RE: "Young Earth" doctrine?????

RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

essentialsaltes -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/17/2008 11:50:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey “It is not the average person who questions two thousand years of dogma, but that is what Buffon did: 100 years before Darwin, Buffon, in his Historie Naturelle, a 44 volume encyclopedia describing everything known about the natural world, wrestled with the similarities of humans and apes and even talked about common ancestry of Man and apes. Although Buffon believed in organic change, he did not provide a coherent mechanism for such changes. He thought that the environment acted directly on organisms through what he called "organic particles". Buffon also published Les Epoques de la Nature (1788) where he openly suggested that the planet was much older than the 6,000 years proclaimed by the church, and discussed concepts very similar to Charles Lyell's "uniformitarianism" which were formulated 40 years later.” - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/buffon2.html “Buffon also denied that Noah's flood ever occurred and observed that some animals retain parts that are vestigial and no longer useful, suggesting that they have evolved rather than having been spontaneously generated. Despite this, Buffon insisted that he was not an atheist.” - http://www.theinfidels.org/zunb-buffon.htm Concerning Buffon’s denial of atheism let’s not forget that in his day open admission of atheism was putting one’s life in danger. I believe he was motivated “to remove God from any explanation of the universe's existence”. The first three of your bolded statements have nothing to do with gods; they are statements about the natural world. The last one, if it means anything, goes against your argument. Looking into the matter, I see that, while Buffon indeed "talked about" the common ancestry of Man and apes, he rejected the idea. In particular he debated Lord Monboddo on the subject. "Buffon thought that man was a species unrelated to lower primates, but Monboddo rejected Buffon's analysis and argued that the anthropoidal ape must be related to the species of man. Partly because of Monboddo's deeply religious thought, it was difficult for him to place the apes on an equal plane with man, so he sometimes referred to the anthropoidal ape as the "brother of man"." Monboddo considered the story of Adam and Eve to be allegory, and yet he "was a vigorous opponent of other scientific thinking that philosophically questioned the role of God." This is the exact opposite of your hypothesis that these scientific developments were motivated by a desire to eliminate God.

charlotte123 -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/29/2008 1:51:24 PM)
Do you think it is a waste of time to argue for a young earth with someone who is not a believer? Do you think most Christians think the Earth is 14.5 billion years old?

cow451 -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/29/2008 2:13:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: charlotte123 Do you think it is a waste of time to argue for a young earth with someone who is not a believer? Do you think most Christians think the Earth is 14.5 billion years old? Yes and No

DanJames -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/29/2008 2:17:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cow451 quote: ORIGINAL: charlotte123 Do you think it is a waste of time to argue for a young earth with someone who is not a believer? Do you think most Christians think the Earth is 14.5 billion years old? Yes and No Cow, you crack me up![:D] Charlotte, I personally only discuss the evolution/creation topic with unbelievers in one place, right here. Other places, I use the topic as a springboard toward a discussion about the Creator, but I don't dwell too long on the topic of Creation. I mean, why talk about the ministry of angels with someone who doesn't believe they exist, you know? The same goes for creation. If they don't believe that God exists, how profitable would it be to tell the unbeliever that He created the universe? Afterwards, sure I'll talk, but I wouldn't split a church over it. Only edify those who will listen. Do MOST Christians think the Earth is 14.5 billion years old? I don't know! I would assume that most Christians haven't really thought about it, but that's just an assumption.

essentialsaltes -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/29/2008 2:23:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: charlotte123 Do you think it is a waste of time to argue for a young earth with someone who is not a believer? Probably. quote: Do you think most Christians think the Earth is 14.5 billion years old? Well, the earth is just 4.5 billion years old. The whole universe is around 14 billion years old. In the US, polls suggest that Americans (who are mostly Christians) are about evenly divided on the issue. [Actually, the most commonly asked question is whether humans evolved (with or without divine intervention) over millions of years, or were they specially created a few thousand years ago. Those two options are about equally divided; I suppose it's possible that the latter people think the earth is bilions of years old, but humans are only thousands of years old.] In the UK, support for creationism is lower. A recent poll showed 22% opting for divine creation in the last 10,000 years. I expect the results for much of the rest of Europe would be similar.

