the stars as they actually are right now?

    There were a couple of videos where the speaker says the question of distant starlight is the most common question from skeptical people. Because it’s a good question.

    There might be other YEC solutions to this question out there, but this research is wearing me out. I’m hoping that by typing this, I can get [this nonsense] out of my noggin and think some good thoughts.

  417. @ Jeffrey J . Chalmers:

    I was not trained with YEC. I was heavily innundated with Evolutionary scenarios. Had a 2 atheist teachers in particular. I did get Ernst Haeckel Drawings and I did get the story of embryonic recapitulation in the late 80’s early 90’s in school. When I saw that was fraudulent that was a real eye opener. How many 100’s of years was that pushed. The implications continue to echo in comparative embryology classes. It was a baseless foundational argument.

  418. OldJohnJ wrote:

    You are merely grasping at straws

    Maybe for now. Things change over time. We used to have junk DNA now we do not. We used to have a uniformitarian view on the Glacial lake Missoula, now we have a massive draining lake system cutting its way to the sea. Still looking for erosional surfaces in between layers on every drive east to west coast, not seeing passages of time between sedimentary layers.

    1.2 billion years ago the moon would be touching the surface of the earth. When did the moon arrive to the earth, split from the earth etc. It needs a creator to place it there essentially or we would not have so many theories on how the moon arrived.

    Global Flood of Noah gives strong explanatory power for how the Ice age occurred, warm oceans and cold land masses = lots of snow, earth is recovering from flood, sea levels lower for a while all that snow piles up on the continents, people disperse and carry with them the creation/flood and story of Babel.

    That story line makes better sense to me of what I have read and see.

    Are there other things beside radiometric dating that you find difficult to reconcile. I want to look at other evidence too. I will draw my conclusions along side all the other evidences anthropologic, genetic, geologic, biologic etc…

  419. Bunyan33 wrote:

    I did get Ernst Haeckel Drawings and I did get the story of embryonic recapitulation in the late 80’s early 90’s in school.

    What kind of school did you to to? By the time I hit high school biology in 1949 that had already been debunked. And neither in college (biology major) nor in med school (embryology) was it mentioned. I am thinking that some of what has been difficult for you had to do with the school more than with biology per se.

  420. For what it’s worth, Fathom Events is running 2 encore showings of the Genesis as History movie, on March 2 and 7. I’m guessing ticket sales were pretty good.

    I hope I didn’t sound too snarky about the distant starlight stuff. As a complete non-scientist with a passing interest in astronomy, I just found the YEC “solutions” really lacking. If someone can find a better explanation, I’m happy to listen.

  421. @ Bunyan33:
    There are flies trapped in amber with soft tissues that are just as old – but you’ll tell me that’s all false too because YEC has figured that amber isn’t really that old, just hyper compressed under all that flood water – the conversation is circular at this point.

    The bible is full of fantastical stories that can never be proven. Like Shamgar killing 600 Philistines with an ox goad, or even the concept of a virgin birth and on and on.

    I have a Hindu co-worker who is just a fervent in his belief. Do you think these stories would convince him any more than the idol in his office would convince me? There’s lots of equally fantastical stories in his tradition.

    That’s why it’s faith. For literalists, if any part of the bible is false — even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then the whole Christian enterprise collapses.

    The universe is not a trick or an illusion. It is real and amazing and full of secrets that we have yet to uncover.

    There’s the truth of the bible – that’s belief.

    There’s the truth of scientific inquiry – that’s fact.

    The bridge is faith.

    In my wife’s family on her Dad’s side, she’s a first generation Christian (the family background is a mixture of Muslim and Buddhist). I can tell you with certainty that they were not convinced to become Christian by fantastic stories alone or YEC pseudoscience. It was the preaching and a community living with — faith.

  422. @ Jack:
    Oh and the fossil record is known to only contain a small fraction of the record of life on this planet. Erosion, seismic upheavals and such has destroyed much. Paleanthropologist Donald Johanson (discoverer of “Lucy”) states that contrary to the evolutionary “line” popularized in various cartoons, the human background is more like a tree with many branches. Given the time between Lucy and us, it is highly unlikely that Lucy’s species is a direct ancestor. This is true for the entire fossil record.

