What Happened to the Dinosaurs?

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

 

Okay,

 

I think I am starting to figure your position out...I think...let me probe

 

"that when scientists claim the earth to be very old, they are merely making claims, not scientific claims"

 

Yes, correct. Just "claims" without employing the "Scientific Method."

 

Okay.....Now when a group of scientists tell me that the earth is very old, they have not used the scientific method....does that mean that they have applied NO method?  That it doesn't even rank as an educated hypothesis?  There is NO, ZIP, NADA evidence.  They simply got together and thought, "what if the world were old??" and then told us that it was in fact old? I find that hard to believe.  I am a layman when it comes to science; now I admit that the majority vote doesn't = truth.....but if 10 doctors tell me I have cancer and one doesn't, law of probability says I should believe the 10.  If I have an interpretation on some passage from Scripture, and then consult 20 commentaries and find that none of them agree with me, well, maybe I am a genius.....but probably I'm a fool.  When it comes to the age of the earth, it seems the overwhelming consensus points to it being very old, and this consensus does not exclude scientists who are also Christians--so I can exclude "bias" being the driving force.  (curious, are there any scientists, Christian and non, who claim a young earth?)

 

Now a  question: claims made about the age of the earth lack the support of the Scientific method and therefore are "just claims."  So What is it about paleontology that is so very much more reliable than these claims, so that when they tell me the earth is old, I shouldn't believe them; but when a paleontologist tells me that the dinosaurs were killed by a great flood, I should believe him?  You talk of paleontology as if it were a branch of history, not physical science.  But history is not an exact science (none are, but history one of the least, for it cannot test its theories in a laboratory--i.e. cannot reproduce ancient Rome and Julius Caesar).

 

"then it is a legitimate maneuver to question our reading of Scripture."

 

"Legitimate"?, How so? We base our Hermeneutics on Scripture ie(comparing Scripture with Scripture) as GOD'S WORD admonishes.... we don't allow "science" to filter our Hermeneutics.

 

....if by "we" you are using the royal "we", then fine.  If by "we" you mean you and I, then no.  I just said that I allow science to inform (I am not sure how "filter" is functioning above) my reading of Scripture.

 

I follow Augustine's doctrine of the two books.  Nature is not against Scripture (I am not a gnostics); and when something from our experience of nature disagrees terribly with Scripture, it is okay to question my view of Scripture...note this is not a battle between Nature and Scripture, nor science and exegesis.  Rather, it is a battle between my reading of Scripture and Scripture's actual intent.  I see it as Scripture and Nature on one side, and myself on the other.  I consult the one to better understand the other, because both have the same author behind them.

 

But perhaps something autobiographical will help (don't worry, I'll keep it short).  When it seemed hopeless to me that the Genesis account could not be literal I began to question whether I understood Scripture (again, note that the problem is with my interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture itself).  My studies led me into the culture of the ancient near east.  I discovered there all sorts of cultural idiosyncrasies that were strikingly similar to the language of Genesis (the importance of 7 days, the meaning of "image", the meaning of "resting", the geographical structure of Eden, the garden of Eden, and the rest of the world).  I have come to the conclusion that Genesis was not intended to give a precise chronological record of the earth's creation.  In fact, I found new, richer meanings being elicited from almost every line once I abandoned the literal 6 day reading....all because I allowed claims made by scientists to inform my reading.  We do a similar thing when we allow historians of ancient Rome to inform our exegesis of the New Testament: although perhaps you would reject even that, since (as you said) we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.  If so, then the difference between us is perhaps too wide for discussion....but I have enjoyed it thus far.

 

 

clb

 

 

"Okay.....Now when a group of scientists tell me that the earth is very old, they have not used the scientific method....does that mean that they have applied NO method?"

 

No not by default; However, if it's not the Scientific Method that is employed, the method is irrelevant based on the Tenets of Scientific Evidence.

 

"That it doesn't even rank as an educated hypothesis?"

 

Hypothesis is Step 3 of the Scientific Method....in the case of Paleontologists, they can't get to Step 1.

 

 

"They simply got together and thought, "what if the world were old??"

 

I have no idea.  If you're asking my opinion.... well, due to the fact there is NO Scientific Evidence and never has been and the paradigm is defended rigorously; that's telling me that there is something behind those individuals "Pushing an Idea" for an AGENDA. Who could that be?....  See Genesis 3.

 

"but if 10 doctors tell me I have cancer and one doesn't, law of probability says I should believe the 10."

 

You're equivocating Medical Doctors and "scientists".  Also, you can TEST for Cancer...there's empirical data, it's not based on Opinion.

 

"When it comes to the age of the earth, it seems the overwhelming consensus"

 

Then you said...."now I admit that the majority vote doesn't = truth"  ??  See the contradiction?

 

"does not exclude scientists who are also Christians--so I can exclude "bias" being the driving force."

 

then....."(curious, are there any scientists, Christian and non, who claim a young earth?)"

 

Question: how can you exclude Bias, and then ask if there are Christian Scientists who claim a young earth?

 

"So What is it about paleontology that is so very much more reliable"

 

It's not more reliable, "Reliable" is your superimposed label based on...."they're are Paleontologists"

 

"so that when they tell me the earth is old, I shouldn't believe them;"

 

If you base a belief on someone's Opinion (a fallible human); then, you get what you get.  If you base it on Empirical Evidence then it has a much stronger foundation.  If you base it on the WORD of GOD.....GOLD!!!!  See the Hierarchy?

