Posted on 06/12/2014 8:22:20 AM PDT by fishtank
Hey Buggman…..
*** I’d also point out that there are formations on the earth that either took millions of years to carve out or else God set up nature to deliberately lie to us. For example, we know how fast a river can erode rock. The Columbia River carves a path right through the Cascadia Mountians. The only way that works, since water obviously doesn’t flow uphill, is if the river existed first and carved down through the mountains at the same rate that they rose—which means that the mountains had to rise over millions of years, or else the river would have been dammed.***
A global flood would easily explain this would it not?
*** You might want to check some of the secular science sites on those clocks. They turn out not to be as conclusive as they’re made out to be in the YEC community. Moreover, as Faulkner admitted, even though there are some anomalies that might suggest an earth or solar system younger than conventional science suggests, there’s absolutely no hard data that would put it at 6-10,000 years.***
The main point being made here is that the earth can’t possibly be as old as the evolutionists claim and I believe it systematically does that. The evolutionary trinity is Father Time, Mother Nature and Lady Luck….. None of the three are on their side.
*** If He did (use evolution to create), it would not create a problem for my theology.***
It would actually create a big problem……
Mark 10:6-7 say this: 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife
John 1, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 all tell us that Jesus Christ is the Creator. So in this passage, the Creator of the universe told the Pharisees that He created man and woman at the beginning of Creation. If you look up “beginning” in Strong’s Concordance it sends you to the appendix. In other words, according to Strong’s, the definition of beginning is so obvious that they see no reason to define it.
Mark 10:6 leaves no room for a Christian to hold to evolution. If Christ is your Savior, belief in evolution is tantamount to calling Him a liar (based on this passage).
It also creates a problem for OEC. If man and woman were created “from the beginning of creation” and the biblical genealogies take us back 6000 years (roughly) you have to twist the plain meaning of this passage to hold the old earth position. In fact, here would be your options:
1. Jesus is not telling the truth….. in which case He is not God and can’t be your Savior.
2. It was only Jesus’ opinion….. in which case He is not God and can’t be your Savior.
3. Mark was lying, Jesus never said it. This means that Matthew was also lying when he related this incident in Matthew 19 and it undermines the credibility of the entire New Testament.
4. Jesus created man and woman at the beginning of Creation.
The only other ground that you can stand on is to pull a Clinton and say “It depends on what the meaning of “beginning” is.
Over the years (but admittedly not recently on the old earth position) I’ve explored both sides of this. If scripture is my authority…. and it is…. I believe the Young Earth position is correct.
As I said before, it is not a matter unto salvation (I will meet you in glory one day, Buggman) but it is an important doctrinal issue. I know the standard arguments. Distant Starlight being the main one (old earthers really have the same issue when you consider the Horizon Problem).
I’m sure I’m not going to convince you to change your mind, Buggman and you won’t convince me to change mine.
I hope that I have convinced you that I’ve come by my position in a logical and hermeneutically sound manner.
Blessings to you, Buggman.
“Big Bang inflationary theory claims but—weeks later—evolutionists admitted they got it wrong.”
Astronomy and evolutionary biology are not the same disciples.
disciples should be disciplines. Interesting typo considering the original post.
Through soft soils, sure, that's a possibility. Through solid granite? Not so much.
The main point being made here is that the earth can’t possibly be as old as the evolutionists claim and I believe it systematically does that. The evolutionary trinity is Father Time, Mother Nature and Lady Luck….. None of the three are on their side.
Heh, I like that; I'll have to steal it. However, there's a difference between our perspectives: You seem to be conceeding that if the universe were billions rather than thousands of years old, "Father Time" at least would be on the evolutionist's side. Is that your intent? I certainly don't think 14 billion years of universal history and a billion of earth's is nearly sufficient enough.
On the subject of the universe's "clocks," how about if we each pick a couple and kick them around just to keep the conversation focused.
Mark 10:6-7 . . .
Let's break the question down a bit: Are Yeshua's words proven false by the fact that man and woman were not created on the first day? Why not?
I know the standard arguments. Distant Starlight being the main one (old earthers really have the same issue when you consider the Horizon Problem).
The Horizon Problem is explained easily enough by the Inflation Model, which also solves several other cosmological problems. The athiest is bothered by it because of the energies involved in such an early, radical expansion; the unique nature of the event which seems to have no explanation in our current understanding of physics; and the precision involved in the event's timing and extent. The theist, on the other hand, rejoices at such incongruities, since they point to the Hand of God.
On the other hand, there is no evidence, either scientifically or theologically, for CDK or "light created in motion" as mechanisms to explain how we can see galaxies millions or billions of light years away. Again, watch the Ross-Faulkner debate and see Faulkner admit that none of the standard mechanisms proposed in the YEC work.
The only way to hold to YEC is to propose that the Eternal Lawgiver keeps changing the laws of nature in a way that is impossible to detect in order to make the universe lie to us about its age . . . or else, God has simply put us in the Matrix, and everything we think we see is an illusion. That might describe a god, but it certainly does not describe the God of the Bible.
Shalom
I hope that I have convinced you that I’ve come by my position in a logical and hermeneutically sound manner.
I agree that this is not a salvational issue--in that no one's salvation is dependent on their theological position for YEC or OEC. However, I do think that YEC is creating a barrier to the undecided and creates an unnecessary and damaging dichotomy between science and Biblical faith.
I agree that you are a thoughtful person, and that your decision is logical within the context of the facts you choose to accept. However, you have to simply discard the lion's share of the scientific data and even a portion of the Scriptural data to do so.
Of course, you'd argue the same about me. :) That's why we're having this conversation.
Shalom uv'rechah (peace and blessings).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.