God Created the Earth in Six 24 Hour Days

[mike]

Barry,

Okay. Educate me, please.

Mike

[Barry]

Mike,
THIS LINK will take you to a list of many Young Earth Creation Scientists, some of which are professors in secular universities.

Barry

[mike]

Interesting. I don't know these people, and have only heard of a couple of them. But I will look into it. Thanks for the link.

Nonetheless, They are of course in the distinct minority among scientists if  they all believe in a young universe.

Name dropping is not without merit, as I certainly have to reconsider my opinion if it is opposed to those I would consider experts in the field. However, I do have enough of a science background to be able to follow the arguments and look at the data for myself.

I still maintain that the evidence presented in creation itself argues strongly for an old universe. And, that stance is consistent with the revelation in scripture.

Mike

[Barry]

Mike,
That is fine, but you will have to admit that no one can accurately state "scientists believe in an old earth." It should be "some scientists believe in an old earth while other scientists believe in a young earth." The funny thing is, they are studying the same evidence and coming to different conclusions. I will freely admit there is bias on both sides.

Barry

[mike]

Barry,

Your statement is correct. Painting this issue with a broad brush won't work.

But, you are in the minority position. That doesn't mean you are wrong. It's just something to ponder.

Let's look at this from another angle. The evidence is strong for an old earth/universe. Do you disbelieve the evidence, or do you think that God made the universe to appear old, when it is not? Or is there another alternative?

Mike

[Marzipan]

Check out this article/story . It presents a very simplified position, but I instantly liked it. It addresses the issue of "did God make the universe to appear old when it is not?"
It's not really a scientific argument.

[Barry]

Mike,
I do not believe the evidence I've seen. The dating methods contradict each other.

In addition, I believe the Scripture has an edge over scientific methodology and that in the end, the Scripture always wins out. I am not anti-science, but the fact is that the Bible has always been way ahead of science. It is just a matter of time before science catches up. Remember when scientists believed the earth was flat? God told us the earth was a sphere long before science discovered it. I could give many other references but you are probably already familiar with them.

I am not a scientist, but I have a fairly extensive theological education and know that there is no way we can make the language of the Genesis account mean long days, or fit a "gap" of millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 without mutilating the text. I will trust God's revelation before I will trust science any day of the week.

In addition, the ONLY reason to believe in an old earth is if you accept evolutionary theory.

Barry

[mike]

In addition, the ONLY reason to believe in an old earth is if you accept evolutionary theory.

Barry, this statement is too strong. It may be one reason, but not the only reason. For example, I believe in an old earth primarily because of the astronomical data. I don't believe in macro-evolution (I think we are both using the word in the same way -- I don't want us to talk past each other. I've done that before!)

Mike[/color]

[Barry]

Mike,
Have you read any texts by Young Earth Astronomers?

I hate to keep pointing you to the same website, but they tend to have the best info.

PLEASE CLICK HERE

Barry



[!--EDIT|Barry|1132113983--]

[mike]

Marzipan,

Interesting parable. The apparent age argument is impossible to refute (I think!)

Could God have made the universe a few thousand years ago with the appearance of age, and could he have done this so well that there would be no way to distinguish between his apparently aged universe and a truly aged universe? Of course he could!

God could also have created the universe one hundred years ago, and we were all born into a world with apparent age and apparent history. Or, he may have created the universe five minutes ago, creating us with apparent memories of things that never happened.

How could we ever prove this wrong? I don't think we can. And, if it turns out to be true, then it is okay with me. God certainly doesn't need my permission to do what he wants to do!

To me, however, the idea of apparent age does seem deceptive (the cute parable notwithstanding), and doesn't fit well with what I understand as the nature of God.

If an ancient universe specifically contradicted the Bible in a readily understandable sense, then that might give me pause. But I don't think it does.

Mike

[Marzipan]

Marzipan,

Interesting parable. The apparent age argument is impossible to refute (I think!)

Could God have made the universe a few thousand years ago with the appearance of age, and could he have done this so well that there would be no way to distinguish between his apparently aged universe and a truly aged universe? Of course he could!

God could also have created the universe one hundred years ago, and we were all born into a world with apparent age and apparent history. Or, he may have created the universe five minutes ago, creating us with apparent memories of things that never happened.

How could we ever prove this wrong? I don't think we can. And, if it turns out to be true, then it is okay with me. God certainly doesn't need my permission to do what he wants to do!

To me, however, the idea of apparent age does seem deceptive (the cute parable notwithstanding), and doesn't fit well with what I understand as the nature of God.

If an ancient universe specifically contradicted the Bible in a readily understandable sense, then that might give me pause. But I don't think it does.

