Posted on 02/18/2009 3:30:46 PM PST by DallasMike
I became a Christian in my sophomore year of college. The people who had led me to the Lord immediately began my discipleship. They taught me to evangelize and they taught me what they felt a Christian should believe. But most importantly they were a loving family of believers which was a welcome oasis for someone like me whose home life had been less than familial. Thus, when I was told that Christians must believe in a young-earth and a global flood, I went along willingly. I believed. Being a physics major in college I had not taken any geology courses. I knew there were physics problems, but I thought I could solve them.
When I graduated from college, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid off many. I did graduate work in philosophy, and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. After six months, I found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for a major oil company.
This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers and wonder how the flood could have deposited all that sediment and still given time for footprints to be formed if it was all deposited in one year. One could follow beds with footprints from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by such thicknesses of sediment that much time would have been required. I would see buried mountains which had experienced more than ten thousands of feet of erosion, which required more time than a single year. Yet, my belief system required that the sediments in those buried mountains had to have been deposited by the flood. I would see karsts (sinkholes due to limestone erosion) and salt sandwiched in the middle of the geologic column (supposedly during the middle of the flood). Yet the flood waters would have been saturated with limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. And salt can only be removed from the ocean waters by evaporation. It was inconceivable that salt could be deposited during the Flood. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow. But my faith in the young-earth interpretation told me that the data were not to be believed.
...
Eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true. I took a poll of all eight of the graduates from ICR's school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question, "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"
That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew very silent on the phone, sighed, and softly said, "No!" A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either.
Being through with creationism, I was almost through with Christianity. I was thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that if the earth were not young and the flood not global, then the Bible was false. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. During that time, I re-read a book I had reviewed prior to its publication. It was Alan Hayward's Creation/ Evolution (Triangle, 1985). Although I had reviewed it prior to its publication in 1985, I had not been ready for the views he expressed. He presented a wonderful "Days of Proclamation" view which pulled me back from the edge of atheism. Although I believe Alan applied it to the earth in an unworkable fashion, applied differently, his view had the power to unite the data with the Scripture. That is what I have done with my views. Without that I would now be an atheist. There is much in Alan's book I agree with and much I disagree with, but his book was very important in keeping me in the faith. While his book may not have changed the debate totally, it did change my life.
It was my lack of knowledge that allowed me to go along willingly and become a young-earth creationist. It was isolation from contradictory data, a fear of contradictory data and a strong belief in the young-earth interpretation that kept me there for a long time. The biggest lesson I have learned in this journey is to read the works of those with whom you disagree. God is not afraid of the data.
The only explanation that makes sense to me isshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
That’s good, because I was on a thread last night, with several FReepers avowing strong Christian faith, while attacking Creationists for all they were worth. I found it puzzling.
As noted by a previous poster, the apparent holographic nature of the universe certainly frees God from the constraints placed upon Him by literalists. God exists outside of time. It could have happened in a twinkling of an eye, in an instant, from an earthly perspective, as if that perspective existed at the moment of creation. We know that not to be true, due to Biblical accounts, whether these accounts are to be taken literally or as parable is beside the point.
The thought that strikes me, though, is that the Biblical literalists are in good stead with God, following His word, unafraid of appearing as fools for God to the world. If for some reason a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis actually is incorrect, their literalism in has in no way endangered their salvation.
Not necessarily so, for scientific literalists.
“It’s amazing how easily people accept that Jesus spoke in parables but have problems understanding that God would too. “
The Bible says Jesus taught in parables. Genesis is never defined as a parable.
If you would make anything a parable, the Red Sea could have been a myth, Moses could have been a fiction, they all pretended the water tasted like wine, and Jesus just swam heroically through a storm in a shallow (scientifically, who walks on water?). Most importantly, Jesus need not have resurrected. Liberals already say His resurrection is metaphorical, whatever.
It all becomes whatever.
Ross has a convincing argument for the “long creation” story, but I am unclear as to his idea that at some moment another kind of homonoid creature became a human. Kind of an “evolutionary zap”. Then there was Adam. He rather makes it clear it was not Neandertal, but what was it?
This all seems a bit odd.
Nevertheless, he does point out the young earth is not necessarily taught in Genesis. Heard this also from a Bible Professor that noted the whole Hebrew “day” argument was overworked for the context. Could have been long periods, like the “Day of the Lord”. But, this is still good biblical Creationism; just not 168 hours long.
It becomes a nice little social club, rich with traditions, and a moral code that, if followed on a societal level, leads to a less primitive life.
I've been told, by Jewish people, that Jews can be atheist, and still be Jews. They can avail themselves of the social club, the rich traditions and the moral code, without acknowledging a power higher than themselves. Scientists, who have found themselves bereft of meaning as a result of their own dour materialism, certainly can become Jews to assuage their existential angst.
So, why, then, is Christianity such a focus? Because it's the dominant paradigm in our society, and must be brought to heel, that's why.
You said (in a different way) what I’ve tried to explain to others about how I want to respond to God when I see Him at last:
I’d rather be able to say that I believed/acted/lived based on what I thought He said, instead of saying that I tried to make what He said match what I thought I saw.
Conversation with Him will, I believe, be rather candid...with nothing but truth involved. Specious arguments and prideful “interpretation” won’t trump what He says He meant.
C
The real story is somebody actually changed their mind!
Either way, I think that is a first. LOL
I've made that point on other threads. The response that I get is that Jesus told the crowds that the parables were were just allegories and not descriptions of actual events. Apparently, they take solace in the existence of the world's first disclaimer!
The whole argument that God just made the universe look old is silly. It is what it is. God is by nature a gardener - he builds things slowly, her nurtures them. Like the Church.
The science is solid. The universe is 13 billion years old. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Hint: these are the ages from the point of view of someone on earth.
Genesis and physical observation are not incompatible. The more we learn the more we see God in everything. That is why so many prominent biologists and biophysicists have moved away from atheism over the last 15 years.
bttt
Not really.
So, are you a Creationist, Buck W.?
How do YOU define creationist?
Your definition is what matters to you, Buck W.
So, are you a Creationist?
“Your definition is what matters to you, Buck W.”
Well, yes, that’s true—but I asked for YOUR definition.
Regardless, no I am not a creationist.
Then Judaism ignores the Bible
What both "young earthers" and "old earthers" don't seem to get, Uhaul. Time is not only relative, but God exists outside of it.
Show me where Genesis 1 and 2 differ
Well, do you consider yourself a Christian?
That’s nonsensical to the point of being offensive to Jews.
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.