The reason its not science is because young earth creationism does not even follow the same methodology as science, so even if it were legitimate it wouldn't be considered science. You see science starts with no presuppositions of how the world is supposed to be, then looks at the evidence and forms a conclusion; presuppositions may exist but they are ignored. Science draws the conclusion after gathering the evidence. Young Earth Creationism starts out with the conclusion that earth is 6,000 years old and was reshaped by flood 4400 years ago and then find evidence to support the conclusion they have already come to, then they have to force-fit all science into this conclusion. They even freely preach this position; here is a quote from the leading creationist Ken Ham;
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my
response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I
believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly
interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how
building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by
science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals
and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this
presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection,
genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the
science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
At first glance Ken Ham's view does seem reasonable after all we do interpret everything according to our own biases don't we? Also This perspective allows a person intelligent or not to comfortably except any view and feel perfectly comfortable with it, even though to an outside observer it may obvious that the person is mistaken. Ken Ham has successfully crafted a way that you can believe whatever you want and not have to deal with what the facts have to actually say at all. If I didn't have such high scruples and respect for rational inquiry I would accept this view; it is very, very comfortable, but is it rational? Is this view really how we find truth, is this really how science worked all along? In any area? Why if this idea were true archaeology would be impossible since we would not know anything about this civilization except what they left behind, "we weren't there." The past before human experience can be known.
Suppose I were out hiking in the mountains and I came across the body of a deer which had fallen in my path, also suppose after examining it I found that it was torn apart and showed teeth marks, I would say it must have been eaten by wolves. At this point the only evidence for a wolf attack is the fact that it has teeth marks on its body (as well as the fact that its body was in several pieces). Well what else can I do? Suppose I were to look for wolf foot prints, the deer looks like it was killed relatively recently so there should still be foot prints in the area; so I look around and lo' and behold, there are wolf foot prints all around the place. Also lets say I have to spend the night around that spot, and while I am uneasily trying to sleep I hear wolves howling. This is not a perfect analogy but it shows you can indeed tell what happened in the past without having to here it from an eye witness. Now I may not have the entire picture but I have the basic idea; the deer was attacked by wolves, large parts of its body were eaten. So I can get some idea of the past, unlike how Ken Ham seems to think that we have no way of knowing.
Also there are several problems just with his last few sentences.
--Science does not make sense under his interpretation of the bible
--The bible was never meant to be a science textbook, the bible itself makes this obvious, if it were meant to be a scientific text, the parts of the bible discussing scientific topics (the origin of the universe for one) would be no doubt more detailed.
What do we have here in this view that young earth creationists embrace? Well if this is true and our presuppositions determine reality, then there is no objective truth. You can go ahead and claim the bible is the truth in this view but that is just you assertion, there actually is no substance to it, a Muslim could just as easily claim that what the koran says is absolute truth and his position would be just as valid as your own. Unknowingly and unintentionally Ken Ham and his followers have bought into postmodernism, a view which is both anti-science and anti-Christian, both science and the Christian faith demand that there is a truly objective truth to which all truth can be tested against, otherwise both are in trouble. No matter how tempting an idea may be, we cannot accept postmodern ideas to justify its acceptance.
It must also be mentioned that this view has a general intolerance about it, Answers in Genesis will accept no other interpretations then their own, if you question it based on scientific evidence which contradicted it, you are now a heretic. If we are to make this view the normal view of the scientific community then we have just sentenced science and the scientists to prison, this isn't reconciling science and faith, it is placing science under the thumb of an unnecessary dogma. This isn't science being reconciled with faith, its more like science being oppressed by faith. What could happen if this view is accepted as the mainstream philosophical view on science? Scientists may be forced to rewrite all science into a particular interpretation of the bible, any evidence that truly contradicts their philosophical presuppositions will have to be rationalized or ignored, if they dare try to bring it up as a challenge to the particular view of the scientific community, it would be like a rerun of the Spanish inquisition.
Answers in Genesis says so itself that no theory if it contradicts their view of scripture can be legitimate, if it conflicts with there position it is wrong and that's that, no other examination required. And anyone who dares oppose there position will be fired from their job, lose their reputation and ultimately neither science nor Christianity will be helped by this theocratic control over the scientific community; both will be held back, perhaps for centuries.
Now I am not saying people don't have presuppostions, of course they dom its just they must be discussed in their proper place, in the realm of metaphysics, not in physical science.