charlotte123 -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/29/2008 2:36:14 PM)
I really get beat up pretty badly over Creation, any age earth, when discussing it with atheists. Do you feel it's an obligation to talk about it with an atheist if the reason they say they don't believe in God is simply because of the science that appears to preclude his existance? I am not smart enough to defend my position, but it comes up a lot. Should I just say "Goddidit" and watch them laugh? or should I try to justify my position in an effort to share Jesus Christ with them?

DanJames -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/29/2008 2:42:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: charlotte123 I really get beat up pretty badly over Creation, any age earth, when discussing it with atheists. Do you feel it's an obligation to talk about it with an atheist if the reason they say they don't believe in God is simply because of the science that appears to preclude his existance? I am not smart enough to defend my position, but it comes up a lot. Should I just say "Goddidit" and watch them laugh? or should I try to justify my position in an effort to share Jesus Christ with them? Let me encourage you, Charlotte. The reason they are atheists is NOT because science appears to preclude his existence. People are atheists because they choose to reject God. Nobody has ever received Christ because they were beaten in an argument about the age of the earth. I personally would humbly advise you to simply stay away from the argument about the age of the earth, and bring their attention to the Gospel of Christ, and His death, burial, and resurrection. Leave it to the Spirit to convict them of their sins, and with hope, the love of Christ will overwhelm them, rather than your ability to beat a textbook over their head. You can't be expected to beat every unbeliever at every debate. Let's not forget that when Paul was among the Corinthians, he was reserved to know nothing accept Christ and him crucified. A stumbling block to the Jew, and madness to the Greek. Don't be ashamed at your small repertoire of Creation arguments. They don't get us all that far in bringing people to the saving grace of Christ anyway.

drmark -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/29/2008 2:58:53 PM)
quote: or should I try to justify my position in an effort to share Jesus Christ with them? Why do you feel a need to "justify" the authoritative and inerrant Word of God Who was the only Eyewitness to the beginning of time in the first place? Is belief in a "young earth" important to your personal testimony of salvation, Charlotte? Most atheists will respond much more favorably to your Christlike lifestyle rather than a debate on so-called scientific evidence that they have already twisted to justify their sinful worldview.

charlotte123 -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/29/2008 3:10:32 PM)
You're absolutely right. God does not need me to defend Him does He? I guess if a person is going to be saved, it surely won't be by supeirior debating skills, will it? I've lost sight of what I'm here for and God has used you to smack me upside the head with it. Thanks drmark. quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: or should I try to justify my position in an effort to share Jesus Christ with them? Why do you feel a need to "justify" the authoritative and inerrant Word of God Who was the only Eyewitness to the beginning of time in the first place? Is belief in a "young earth" important to your personal testimony of salvation, Charlotte? Most atheists will respond much more favorably to your Christlike lifestyle rather than a debate on so-called scientific evidence that they have already twisted to justify their sinful worldview.

drmark -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/29/2008 3:33:20 PM)
quote: Thanks drmark. Well, if I did anything valuable, it was only through the Holy Spirit. However, before you get any more beat up ([;)]), please remember that understanding the reasons we believe God's Word is authoritative and inerrant should also include compatibility with human science and knowledge. As I've recently posted on your other thread, there is nothing in real science that contradicts Scriptural truth and those that have special education and training in science may be able to find common ground with atheists that open doors for further apologetic approaches.