 

"You talk of paleontology as if it were a branch of history, not physical science."

 

Historical Sciences (Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Cosmology, et al);  Empirical/Experimental/Operational Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics et al)

The only "Physical" Tenet of Paleontology is digging up bones.

 

"if by "we" you are using the royal "we","

 

Now that is funny, which Movie is that?  When I said "we", I meant me and Shiloh.

 

"I follow Augustine's doctrine of the two books."

 

I follow Jesus Christ and what he Plainly Says in the WORD.

 

"Nature is not against Scripture"

 

I agree

 

"when something from our experience of nature disagrees terribly with Scripture"

 

Humans are fallible...our experiences can't always be trusted.  And, I Trust The WORD of GOD and the Authority of Scripture.  If there was ever a case where Nature did disagree (as of right now, I have never seen such an occurrence) I will TRUST The LORD.

 

"I see it as Scripture and Nature on one side"

 

I see Nature as created; therefore, the creature.  Hence....(Romans 1:25) "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

 

 

"it seemed hopeless to me that the Genesis account could not be literal"

 

Well if you base that "seemed' on claims that scientists make.... then those are just opinions and not proof.  We are admonished to....(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

IMHO, you need to re-evaluate the Proof.

 

 

Hope this helps

 

Yes it was helpful.   Unfortunately I suspect you and I are on opposite sides of the net and no rapprochement is possible; I hope we still consider each other to be on the same courts of Christianity.

 

I have 4 difficulties with what you’ve said:

1) I find it impossible for me to subscribe to the “conspiracy theory” which would have the majority of scientists claiming a very old earth on absolutely no evidence whatsoever but claimed simply  with the sole purpose of  undermining Scripture (or rather, a particular reading of Scripture) with Satan being the efficient cause behind this project.  For one thing there are a good many Christian scientist who affirm the Old Earth theory while also affirming the central tenets of Christianity.  For another, it seems to me that there is evidence: and when so many people more educated in a field than I make a claim, I regard it as presumptuous for me to deny them (I used an analogy before about many doctors telling me I had cancer—it was an analogy,  not comparison of the relative sciences.  My point in that analogy was that when people far more knowledgeable than I are telling me the earth is very old, I must have very good reasons for disbelieving them—if this attitude is wrong then we may call it an error of humility.  The only argument I have against them is one particular reading of Genesis; a particular reading which I do not think vital or even true……..so, on what grounds do I deny their claim?  I am in quite a predicament: I am not skilled enough to deny them on scientific grounds; I am not convicted enough to deny them on exegetical grounds!  What would you have me do, and why?  

2) What evidence, you might ask, is there for an old earth?—My guess is you know them all; to me it seems far more than not.  That of the speed of light and the time it would take for the light of distant stars to reach us seems very convincing.  But of course there are always counter attacks. One might say that we have no proof that the distance between us and those stars is that great; or that God might cause the speed of light to fluctuate.  These counter attacks made by YEarthers sound (to my ears) desperate and at times embarrassing: as when they claim that before God created the Sun, plant life could flourish apart from photosynthesis; but afterwards He altered this (Why?!!) so that photosynthesis was absolutely essential and required the Sun.  Or, again, when I am told that God created the earth to “look” old.   It is these types of ripostes that appear to have an “agenda” behind them; the agenda being to protect a particular, and not at all indisputably “correct”, reading of Scripture. 

3) You describe the conflict as between God’s word (which is infallible) and science (which is fallible).  This is far too idealistic for me.  God’s word is not easy.  It requires interpretation, which relies upon historical evidence (which itself relies upon interpretation) and linguistic studies and what not.  Thus for me the conflict (though I do not think that ultimately there is a conflict) is between the Exegesis of Scripture (a human enterprise) and the exegesis of Nature (a human enterprise).  Of course Scripture (as intended by its authors and Author) is infallible; but then so is nature as it actually is.  But we can no more isolate Scripture from the subjective element of human fallibility (our reading of Scripture) than we can nature as it actually is from the scientific method or even scientific claims (based on evidence).  It seems you have omitted the subjective side of Scripture and left it only for the sciences.  Of course if you claim to have full and perfect knowledge of the Scriptures (which means there is nothing left for you to learn from them; no sermon or commentary will ever tell you what you do not know) well, I am not yet there, so be patient with me.

But there is also a fourth difficulty which I believe takes us to the heart of the matter.  Often I am accused of submitting Scripture to the authority of Science.  I believe behind this charge lies fear.  It is feared that if we get into the habit of submitting Scripture to the claims of scientists (either founded on the Scientific Method or merely on evidence) one day the scientists will “prove” some theory which will “disprove” the central tenets of our faith. But I can conceive of no proof that has this power.  I disbelieve the possibility of any proof, not the grounds of faith, but simple logic.  Let me give an example: years back someone claimed to have found the tomb and remains of Jesus of Nazareth.  This created quite a stir.  Now I admit that if we actually found the true remains of Jesus, then intellectual integrity would demand I abandon my faith (as it would’ve for Paul—if Christ is not raised our faith is in vain).  But there is no conceivable way of proving such a claim.  Such an identification would involve a comparison between the DNA extracted from the suspected remains and the DNA taken from the historical and living Jesus of Nazareth—which is no longer possible—because He ascended.  But even if He didn’t, even if we thought his bones lied in some remote tomb, still we’d have no way of proving we found them: you cannot compare the DNA of remnants with the DNA of those very same remnants.

