59 replies to this topic

[Fred Williams]

Below is an article I plan on posting on my website. Please don't hesitate to point out any errors, or anything you disagree with. I have plenty of friends who are old earthers but I'm not afraid to defend why this is an important issue and warn them of the consequences of their belief. While I know plenty of OECers who are otherwise firm in their faith and a strong Christian, I believe they neglect the fact that they risk placing others around them on the slippery slope that may not be able to withstand the slipperiness. This will be a pinned topic once it starts to wind down. Thanks for any feedback, comments, criticisms, etc...

Old Earth Theology is Incompatible with the Bible
By Fred Williams

The age of the earth is an important topic to Christianity since an old earth is in direct conflict with the historical account given in Genesis, and also an affront to the character of God. While belief in an old earth is not necessarily a salvation issue, it is a slippery slope issue. Below is a summary of the arguments against Old Earth theology, followed by a discourse on why it is a slippery slope and the consequences that go with it.

Summary Arguments against Old Earth theology

1) Genesis 1-11 plainly teaches a literal six 24-hour day creation and a global flood. Not only does the plain, obvious rendering of the text support this, it is also widely accepted by Hebrew linguistic scholars. They offer credible testimony not only because of their expertise with the Hebrew language, but also because they are essentially unbiased on this issue. Many of these scholars are either atheist or non-practicing Jews, so they could care less about Christians squabbling over what Genesis teaches about the age of the earth. They overwhelmingly contend that Genesis 1-11 is written as a literal historical account that the earth was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and the flood was global. They totally reject the claim that the days were long eras of time and the flood was local.[1] Old Earthers therefore not only have to try to explain why numerous passages mean something different than what the plain rendering conveys, they also have to posit that they know something we don't and that the vast majority of unbiased Hebrew scholars have also "missed the boat" on this issue. [2]

2) The Bible plainly teaches that death came into the world because of sin. Not only is it clear from Genesis 3 that man's sin brought death and corruption into the world, the New Testament also confirms this: "¦through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Romans 5:12); "For since by man came death" (1 Corinthians 15:21). It is also important to note that death is an enemy to God: "The last enemy that will be destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians 15:26). Yet if you believe in an old earth, you believe in millions upon millions of years of death, disease, suffering, and killing. One Christian speaker I met at a youth conference where we were both speaking said that God was like a pool player that has taken a lot of different shots over millions of years. I responded that the God he is describing sounded to me like a bad pool player! The idea of millions of years of death & disease & killing is a secular idea, and is an affront to the character of the God of the Bible, a God of Love and a God of Life.

3) Jesus was a young earth creationist. The New Testament refers back to Genesis over 200 times. For example, "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'" (Mark 10:6). This verse clearly links Adam & Eve with the beginning of creation, and alone refutes all Old Earth theologies such as the gap theory and progressive (day-age) creationism. Jesus also appealed to Noah's flood in Matt 24:38 as a global flood (the Greek word used is kataklusmos). Peter prophesied in 2 Peter 3:3-6 that scoffers will deny the world was destroyed by a flood. He used the same Greek word for flood, kataklusmos. He also used it as an analogy to the coming destruction of the heavens and earth (v 7, 10), which would not make sense if the flood were merely local. Finally, God's rainbow promise to never again send a flood seems awfully shallow if the flood was local, since we've had scores of local floods since this promise (Gen 9:12-17). To claim that scripture allows for Noah's flood to be local is reading something into the text that simply isn't there, and is also an affront to God's character since it make's God's promises appear "watered down".

4) Other Genesis 1 calisthenics. Not only is the plain text clear in Genesis 1 that God created in six literal days, God also ordered the creation to thwart man's attempts to add millions of years. For example:

* Genesis clearly teaches that the earth was created on day 1 and the sun, moon, and stars on day 4. OECers deny this order and claim the sun, moon, and stars came first.
* Genesis clearly states that plants were created on day 3 and the sun on day 4. The light from day 1 certainly would have been sufficient for photosynthesis. OECers (day-age theology) however claim there are millions of years between day 3 and 4, so how could the plants possibly survive? They answer by claiming that the sun was really created on "day" 1 and it wasn't until "day" 4 (millions of year later) that the sun could be seen through the clouds. The hoops OECers must jump through!
* Genesis clearly states that light was created before the sun, OECers claim that the sun was earth's first light.
* Genesis clearly states that birds pre-date land reptiles; OECers claim the opposite.
* Genesis clearly states that whales pre-date land mammals; OECers claim the opposite.