cow451 -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/29/2008 4:39:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: charlotte123 I guess if a person is going to be saved, it surely won't be by supeirior debating skills, will it? I've lost sight of what I'm here for and God has used you to smack me upside the head with it. Thanks drmark. Confusion can happen when you try to make science religion or religion science. I have a 2 x 4 here if you need a whack up the other side of your head.[sm=smile-l.gif]

charlotte123 -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/29/2008 4:48:10 PM)
[/quote] Confusion can happen when you try to make science religion or religion science. I have a 2 x 4 here if you need a whack up the other side of your head.[sm=smile-l.gif] [/quote] Umm, let me think about that... No thanks.[:D]

drmark -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (9/30/2008 3:30:29 PM)
quote: Question about Genesis days. I am still not clear on that. I don't see any reason for them to be anything other than a regular 24 hour day. So it does seem to reason that a day means a day and that's it. There is no reason to see anything different because God was exceedingly careful in inspiring Moses to write "evening and morning the first through sixth days". Can you think of any more specific description of six 24-hour days than this? quote: In your opinion, do you think that it is possible that the literal day interpretation could be wrong? And does it matter either way as long as we acknowledge that the Word is inerrant and we just don't know how many days God means? But we do know exactly "how many days God means" as I pointed out above! Now, there is one interesting aside that maybe we should explore on a new thread. But I will throw it out here for thought provoking purposes. Essentially all the observational descriptions listed in the Genesis account are based on what we would see from Earth if we were somehow miraculously transported back in time to the Creation Week. Because of this observational perspective, it is entirely possible that while time on Earth lasted 24 hours per each day, there may have been much vaster time duration occurring in distant parts of the universe, giving it an appearance of much greater age. Actual physical observations of the expanding universe have been calculated to match up remarkably well with 6000 years of earth history correlated with billions of years of "starlight history" by some creation scientists. quote: I think on this issue (I haven't decided yet what view I think is correct) that I might just have to say I know God made the universe and everything in it. He could have made it in how ever many days He saw fit. I don't know how many days it was, but the events described were indeed carried out just as God says they were in His Word and no matter what theory is widely accepted, if it contradicts His Word, it's wrong. God could have done lots of things, Charlotte, but he only created the earth and universe once. We have the accurate historical record of origins in Genesis and you're exactly right: if man's "science" contradicts God's Word, then we know which one is right and which is wrong!

ot4christ -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (10/4/2008 12:20:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: charlotte123 Do you think it is a waste of time to argue for a young earth with someone who is not a believer? Do you think most Christians think the Earth is 14.5 billion years old? Absolutely on the first, don't know on the second. When I was an atheist or agnostic, a huge barrier was the 144-hour creation account. In my younger years, I was an astronomy buff and considered it absurd to think that the heavens were only a few thousand years old. I eventually met a Christian during my first year in college who provided a different interpretation, I think it was the gap theory and doubt he even believed it, but he offered it up as a possibility. He then challenged me to research archeology. It was the confirmation of the many bible stories that led me to consider the bible further. The Spirit eventually brought me to a saving faith. In my opinion, the young-earth view may appear ridiculous to non-believers who have even a rudimentary science background. What irks me most is the way Christians argue among themselves about the issue, even condemning one another. I personally hold to a day-age belief but will not argue with a person who believes in the 144-hour creation other than try to show that people with a differing view of creation can be saved and be a "literalist." Sadly, I am afraid to mention my beliefs on the creation account to most Christians because of the damage that propaganda from young-earth organizations has created. I think it is a wonderful thing to learn how science and the bible are in agreement on creation. Even most adherents to the 144-hour creation will concede that things just “appear” old, so they are acknowledging that scientists are somewhat correctly dating things, especially with regard to the cosmos. I wrote an article a few months ago after a guy at church “preached” a message. He isn’t our pastor, but the pastor was out-of-town. I am pretty sure that the message was aimed at me, since he quoted some things he heard me say in the past. The article is long but half the original length. It is titled “Why I no longer believe the bible.” It is satire so don’t get in a huff if you decide to read it. It can be found here.

drmark -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (10/4/2008 9:39:09 PM)
quote: I personally hold to a day-age belief but will not argue with a person who believes in the 144-hour creation other than try to show that people with a differing view of creation can be saved and be a "literalist." Would you be willing, ot4christ, to share the Biblical passages that you feel support your claim to a literalist interpretation? Do you think Jesus was a literalist in His comments on creation in Matt 19:4 and Mark 10:6?

