YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I would suggest that apparent conflict between "science and the Bible" is not due to the Bible, since it is the Word of God. Any apparent conflict is due to faulty human endeavors. This could be fault with the human activity of science, but the fault could also be with the human activity of theology. Young Earth Creation is only one possible interpretation of the Bible, not the only "one true" way. The Bible doesn't "get things wrong".

I think it is important to understand how  interpretation works.  The goal of interpretation of any text, not just the Bible, is to arrive at the meaning of the text supplied and intended by the author.   For that reason, there is only ONE possible interpretation of a given text, and that is what we refer to as the "literal interpretation."  There is no other kind of interpretation.  If you approach the the text of Genesis chapter one honestly, you cannot arrive at any other meaning of the text than that the earth was created in six 24 hour days.  That's what the text says.    The question then, for those who reject the literal interpretation, is to what degree the text is historical and thus true.  Is it true history?

It is because some refuse to accept it as true history that they look for a way around the historicity of the text to arrive at some other means of understanding the text, but that usually means, ultimately, that the events as recorded in Genesis chapter one didn't actually happen, that the text is just poetry.   Most evolutionists pretty much discount Genesis 1-11 as history and appeal to the JEPD hypothesis (Document Hypothesis) as their authority against the historicity of Genesis chapter 1.    So to approach Genesis chapter 1 from an evolutionary standpoint, you MUST assert that the text cannot be trusted as written.

Quote

This is easily falsified. As I have stated, I am a follower of Christ and I accept the theory of evolution, and I am far from alone. The Bible clearly teaches that belief (to the point of action) in Jesus Christ is what makes one a Christian (Romans 10:9, Acts 16:31, John 14:6, just for a few references). Implying anything else is contrary to Biblical teaching and sets a harmful example and erects unnecessary hurdles to those that do not know Christ.

I am not talking about what makes a person a Christian.   I am talking about how an evolutionary approach makes for an incoherent theology.  It is an internally inconsistent approach to the Bible that forces an theistic evolutionist to compromise sound biblical teaching.  

Quote

My "incoherent" theology requires me to do no such thing. What doctrine do you claim I have abandoned?

To hold to an evolutionary view of Scripture, you have to abandon the doctrines of the Scriptures regarding the authority, total inspiration, inerrancy, immutability and infallibility of Scripture, both in the NT and the OT. 

Evolutionists reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11.  They reject a personal Creator, particularly the God of Scripture.  They reject the 6 day creation the Bible clearly teaches in more than one place outside of Genesis, they reject the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, as written, thus reject the Bible's explanation for the origin of sin.   They reject the global flood, which is far better and more truthful explanation for the mass extinction of several species (as opposed to the asteroid hypothesis) and they typically reject that the entire Bible is wholly inspired by God.

 

Quote

 

What are you calling "macro-Evolution"?

 

Macro-Evolution is what we are referring to, for the most part, when we are discussing "Evolution."  It is the idea that all life evolved from molecules, essentially.   It is the idea that one species eventually evolved into a completely different species, that there is a chain of transitions from one species to another.

Quote

 The Bible does indeed teach a personal Creator, but I would propose that the context is not as explicitly clear as you are suggesting.

The text is pretty clear and there is no logical hermeneutic that can get around what the Bible clearly and explicitly claims.   A consistent and logical  approach to the foundational claims of Evolution and the Bible demonstrates that they cannot both be true.

Quote

 

One final comment, I will treat your responses with dignity and respect and ask you to do the same for a fellow follower of Christ. Remember, the fruits of the Spirit are evidence of His guidance in your life.

 

Rigorously challenging your theology is what I intend to do.   No one disrespecting anyone, but I am not going leave your views unchallenged.  I don't want younger believers led astray by the stuff you post.

 

 

[one.opinion]

12 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

That's complete nonsense.   The theory of Evolution is in complete contradiction to the biblical teaching of a personal creator.  There are those who refer to themselves as "theistic evolutionists " and that is as oxymoronic as referring to oneself as an atheistic Christian.  You are one or the other.  You either believe in Evolution and must call God a liar, or you believe the Bible as God's inerrant and unchanging, inspired Word.