  423. Nancy2 wrote:

    Open-minded curiosity is never foolish, IMO. (Math person here, not science.).
    I have read that the probability of all of the chemicals and elements in the human body coming together by chance to form a living being is less than 1 in 480,000,000,000. Imagine the chances of all things in creation happening by chance!

    This is the conventional wisdom that most of the academic world agrees upon. Small incremental changes over vast oceans of time. The mechanism itself is it’s own first cause and has its own sustaining force to keep it from slipping into disorder (Dawkins, deGrasse Tyson, Hawking, et. al.).

    Here’s another vid in which Schroeder addresses these issues. Mind you, Schroeder is no run of the mill Shlemiel (Yiddish for dolt who is a habitual bungler). He holds a legitimate doctorate in nuclear physics from MIT:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmg_3UCtk5o

  424. OldJohnJ wrote:

    If you cannot find within the YEC community serious, by that I mean results that will withstand pointed evaluations in the open peer reviewed literature

    But “open peer reviewed literature” is ALL part of The Conspiracy!

  425. Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    In most of my experiences the “sin” is sexual also.. IFB definitely have a hang-up/preoccupation with sex.. I also thought is was kind of amusing, because many of these “preachers” were obese.. but I sure do not remember hearing about the sin of gluttony..

    Jeff, the fifth-helping-at-every-potluck preacher SCREAMING SIN! SIN! SIN! from the pulpit (while sitting down, literally too fat to stand up) is such a RL shtick there used to be a (now defunct) website with YouTube videos on exactly that subject.

  426. Ken F wrote:

    Bunyan33 wrote:
    I am struggling to see eons of time in the layers of sediment, it makes more sense to me that it was a catastrophic event and our continent went under 1 x, massive forces deposited huge volumes of sand across the continent.

    I would gladly accept YEC teaching if it truly made sense. But it doesn’t. I don’t believe that you are open to facts that do not conform to YEC ideology. Consequently, there is not much point in having a discussion.

    The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.

  427. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    In there mind it is a conspiracy.. because they do science we their view of the Bible first, not an open mind…. so, by definition all other svience is a conspiracy..

  428. @ Bunyan33:
    You keep saying makes strong points but only if you squint hard and ignore most of the evidence around. At times they (YEC) can seem to make a case on one fine very small point or another but even these points just do not hang together into coherent whole when you look at the vastness of other evidence.

    Given your comments on the Grand Canyon you might try this series on internetmonk.com
    http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/71230
    This is the last in the series but I give it because it has links to all the segments.

  429. Then there is technetium, the element with atomic number 43 that is the only element lighter than uranium not naturally present on Earth in more than trace amounts. The most stable isotope of technetium has a half-life of about 4 million years. If the solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago as modern science believes, the absence of technetium is well explained. Any technetium present when the earth formed would have almost entirely decayed after a thousand half-lives had passed.

    On the other hand, if the solar system formed about 10,000 years ago, that’s about 1/400th of a half-life, and nearly all of the technetium present at the time should still be present today. In that case we’d expect technetium to be nearly as prevalent as molybdenum and ruthenium, elements with atomic weights close to that of technetium, but it isn’t. Why isn’t it?

  430. Bunyan33 wrote:

    Are there other things beside radiometric dating that you find difficult to reconcile

    You have not addressed or pointed to a source that will deal with my last question to you: How do account for the two U-Pb decay clocks in zircons? What information or reference do you and other YEC supporters use to cast doubt on the suitability of this particular scheme for measuring the age of our planet, ages in the billions of years?

  431. GSD wrote:

    There were a couple of videos where the speaker says the question of distant starlight is the most common question from skeptical people. Because it’s a good question.

    Whether it’s the most common question from sceptical people, and about exactly what the people concerned were sceptical, I can’t be certain; but it is one of many good questions.