Mike

I think that's what the logical types call a slippery slope. :D
But I know what you're saying, and you make a good point.
I personally believe that if you trust what the Bible says pretty plainly about creation, then whatever "evidence" you encounter in the world can be interpereted within that framework. I realise for "science" to be a global study, its constructs cannot rest upon one world religion. But that is a whole other debate. As a Christian, I can trust the creation account, and interepret data I come across accordingly. What a lot of creation scientists do and have done, is prove that the same "facts" are interpreted two different ways, by two opposing groups, and that neither can be conclusively true or false based on that data. But the Christian has faith in God to back it up, where the naturalist has only faith.

[mike]

Barry,

I have read a lot of young earth creationist theories. I remain unconvinced. I will, however, spend some time on the website you are pointing me to, and will try to honestly re-evaluate this again.

Much of what I have read in the YE camp seems to be an effort to make the data fit a pre-determined conclusion drawn from a certain scriptural hermeneutic.

There is also plenty of bias to go around on the other side, as well!

However, YE dogmatic positions remind me of the church's position affirming a geocentric universe, and the subsequent persecution of Galileo. The official position was derived from a certain reading of scripture, and no amount of observable data would convince the hierarchy otherwise.

As the huge amount of evidence to the contrary grew, however, Christians began to see that the Bible could  indeed be read faithfully without mandating a geocentric position.

I believe the YE/OE controversy is a similar situation.

Mike

[Marzipan]

The point I was getting at, and digressed from, was that a Christian who believes the literal creation account, has the same evidence behind them, but interepreted differently. I do not believe that any damage would be done to the "real" work of science, which is mainly research to find ways to help people, cure disease, help cut out pollution, preserve the land, the life on this planet. I couldn't think of a better purpose for something like science to exist, and I wouldn't doubt that God might have intended science to work to that end. I don't think that God intended His creation to question His revelation and spend their time, money, resources, talent on "reinventing the wheel" by trying to figure out how the universe began or how life began or evolved, etc. When He already told us that, and spared us the investigation. We should be using science to improve life on earth as much as possible, and as much as is proper. (Since we do that have that home in heaven waiting for us.)

[Marzipan]

However, YE dogmatic positions remind me of the church's position affirming a geocentric universe, and the subsequent persecution of Galileo. The official position was derived from a certain reading of scripture, and no amount of observable data would convince the hierarchy otherwise.

I think you might be confusing the Roman Catholic Church's official stance on the whole thing with Galileo and so forth, with the belief of the "church at large".
The RCC does not speak for all believers, and it never has. I'm sure you know this, but I wanted to make sure.
A lot of people I talk to confuse the "official" RCC position on certain things with what regular ole Christians believe.

[mike]

Good points, Marzipan. There are plenty of Christian OE scientists who have developed theories that are consonant with the scriptural account in Genesis.

See this site, for example:

Hugh Ross' website


I think an even better way to look at this, though, is that Genesis 1 was not  written to teach us about the physical science of creation, but instead the theology of creation. That doesn't make it wrong -- but trying to interpret things in a precise modern scientific sense that were written in an ancient culture for different reasons could lead us to an improper conclusion.


For example, I think what Genesis 1 does teach that would be new and different at the time is: there is one all-powerful God, who created everything; this God did not create the world out of pre-existing primordial chaos, but created ex nihilo;  humanity is created in the image of God; God cares a great deal for humanity. I'm sure there are others.

I think these are the earth-shaking new truths that ancient Mesopotamians would see taught in Genesis 1. Our concern over a creation timetable would probably be of little importance to them, and may not be the intent of the author at all.

Mike

[mike]

Interesting discussion!

I'll check back tomorrow. I can't remember the last time I posted this much in one day.

Mike

[CDHealy]

To me, however, the idea of apparent age does seem deceptive (the cute parable notwithstanding), and doesn't fit well with what I understand as the nature of God.

If an ancient universe specifically contradicted the Bible in a readily understandable sense, then that might give me pause. But I don't think it does.

Mike:

This is one problem I have with the apparent age argument: namely, it is an unprovable assumption.  It also presumes that the Fall did not introduce any new cosmological alterations into creation (which conflicts with how I understand the Genesis accounts and Romans 8), but that all the current "physical laws" operate in precisely the same way as they did prior to the fall.  But if the fall did not introduce any new cosmological laws, then did God build death and decay into the creation of the universe?  You see, I think, my problems here.

It also assumes that the stay in Eden was temporally very very short.  I recognize that some strands of the traditional interpretation of the creation accounts say this very thing, but I'm not sure that this is anything more than a theologoumenon.  I see no necessitating reason for a short stay in Eden.

Finally, I cannot but agree with you that an old earth understanding is in no way contradictory to the Scriptural account.  Most objections to old earth understandings rest entirely on understanding the genealogical accounts as lacking any gaps.  Add it all up and Usher is right.  But if young earth creation science folks are willing to allow that Usher's timetable cannot be maintained, and thus some of them advocate 10,000 years or so, then there is no biblical justification necessitating a young earth creationism.