It sure sounds like you uphold a literal interpretation of Genesis as the only possible interpretation for a true follower of Christ. A note of clarification - I do not "believe in" evolution, I accept it as a scientific theory. "Believing in" implies something with deeply help devotion and commitment. I "believe in" Jesus as the Son of God, I "believe in" reaching out to others in sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ. But yes, I do indeed accept Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord of my life, and I accept the theory of evolution. I accept the Bible as the conclusively authoritative Word of God. But I believe that there are passages, particularly the very beginning and the very end, that are best viewed from a more figurative interpretation. You cannot seriously mean what you said - that the literal interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is full of examples of things that should not be interpreted literally.

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

They reject a personal Creator, particularly the God of Scripture.

By no means do I reject a personal Creator. I believe He created me, but used a rather elaborate (and wondrous) process to do it.

[Guest shiloh357]

32 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It sure sounds like you uphold a literal interpretation of Genesis as the only possible interpretation for a true follower of Christ. A note of clarification - I do not "believe in" evolution, I accept it as a scientific theory. "Believing in" implies something with deeply help devotion and commitment. I "believe in" Jesus as the Son of God, I "believe in" reaching out to others in sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ. But yes, I do indeed accept Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord of my life, and I accept the theory of evolution.

Evolution isn't proven, so despite how you are trying to split hairs, your acceptance of Evolution is based on faith and nothing but faith. 

Quote

I accept the Bible as the conclusively authoritative Word of God. But I believe that there are passages, particularly the very beginning and the very end, that are best viewed from a more figurative interpretation.

There is no such thing as a figurative interpretation.  That concept is an oxymoron.   The Bible employs figurative devices but those devices are aids to a literal interpretation.   Don't confuse figurative, literary devices with a literal interpretation.  There are no rules of literary analysis that cover "figurative interpretations" because that is antithetical to the process of interpretation.

The other problem is that you are setting yourself as an authority over Scripture, where Scripture means what you say it means, not what the author says it means.  And you taking it upon yourself to decide which parts to believe and which parts not to believe, which is always the motivation behind the myth of the "figurative interpretation."

Quote

You cannot seriously mean what you said - that the literal interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is full of examples of things that should not be interpreted literally.

That demonstrates a lack of understanding of what "literal" means.   To take the Bible literally means to interpret the Bible as literature.  The Bible follows the rules of literature and so we can employ the rules literary analysis (hermeneutics) to it.   To interpret the Bible literally means that we read a poem like a poem.  We read a historical narrative like a historical narrative. We read a proverb like a proverb.  We read a prophecy like a prophecy.  We read a parable like a parable, an so on. The Bible is full of different genres of literature and we read each one according to the rules that govern that genre.    It's the same thing you do when you read a newspaper, a fictional novel, or a historical biography.   You naturally adjust your process of understanding to match the kind of literature you're reading.

Literal doesn't mean, "face-value"  which is the oft-made mistake people make when they refer to a "Literal interpretation."  Face-value interpretations are wooden, nonsensical and shallow and fail to take into account the intent of the author.    When Jesus said, "I am the gate of the sheep"   he didn't mean he was a piece of wood with hinges.  

So, to take the Bible literally means to take it as it is written and interpret it with a view towards understanding the intent and meaning supplied by the author.  The Bible teaches a 6 day creation in more than one place, so you

 

Quote

By no means do I reject a personal Creator. I believe He created me, but used a rather elaborate (and wondrous) process to do it.

I am not saying you reject a personal Creator.   The problem is that Evolution as a theory rejects the notion of a personal creator.  The premise of Evolution is naturalism as an impersonal process of development, not the work of a personal Creator.  You are putting science in authority over Scripture.  The Bible tells how God made the world and the universe.   You simply cannot reconcile the Bible with Evolution without complete misrepresenting both sides.  

You don't get to have the Bible and  Evolution on your terms.   If you are completely honest about the claims the the Theory of Evolution makes, you have to discard the Bible because there are no points of agreement or reconciliation and even the most prominent and well known proponents of Evolution are able to admit that.   Your approach demonstrates a very superficial and incoherent approach to both Evolution and Scripture.