 

I believe all imagined fears of “what if science shows such and such??” are like the above example.  They are chimerical, the product of the hypochondriac imagination and therefore a symptom not only of weak faith but weak reasoning.  Thus I have no problem when science tells me something is true; perhaps it isn’t.  Perhaps one day they will tell me they were wrong.  Nothing they will ever tell me will or even can challenge the central tenets of my faith---because my faith is so strong? No, because reason sees a priori that they can’t.  If they tell me the earth is very old, well, what does it matter:  such a “fact” does nothing to my belief in Creation, the fall, Redemption by Jesus, the Trinity or the inspiration of Scripture or any other tenet of my faith.   It may alter a particular reading of Scripture here and there; but then not only one reading is reconcilable with belief in the doctrine of inspiration, and all readings are the result of exegesis made by fallible humans.

My guess is there is little else for us to say to each other; if that is true, then know I have very much enjoyed this exchange (and I admit my knowledge of the sciences is weak—the point about the Scientific Method was a good stroll down memory lane for me… a stroll that took me back to high school!!!).

clb  

 

 

"1) I find it impossible for me to subscribe to the “conspiracy theory”

 

Read Psalm 2, that should put the issue of "Conspiracy Theories" to bed.

 

"good many Christian scientist who affirm"

 

Man are wicked.....(Romans 3:10-13) "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:  {11} There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  {12} They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.  {13} Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:"

 

"What would you have me do, and why?"

 

Put whatever they say to the test. Personally I line it up with Scripture...if it doesn't line up, File 13.   If it's scientific....then it must conform to the "Scientific Method"...if it doesn't, well it's an opinion.  Why?...God admonishes us to: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Example......

 

"or that God might cause the speed of light to fluctuate"

 

Speed of Light >>>>> Scientific Claim. Does it conform to the Scientific Method?.....Nope >>>>> Opinion.  I have a built in Algorithm

 

"claim that before God created the Sun, plant life could flourish apart from photosynthesis; but afterwards He altered this (Why?!!)"

 

Not following.  Plants can survive for a few days without the Sun.

 

"God’s word is not easy.  It requires interpretation"

 

(2 Peter 1:20) "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

 

"scientific claims (based on evidence)."

 

See Algorithm above

 

"lies fear.  It is feared that if we get into the habit of submitting Scripture to the claims of scientists"

 

I am not afraid in the least.  I Love Science "REAL SCIENCE" .....the "sciences" that employ the "Scientific Method".  I just heard somebody say that the Scientific Method is Biblical....I'm gonna have to track that down

 

 

"I am not skilled enough to deny them on scientific grounds"

 

Yes you are.  Apply the Algorithm, you may use mine.   And......(Hosea 4:6) "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

 

and....(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good

 

"I have very much enjoyed this exchange"

 

I have as well

 

Again, I feel you and I are on different wave lengths; or rather inhabit different continents--but continents (I hope) belonging to the same world, which is Christianity.

 

Some questions and thoughts.  

 

1) IF the physical sciences claimed an old earth on the grounds of the Scientific Method, would you yield?

 

2) From the above, it seems you do not believe that the speed of light is as fast as scientists claim; or that the distance of the stars is great as claimed.  Is this correct? In other words, the true speed of light measured against the true distance of a star, would yield a young earth compatible and even exact to the age of the the earth based on a literal reading of Scripture....correct?

 

3) your quote of 2 Peter was out of context: Peter was not talking about the interpretation of Scripture by you or me; he was talking about the canonical prophets--they were not prophesying on their own.  Whether we interpret them is another matter.   Compare 2 Peter 3.16--"there are some things (in Paul) that are hard to understand....".   Yes, he goes on to add that the ignorant twist them  this and that way.........but then how do I know that I am not one of the ignorant?  Or you?  The Bible itself admits that there are difficult passages in at least Paul; it is not an illicit extension to say in Scripture as a whole.

 

4) Plants can survive a few days without Sunlight.....do you mean they can survive a few days after sunlight has already been given--i.e. if I have to move it is not detrimental to my orchid if it stays in a dark trailer for a day or two?  Or do you mean it can grow and even flourish without any sunlight to begin with?  In other words, If I plant a seed beyond the reach of sunlight on Monday, will it have sprouted by Tuesday?  More so, If I plant a fruit tree completely shielded from Sun light, will it, within 24 hours, have grown into a tree bearing fruit?  Of course one can say, "the light created at day one was sufficient for photosynthesis, and since it is God speaking, there is no problem with vegetation sprouting at an unusual rate (trees springing from the most inchoate stages of vegetable life to full grown fruit bearing trees within 24 hours!)".  But that brings me back to the problem "why would God allow nature to operate one way; then 24 hours operate another?"  Even you do not seem comfortable with the details of Genesis; for instead of saying "God can do what He wants" you attempt to rationalize (based on your scientific experience) a very puzzling phenomenon in Genesis (that of plants growing and flourishing within a 24 hour span without sunlight.

 

and 5) You believe that even those scientists who affirm an old earth while confessing Christ as Lord and Scripture as inspired are the "devil's handmaid"; wolves in sheep's clothing........?