[Barry]

But if young earth creation science folks are willing to allow that Usher's timetable cannot be maintained, and thus some of them advocate 10,000 years or so, then there is no biblical justification necessitating a young earth creationism.

CD,
I would agree with you that we can't put an exact number on the age of the earth. But let's be generous and allow for gaps in the genealogy and say it is 30,000 years old. That is a far cry from billions upon billions of years.

In addition, people like Hugh Ross teach that there was a sub-human race prior to Adam. The old earth proponents come up with many theories that simply cannot be supported by scripture or by scriptural implication.

Barry[/color]

[CDHealy]

Barry:

I don't mean to imply that old age assessments don't also have methodological and presuppositional problems.  But I do think that young earth creation science folks are engaged in a fallacious project: the proving of their own view by the discrediting of another.  That is to say, the posit a particular claim--the earth is 10K-30K years old, say--but instead of using scientific evidence to demonstrate the youngness of the earth, they resort to demonstrating how the old earth folks have flawed methodology or presuppositions in determining the earth's age.  But disproving one theory is not proving one's own.  That is why this sort of argument is fallacious.

I think one can have a "literal" view of the creation accounts, and still have an old earth view.  I do not think that this old earth view necessitates an evolutionary view of human origins, any more than I think it necessitates an evolutionary view of any biological origins.  The dating of the earth's age is a separate matter from the mechanism by which life arose on this earth.

[Barry]

The dating of the earth's age is a separate matter from the mechanism by which life arose on this earth.

That is certainly possible, but wouldn't you agree that most who hold to an old earth do so because they have accepted some type of evolutionary theory?

In addition, I read many literal creationist publications and the main focus is certainly not a young earth. The main focus is a literal creation account. The YEC spend quite a bit of time on the young earth issue because that is where most of the attacks seem to come from. In other words, I don't think it is disingenuous for them to try to disprove old earth arguments, even if it does not prove their own.

Barry[/color]

[CDHealy]

Barry:

I think evolution theory adherents necessarily need an old earth for there to be enough time for the evolutionary processes to work.  Whether or not these assumptions affect the mechanisms by which the age of the earth is calculated I cannot speak to.  That being said, there is a fairly consistent assessment of the age of the earth, and it is hard to ignore that consensus and the reasons on which it was founded.

I must admit that while I admire the courage of conviction that YECS adherents have, especially in the face of often malicious and withering ridicule and denigration, I really have to confess to not understanding why they think it necessary to wed their convictions about creation to a young earth.

While I think evolutionary theory adherents need an old earth for their theory to be viable, I'm not sure that creation adherents need a young earth for their theory to be viable.  The only reason I can see is that they feel they must adhere to a literalist 6-24-hour-day interpretation of the creation accounts, and that by extension, they need to adhere to a literal interpretation of the genealogies.  But if one does not need, on biblical grounds, to adhere to the 6-24-hour-day interpretation, then old earth assessments are rendered relatively unproblematic.

[Barry]

But if one does not need, on biblical grounds, to adhere to the 6-24-hour-day interpretation, then old earth assessments are rendered relatively unproblematic.

Perhaps that is where we differ. I can't see any justification in the biblical language for not adhering to a literal 6-24-hour-day interpretation. In fact, if it were not for evolutionary theory I doubt many Christians would have ever thought of anything but a literal interpretation of Genesis. I know that there have been other theories in the past, but none of them became popular until evolution became an accepted theory by the masses.

Barry[/color]

[CDHealy]

Barry:

Let me clarify a bit.  There is only one point in the creation account where it would seem to me necessary to adhere to a literal 24-hour day interpretation: the point at which the sun, moon and stars are created, for these are said to specifically marke the days, seasons and years.  Prior to that point, the language of "evening and moring" and "one day" cannot be necessistated to be taken literally since there is nothing in the text up to that point which indicates that these are 24-hour time markers.  It seems to me that from the moment of creation, time also came to be, for creation indicates a beginning as demarcated over against a now, and the intervening duration between the beginning and now must be time.  But in the first part of the creation account the phrases "evening and moring" and "one day" need not be taken literally for there is no celestial means by which to demarcate evening and morning, or days.  That doesn't happen till the creation of the celestial bodies by which they will then demarcate days and seasons and years.  So, all these phrases are doing in the first part of the creation account is demarcating the passage of time.  They do not indicate precisely how long that time was.

[s1n4m1n]

That is certainly possible, but wouldn't you agree that most who hold to an old earth do so because they have accepted some type of evolutionary theory?

I for one don't, and I know others as well. I just can't get around the stellar evidence. Of course, I guess one could have a old universe/young earth perspective.


Ken[/color]

[mike]

I for one don't, and I know others as well. I just can't get around the stellar evidence. Of course, I guess one could have a old universe/young earth perspective.

