Why Young-earth Creationism is Patently Absurd

Science & Apologetics Research Forum ^ | darrick dean

[truthfinder9]

Why Young-earth Creationism is Patently Absurd

http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/absurd.html

[Technogeeb]

Consider this: On day 6, God creates mankind (Genesis 1:26). Genesis 2 expands this verse into a series of events

No it doesn't. Verse 3 of chapter two clearly says that it was the 7th day, and God was resting. Then the rest of the events in Genesis two occur after that (presumably day 8+, since God rested on the 7th). The events in Chapter two could occur in any time after the 7th day of creation; they are not limited to a single day and thus the entire argument presented at the posted site is fundamentally flawed.

Those that suggest that the universe couldn't be created in 7 days just don't understand the nature of time; the passage of time, and it's measurement, is dependent upon the frame of reference of the observer.

[DManA]

So for some observes, it could look like 4 billion years.

Those that suggest that the universe couldn't be created in 7 days just don't understand the nature of time; the passage of time, and it's measurement, is dependent upon the frame of reference of the observer.

[Technogeeb]

So for some observes, it could look like 4 billion years.

Quite easily; if an observer happened to be in the appropriate inertial frame of reference (none of which is any more, or less, "accurate" or "correct" than any other).

[DManA]

Here's Jesus' take on the time argument:

John 8 58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

[dangus]

>> No it doesn't. Verse 3 of chapter two clearly says that it was the 7th day, and God was resting. Then the rest of the events in Genesis two occur after that (presumably day 8+, since God rested on the 7th).

If Adam and Eve's creation, as described in 2:4-25, was on the 7th day or later, who was created on the 6th day in 1:26-31?

[ahadams2]

I always love this sort of nonsense because it only indicates that the writer doesn't understand Scripture at all. While Gen. Chapter 1 describes the physical actions involved in creation, Gen. 2 describes the how man is different from animals and how he has dominion over them - it's two different perspectives on the same event and has nothing at all to do with a second week of Creation...which by the way occurred in 6 days...

[LiteKeeper]

I agree with your position, and would reinforce it with Matthew 19:4,5. In verse 4, Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 and in verse 5, He quotes Genesis 2:24. Chapters 1 and 2 quoted in one sentence! Jesus did not take them to be contradictory, but complementary.

[truthfinder9]

>Verse 3 of chapter two clearly says that it was the 7th >day, and God was resting. Then the rest of the events in >Genesis two occur after that (presumably day 8+, since God >rested on the 7th).

But young-earthers claim it all happened on day 6, which is the point of the article.

Why Young-earth Creationism is Patently Absurd
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/absurd.html

Science Watch
Reviewing new YE Psuedoscience Every Week
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/sciencew.html

Intro to the Creation Date Debate
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/cr2.html

Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/yeclaimsbeta.html

Deceptions and bad science of Ken Ham #1
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/rev.htm

Deceptions and bad science of Ken Ham #2
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/khr.html

Deceptions and bad science of Ken Ham #3
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/answers.html

Deceptions and bad science of Ken Ham #4
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/ken.html

AIG & the Charisma Controversy
http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/sarfati.html

[Technogeeb]

While Gen. Chapter 1 describes the physical actions involved in creation, Gen. 2 describes the how man is different from animals and how he has dominion over them - it's two different perspectives on the same event

The beginning of Genesis 2 is clear that 7th day has passed. Yours is the common view (that the later events in Genesis 2 are there to show that the creation of man was a "special" creation, a fact not in dispute), but there is nothing intrinsically linking the events in Genesis 2 to the 6th day (and if the beginning of Genesis 2 is to be believed, there is evidence to dispute it).

[ahadams2]

Actually Jesus Himself links them directly - see post #8 above.

[Technogeeb]

If Adam and Eve's creation, as described in 2:4-25, was on the 7th day or later, who was created on the 6th day in 1:26-31?

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

But it doesn't say Adam and Eve. There are any number of opinions and theories on this subject (for example, that "day" here is the epoch of man, which we are still in, or that this was a "generic" creation of man in contract with the special creation of Adam, etc. The more secular, of course, suggest that it is merely the incorporation of two different creation myths, an idea that I find irrational).

I don't have any strong opinion on any of them (other than the theories that discount the text altogether), other than the basic principle that I think the text itself is accurate and not a "metaphor", and that if it seems to contradict what is known from the physical sciences, or seems to contradict itself, then it is merely our understanding of the scripture that is inaccurate.

[Technogeeb]

Actually Jesus Himself links them directly - see post #8 above

The only thing that Jesus's words convey here is the understanding that both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are valid (something not in dispute except by the poster of the article).

[ahadams2]

I'm sorry but no - Jesus is using both verses to describe the same event/concept and show how the pieces relate together.

[ahadams2]

Whoops I forgot the primary rule: Scripture must be interpretted by Scripture first.

and then there's the second one: If science appears to indicate Scripture is wrong, then the science is wrong.