I am not saying the AiG proponents all think this way or that somewhere along the line the next generation which holds this veiw might become the oppressors
Posts
17 comments:
I am interested what your take is on these areas that YEC (young earth creationists) scientists have brought up to me. I have compiled their written arguments. I know it is kinda long, sorry! But please take the time to read and tell me wht you think.
Age of the Earth: Limiting Factors
The answer to the Age of the Earth question is found in "Limiting Factors." While it may be impossible to be certain when the Earth formed, we may determine when the Earth did not form. Limiting Factors are best explained with this illustration: A boat sinks. On board is a chest full of gold coins. As time passes, the wreck is forgotten. Centuries later, the boat is discovered, and the chest full of coins is recovered. How can we determine when the boat sank? We may not be able to pinpoint the date, but we are able to determine when it did not sink by looking at the dates on the coins. If a coin is marked with 1756, we know the boat did not sink in 1755 or 1730 or 1610, etc. It must have sunk after the coin was minted. The coin is a "Limiting Factor."
Age of the Earth: Factors Pointing to a Young Earth
There are many Limiting Factors limiting the possible Age of the Earth. Here are a few:
Magnetic Field. The Earth's magnetic field is essential to life on Earth for many reasons. One reason is that it deflects much of the cosmic radiation that destroys life. Precise measurements of the Earth's magnetic field have been made since 1829, all over the world. During that time, it has deteriorated exponentially -- that is, it has followed a predictable curve. By graphing this curve, we extrapolate that life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC (the field would be as strong as the Sun's at that point) and will cease to exist after 10,000 AD (there will be, for all practical purposes, no field left, and the Earth will be fried by cosmic radiation).
Earth Rotation. The Earth's spin is slowing down. We experience a "leap second" every year and a half. If it is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. A faster spin would create a stronger Coriolis Effect, and life would be impossible as we know it.
Moon Drift. The moon is drifting slowly away from the Earth. If it is getting further away, then at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law in physics states that if the moon was half the distance away, its gravitational effect on our tides would be quadrupled. One third the distance and it would be 9 times stronger. We would all drown twice a day. 1.2 billion (1,200 million) years ago, the moon would have been touching the Earth.
Age of the Earth: Young is Not Unreasonable
There are a number of additional Limiting Factors regarding the Age of the Earth that scientists are discovering on a more and more frequent basis. Interestingly, they all seem to indicate a Young Earth, or certainly, not one that is millions or billions of years old. Contrary to the general thinking of the last century, many scientists now accept that it is reasonable to view the Earth as fairly young.
Age of the Earth: How Can We Know?
Can we determine the age of the earth, and if so, how? Scientists generally agree that the answer to the riddle of the age of the earth is carefully concealed within the earth's crust. Thus, the geologic timescale and radiometric dating have been developed in an effort to determine the age of the earth. The older of the two dating methods, the geologic timescale, is actually a circular argument and is therefore considered by many scholars to be weak. Nevertheless, the geologic timescale was thought to have been redeemed and refined with the advent of radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is more objective, and thus, more substantial. However, there are some underlying assumptions to consider.
Age of the Earth - The Geologic Column
The geologic column is the older of the two dating methods employed by scientists to determine the age of the earth. Basically, this is how it works: earth's many rock layers contain billions of fossils. Certain fossils are unique to certain layers of rock. Some of these fossils have been chosen to be what are called "index fossils". Scientists assume the age of an index fossil by the stage of evolutionary history the fossil is assumed to be in. That age is then transferred to the rock layer in which the index fossil was found. Then, to determine the age of all the other fossils in the same rock layer, we look at the age of the rock layer in which they are contained. Thus, we determine the age of the rock by the fossils it contains, and we determine the age of the fossils by the rock in which they are found. Many consider this circular reasoning. To learn more about this circular argument, explore our geologic time scale site.