The Slippery Slope

Psalms 11:3 - If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?

Genesis is the very foundation of the Bible, containing all the major doctrines including salvation, original sin, why we wear clothes, the institution of marriage, etc. If the foundation is destroyed, the rest of the Bible becomes subjective and easily mutable by man's whimsical desires of what he wants God to say. This is exactly what we have seen with churches that have compromised on Genesis. Every single church in the world that is liberal in its theology, by supporting or condoning issues like abortion and H*m*s*xuality, all began with a compromise of Genesis. Examples include United Methodist, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran (ELCA), Episcopalian, etc. Of the churches that have gone completely apostate by denying the resurrection as historical (such as United Church of Canada), all began with a compromise in Genesis.

Its influence on individuals is perhaps best summarized by the classic example of Charles Templeton, who at one time was the leading evangelist in America in the 1950s. After he went to Princeton and became convinced the earth was old, he recognized the conflict with Genesis and over time eventually abandoned the faith completely. He told Billy Graham "But, Billy, it's simply not possible any longer to believe, for instance, the biblical account of creation. The world wasn't created over a period of days a few thousand years ago; it has evolved over millions of years. It's not a matter of speculation; it's demonstrable fact." He wrote a book in 1995 titled "˜Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith'; most of the reasons he listed were related to his acceptance of an old earth and evolution. The number one reason he gave (according to his son) was his disdain for a God involved in millions of years of death, disease, killing, etc. Unfortunately he was led to believe this inaccurate caricature of God by "intellectuals" who taught him that the earth was old and that the fossil record represented millions of years of death, instead of the more reasonable conclusion that the fossil record was the result of a global flood and represented God's eventual judgment of sin.[3]

Satan is very intelligent and knows that if he places doubts in the minds of people of the historical accuracy in the very first book of the Bible, they are more likely to reject historical claims and doctrines in the rest of the Bible, most importantly the resurrection. While not all Christians who accept an old earth slide down the slippery slope, what they need to consider is that those they influence, such as friends and family members, may not be able to withstand the slippery slope, and over time may find themselves at the bottom and in danger of eternal damnation. Studies have consistently shown that between 70-88% of kids leave the faith after the first year of college, and the number one reason given is "intellectual skepticism".

I am convinced that there is not a single Christian who believes in an Old Earth and a local flood based on what scripture teaches. They originally accepted OEC based on what they learned from fallible man and their fallible dating methods, then reasoned that scripture must somehow accommodate the possibility of an old earth (this is based on personal experience, as I was OEC until about age 30). All their theological arguments are after-the-fact; they start with man's opinion first, then go to the Bible. As Christians we should always start with God's Word (the Bible), then consider the evidence around us. You will find that God did not let us down and plant evidence to deceive us. On the contrary, the creation science community has brought to light over the last several decades reasonable and plausible evidence that contradicts an old earth[4]. Even so, it is not possible to empirically prove the age of the earth, so at the end of the day we must rely on historical science and appeal to the most historically accurate book known to man, the Bible (for a defense of the Bible as historically accurate, see my Bible Evidences web page).

Ultimately, you have to ask yourself if you truly are trusting God's wisdom over the "wisdom" of the world (see 1 Cor 1:19-20 for God's view of the wisdom of the world). Do you accept God's plain words, or the opinions of fallible man and fallible dating methods?

You shall raise up the foundations of many generations; (Isaiah 58:12)

It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man. (Psalms 118:8)

All the words of my mouth are with righteousness; Nothing crooked or perverse is in them. They are all plain to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge. (Prov 8:8-9)

--------------------

[1] - "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience. "¦ Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know." " Professor James Barr of Oxford University England, as quoted in "The Young Earth", John Morris 1994, p.31.