 

clb

Edited January 29, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Spock]

Connor,

You never cease to amaze me. Your words are so eloquently written, but more importantly, you speak with such clarity. You are wise beyond your years. God has blessed you with a great mind to be able to sort all of this out as you have laid out here.

Thanks for representing a position that many hold onto and one that I believe is the more accurate one. This way, those seekers out there who are struggling with these issues can weigh what you have said against the other sides position and make a decision that they feel led to believe. (Obviously, those you are debating won't be won over, so your mission field are the many confused seekers trying to balance scripture with science.)

I deeply appreciate how gracious you are in your words to the opposing camp. You let them know that we are all one in Christ, you don't judge their hearts, and you humble yourself so as not to feel like you are talking down to anyone. (Nebula has this down to an art as well.)

"Well done good and faithful servant!"

Your greatest admirer in Christ,

Spock

[Enoch2021]

 

Again, I feel you and I are on different wave lengths; or rather inhabit different continents--but continents (I hope) belonging to the same world, which is Christianity.

 

Some questions and thoughts.  

 

1) IF the physical sciences claimed an old earth on the grounds of the Scientific Method, would you yield?

 

2) From the above, it seems you do not believe that the speed of light is as fast as scientists claim; or that the distance of the stars is great as claimed.  Is this correct? In other words, the true speed of light measured against the true distance of a star, would yield a young earth compatible and even exact to the age of the the earth based on a literal reading of Scripture....correct?

 

3) your quote of 2 Peter was out of context: Peter was not talking about the interpretation of Scripture by you or me; he was talking about the canonical prophets--they were not prophesying on their own.  Whether we interpret them is another matter.   Compare 2 Peter 3.16--"there are some things (in Paul) that are hard to understand....".   Yes, he goes on to add that the ignorant twist them  this and that way.........but then how do I know that I am not one of the ignorant?  Or you?  The Bible itself admits that there are difficult passages in at least Paul; it is not an illicit extension to say in Scripture as a whole.

 

4) Plants can survive a few days without Sunlight.....do you mean they can survive a few days after sunlight has already been given--i.e. if I have to move it is not detrimental to my orchid if it stays in a dark trailer for a day or two?  Or do you mean it can grow and even flourish without any sunlight to begin with?  In other words, If I plant a seed beyond the reach of sunlight on Monday, will it have sprouted by Tuesday?  More so, If I plant a fruit tree completely shielded from Sun light, will it, within 24 hours, have grown into a tree bearing fruit?  Of course one can say, "the light created at day one was sufficient for photosynthesis, and since it is God speaking, there is no problem with vegetation sprouting at an unusual rate (trees springing from the most inchoate stages of vegetable life to full grown fruit bearing trees within 24 hours!)".  But that brings me back to the problem "why would God allow nature to operate one way; then 24 hours operate another?"  Even you do not seem comfortable with the details of Genesis; for instead of saying "God can do what He wants" you attempt to rationalize (based on your scientific experience) a very puzzling phenomenon in Genesis (that of plants growing and flourishing within a 24 hour span without sunlight.

 

and 5) You believe that even those scientists who affirm an old earth while confessing Christ as Lord and Scripture as inspired are the "devil's handmaid"; wolves in sheep's clothing........?

 

clb

 

 

"1) IF the physical sciences claimed an old earth on the grounds of the Scientific Method, would you yield?"

 

Define "Physical Sciences"?  Also, that would be Inadmissible as "Scientific Evidence" because they can't get to the 1st STEP of the Scientific Method which is OBSERVE A PHENOMENON. You Can't do EXPERIMENTS on the past.  It's like you attempting to test the speed of the Rock that hit Goliath in the head....impossible.

 

"it seems you do not believe that the speed of light is as fast as scientists claim"

 

No, I believe them.....They have Empirical Tests for the CURRENT SPEED OF LIGHT.  Are you aware, there are actual measurements of the speed of light a few hundred years ago that show it faster?  I don't hold to the extrapolations or conclusions, it has some Paradoxes.....this is just an example, for illustration purposes only.

 

"or that the distance of the stars is great as claimed."

 

No issue, they probably are....no way to know for sure, however.  You could possibly know the distance to "closer" stars using Trigonometric Parallax I suppose....I'm not expert in the field though.  Or fly on out there with an odometer That would do it for me. 

 

"the true speed of light measured against the true distance of a star, would yield a young earth compatible...."

 

You're mixing up Current Speed and Distance with Time (in the past).....(Yes, I do know the equation).  And you don't know the TRUE Distance, it's an extrapolation off an assumption (Speed of Light... in the past).  Basically, your "begging the question" (Fallacy).....you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove.

 

 

"....and even exact to the age of the the earth based on a literal reading of Scripture....correct?"

 

EXACT age of the Earth???  Based on Scripture??  Where??

 

My Bible says.....(Genesis 1:14-19) "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

"and it was so" and

 

"give light light upon the earth"  not, will give @ some point; give, as in Now....Day 4.  So my contention is Six Literal 24 hour Days and GOD made the Stars and The Light thereof Instantaneously.  No sense in having signs, seasons....if ADAM and others that followed him couldn't see them.  Follow?

 

"3) your quote of 2 Peter was out of context:"

 

It's possible....I don't think so, however.  I'll defer to Shiloh in this matter.  Also, and this is really super Important....Is there Absolute TRUTH? You see, GOD said he's not a GOD of confusion, so everyone having their own "private interpretation" would lead to.....confusion.  Just my take.