Age of the Earth - Radiometric Dating
Radiometric dating is the primary dating scheme employed by scientists to determine the age of the earth. In a nutshell, this is how it works: atoms are generally regarded as the smallest unit of matter; everything is made of atoms. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons and electrons. An "element" is a substance made up of atoms which have the same number of protons. However, if these atoms have too many or too few neutrons, the element is unstable and will decay. The unstable element will eventually decay into a stable element. Radiometric dating techniques utilize this natural decay process by measuring how long it takes for the unstable element to decay into a stable element and by measuring how much stable element has been produced by the unstable element, thus determining how long the unstable element has been decaying. An age is then transferred to the specimen of rock containing the measured elements. The popular age of 4.6 billion years old for the planet earth was derived by applying radiometric dating techniques to a meteorite called "allende" (a-yen-day), which scientists assume formed at the same time as the earth. However, this date is not conclusive. Certainty and assumption are contrary. The dates derived by radiometric dating techniques are highly publicized but the fundamental assumptions employed are not. To learn more about these foundational assumptions, explore our radiometric dating site.
How Old is the Earth? Traditional Thought
How old is the Earth? Good question. The Earth was thought to be fairly young (thousands of years old) until the 19th and 20th centuries, when uniformitarianism (which assumes an Old Earth) and evolutionary thought (which demands an Old Earth) became popular in mainstream society.
How Old is the Earth? Recent Consideration
So, how old is the Earth? In the 19th century, it was proposed that the Earth may be as much as 70 million years old. Then, certain evidence was brought to light indicating that evolution was not possible in so short a time. So, the age of the Earth was pushed back. During the 20th century, it was thought that the age of the Earth was as much as 1 billion years old. Now, with the development of radiometric dating and the application of that technique on the meteorite "Allende", it is thought that the world is up to 4.6 billion years old. However, this is not conclusive. The assumptions that are fundamental to radiometric dating are extremely controversial, and are not held to be reasonable by many leading scholars. Furthermore, uniformitarianism has been disputed by such geologic features as poly-strata fossils and the lack of erosion between strata. Moreover, evolution is a theory in crisis with the discovery of DNA and its complex language convention, plus the absence of transitional fossils.
How Old is the Earth? Modern Evidences
By the 21st century, "How Old is the Earth?" has become an increasingly difficult question for Old Earth advocates. Every year, more and more Natural Chronometers indicating a Young Earth are being identified. While the majority of scientists still presuppose an Old Earth, 80% of the observable data indicates a Young Earth. With the weight of evidence indicating a Young Earth, the ranks of Young Earth advocate groups has swelled.
How Old is the Earth? Natural Chronometers
"How old is the Earth?" This question is once again sparking a heated debate. With discoveries such as the following Natural Chronometers, we are at the forefront of a Young Earth revolution:
• Our oceans contain concentrations of Aluminum, Antinomy, Barium, Bicarbonate, Bismuth, Calcium, Carbonates, Chlorine, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Gold, Iron, Lead, Lithium, Manganese, Magnesium, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Potassium, Rubidium, Silicon, Silver, Sodium, Strontium, Sulfate, Thorium, Tin, Titanium, Tungsten, Uranium, and Zinc. The river systems add to these concentrations at fixed apparent rates. Comparing the amounts already in the oceans with the rates at which more are being dumped, indicates the earth, as well as its river systems and oceans, are fairly young.
• Sediments are being eroded into our oceans at a fixed rate. There are only a few thousand years worth of sediments on the ocean floor.
• The Earth's magnetic field has been accurately measured since 1829. Since 1829, it has decayed 7%. It is decaying exponentially at a fixed rate. By graphing the curve, we see that approximately 22,000 years ago the Earth's field would have been as strong as the Sun's. Life would have been impossible.
• Comets are constantly losing matter. They are losing and losing and never gaining. "Short Period Comets" (like Haley's comet), which have predictable orbits, should deteriorate to nothing within 10,000 years. Why are there still Short Period Comets?
• Jupiter is losing heat twice as fast as it gains it from the Sun (it is five times further from the Sun than Earth). Yet Jupiter is still hot. If it is billions of years old, shouldn't it have cooled off by now?
• Jupiter's moon, Ganymede, which is roughly the size of Mercury, has a strong magnetic field, a possible indication that it is still hot. Why hasn't it cooled down?
• Saturn's rings are not stable. They are drifting away from Saturn. If Saturn is billions of years old, why does it still have rings?
• The Moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth. If it is getting further, at one time it was much closer. The Inverse Square Law dictates that if the Moon were half the distance from the Earth, its gravitational pull on our tides would be quadrupled. 1/3 the distance, 9 times the pull. Everything would drown twice a day. Approximately 1.2 billion years ago, the Moon would have been touching the Earth. Drowning would be the least of our concerns!