[Bonky]

15 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Evolutionist have no evidence. Evolution has no evidence to produce because all they have is an interpretation of evidence, the same set of data that creationists have.   And while we see the evidence as proof of the handiwork and the glory of God, evolutionists interpret God out of the evidence in order to avoid being accountable to an all-knowing God who has a claim on their life and will one day be their judge.

If you get annoyed at atheists suggesting that people need religion because they are weak and need a crutch, then I would encourage you not to claim that people support evolution in order to "avoid being accountable to an all-knowing God".  It's just as silly.

[Guest shiloh357]

20 minutes ago, Bonky said:

If you get annoyed at atheists suggesting that people need religion because they are weak and need a crutch, then I would encourage you not to claim that people support evolution in order to "avoid being accountable to an all-knowing God".  It's just as silly.

Actually, I do need a crutch.  Everyone needs a crutch.   Needing a crutch isn't a bad thing and only the arrogant think they don't need God. 

But yes, Evolution is an attempt by some, at avoiding the reality of an all knowing God who will one day hold them accountable for their sin.  Evolution is just as much a matter of faith, as belief in God is a matter of faith.  To say otherwise, is dishonest.

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem is that Evolution as a theory rejects the notion of a personal creator.

The evolutionary theory, when analyzed by a pure scientific basis, says nothing at all about a personal creator. Methodological naturalism limits what is observable by science and what is not. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of a Creator with tools of science. Now, the science of evolution has often been hijacked by various people with their own agendas (ie Richard Dawkins), but the theory of evolution itself neither accepts nor rejects a personal creator.

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

That demonstrates a lack of understanding of what "literal" means.

A quick google search gives this definition of literal - "representing the exact words of the original text". 

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

To interpret the Bible literally means that we read a poem like a poem.  We read a historical narrative like a historical narrative. We read a proverb like a proverb.  We read a prophecy like a prophecy.  We read a parable like a parable, an so on. The Bible is full of different genres of literature and we read each one according to the rules that govern that genre.    It's the same thing you do when you read a newspaper, a fictional novel, or a historical biography.   You naturally adjust your process of understanding to match the kind of literature you're reading.

Yes, and when reading an author's account of events that occurred distantly in the past, I would argue that the details of the account should not be read as "representing the exact words of the original text".

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not saying you reject a personal Creator.

Well, that's exactly what you said. Here is what you wrote "Evolutionists reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11.  They reject a personal Creator, particularly the God of Scripture." If you mean atheistic evolutionists, then say "atheistic evolutionists".

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The other problem is that you are setting yourself as an authority over Scripture, where Scripture means what you say it means, not what the author says it means.

Nope, I'm not doing that, either. I affirm that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. Do I interpret it differently from how you interpret it? Yes, guilty on that account. I could equally make the claim that you are setting up yourself as an authority over Scripture, because only your interpretation is the "right" one.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

The evolutionary theory, when analyzed by a pure scientific basis, says nothing at all about a personal creator. Methodological naturalism limits what is observable by science and what is not. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of a Creator with tools of science. Now, the science of evolution has often been hijacked by various people with their own agendas (ie Richard Dawkins), but the theory of evolution itself neither accepts nor rejects a personal creator.

Actually, science done correctly glorifies the Creator.  The Bible teaches that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows forth His handiwork.   The natural world bears the stamp of the Creator and prior to the myth of Darwinian Evolution, scientists did science with a view to the glory of God.   Science was seen as means of understanding the scope of God's creation.   So, it is a mistaken position that the natural world and the scientific process cannot speak to the existence of the Creator.  Creation is proof of the Creator.

It was after the myth of Darwinism came on the scene that science was hi-jacked by atheists (not just Dawkins, but most of the scientific community) and since then we have seen nothing but an attempt by the scientific community at large attempt to discount the Bible's account of creation and not only what the Bible says about how the Earth was created, but the very existence of the Creator.

Quote

A quick google search gives this definition of literal - "representing the exact words of the original text". 

We are dealing with literature and I presented you with how "literal" is understood in the task of literary analysis and the rules it operates by.  Your simplistic definition is really not accurate from the vantage point of analyzing literary works like the Bible, particularly when you are dealing with multiple genres.