    It is very easy to cherry-pick bits of data that support a given theory or, alternatively, to apply a chosen theory to create a “good” (however you define “good”) explanation of some or other set of data. But to have integrity, a body of theory must explain all of the available data better than any other available theory. Moreover, “better” doesn’t just mean “to my aesthetic satisfaction” – it must come up with testable predictions that would, in principle, disprove it if it’s untrue. Rather like a prophet who says, “Thus says the LORD: x shall happen”, and x doesn’t happen, isn’t a prophet.

    The Theory of Absolute Biblical Literalism is a very exciting theory that implies some very exciting things. As I said above, I look forward to some fascinating new phenomena emerging from institutions such as the Institute for Creation Research.

  432. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    As I said above, I look forward to some fascinating new phenomena emerging from institutions such as the Institute for Creation Research.

    Which probably looks as though I’m being sarcastic, or at least ironic. But I’m really not. There’s nothing stopping them.

    Oddly enough, the widely-despised Bethel Church are going around laying hands on everything that moves (I exaggerate to make a point) based on biblical predictions of healing. I don’t know where they stand on the age of the earth, much less care, but at least they’re trying something.

  433. Bunyan33 wrote:

    Consider YEC witnesses large canyon formed at Mt. St Helens

    My answer to you from 11:16 this morning has finally cleared customs if you want to go back and read it. I lived within of site mountain (on the south side) when it erupted. Our city got only some light dusting. The view of the plume was amazing.

  434. So are you saying that biologos is divisive because it “calls into question the beliefs of serious Christians”?

  435. well, I believe man is morally devolving. Christ is the only solution to humanity moral degredation.

    People are free to study Jewish history on the origins of “dates”….but even the gregorian calendar is not as accurate as biblical/nature/rhythm calendar…..which has patterns of “seven” hidden in it. The moon shows a pattern of returning to the same “phases” ad location in the sky every so many years and will even fall on the same day of the week every three years.

    I believe the account of creation is based on “rhythms” of nature. The number seven is found within nature (Fibonacci formulas, back of maple leaf has seven veins, musical tones have seven major note possibilities) and not a creation of man.

  436. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Moreover, “better” doesn’t just mean “to my aesthetic satisfaction” – it must come up with testable predictions that would, in principle, disprove it if it’s untrue.

    I was struck by how untestable these theories were. White holes the size of the universe that massively alter time? Creative, but not scientific.

    The Biologos review brought out something very helpful. The tag line for this movie is “Two Competing Views… One Compelling Truth.” That sets up a false dichotomy, as if everyone must choose between atheistic evolution in an old universe and Biblical creation in a young universe.

    There are other options. I’m thankful for that.

  437. Ian wrote:

    But the key thing is that science has been responsible for huge advances in every aspect of life

    Only electronics basically, and horticulture. Space is fake and has provided nothing but a huge sucking sound in the Federal Budget. And evolution has done nothing but ruin the public school system to where nobody learns anything anymore other than that they’re just a monkey and should have monkey sex accordingly. Aside from the New Calvinism and other doctrinal issues in evangelicalism, I think the reason that so much sexual abuse is going on is they actually buy into evolution. I know that Tim Keller does.

  438. Lea wrote:

    IIRC, that scandal was less about fake data than that they would not hand over the original data or lost it or destroyed it or something.

    I thought there was censorship involved, too, of those who disagreed.

  439. most ‘claims’ of proof can be examined by looking at the sources and the references and the links provided (if any) and tracing the names involved and the credentials of those people as to their academic gravitas (what professional journals have they published in), membership in what professional organizations, on the board of any major professional entities, professorships at major universities, etc.

    an awful lot of YEC stuff traces to links that have connections to the imaginative world of conspiracy theorists ….. the people that fall for this stuff don’t have any training in sorting out whether or not a source is to be taken seriously or just plays to some ‘base’ that will pay big money for fake science to be used for political agendas …. corporate greed is not a motivator for seeking truth, but some people don’t get this and are easily fooled

  440. GSD wrote:

    White holes the size of the universe that massively alter time? Creative, but not scientific.