• Earth's rotation is slowing down. We experience a leap second every year and a half. If the Earth is slowing down, at one time it was going much faster. Besides the problem of extremely short days and nights, the increased "Coriolis Effect" would cause impossible living conditions.
• In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people.
Sounded like interesting arguements to me. But waht I want to know is do they hold water?
As I was reading through this I realaized that although I compiled, I did not proof. There are some points that have been duplicated. I apologize again for the length!
Hey Chris, I don't mind the long article, I will answer bulk of the arguments.
The first argument they use, the magnetic field argument. This argument assumes that the decay rate has always been constant, which it hasn't, according to the dynamo model it has reversed several times going from strong to weak (there is evidence for these reversal in rocks, it happens about once every 10,000 years), this does not make it a problem. Also the young earth creationists are implying uniformitarianism, somethng which they think is a competing philosphy to their paradigm.
Earth's rotation is slowing down at a rate of 0.005 seconds per year, at this rate there would be a fourteen our day 4.6 billion years ago, at this point there was not life on earth and by the time comlexty multicellular life came along earth had a day of over 21 hours, not much a difference.
The moon is drifting a way at about 1 inch a year, earth and the moon would have been touching eachother over ten billion years ago, the earth is only about 4.6 billion years old
They do not date the rocks byh the fossils and the fossils by the rocks as I also used to think, they date the soil with radiometric dating and the fossils used as index fossils are cross checked with other dating technics,and Polystrate fossils have a very simply explanation; local flooding, also they ignore that there are geological features which because of varves obviously show earth is several million years old atleast.
With the isochron dating method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating), the original conditions of the sample don't need to be known. Radiometric dating has its limits, but is reliable as long as we remember those limits.
Most of the other objections to an old earth and universe are answered on the talk origins website, also there is another website written from an Old Earth Creationist perspective you can look at. http://www.answersincreation.org/. I will soon be talking about the scientific evidence tht earth is old, and the Big Bng happened, and so forth.
Good info thank you! Just a couple other questions:
1. If the earth is 4.6 billion years old and the moon is drifting away at the rate of 1 inch per year, wouldn't life on earth be unable due to the closness of the moon?
This next one I can't seem to answer either, maybe you can help me out:
Assuming that God created man with age, meaning Adam wasn't an infant when he was created. Using this assumption I can't answer the following:
1. Wouldn't it stand to reason that God could have created the earth with age?
2. Thus giving us the geologic formations that appear billions of years old?
3. Giving every scientific test we use the answer of age?
4. Would it be too much of a stretch for God to put fossils in the ground to give us another option, so we can use our free will to decide what we believe?
The only answer I can come up with is: Yes.
I would appreaciate hearing your thoughts on these.
I didn't explain my moon question very well. What I meant to ask was: at what point would life become impossible due to the closness of the moon? It seems that even if the moon were half as close as now, to equal the back-math for the 1 inch per year, life would not be possible.
I believe that 4 and a half billion inches is about 72,601 miles so the moon would be 168,000 miles away 4.6 billion years ago, the earth would still be inhabitable at that point.
Also to what you said about the appearance of age;
The reason I object to the appearance of age is
1. it shows deceit on the part of God and...
2. It makes science virtually impossible.
The reason it makes God seem dishonest it because if he really did mean for us to think earth was 6,000 years old then why didn't he make it so? What your saying is that God made the evidence of geological eras which never happened and of species that never existed.
Now if your trying to convince a skeptic that earth is only 6,000 years old he will be able to swiftly prove ylou wrong using his God-given reason because God for some reason has decided to make earth and the universe look older then they really are, do you see how this would become a problem?
Now sure creating Adam in human form would not be deceitful, since he had never seen what he or any of the animals would look like as children. But think about it, by examining the geological and biological processes around him he would be able to tell the earth looked far older then God told him; then when he asked God what was up with the long ages God would have to say "I just made it that way, you must not trust your own reason."
Do you see where this would get us? It would lead science right to its deathbed because we would not be able to trust our senses. You can believe that if you want but I personally think it implies deceit on the part of God and is inherently anti-intellectual.
What I meant to ask is at the time that life appeared, what was the distance of the moon? And would this distance make life impossible?
I just want to point out that I actually have no preferance either way, young or old earth, it makes no difference because to me the most important thing is this: that God made it.