[dangus]

I'm glad to see various beliefs fairly represented within this thread. My I ask, though, why is it hard to accept that there are two different stories, focussing on two different lessons, describing the same historical event?

>>for example, that "day" here is the epoch of man, which we are still in

Some say this is the 8th day of creation, that the 7th was previous to the incarnation. I do believe, personally, that the "days" refer to epochs, and there are several bible passages to support that notion.

>>or that this was a "generic" creation of man in contract with the special creation of Adam, etc.

Well, that would suggest that there were other *fully human* beings before Adam, a notion which is in great conflict with biblical literalism *and* doctrine held by even not-so-literalist Christians, such as Catholics, ECLAs, Episcopalians, etc (recognizing that all of these denominations contain literalists).

>>...two different creation myths, an idea that I find irrational

Well, if one asserts that they are *mere* myths, I certainly could see how you would disbelieve that notion, as a Christian. But what is irrational?

Here's something shocking I just discovered: I was going to point out how there even seems to be a conlusion to one story line (Gen 2.3), and then a new story line introduced, including a brief introduction to the creation of heaven and earth (Gen 2.4). But what amazed we was this:

In the DAY that the Lord made the Heavens and the Earth, and every plant BEFORE it was in the Earth...

First, this seems to say that the Heavens and Earth were formed on the same day, He just planted it all later. (I checked, and the Hebrew word, "before" is not used in the sense of placing something "before" something else.)

Second, casually reading the next few verses, in isolation to Gen 1, seems to suggest that this is when Adam was made (Gen 2.7-8), and only *then* were these plants set in the garden.

[dangus]

>>Whoops I forgot the primary rule: Scripture must be interpretted by Scripture first.

I agree

>>and then there's the second one: If science appears to indicate Scripture is wrong, then the science is wrong.

Not really. There is a great capacity for apparent conflict when two agents describe the same thing for drastically different purposes. It is *very* easy to show conflict if I am trying to use one to disprove the other. I would say the issue is understanding the context and meaning of the two statements which appear in conflict.

Here's a little test. Matthew and Luke are both considered infallible. But let's suppose, just suppose, Luke was not in the bible. After you read the geneaology of Matthew, and then Luke, wouldn't it be so easy to presume Luke wrong? There are *serious* discrepancies between the two geneaologies. Only when one understands the context and intent of the two gospels may one understand that they are both true.

[dangus]

But, oh, I would say this: True science is not prescriptive. If someone uses science to urge a prescription which is contrary to the bible, the science is faulty or it is being abused.

[Technogeeb]

I'm sorry but no - Jesus is using both verses to describe the same event/concept and show how the pieces relate together.

You're clearly correct on the latter point (how the pieces relate together), but you're adding something to scripture that isn't there when you assert the former.

[Technogeeb]

Whoops I forgot the primary rule: Scripture must be interpretted by Scripture first.

Can you find that in scripture (and if so, how do you know you're interpreting that scripture correctly)? The Roman Catholics insist that Scripture must be interpreted according to Church and Apostolic tradition, so there is a difference of opinion on even that point.

[ahadams2]

Tell you what kid, you worship your god, and I'll worship Mine...and on Judgement Day we'll see who is right and who is wrong. Now if there's no Judgement Day then hey - you have nothing to sweat, right...just be very sure you're sure you're sure of the correctness of your perspective.

[ahadams2]

Certainly context and intent are important considerations within the field of hermaneutics. However (all the English majors out there just flinched:-)) I think there's a major difference between contextualizing different portions of Holy Scripture in relation to each other (which is what you are talking about); and attempting to use extra-Biblical sources as an attempted contextual measure of Holy Scripture, where said Holy Scripture is NOT treated as of greater Authority than the extra-Biblical sources. I know my Anglo-Catholic, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox friends could come up with a few exceptions to that, but I'm trying to keep things simple here, okay? :-)

[Technogeeb]

My I ask, though, why is it hard to accept that there are two different stories, focussing on two different lessons, describing the same historical event?

It isn't, any more than having more than one gospel that describes events from a different perspective means that one of them must be "wrong" for the other one to be right (Please note that a lot of what I might seem to advocate is actually just presenting a viewpoint; but not necessarily my own personal viewpoint).

Well, that would suggest that there were other *fully human* beings before Adam, a notion which is in great conflict with biblical literalism

Not really, since the concept itself is a result of being over-literal with the Genesis text. It is, of course, contrary to the most common teachings of the denominations you mention. From some Judaic tradition, there is a belief that there were pre-Adamic men (destroyed in the Flood, which was intended to cleanse the earth not only of sin, but also of the corrupted bloodline of mankind due to intermarriage with Adam's descendants. Of course, that is Jewish myth and not scripture, and I do not present it as such except to mention that it does not explicitly conflict with Scripture).

Well, if one asserts that they are *mere* myths, I certainly could see how you would disbelieve that notion, as a Christian. But what is irrational?