ot4christ -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (10/4/2008 10:15:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: I personally hold to a day-age belief but will not argue with a person who believes in the 144-hour creation other than try to show that people with a differing view of creation can be saved and be a "literalist." Would you be willing, ot4christ, to share the Biblical passages that you feel support your claim to a literalist interpretation? Do you think Jesus was a literalist in His comments on creation in Matt 19:4 and Mark 10:6? I don't understand the first part of your question. I probably should not have used the word "literalist," since there are many examples of scripture that are not meant to be taken literally. For example, Proverbs 1:20, "Wisdom calls aloud outside; she raises her voice in the open squares." On the issue of God "made them male and female," I absolutely believe Jesus was literal and that they were both created on the sixth day.

Godddy -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (10/4/2008 10:54:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames quote: ORIGINAL: charlotte123 I really get beat up pretty badly over Creation, any age earth, when discussing it with atheists. Do you feel it's an obligation to talk about it with an atheist if the reason they say they don't believe in God is simply because of the science that appears to preclude his existance? I am not smart enough to defend my position, but it comes up a lot. Should I just say "Goddidit" and watch them laugh? or should I try to justify my position in an effort to share Jesus Christ with them? Let me encourage you, Charlotte. The reason they are atheists is NOT because science appears to preclude his existence. People are atheists because they choose to reject God. Nobody has ever received Christ because they were beaten in an argument about the age of the earth. I personally would humbly advise you to simply stay away from the argument about the age of the earth, and bring their attention to the Gospel of Christ, and His death, burial, and resurrection. Leave it to the Spirit to convict them of their sins, and with hope, the love of Christ will overwhelm them, rather than your ability to beat a textbook over their head. You can't be expected to beat every unbeliever at every debate. Let's not forget that when Paul was among the Corinthians, he was reserved to know nothing accept Christ and him crucified. A stumbling block to the Jew, and madness to the Greek. Don't be ashamed at your small repertoire of Creation arguments. They don't get us all that far in bringing people to the saving grace of Christ anyway. Thank you, wonderful answer to Charlotte, I have had the same experience with atheist, They will find everything to get you to argue about. It is to serve their purpose, and takes your mind off of Jesus. Those whose mind is on the Lord is in perfect peace.

Godddy -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (10/4/2008 10:58:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Question about Genesis days. I am still not clear on that. I don't see any reason for them to be anything other than a regular 24 hour day. So it does seem to reason that a day means a day and that's it. There is no reason to see anything different because God was exceedingly careful in inspiring Moses to write "evening and morning the first through sixth days". Can you think of any more specific description of six 24-hour days than this? quote: In your opinion, do you think that it is possible that the literal day interpretation could be wrong? And does it matter either way as long as we acknowledge that the Word is inerrant and we just don't know how many days God means? But we do know exactly "how many days God means" as I pointed out above! Now, there is one interesting aside that maybe we should explore on a new thread. But I will throw it out here for thought provoking purposes. Essentially all the observational descriptions listed in the Genesis account are based on what we would see from Earth if we were somehow miraculously transported back in time to the Creation Week. Because of this observational perspective, it is entirely possible that while time on Earth lasted 24 hours per each day, there may have been much vaster time duration occurring in distant parts of the universe, giving it an appearance of much greater age. Actual physical observations of the expanding universe have been calculated to match up remarkably well with 6000 years of earth history correlated with billions of years of "starlight history" by some creation scientists. quote: I think on this issue (I haven't decided yet what view I think is correct) that I might just have to say I know God made the universe and everything in it. He could have made it in how ever many days He saw fit. I don't know how many days it was, but the events described were indeed carried out just as God says they were in His Word and no matter what theory is widely accepted, if it contradicts His Word, it's wrong. God could have done lots of things, Charlotte, but he only created the earth and universe once. We have the accurate historical record of origins in Genesis and you're exactly right: if man's "science" contradicts God's Word, then we know which one is right and which is wrong! Good point drmark