Quote

Yes, and when reading an author's account of events that occurred distantly in the past, I would argue that the details of the account should not be read as "representing the exact words of the original text".

I would argue that as well, given that you provided an incorrect definition of what "literal" means from the vantage point of hermeneutics.   I would argue that the text (Genesis 1-11) needs to be understood as a historical narrative that gives a true and accurate account of the origins of man and the world without the mixture of error of any kind.   It's what we call "inerrancy."  It's a Bible doctrine.   It means that if the Bible said it happened, it happened and it happened the way the Bible says it happened.

 

Quote

 

Well, that's exactly what you said. Here is what you wrote "Evolutionists reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11.  They reject a personal Creator, particularly the God of Scripture." If you mean atheistic evolutionists, then say "atheistic evolutionists".

Nope, I'm not doing that, either. I affirm that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God. Do I interpret it differently from how you interpret it? Yes, guilty on that account. I could equally make the claim that you are setting up yourself as an authority over Scripture, because only your interpretation is the "right" one.

 

It's not "my" interpretation.    There is only one kind of interpretation of any text and that is the literal interpretation.   The goal, in literary analysis, is to arrive at the literal interpretation of any given text.  The literal interpretation is the only interpretation that exists in the literary world.   This idea that you can interpret "figuratively"  is nonsensical because it leaves the meaning of the text to be determined by the reader and 100 readers will arrive at 100 different "interpretations"  and the meaning supplied by the author is completely ignored.

Tell me this:   Do I have your permission to take your responses in these posts and supply whatever subjective meaning I want to them, or am  I supposed  to understand you according to the meaning you intend and supply to to your responses?

[1to3]

12 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Evolutionists reject the historicity of Genesis 1-11.  They reject a personal Creator, particularly the God of Scripture.  They reject the 6 day creation the Bible clearly teaches in more than one place outside of Genesis, they reject the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, as written, thus reject the Bible's explanation for the origin of sin.  

Not only evolutionist reject Genesis chapter 1.

Many Christians do to, when they claim the bible does not express verbally a flat earth representation.

In Genesis Chapter 1 it clearly states that God formed the earth first and then came the sum moon and stars on the fourth day. Genesis ch1 also mentions a firmament above the sun, moon stars and over that water. the only format for that to be, is a flat earth format and not a globe format constantly turning at high speeds around the sun.

The Bible also sated the earth to be stationary.

[Guest shiloh357]

7 minutes ago, 1to3 said:

Not only evolutionist reject Genesis chapter 1.

Many Christians do to, when they claim the bible does not express verbally a flat earth representation.

In Genesis Chapter 1 it clearly states that God formed the earth first and then came the sum moon and stars on the fourth day. Genesis ch1 also mentions a firmament above the sun, moon stars and over that water. the only format for that to be, is a flat earth format and not a globe format constantly turning at high speeds around the sun.

The Bible also sated the earth to be stationary.

Do we have to bring the flat earth myth into this?  This thread is about the age of the earth. If you want to talk about a flat earth, take it to a thread on that topic, I know there is an active  thread about that.  Any attempt to hi-jack this thread into a flat earth discussion will be reported to the moderators.

[1to3]

Just now, shiloh357 said:

8 minutes ago, 1to3 said:

Not only evolutionist reject Genesis chapter 1.

Many Christians do to, when they claim the bible does not express verbally a flat earth representation.

In Genesis Chapter 1 it clearly states that God formed the earth first and then came the sum moon and stars on the fourth day. Genesis ch1 also mentions a firmament above the sun, moon stars and over that water. the only format for that to be, is a flat earth format and not a globe format constantly turning at high speeds around the sun.

The Bible also sated the earth to be stationary.

Do we have to bring the flat earth myth into this?  This thread is about the age of the earth. If you want to talk about a flat earth, take it to a thread on that topic, I know there is a thread about that.  Any attempt to hi-jack this thread into a flat earth discussion will be reported to the moderators.

Just saying if you claim Genesis chapter 1 to be true and literal you can't cheery pick around that either in your arguments. That's all .