Because of the history of the scripture itself. Rationally (let us pretend for a moment to discount divine inspiration for the purposes of authorship), the one assembling the scripture would reasonably ignore the legends and myths that might provide a viewpoint that contradicts the one held by the assembler. Thus, it seems only reasonable that the assembler of that scripture (historically believed to have been written by Moses, and later restored by Ezra, not that it matters for purposes of this point) would not have been inclinded to provide both stories unless both were accurate reflections of belief. This implies, even in the absence of divine inspiration, that the two stories are fundamentally compatible (of course, that doesn't mean that both stories must be about the same events, just that issues that might seem to contradict are instead misrepresentations or misunderstandings of the text).

Second, casually reading the next few verses, in isolation to Gen 1, seems to suggest that this is when Adam was made (Gen 2.7-8), and only *then* were these plants set in the garden.

Interesting.

[Technogeeb]

Tell you what kid, you worship your god, and I'll worship Mine...

If you're worshipping a god that requires obedience to some belief that isn't actually in the bible, then I suggest you're worshipping the wrong god. By insisting on asserting claims that aren't actually in scripture, you seem to have forgotten the words of Revelation 22 ("I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book" ).

Now if there's no Judgement Day then hey - you have nothing to sweat, right...just be very sure you're sure you're sure of the correctness of your perspective

This is called a strawman argument; it is considered the worst sort of logical fallacy. No one was discussing Judgement day, original sin, the need for Christ's sacrifice, or anothing else relevant to those issues.

[Questioneer]

>>Whoops I forgot the primary rule: Scripture must be interpretted by Scripture first. <<

Absolutely...so, a question arises (maybe more than one) - follow this along:

After Cain killed Able he was cursed and driven out of the land by God Himself. In Gen. 4:14 Cain is quoted as saying:
"I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that finds me shall slay me."

Hmmm...If only Adam and Eve existed, then who was Cain afraid of that would kill him? Who was it that he would be a fugitive from? Think: It seems clear that the "every one" which Cain was referring to could not be Adam and Eve.

Then, in Gen. 4:15 (the next verse) we find this stated:
"And the Lord said unto him, Therefore WHOSOEVER slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest ANY finding him should kill him."

Hmmm....Seeing as how the text says that "whosoever" (ADAM and EVE, who supposedly were the only ones left alive on the earth at that particular time?) might slay him will have vengeance against him, the question comes up as "who are the WHOSOEVER seeing that only Adam and Eve, according to fundamentalists, lived on earth?" Going a little further into this thinking process, why would God have to put a mark on Cain to identify him to his mother and father, or were there OTHER PEOPLE, not of Adam's race living on the earth?

I could go on in this thinking process, but enough for the present post...

Many thanks for considering this and hopefully responding to it.

[ahadams2]

Actually that's a very valid question. If you'll read the Bible carefully you'll see that, especially prior to the flood there are several instances of what we would now consider 'incest' - i.e. brothers and sisters marrying each other. If you want a Biblical rationale for this - first no one had yet been told that to do so was a sin, and secondly, given a limited number of people in the world there really weren't a lot of other options.

People just tend to avoid that one because most Sunday School sorts of lessons don't want to deal with it, though the declaration of incest as entirely illegitimate (although it is *implied* in the story of Lot and his daughters in the cave) really doesn't occur until the Exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Levitical Laws (i.e. The Law).

[ahadams2]

whoops almost forgot a bit of an addendum there: where Holy Scripture says he went to live in the land of 'Nod' the literal translation of that would be "he went to live in the land of wandering...

[Questioneer]

>>whoops almost forgot a bit of an addendum there: where Holy Scripture says he went to live in the land of 'Nod' the literal translation of that would be "he went to live in the land of wandering... <<

Yep, you're mostly correct. The word "Nod" was given in place of "to move or wander about" - a verb, not a noun.

[Questioneer]

>>Actually that's a very valid question. If you'll read the Bible carefully you'll see that, especially prior to the flood there are several instances of what we would now consider 'incest' - i.e. brothers and sisters marrying each other. If you want a Biblical rationale for this - first no one had yet been told that to do so was a sin, and secondly, given a limited number of people in the world there really weren't a lot of other options. <<

Yes, I've had that said to me. And it may be true...we'll just have to wait until the end to find out :-)

Reading the Book of Jashar, which very few people ever look at, we find that the author states that after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden they had 2 sons and 3 daughters (some time before Seth was born)...so apparently Cain had access to 3 potential "wives", if we believe what's written in that book.

[ahadams2]

You asked "If the bible was merely a literal memorizing tool then why did god bless man with common sense ."

That's a very good question, though it's incomplete. More correctly, since the Bible is the only true and certain revelation of God's Will, the correct question would be how does God expect man to use what we consider to be common sense in conjunction with the Bible? The answer is that the Bible is the foundation of all we know about God and His Will, both for us and for all of Creation, thus the proper application of our 'common sense' must be based on and grounded in the Truth of Holy Scripture. Only in this manner can anything else be properly understood.

[pennypacker0411]

Jesus would certainly be shocked that with the passing of 2000 years his followers hadn't gained extra knowledge. Young earth creationism is first and foremost an attack on the sensible Christian majority.