drmark -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (10/5/2008 8:34:28 AM)
quote: I probably should not have used the word "literalist," since there are many examples of scripture that are not meant to be taken literally. Should I infer from this comment that Genesis chapter 1 is an example of Scripture that "is not meant to be taken literally"? How else can someone who "personally holds to a day-age belief" reject a 144 hour creation? quote: On the issue of God "made them male and female," I absolutely believe Jesus was literal and that they were both created on the sixth day. Should I infer from this comment that you feel Jesus believed in a 144 hour creation? If so, why do you hold to a day age belief when the only Eyewitness to creation disagrees with that chronology?

ot4christ -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (10/5/2008 9:23:38 PM)
You are welcome to infer as you wish, whether correctly or incorrectly. I think that providing an answer to the “why” I believe what I believe would be unprofitable, since you (with over 3000 posts) have likely heard it before from people who are much more eloquent and learned than I. -- ot4christ Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone. But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. --Titus 3:1-9 quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: I probably should not have used the word "literalist," since there are many examples of scripture that are not meant to be taken literally. Should I infer from this comment that Genesis chapter 1 is an example of Scripture that "is not meant to be taken literally"? How else can someone who "personally holds to a day-age belief" reject a 144 hour creation? quote: On the issue of God "made them male and female," I absolutely believe Jesus was literal and that they were both created on the sixth day. Should I infer from this comment that you feel Jesus believed in a 144 hour creation? If so, why do you hold to a day age belief when the only Eyewitness to creation disagrees with that chronology?

drmark -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (10/6/2008 8:14:09 AM)
quote: I think it is a wonderful thing to learn how science and the bible are in agreement on creation. quote: But avoid foolish controversies Very diplomatic, ot4christ. You feel it's a wonderful thing to learn how science and the Bible are in agreement on creation, yet you're not interested in learning how the Bible teaches creation because science has already disproven "young earth" doctrine. I don't need 3000+ posts to recognize an inconsistent position. And you wonder why you consider facts from young earth organizations "propaganda"!

lightbeamrider -> RE: "Young Earth" doctrine????? (10/12/2008 5:15:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar quote: ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn How do you reconcile that to Hebrews 13:8 and Hebrews 1:2? We are shown, over and over in the Bible, that God is unchangeable. If we cannot rely on the absolute immutability of God, what hope do we have??? If we think He is a God that has allowed His creation to evolve, when he at one time declared it "good", how can we have a sure hope of anything at all? How can we be sure that the price Jesus paid for our redemption will continue to be good enough, regardless of how bad we become? How can we even know there is absolute Truth? I'm just not seeing any biblical precedent for the God you describe. It paints God as being "relativistic". No, it paints God as not reveling in stagnation. While God may not change, that doesn't mean He can't change his tactics or be swayed via petition. Abraham repeatedly asked God to change the criteria under which he'd save Sodom & Gomorrah and God agreed. The system of worship he set up in the OT is drastically different than the one in the NT. What's the point of prayer if everything is predetermined? -Dan. God tells us to pray...that's why we do it. There is biblical precedent for God allowing man to intercede via prayer...Moses, Abraham, etc. God's truth and justice still prevailed in those situations. God cannot be swayed! Again, if He was not immutable, we would have no hope. God is the only "thing" that can truly be called unchangeable. There is no biblical precedent for God being changeable...in fact, we're told the very opposite in scripture. We don't want to serve a God that can be swayed or is given to change! And before a moderator tells us this is off topic...I really don't think it is. My point is, when God said His creation "was good", then it was...and it didn't need to be "tweaked". All of Abraham's intersessions did not do the Sodomites any good. Me thinks it did do Abraham some good. Proverbs 11:8 ''The righteous is delivered from trouble, But the wicked takes his place.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI