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.