 

 

"4) Plants can survive a few days without Sunlight....."

 

Please see my response: Six Literal Days above...it's a non-issue to me.

 

"5) You believe that even those scientists who affirm an old earth while confessing Christ as Lord and Scripture as inspired are the "devil's handmaid"; wolves in sheep's clothing........?"

 

I spent 3 years (12 hours/day and I'm lowballing ) researching topics that weren't directly dealing with this EXACT issue but touched on it indirectly.  This is well beyond the scope of our discussion.  (if you PM me, we can discuss some of it I suppose)

 

Do I believe all of them who affirm OEC and Christ........No, I surely don't.

[a-seeker]

 

 

Again, I feel you and I are on different wave lengths; or rather inhabit different continents--but continents (I hope) belonging to the same world, which is Christianity.

 

Some questions and thoughts.  

 

1) IF the physical sciences claimed an old earth on the grounds of the Scientific Method, would you yield?

 

2) From the above, it seems you do not believe that the speed of light is as fast as scientists claim; or that the distance of the stars is great as claimed.  Is this correct? In other words, the true speed of light measured against the true distance of a star, would yield a young earth compatible and even exact to the age of the the earth based on a literal reading of Scripture....correct?

 

3) your quote of 2 Peter was out of context: Peter was not talking about the interpretation of Scripture by you or me; he was talking about the canonical prophets--they were not prophesying on their own.  Whether we interpret them is another matter.   Compare 2 Peter 3.16--"there are some things (in Paul) that are hard to understand....".   Yes, he goes on to add that the ignorant twist them  this and that way.........but then how do I know that I am not one of the ignorant?  Or you?  The Bible itself admits that there are difficult passages in at least Paul; it is not an illicit extension to say in Scripture as a whole.

 

4) Plants can survive a few days without Sunlight.....do you mean they can survive a few days after sunlight has already been given--i.e. if I have to move it is not detrimental to my orchid if it stays in a dark trailer for a day or two?  Or do you mean it can grow and even flourish without any sunlight to begin with?  In other words, If I plant a seed beyond the reach of sunlight on Monday, will it have sprouted by Tuesday?  More so, If I plant a fruit tree completely shielded from Sun light, will it, within 24 hours, have grown into a tree bearing fruit?  Of course one can say, "the light created at day one was sufficient for photosynthesis, and since it is God speaking, there is no problem with vegetation sprouting at an unusual rate (trees springing from the most inchoate stages of vegetable life to full grown fruit bearing trees within 24 hours!)".  But that brings me back to the problem "why would God allow nature to operate one way; then 24 hours operate another?"  Even you do not seem comfortable with the details of Genesis; for instead of saying "God can do what He wants" you attempt to rationalize (based on your scientific experience) a very puzzling phenomenon in Genesis (that of plants growing and flourishing within a 24 hour span without sunlight.

 

and 5) You believe that even those scientists who affirm an old earth while confessing Christ as Lord and Scripture as inspired are the "devil's handmaid"; wolves in sheep's clothing........?

 

clb

 

 

"1) IF the physical sciences claimed an old earth on the grounds of the Scientific Method, would you yield?"

 

Define "Physical Sciences"?  Also, that would be Inadmissible as "Scientific Evidence" because they can't get to the 1st STEP of the Scientific Method which is OBSERVE A PHENOMENON. You Can't do EXPERIMENTS on the past.  It's like you attempting to test the speed of the Rock that hit Goliath in the head....impossible.

 

"it seems you do not believe that the speed of light is as fast as scientists claim"

 

No, I believe them.....They have Empirical Tests for the CURRENT SPEED OF LIGHT.  Are you aware, there are actual measurements of the speed of light a few hundred years ago that show it faster?  I don't hold to the extrapolations or conclusions, it has some Paradoxes.....this is just an example, for illustration purposes only.

 

"or that the distance of the stars is great as claimed."

 

No issue, they probably are....no way to know for sure, however.  You could possibly know the distance to "closer" stars using Trigonometric Parallax I suppose....I'm not expert in the field though.  Or fly on out there with an odometer That would do it for me. 

 

"the true speed of light measured against the true distance of a star, would yield a young earth compatible...."

 

You're mixing up Current Speed and Distance with Time (in the past).....(Yes, I do know the equation).  And you don't know the TRUE Distance, it's an extrapolation off an assumption (Speed of Light... in the past).  Basically, your "begging the question" (Fallacy).....you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove.

 

 

"....and even exact to the age of the the earth based on a literal reading of Scripture....correct?"

 

EXACT age of the Earth???  Based on Scripture??  Where??

 

My Bible says.....(Genesis 1:14-19) "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

"and it was so" and

 

"give light light upon the earth"  not, will give @ some point; give, as in Now....Day 4.  So my contention is Six Literal 24 hour Days and GOD made the Stars and The Light thereof Instantaneously.  No sense in having signs, seasons....if ADAM and others that followed him couldn't see them.  Follow?

 

"3) your quote of 2 Peter was out of context:"

 

It's possible....I don't think so, however.  I'll defer to Shiloh in this matter.  Also, and this is really super Important....Is there Absolute TRUTH? You see, GOD said he's not a GOD of confusion, so everyone having their own "private interpretation" would lead to.....confusion.  Just my take.

 

 

"4) Plants can survive a few days without Sunlight....."