    No, and not biblical either!

    Sorry to sound like a stuck record, but… I’m not opposed to the idea of creation science. Just like I’m not opposed to the idea of faster-than-light propulsion or a way of regrowing severed limbs. But it has to do something. Jesus did many other wonderful things in the presence of his disciples (as John tells us from first-hand knowledge) that are not recorded in the bible. I’m interested in the stories of the many Christians around the world who are exploring and living out what those things may have been, and what Jesus is doing in the presence of his modern-day disciples.

  441. @ john smith:
    I totally disagree with you. Your comment was almost not approved but I decided to allow it to show how some Christians badly represent their case. You have no stats, no serious thinking, etc. You are just spewing polemics which do nothing to advance your cause.

  442. @ john smith:
    Do you, or anyone close to you get advanced medical care, or take modern medicines? Is that all “fake”?? How about the atomic bombs and electricity from nuclear power, is that “fake”?

  443. john smith wrote:

    Space is fake and has provided nothing but a huge sucking sound in the Federal Budget.

    Remember the Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy type that Buzz Aldrin punched out that one time?
    He was Born-Again; had a Bible prominent when he accosted Aldrin and got flattened.
    Moon Landing Denial — another Primary Salvation Doctrine?

  444. angry pickle wrote:

    People are free to study Jewish history on the origins of “dates”….but even the gregorian calendar is not as accurate as biblical/nature/rhythm calendar…..which has patterns of “seven” hidden in it.

    Add Entropy, simmer for a while, and the above statement cooks into Occult Numerology.

  445. OldJohnJ wrote:

    You have not addressed or pointed to a source that will deal with my last question to you: How do account for the two U-Pb decay clocks in zircons?

    “God Performed a Miracle! And then Another Miracle! And then Another! Do You Doubt The Sovereignty of GOD?”

    What information or reference do you and other YEC supporters use to cast doubt on the suitability of this particular scheme for measuring the age of our planet, ages in the billions of years?

    “B-I-B-L-E! That’s the only Book for me! B-I-B-L-E!”

  446. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    But “open peer reviewed literature” is ALL part of The Conspiracy!

    the final refuge of the YEC.

    The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.

  447. Robert wrote:

    On the other hand, if the solar system formed about 10,000 years ago, that’s about 1/400th of a half-life, and nearly all of the technetium present at the time should still be present today. In that case we’d expect technetium to be nearly as prevalent as molybdenum and ruthenium, elements with atomic weights close to that of technetium, but it isn’t. Why isn’t it?

    “GOD Created It That Way!”, what else?
    “B-I-B-L-E! That’s the only Book for me!”

  448. john smith wrote:

    I think the reason that so much sexual abuse is going on is they actually buy into evolution. I know that Tim Keller does.

    Yeah, that Keller is a party animal. [Sarcasm, by the way.]

    Evolution leads to immorality? So before Darwin, humans were well behaved? I was watching a video on ancient Roman culture, in which the early church thrived. It was amazingly debauched. Slaves weren’t considered human, so a master could legally do… Whatever to a slave, female or male. Soldiers frequently had young boys traveling with them, to carry their armor, and… help them unwind. Yeah, that’s what I mean. Babies who were sick or unwanted were left at the edge of the city dump to die. A popular wind chime of the time was in the shape of the male anatomy. Much of the preserved graffiti in Pompei is downright nasty. And that’s just the Empire of Rome.

    I find it interesting that the good old days… usually weren’t.

  449. dee wrote (in response to “john smith”):

    I totally disagree with you. Your comment was almost not approved but I decided to allow it to show how some Christians badly represent their case.

    I’m 99% certain (s)he is joking, with a view to showing exactly the same thing. Bearing in mind that Poe’s Law actually originated in a Creationism Versus The World forum…

    john smith’s comments are actually quite funny (and getting funnier – “space is fake” 🙂 ) if you understand them as satire.

  450. Ken F wrote:

    Does that make you a four point creationist?