I believe that you are sadly mistaken about thinking that a young earth means that God is deceitful. God gave us the free will to decide what we believe the truth is. If WE are mistaken and choose to believe incorrectly this does NOT mean that God lied. It means that we are imperfect.
"...he will be able to swiftly prove you wrong using his God-given reason..."
This shows that the person is relying on himself, not on God. As a professed christian does this mesh with your beliefs? Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying to turn off your brain. What I am trying to warn against is limiting God to our understanding. What kind of god would we be serving if we understood everything he did? A god that can be understood with our limited mind is a god that is limited. As you and I know God is limitless.
I understand that someone can look at what I am writing and try to pick it apart line by line, it won't bother me as I am content in my beliefs. I just ask that they read the whole thing and try to get the main point.
Here's what I want to know from you CR, when you get to Heaven and ask God if He created a young or old earth, and IF He tells you He created a young earth.... will you turn around and walk back out of the pearly gates because it doesn't fit into your understanding?
Chris,
Life was created on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. At this point it was just bacteria (bacteria can survive in conditions as harsh as the moon) by the time complext life was made the moon was already far enaugh away that it would not have an effect either way.
You are deeply mistaken to think that i believe a belief in a young earth is deceitful. That is not at all what I am saying, if you find evidence for a young earth that stands the test then I will wholeheartedly support young earth creationism, I am simply not convinced.
It is not general belief in a young earth that makes it dishonest, the dishonesty comes when evidence points towards an old earth and you deny it. It is not deceitful if God creates the world without any sign of age beyond a few days (and yes it can be done, for example God could have created the original soil without varves).
You misunderstand what I mean by my belief that the "created with age" belief shows deceit on the part of God. I do not reject simply because it says earth would still be young. Simply because it wouldn't make sense in a biblical perspective, in Romans 1:20 the bible tells us we can know God's truth through creation, and if what he told us in creation isn't the truth, then how are we to trust him?
Using our God-given reason is as good s putting our faith in God, since he gave it to us in the first place, and the bible makes it clear that he intends us to use it when looking at creation. So why would he make reality as revealed to our physical senses unreasonable? If earth is young, then he probably would have left us clues, but he doesn't. Now if I go to heaven and I find out that he created it young with age, I will simply have to accept that for some reason that I do not understand he created it with age.
The reason I defend theistic evolution is not because I think the appearance of age is so wrong and deceitful, but because there are Christians who think it is, and would rather believe that God simply created the world over billions of years. Now when young earth creationists try to make it look like you choose either young earth creationism or atheistic evolution and they believe the proof is on the side of evolution and the scientifically established age of the earth, then their faith may be shaken. They may in fact leave the faith, and you remember what Jesus thinks of those people. Me and many other Christians have chosen to take the position of old earth creationism and theistic evolution because we feel the evidence from God's creation is on its side. Now if you want to believe that God created the universe with age, go ahead. That is not what I am criticizing. It does not make you seem any less Christian, I believe the question of faith, is do we have enough faith in God to abandon our prejudices, and accept what his word and world really say.
CR, just to quote you
"The reason I object to the appearance of age is
1. it shows deceit on the part of God and..."
Maybe this was a mistaken comment on your part....
I'm afraid that you are taking Romans 1:20 out of context. What Paul is saying is that people who believe that there is no God are mistaken and they have proof in the existance of creation. This passage does not tell us to use reason to put nature to the test to determine the age of the earth. Rather it tells us to use our reason in looking at nature to determine that God exists.
"So why would he make reality as revealed to our physical senses unreasonable?"
The simple answer, and not one that sits well with people who need proof, is that God intends for you to have faith.
I am interested to know what you think about God's power i.e. Wall of Jericho (Josh's favorite), Red Sea parting, Elijah and the chariot of fire etc. etc. etc.
All of these things defy the laws of nature in this world. Does this mean that God is lying to us? That the laws of nature are false? Or does it just mean that God is all-powerfull and he can make things happen that make reality as revealed to our physical senses unreasonable?
Just a disclaimer so you wont get upset at me. I enjoy debates and frequently take the opposite side of the person I am debating regardless of my beliefes. I just take issue when people are so entrenched in their beliefs that they refuse to look any other options.
Chris,
Well for one thing, I was fine with what you said until you gave me the disclaimer, I am not so intrenched in my beliefs that I am unwilling to view the other side, I am simply unconvinced by the other side. I have no problem with miracles tht defy the laws of physics, I have no problem with faith, and I'd be glad to explain why you quote.
What I meant was that if God meant the earth to be relatively young, and he created it to look 4.6 billion years there would be problem. If someone doubted the bible for scientific reasons they would easily reject the bible simply on the grounds that dor some strange reason God created it to look old. Wouldn't doing that impede on the progress of evangelism? Why would would an uncapricious being like God go through such sneaky (for lack of a better word) lengths to test someones faith?
What I was referring to in Romans 1:20 was not that we can determine the age of the earth I was saying that Romans 1:20 says we can know God through creation, which by extrapolation we can know the truth of what God tells us through creation. Job 12:8 backs uo this proposition as well.
Regards
First I want to apologize, I wasn't refering to you personally. I have read almost everything on this blog and from what you have written I never thought that you were entrenched in your beliefs. I was referring to people in general who make up their minds one way or the other and then either refuse to revisit the subject or turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to new things.
Second, if God meant the earth to be relatively young, and he created it to look 4.6 billion years old why would it create a problem? Because we as humans don't understand it? To demand that God needs to do things in a manner that is understandable to us seems rediculous doesn't it? Check out Isaiah 40:13, Romans 11:34, 1 Corinthians 2:16.
I think that you are taking those verses too far. What the author is trying to tell people is that by looking at the creation of the world tells us plainly that God created it.
The last part of my post didn't go through. So here it is:
I think that you are taking those verses too far. What the author is trying to tell people is that by looking at the creation of the world tells us plainly that God created it. They are not saying that by studying nature we can understand how God did things. We may be able to what He did, but not why.
Third, for the disclaimer, all I was trying to convey is that for me to better understand the faults in my thinking I need to debate an intelligent person and take the opposite side of them. Sort of like playing the devil's advocate. It helps me work out the kinks of what I believe. I appreciate the dialogue we are having as it is helping me better understand your beliefs as well as my own.
Chris I believe I have alreadhy explained the reason that it would be a small problem. If God created the universe with age then Romans 1:20 would be false and the reason is, it says we can know God's truth through creation. But if God made earth seem far older then it actualy is, and he made it seem like the flood, creation week, and everything never happened then creation is untrustworthy and skeptics will have more then enaugh reasons for rejecting God. Think about it, in the eyes of skeptic God has;
--lied to him about creation
--Told him to ignore his reason and believe in God woith blind faith.
This is not a subject we can pass of as "The Lord works in mysterious ways." This is a subject addressing something which according to the current physical evidence is clearly wrong.
Now this is my opinion and my position. I reject the Omphalos hypothesis (technical name for Appearance of Age) because I do not believe that God would make nature so that it would be so unreliable as to lead someone away from the faith (essentially destroying the foundation for science which has been vary useful to mankind in the process). I have rejected it because I am not intellectually or spiritually comfortable with the idea, things be different for you, you may prefer it. That is fine, if your faith is strong and you believe its right, then more power to you.
And also if the omphalos hypothesis is true, then being that the earth looks billions of years old, shoudn't it be treated as old?
Yes, it does not say we should be able to know how God created the universe but it definitely implies theat nature is relible record of creation.
CR,
What do you mean when you say:
"...made it seem like the flood, creation week, and everything never happened..."
Check out Matthew 17:20 for this next one:
"Told him to ignore his reason and believe in God with blind faith."
Webster's Dictionary defines Faith
as - a firm belief in something for which there is no proof
"definitely implies theat nature is relible record of creation"
I agree with you on this, and I'm sure you would agree with me that it is important to note that the emphasis in these passages is that nature declares that God created it. How/when He created it is the minor detail.
Thanks again for this continued discussion. If you are getting tired of it just let me know!
"nature declares that God created it. How/when He created it is the minor detail."
Exactly...
""Told him to ignore his reason and believe in God with blind faith."
Webster's Dictionary defines Faith
as - a firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
True, but usually faith has some form of logic or rationale behind it.
That is all
I should also explain what I meant by;
"...made it seem like the flood, creation week, and everything never happened..."
Well, what I meant was that since would have created the universe to look 14 billion years old essentially to the scientific mind it would look like the creation week had never happened when in fact it it did. So from creation it would look like it had never happened, do you understand?
I think things could be summed up by saying that Ken Ham is a douche bag.
Post a Comment