 

Please see my response: Six Literal Days above...it's a non-issue to me.

 

"5) You believe that even those scientists who affirm an old earth while confessing Christ as Lord and Scripture as inspired are the "devil's handmaid"; wolves in sheep's clothing........?"

 

I spent 3 years (12 hours/day and I'm lowballing ) researching topics that weren't directly dealing with this EXACT issue but touched on it indirectly.  This is well beyond the scope of our discussion.  (if you PM me, we can discuss some of it I suppose)

 

Do I believe all of them who affirm OEC and Christ........No, I surely don't.

 

 

I believe I now understand where you are coming from; and yes, we are on different wave-lengths.  But to solidify the impression, one more question….

I asked you whether you would yield to an OE theory if a science (any science that ever has the age of the earth as its interest) could prove by the Scientific Method that it was very old.  You answered, quite rightly, that such a proof were impossible: one cannot reproduce the original “Big Bang” or whatever, any more than one can reproduce the Civil War.  Very well.  I suppose I should have amended this, “Theoretically, if one could prove an old age, would you yield?”  I anticipate this to be a very difficult, if not impossible, situation for you to imagine.  But I have already given you a parallel; I said that if one could  prove a cluster of bones to belong to Jesus Christ, then I would have to abandon my faith out of intellectual honesty.  And I still hold to that; however, I also know that such an identification is impossible.  This, it seems to me, is parallel to the hypothetical situation I am asking you to entertain.  Again, I recognize no one can prove the universe to be very old; no more than anyone could prove the identity of an occupied tomb to be that of Jesus.  But theoretically speaking, if someone could prove Jesus’ bones were resting somewhere in Palestine, I would abandon my faith; likewise, if someone could prove (theoretically, I already know it’s not provable) an old earth, would you yield?

This question is very important to me.  It will tell me whether in fact you reject an old earth theory because of faulty science, or whether that is just a pretense for the real reason: Scripture (fighting them, so to speak, on their own grounds, though you believe you have already beaten them on other grounds, Genesis, the only grounds that matter).  You might say “both” but that is highly unlikely.  Scripture is not scientific evidence in your hands; it is authoritative.  Thus if your stance is based entirely on Scripture it shouldn’t matter what the sciences can or can’t prove.  My question is getting to what I have always thought the heart of the matter: not science, but the interpretation of Scripture.

As I can see it there can only be three answers to my question:

1)      Yes, I would yield my 6 day literal interpretation and cast about for another----i.e. it really was based on scientific grounds that I rejected Old Earth.

2)      No, I would not: i.e. science never had anything to do with it, it was always Scripture….

3)      What I fear most is the third response—that you would wave off the question by retreating back into the impossibility of it all (thereby completely ignoring that it was a theoretical question).  But this too would tell me that science has nothing to do with your position—it is all Scripture.

6 literal days:  I think you missed my point…

On day 3, within a 24 hour span, without sunlight, we have not only vegetation but full grown trees…..within 24 hours…..without sunlight.  IF we were present the spectacle would look like the kind of fast-forwarding that shows up on Discovery Channel where flowers bloom within 30 seconds: the chief difference being that if we looked up into the sky we would see neither sun, nor moon, nor stars, but rather light coming from no identifiable source.  After day 3 plant life is entirely dependent on Sunlight, and presumably grows at the rate we are all used to. It is at least a curiosity that God should introduce the laws we are used to after plant life had already flourished.

 

Absolute Truth: yes I believe in Absolute truth.  I don’t think you can even be a monotheist without believing that.  Are we capable of knowing it in every detail?  I am not.  I’m not omniscient.

 

Confusion……..Look around.  Look at this forum.  Pick up 5 commentaries and compare them.  Even a cursory reading of Pauline issues will make your head spin.  People are confused!

 

“Everyone having their own private interpretation”…..THEY DO! Granted, you think all interpretations wrong except your own (you have to, if you think the Bible is never confusing).  But that doesn’t change the fact that we have denominations upon denominations all interpreting Scriptures differently at one point or another.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

Connor,

You never cease to amaze me. Your words are so eloquently written, but more importantly, you speak with such clarity. You are wise beyond your years. God has blessed you with a great mind to be able to sort all of this out as you have laid out here.

Thanks for representing a position that many hold onto and one that I believe is the more accurate one. This way, those seekers out there who are struggling with these issues can weigh what you have said against the other sides position and make a decision that they feel led to believe. (Obviously, those you are debating won't be won over, so your mission field are the many confused seekers trying to balance scripture with science.)

I deeply appreciate how gracious you are in your words to the opposing camp. You let them know that we are all one in Christ, you don't judge their hearts, and you humble yourself so as not to feel like you are talking down to anyone. (Nebula has this down to an art as well.)

"Well done good and faithful servant!"

Your greatest admirer in Christ,

Spock

Spock,

 

I am sorry I did not see this sooner to thank you for the gracious words....thank you.

 

I confess there were times when I had to bite my tongue (or fingers ) I took a break from this site because certain responses to me brought out the devil in me.  But your encouragement will help me be even more balanced in my responses.

 

live long and prosper in Christ

 

clb

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

"1) IF the physical sciences claimed an old earth on the grounds of the Scientific Method, would you yield?"

 

Define "Physical Sciences"?  Also, that would be Inadmissible as "Scientific Evidence" because they can't get to the 1st STEP of the Scientific Method which is OBSERVE A PHENOMENON. You Can't do EXPERIMENTS on the past.  It's like you attempting to test the speed of the Rock that hit Goliath in the head....impossible.

 

"it seems you do not believe that the speed of light is as fast as scientists claim"

 

No, I believe them.....They have Empirical Tests for the CURRENT SPEED OF LIGHT.  Are you aware, there are actual measurements of the speed of light a few hundred years ago that show it faster?  I don't hold to the extrapolations or conclusions, it has some Paradoxes.....this is just an example, for illustration purposes only.

 

"or that the distance of the stars is great as claimed."

 

No issue, they probably are....no way to know for sure, however.  You could possibly know the distance to "closer" stars using Trigonometric Parallax I suppose....I'm not expert in the field though.  Or fly on out there with an odometer That would do it for me. 

 

"the true speed of light measured against the true distance of a star, would yield a young earth compatible...."

 

You're mixing up Current Speed and Distance with Time (in the past).....(Yes, I do know the equation).  And you don't know the TRUE Distance, it's an extrapolation off an assumption (Speed of Light... in the past).  Basically, your "begging the question" (Fallacy).....you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove.

 

 

"....and even exact to the age of the the earth based on a literal reading of Scripture....correct?"

 

EXACT age of the Earth???  Based on Scripture??  Where??

 

My Bible says.....(Genesis 1:14-19) "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

"and it was so" and

 

"give light light upon the earth"  not, will give @ some point; give, as in Now....Day 4.  So my contention is Six Literal 24 hour Days and GOD made the Stars and The Light thereof Instantaneously.  No sense in having signs, seasons....if ADAM and others that followed him couldn't see them.  Follow?

 

"3) your quote of 2 Peter was out of context:"

 

It's possible....I don't think so, however.  I'll defer to Shiloh in this matter.  Also, and this is really super Important....Is there Absolute TRUTH? You see, GOD said he's not a GOD of confusion, so everyone having their own "private interpretation" would lead to.....confusion.  Just my take.

 

 

"4) Plants can survive a few days without Sunlight....."

 

Please see my response: Six Literal Days above...it's a non-issue to me.

 

"5) You believe that even those scientists who affirm an old earth while confessing Christ as Lord and Scripture as inspired are the "devil's handmaid"; wolves in sheep's clothing........?"

 

I spent 3 years (12 hours/day and I'm lowballing ) researching topics that weren't directly dealing with this EXACT issue but touched on it indirectly.  This is well beyond the scope of our discussion.  (if you PM me, we can discuss some of it I suppose)

 

Do I believe all of them who affirm OEC and Christ........No, I surely don't.

 

 

I believe I now understand where you are coming from; and yes, we are on different wave-lengths.  But to solidify the impression, one more question….

I asked you whether you would yield to an OE theory if a science (any science that ever has the age of the earth as its interest) could prove by the Scientific Method that it was very old.  You answered, quite rightly, that such a proof were impossible: one cannot reproduce the original “Big Bang” or whatever, any more than one can reproduce the Civil War.  Very well.  I suppose I should have amended this, “Theoretically, if one could prove an old age, would you yield?”  I anticipate this to be a very difficult, if not impossible, situation for you to imagine.  But I have already given you a parallel; I said that if one could  prove a cluster of bones to belong to Jesus Christ, then I would have to abandon my faith out of intellectual honesty.  And I still hold to that; however, I also know that such an identification is impossible.  This, it seems to me, is parallel to the hypothetical situation I am asking you to entertain.  Again, I recognize no one can prove the universe to be very old; no more than anyone could prove the identity of an occupied tomb to be that of Jesus.  But theoretically speaking, if someone could prove Jesus’ bones were resting somewhere in Palestine, I would abandon my faith; likewise, if someone could prove (theoretically, I already know it’s not provable) an old earth, would you yield?

This question is very important to me.  It will tell me whether in fact you reject an old earth theory because of faulty science, or whether that is just a pretense for the real reason: Scripture (fighting them, so to speak, on their own grounds, though you believe you have already beaten them on other grounds, Genesis, the only grounds that matter).  You might say “both” but that is highly unlikely.  Scripture is not scientific evidence in your hands; it is authoritative.  Thus if your stance is based entirely on Scripture it shouldn’t matter what the sciences can or can’t prove.  My question is getting to what I have always thought the heart of the matter: not science, but the interpretation of Scripture.

As I can see it there can only be three answers to my question:

1)      Yes, I would yield my 6 day literal interpretation and cast about for another----i.e. it really was based on scientific grounds that I rejected Old Earth.

2)      No, I would not: i.e. science never had anything to do with it, it was always Scripture….

3)      What I fear most is the third response—that you would wave off the question by retreating back into the impossibility of it all (thereby completely ignoring that it was a theoretical question).  But this too would tell me that science has nothing to do with your position—it is all Scripture.

6 literal days:  I think you missed my point…

On day 3, within a 24 hour span, without sunlight, we have not only vegetation but full grown trees…..within 24 hours…..without sunlight.  IF we were present the spectacle would look like the kind of fast-forwarding that shows up on Discovery Channel where flowers bloom within 30 seconds: the chief difference being that if we looked up into the sky we would see neither sun, nor moon, nor stars, but rather light coming from no identifiable source.  After day 3 plant life is entirely dependent on Sunlight, and presumably grows at the rate we are all used to. It is at least a curiosity that God should introduce the laws we are used to after plant life had already flourished.