    No even number can be prime, but yeah, I’ve outed myself and come out of the closet as a creationist and ID (intelligent design) sympathizer. Kepler and Newton had no problem with the Almighty as all powerful designer and master magician and neither do I.

  451. john smith wrote:

    Space is fake and has provided nothing but a huge sucking sound in the Federal Budget. And evolution has done nothing but ruin the public school system to where nobody learns anything anymore other than that they’re just a monkey and should have monkey sex accordingly.

    80

    I can’t even count the number of things wrong in those two sentences. The Kool-Aid is strong with this one…

  452. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    john smith’s comments are actually quite funny (and getting funnier – “space is fake” ) if you understand them as satire.

    I hope you’re right, Nick. Otherwise, those comments are much more scary than funny.

  453. john smith wrote:

    Ian wrote:
    But the key thing is that science has been responsible for huge advances in every aspect of life
    Only electronics basically, and horticulture. Space is fake and has provided nothing but a huge sucking sound in the Federal Budget. And evolution has done nothing but ruin the public school system to where nobody learns anything anymore other than that they’re just a monkey and should have monkey sex accordingly. Aside from the New Calvinism and other doctrinal issues in evangelicalism, I think the reason that so much sexual abuse is going on is they actually buy into evolution. I know that Tim Keller does.

    I’ll give you an answer even though you’re probably not serious.

    Science has given us:

    medicine – drugs (inc antibiotics), safe childbirth, x-rays, mri scans, operations, cancer treatments etc
    transportation – cars, boats, airplanes, trains
    construction – buildings, roads, dams, bridges, tunnels
    plastics
    metals
    paper and cardboard
    chemicals – glues, dyes, cleaning products
    printing
    refrigeration
    synthetic textiles
    photography (remember films!)
    electricity – lighting, heating, electric motors
    water supply
    gas supply for heating (and light in the past)

    All this without mentioning electronics or horticulture (I think you meant agriculture).

    If there was no science, all the above would not exist or be in a primitive state of development.

  454. Muff Potter wrote:

    No even number can be prime,

    That’s odd. No, wait…

    I’m similar, I fall into the heretical camp in the middle that believes God did it, that Genesis means something more than just allegory, and that the earth and universe are as old as modern science indicate.

  455. GSD wrote:

    I was curious about the whole “distant starlight” question, so I’ve been trolling Youtube, looking for YEC types who can explain their answer. Here are the main ones I found.

    That’s another aspect of YEC that I find so hypocritical. They claim to only believe the Bible, but then propose crazy ideas like this that are not in the Bible. This tells me that they don’t truly believe in the Bible, they just use it as a smokescreen.

  456. Adding to a comment above that hasn’t been answered: There are water deposited sediments on average over a mile deep across all the continents. Why is there no erosion between layers?

  457. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I’m 99% certain (s)he is joking,

    That is where you have the advantage. I always have to run through a list of differential diagnoses: drugs, alcohol, psychosis, pinko commie liberal nut, four year old who got hold of the computer, early onset dementia, traumatic brain injury due to dropped on his head as an infant, possession, appalachian snake handler, malingering, not a native english speaker. But just having fun never crosses my mind. This is one of the reasons we need you here.

  458. dlc wrote:

    Adding to a comment above that hasn’t been answered: There are water deposited sediments on average over a mile deep across all the continents. Why is there no erosion between layers?

    Because the Illuminati despatched an army of Tooth Fairies to erase them.

  459. dlc wrote:

    Adding to a comment above that hasn’t been answered: There are water deposited sediments on average over a mile deep across all the continents. Why is there no erosion between layers?

    I am not a geologist. I am thinking that neither are you since IMO you are asking the wrong question.

    Somebody posted this link which gets into the issue that you have brought up, in which these people claim that there is abundant evidence of both erosion and channels, referring to the movie when talking about the grand canyon. They basically consider the information in the movie on this to be false.

    http://biologos.org/blogs/guest/a-geological-response-to-the-movie-is-genesis-history

    So IMO the question would be why is there disagreement about erosion between layers of sediment, and which research shows what, and what is the credibility of both the various research based opinions and the people who did the research and came to the apparently disparate conclusions. And what is the consensus. And who published the findings. The usual stuff where one finds credibility.

    But since I am not a geologist, how would I know. But if there is a geologist here they perhaps will engage on this issue.

  460. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    dlc wrote:
    Adding to a comment above that hasn’t been answered: There are water deposited sediments on average over a mile deep across all the continents. Why is there no erosion between layers?

    Because the Illuminati despatched an army of Tooth Fairies to erase them.

    DON’T GIVE THEM IDEAS!

    (You might laugh, Nick, but in an environment of Can-You-Top-This Conspiracy Theories with God Himself as the prize…)

  461. okrapod wrote:

    I always have to run through a list of differential diagnoses: drugs, alcohol, psychosis, pinko commie liberal nut, four year old who got hold of the computer, early onset dementia, traumatic brain injury due to dropped on his head as an infant, possession, appalachian snake handler, malingering, not a native english speaker. But just having fun never crosses my mind.

    Because you have run into one Dead Serious True Believer too many.

  462. @ dlc:

    The article, just like the movie, states opinions allegedly based on science. It is an example of what I said. There are differences of opinion. The question to ask is first which opinion is correct. Then you ask why. Since this issue is important to you, then I would assume you will pursue this in reputable sources. But asking somebody here where there are no geologists really looks like game playing.

    So again I say. How would I know. Go to reputable sources since there are disparate opinions out there.

  463. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Because you have run into one Dead Serious True Believer too many.

    Oh, if you only knew. Dead Serious True Believer disease is way up at the top of my list of serious problems for humanity.

  464. Ken F wrote:

    It’s part of the conspiracy.

    How does one become a card carrying member of the vast conspiracy? I am flying solo out here; some company would help.

  465. Wait. I have another potential diagnosis to add to my list: low battery on an experimental electronic brain implant.

  466. okrapod wrote:

    How does one become a card carrying member of the vast conspiracy?

    Aha! That question PROVES you are part of the conspiracy! No one not in the conspiracy would think to ask it.

  467. okrapod wrote:

    May I use you as a reference?

    By now you should know that absolute secrecy about membership is what defines the conspiracy. Anyone in the conspiracy would deny it, except if the denial could convince others that they actually are in the conspiracy, in which case they would confirm it in order to deny it.

  468. okrapod wrote:

    But since I am not a geologist, how would I know. But if there is a geologist here they perhaps will engage on this issue.

    Go over to internetmonk (on TWW’s roster). They have a resident geologist (legitimate doctorate) over there who has done a whole series on why a global (Noadic) flood is pure whimsy and ancient fantasy.

    I don’t necessarily agree with uniformitarianism (or evolution), but then again I have no theological dog in the fight like Ken Ham does, because I also reject the doctrine of original sin, and the proposition that God had to sacrifice his beautiful son on my behalf because I can’t achieve perfection.
    Mike the geologist’s stuff is still fascinating reading though.

  469. okrapod wrote:

    Wait. I have another potential diagnosis to add to my list: low battery on an experimental electronic brain implant.

    Sometimes I am unable to express my mental state after these extended YEC interactions. Your diagnosis code here is very helpful.

  470. @ OldJohnJ:

    I love it when you get into these discussions. You keep asking people to at least act like they have a lick of sense and they keep not doing it. I know that must be big time frustrating.

  471. @ okrapod:
    As “old men” OldJohnJ and I at least have s “perspective” and been around the block a few times….. what is sad/frustrating/alarming etc isvwhat happens to young people…
    I was one once!

  472. okrapod wrote:

    I am not a geologist. I am thinking that neither are you…

    No, (s)he is not, as witness the recent similar discussion on the Open Discussion Page.

    But since I am not a geologist, how would I know. But if there is a geologist here they perhaps will engage on this issue.