Ken, I completely agree. I find the astronomical evidence to be the most compelling.

I wonder why some Christians feel the need to be so committed to a young universe, when scripture doesn't seem to teach or even imply this.

There is the list of genealogies, of course. But they are often incomplete, as can be determined by comparing different scriptural lists of the same family lines. There is no reason to presume that they can be added together (as Bishop Ussher did) and come up with the date of creation.

Do you have any idea where this YE obsession comes from?

Mike


Mike[/color]

[Barry]

Do you have any idea where this YE obsession comes from?

Allowing for gaps in the genealogies, how old do you think the earth is according to the Bible?

In addition, if the earth is billions of years old, as you have stated, are you suggesting that the earth sat empty for those billions of years and at some point God decided to create man/animals/etc... on an already formed planet? If so, how do you interpret Genesis 1:1 which states God created the heavens and the earth at the beginning of the six days?

Barry[/color]

[marc]

Don't know.  How long does a day last if there is no sun or moon?  What forces were exerted on the earth's rotation during the early days of creation to determine the length of a day at that point?  

Does God ever use symbolic language when referring to periods of time?

[DCR]

Don't know.  How long does a day last if there is no sun or moon?  What forces were exerted on the earth's rotation during the early days of creation to determine the length of a day at that point?  

Does God ever use symbolic language when referring to periods of time?

That's what I always wondered.  With no sun and other celestial bodies, right off the bat, we're forced to make assumptions.  What determined the "evening", and what determined the "morning" in a day, since there were no sunrises and sunsets, etc.?  It just so happens that a day is 24 hours only because that is the length of time it takes for the earth to rotate, or visually speaking, for the sun to rise and set.  

Knowing what we now know about the physics of the solar system, etc., there are a ton of unanswered questions.  What if a modern scientific explanation were given to the ancient Hebrews 3000 years ago?  Would it have made any sense to them?  The simple, poetic language in Genesis makes this point... God made it all, and it was good![/color]

[mike]

Barry:
In addition, if the earth is billions of years old, as you have stated, are you suggesting that the earth sat empty for those billions of years and at some point God decided to create man/animals/etc... on an already formed planet?

Maybe . . . this involves a great deal of speculation. Perhaps there were successive waves of creation, as God worked with his creation as an artist.

The Cambrian fossil strata demonstrate an explosion of new life forms, practically coming on the scene all at once -- perhaps one of the waves of creation? Who knows -- as I said, this is mere speculation.

Maybe God just enjoys the passage of time :;):
(which, after all, is another part of his creation).

Mike[/color]

[Barry]

You guys seem to be overlooking the fact that the first thing God created was light with night and day:

Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." Together these made up one day.
Gen 1:3-5 (NLT)

And there is nothing poetic about the language of Genesis 1. It is presented as a historical account.

Barry[/color]

[Barry]

But Mike,
That is not just a little speculation, it is total and complete speculation with no biblical data to back it up or even imply it. There can be no doubt that Genesis 1 is presented as a historical account. If it is not, what do we do with the rest of Genesis? Were Adam and Eve real people, or just symbolic of the human race? If just symbolic, what do we do with all the talk of a literal first Adam in the NT? This brings up all kinds of problems. It is so much easier to just accept the biblical data as accurate.

Barry

[mike]

Of course it's speculation -- that's what I said!

"Easier" to read Genesis 1 in a fundamentalist way? I guess it depends on what you mean by easy, and what your end point is.

Mike

[Barry]

When did I use the word "fundamentalist?" I am saying that the book of Genesis is presented to us as a literal history. If it is not, what are the ramifications? If you can simply insert billions of years into the text, what else are you willing to change in the historical account? And if we can do this with Genesis, why not do it with every book of the Bible? What hermeneutic allows us to come up with a wholesale rewriting of the biblical text?

Barry

[James Rondon]

When did I use the word "fundamentalist?" I am saying that the book of Genesis is presented to us as a literal history. If it is not, what are the ramifications? If you can simply insert billions of years into the text, what else are you willing to change in the historical account? And if we can do this with Genesis, why not do it with every book of the Bible? What hermeneutic allows us to come up with a wholesale rewriting of the biblical text?

Barry

:amen:

[mike]

You never said "fundamentalist" that I am aware of, Barry. That's my description of the view you are espousing. At least to me it seems to be the classic fundamentalist view. I did not mean it as a pejorative term.

Genesis 1 seems to me to be a recasting of the typical Mesopotamian creation myth, one that the original readers would be familiar with. Except that in this retelling, important details about the true God and his relation with creation and special relationship with humanity are taught.

I don't see any reason to have  to read it as the same type of historical literary genre as the story of Paul's missionary journeys in Acts.

Just because it is a different type of literature doesn't alter how we have to read other literary genres in the Bible, IMO.

Mike