 

Absolute Truth: yes I believe in Absolute truth.  I don’t think you can even be a monotheist without believing that.  Are we capable of knowing it in every detail?  I am not.  I’m not omniscient.

 

Confusion……..Look around.  Look at this forum.  Pick up 5 commentaries and compare them.  Even a cursory reading of Pauline issues will make your head spin.  People are confused!

 

“Everyone having their own private interpretation”…..THEY DO! Granted, you think all interpretations wrong except your own (you have to, if you think the Bible is never confusing).  But that doesn’t change the fact that we have denominations upon denominations all interpreting Scriptures differently at one point or another.

 

clb

 

 

"one cannot reproduce the original “Big Bang” or whatever"

 

Do you see the Presupposition?  Not that you were speaking to it directly, just wanted to point it out.

 

“Theoretically, if one could prove an old age, would you yield?”

 

I rarely entertain hypotheticals, life is vexing enough as it is.  And "Theoretically Prove" is a contradiction in terms to me.

 

"if someone could prove Jesus’ bones were resting somewhere in Palestine, I would abandon my faith; likewise, if someone could prove (theoretically, I already know it’s not provable) an old earth, would you yield?"

 

I'll go ahead and speak to it since the answer seems important to you.  I suppose there are only 2 things that would have me seriously question my faith:

 

1.  Finding Jesus' Bones

2.  Life from Non-Life

 

See my "Theoretical" response above for the Age issue.

 

"or whether that is just a pretense for the real reason:"

 

We ALL arrive @ issues with Presuppositions to one degree or another, no getting around it.  The key is to recognize them and evaluate their foundations rationally.

 

"Scripture (fighting them,...."

 

I don't fight Scriptures Sir, it's just TRUTH

 

"Scripture is not scientific evidence in your hands; it is authoritative."

 

Here's my Hierarchy:

 

Assumptions/Conjecture/Stories >>> "Scientific Evidence" (via The Scientific Method) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scripture (not to scale or Scripture would be past the "Crab Nebula" to the Right)

 

"Thus if your stance is based entirely on Scripture"

 

I never look @ any issue in a Vacuum.  1st is the WORD then (in this case) I look @ what Science has to say.  I never try to look @ science and then attempt to reconcile the WORD through it.

 

"As I can see it there can only be three answers to my question"

 

Here's how I did it: GOD said.....Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, Day 6,....before I ever knew of YEC or OEC as a child.  Then when I was confronted with this issue, I looked here....

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

Then I said, yep...I already knew that.  Then, but (Radiometric Dating, Fossils, Geologic Column, Speed of Light et al) say different.  So I researched these and found that each and all were based on Extrapolations from Assumptions.  So I weighed Extrapolations from Assumptions vs GOD'S WORD....it was a MegaTsunamic Landslide!!!!!!  Good?

 

"On day 3, within a 24 hour span, without sunlight"

 

Sir "Plant Life" can survive more than 24 hours without Sunlight...they survive 12 hours every single night around here without it.

 

"but rather light coming from no identifiable source."

 

I think I know the source.....(Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

I'm not dogmatic about it and it's irrelevant with 6 Literal Days anyway.

 

"Confusion……..Look around.  Look at this forum.  Pick up 5 commentaries and compare them.  Even a cursory reading of Pauline issues will make your head spin.  People are confused!"

 

I think I know the Author......SEE: Genesis 3

 

"Granted, you think all interpretations wrong except your own (you have to, if you think the Bible is never confusing)"

 

I try not to use "always" and "never" in dialogue.  And I surely wouldn't Presume to have the CORRECT interpretation for All Scripture, I'm not that smart.  But, I think I have a good handle on this issue and can support it.

 

"But that doesn’t change the fact that we have denominations upon denominations all interpreting Scriptures differently at one point or another."

 

Again, SEE: Genesis 3.  He was the first to put his "spin" on the WORD....he has No New Tricks.

[a-seeker]

Thank you, I think we can conclude this chat.

 

clb

[Enoch2021]

Thank you, I think we can conclude this chat.

 

clb

 

You are welcome Sir

[Spock]

Connor,

You never cease to amaze me. Your words are so eloquently written, but more importantly, you speak with such clarity. You are wise beyond your years. God has blessed you with a great mind to be able to sort all of this out as you have laid out here.

Thanks for representing a position that many hold onto and one that I believe is the more accurate one. This way, those seekers out there who are struggling with these issues can weigh what you have said against the other sides position and make a decision that they feel led to believe. (Obviously, those you are debating won't be won over, so your mission field are the many confused seekers trying to balance scripture with science.)

I deeply appreciate how gracious you are in your words to the opposing camp. You let them know that we are all one in Christ, you don't judge their hearts, and you humble yourself so as not to feel like you are talking down to anyone. (Nebula has this down to an art as well.)

"Well done good and faithful servant!"

Your greatest admirer in Christ,

Spock

Spock,

 

I am sorry I did not see this sooner to thank you for the gracious words....thank you.

 

I confess there were times when I had to bite my tongue (or fingers ) I took a break from this site because certain responses to me brought out the devil in me.  But your encouragement will help me be even more balanced in my responses.

 

live long and prosper in Christ

 

clb

You are welcome.

I did notice you took a break. Not a bad thing to do, especially when discussing these deep science topics. The brain needs a break too.