    Though I’m not currently working in geology, I studied the subject as part of my Natural Sciences degree at Cambridge and am therefore part-geologist. As I also studied physics, chemistry and fluid mechanics as part of the same degree, I understand the underlying physical processes that drive plate tectonics and other long-term geophysical processes too (processes that don’t pass dlc’s “logic test”).

    Precisely because of that, I won’t engage on the issue; it would be a complete waste of time.

  473. okrapod wrote:

    @ OldJohnJ:
    I love it when you get into these discussions. You keep asking people to at least act like they have a lick of sense and they keep not doing it. I know that must be big time frustrating.

    Sometimes the urge to choke the Stupid out of them just gets overwhelming.

  474. Ken F wrote:

    okrapod wrote:
    May I use you as a reference?

    By now you should know that absolute secrecy about membership is what defines the conspiracy. Anyone in the conspiracy would deny it, except if the denial could convince others that they actually are in the conspiracy, in which case they would confirm it in order to deny it.

    And remember that EVERYBODY except the Conspiracy Theorist is part of The Conspiracy. That’s why the Conspiracy tinfoil hats are always so bitter.

  475. Ken F wrote:

    I’m similar, I fall into the heretical camp in the middle that believes God did it, that Genesis means something more than just allegory, and that the earth and universe are as old as modern science indicate.

    Here’s a link to an image of William Blake’s Ancient of Days artwork:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Blake_ancient_of_days.jpg

    Makes me think of the days when kids were taught geometric construction with straightedge (graduations irrelevant) and compass. That’s long fallen out of fashion now in favor of pure abstractions that leave them hollowed out and with no real frame of reference.

  476. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Is this the video?

    Umm… The video was different, but that looks like the same windchime. Hard to forget that one. The video certainly helps prove my point.

    Facebook showed me an ad for the Genesis movie, with a few hundred comments about how people were going to the other showings. It’s apparently popular with the home school crowd. Gosh, it was tempting to comment, but I spend as little time as possible on Facebook.

  477. Lea wrote:

    I have a friend who is a legit geologist. Oh wait! Two (ish)!
    Do I win something?

    The knowledge you’ll gain is its own reward, Lea!

    😉

  478. Ken F wrote:

    I’m similar, I fall into the heretical camp in the middle that believes God did it, that Genesis means something more than just allegory, and that the earth and universe are as old as modern science indicate.

    You’ll be aware of how usefully proportioned the relative strengths of gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces are. If indeed these marvellously simple building-blocks were designed by Someone billions of years ago, such that they could be steered over eons into the world we see around us, then that Someone really knew how to plan ahead.

  479. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    that Someone really knew how to plan ahead.

    Yes. Atheists try to explain away the exquisite find-tuning of the universe by appealing to unscientific theories like a multi-verse where we live in one of the few and very highly improbable universes that can support life. Since we will unlikely ever have a way of proving this one way or another, it is simply a faith statement. YECs, on the other hand, turn their back on the evidence of design by basically saying that we cannot trust what we see because it was made only a few thousand years ago, but in a way that makes it look MUCH older. In this sense, YECs are very much like atheists – both try to explain away the evidence by appealing to unverifiable faith statements.

  480. Perhaps related to the excesses of YEC thus appropriate to these comments: There is a very strong undercurrent that life exists and in fact should be plentiful elsewhere in the universe if not in our own solar system. While I suspect but cannot build a case that this is at least partly a reaction to YEC it is still an interesting open question in science. From a purely secular viewpoint the origin of life on our planet is still an open question. Various exploration robots on and planned for Mars have the search for evidence of life as part of their missions.

    Next year (2018) the US’s NASA is planning to launch the James Webb Space Telescope (on a European rocket!). It is claimed to have the capability of making spectroscopic observations of planetary atmospheres of nearby solar systems. Oxygen on our planet is considered to be due to plant life. Finding oxygen in a distant planet atmosphere would be considered definitive evidence of life there. Assuming all goes according to plans with the JWST such evidence will likely be available within 5 years.

    What would evidence of extraterrestrial life mean to our present Christian theology?

  481. OldJohnJ wrote:

    What would evidence of extraterrestrial life mean to our present Christian theology?

    That is an interesting question. I’ve always thought that we should be more careful about broadcasting our position out to the galaxy, since we don’t know who might be listening. From a Star Trek perspective, it could be the Vulcans, but it could also be the Romulans or Klingons. [More likely, it would be like the squids from Arrival.]

    Would the discovery of ET life conflict with the Bible? It depends on how one interprets Genesis. For very literal YEC types, I think it would. Some would abandon the faith, but I think most would go into defensive mode, claiming the ETs are actually demons or a sign of the End Times. My guess is that other Christians who are OEC or TE would have much less trouble, once the shock wore off. And depending on what our ET friends had to say about God.

    The Christians in the middle, who haven’t really sorted this out… They are the question.

  482. OldJohnJ wrote:

    While I suspect but cannot build a case that this is at least partly a reaction to YEC it is still an interesting open question in science.

    That’s giving YEC too much credit. I’ve been reading about SETI and other such projects before I was even aware of YEC beliefs. It nearly blew me away in the mid-2000s when my wife’s church started touting YEC as a “christian worldview”. I had no idea that there were still folks believing that.

    Christian theology itself makes extraordinary claims. Claims that can only be taken on faith. If your faith is strong enough then you should be able to accept the truth of life beyond earth and maintain it.

    One is a belief based on feeling or whatever else faith entails, one would be a theory based on observed data.

    For what it’s worth, even if the JWST doesn’t find that evidence, given the sheer size and scope of the universe there is a good chance that life is/was/will be out there.

  483. GSD wrote:

    claiming the ETs are actually demons or a sign of the End Times.

    Like Arthur C. Clarke’s book “Childhoods End”?

  484. Ken F wrote:

    Atheists try to explain away the exquisite find-tuning of the universe by appealing to unscientific theories like a multi-verse where we live in one of the few and very highly improbable universes that can support life

    I agree with this. I read an article in Scientific American a few years back that called out scientists presenting such claims to the public dishonestly as facts. Like string theory, mathematically beautiful but for now unprovable.

    However it is extreme Christian hubris to expect the answer to default to the Judeo-Christian God. Even if there is a designer, it doesn’t necessarily have to be him/her/it. Answers to creation and the universe are a work in progress. It’s only recently that we could even prove that other star systems had planets. It was a good guess they did – even a likely one, but only with Keplar and the stronger ground based telescopes like KECK could we prove it.

    Looking at it with 20/20 hindsight we can say that Genesis has it right but Genesis is two earlier creation stories that were bashed together (at least according to scholars) and elements of the Genesis story can be found in much Sumerian accounts like the Epic of Gilgamesh – that do not mention the Jewish God.

    Sure the bible has some hits, but it has a lot of misses too which we tend to gloss over.

  485. Jack wrote:

    For what it’s worth, even if the JWST doesn’t find that evidence, given the sheer size and scope of the universe there is a good chance that life is/was/will be out there.

    Other good comments!

    Besides SETI there is the Drake Equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
    I first became aware of this in the 1970s. As I said, a strong undercurrent. The Kepler satellite and follow up studies suggest perhaps as many as 1 in 1000 stars will have an earth like planet. Any announcement of another earth like planet is rapidly trumpeted by the popular media. For a very recent example google: TRAPPIST-1

    My experience with YEC folks is that they are so focused on a literal interpretation of Gen 1-11 that these types of observations pass them by.

  486. We’re approaching 600 comments in this thread.

    Bet I can push it over 1000 by uttering just one word: HOMOSEXUALITY!

  487. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Jack wrote:
    For what it’s worth, even if the JWST doesn’t find that evidence, given the sheer size and scope of the universe there is a good chance that life is/was/will be out there.

    Other good comments!

    Besides SETI there is the Drake Equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

    Tempered by the Fermi Paradox and Rare Earths Hypothesis.

  488. GSD wrote:

    Facebook showed me an ad for the Genesis movie, with a few hundred comments about how people were going to the other showings. It’s apparently popular