[2] OECers seem to imply that we need intelligent, well-educated men to tell us what scripture really means (I've actually had OECers tell me this on more than one occasion). However, not only does this reveal an inconsistency given that they ignore the overwhelming consensus of Hebrew linguistic experts who reject their interpretation of Genesis, it is also not scriptural. The Bible was written for the simple-minded and intellectual alike. "The entrance of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple." (Ps 119:130). Note that it is God's Word that gives the light and understanding, not the opinion of some intellectual.

[3] The fossil record is 95% marine life that is buried all over the world, including on most mountain ranges. This is consistent with Moses' claim that a great flood covered the mountains (Gen 7:20). Fossilization typically requires rapid burial in mud. Also, when clams die, their shells invariably open. The shell life we find in the fossil record is often in the closed position, which is powerful evidence they were buried alive. Yet we are told by secular scientists there is no evidence of a global flood.

[4] Most age chronometers contradict an old earth. One of the most powerful is C-14, which is radioactive and decays to nitrogen. Why is this a problem for an old earth? C-14 has a half-life of roughly 5700 years, so after 50K years the C-14 should have essentially vanished and changed into nitrogen in any material assumed to be older than 50K years. However, we invariably find C-14 in coal, natural gas, and diamonds, all material that is supposed to be millions of years old. Old earth scientists can't blame it on contamination since it is extremely rare to find such a material without C-14 in it! For another powerful argument against an old earth that also supports an age of ~6K, see the thread "˜Helium In Zircons Is Powerful Evidence For Young World'. You can also find a long laundry list of arguments against an old earth at Answers in Genesis, ICR, and CRS.

[Dave]

Hi Fred,

Nicely done. No criticisms. Just a couple of typo fixes.

Dave

2) The Bible plainly teaches that death came into the world because of sin. Not only is it clear from Genesis 3 that man’s sin brought death and corruption into the world, the New Testament also confirms this: “…through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin” (Romans 5:12); “For since by man came death” (1 Corinthians 15:21). It is also important to note that death is an enemy to God: “The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” (1 Corinthians 15:26). Yet if you believe in an old earth, you believe in millions upon millions of years of death, disease, suffering, and killing. One Christian speaker I met at a youth conference where we were both speaking said that God was like a pool player that has taken a lot of different shots over millions of years. I responded that the God he is describing sounded to me like a bad pool player! The idea of millions of years of death & disease & killing is a secular idea, and is an affront to the character of the God of the Bible, a God of Love and a God of Life.


I am convinced that there is not a single Christian who believes in an Old Earth and a local flood based on what scripture teaches. They originally accepted OEC based on what they learned from fallible man and their fallible dating methods, then reasoned that scripture must somehow accommodate the possibility of an old earth (this is based on personal experience, as I was OEC until about age 30). All their theological arguments are after-the-fact; they start with man’s opinion first, then go to the Bible.

[Fred Williams]

Hi Fred,

Nicely done. No criticisms. Just a couple of typo fixes.

Dave

Thanks Dave! I made the corrections in the OP above.

Fred

[trilobyte]

Fred, One question I like to ask is this...below is the linage of Jesus. It starts with God then Adam then Seth and so on. Now, if the earth is billions of years old and man has only been around for several million years, just where does the list turn from fact to fiction?

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,
Matthat,
Levi,
Melki,
Jannai,
Joseph,
Mattathias,
Amos,
Nahum,
Esli,
Naggai,
Maath,
Mattathias,
Semein,
Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
Zerubbabel,
Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melki,
Addi,
Cosam,
Elmadam,
Er,
Joshua,
Eliezer,
Jorim,
Matthat,
Levi,
Simeon,
Judah,
Joseph,
Jonam,
Eliakim,
Melea,
Menna,
Mattatha,
Nathan,
David,
Jesse,
Obed,
Boaz,
Salmon,
Nahshon,
Amminadab,
Ram,
Hezron,
Perez,
Judah,
Jacob,
Isaac,
Abraham,
Terah,
Nahor,
Serug,
Reu,
Peleg,
Eber,
Shelah,
Cainan,
Arphaxad,
Shem,
Noah,
Lamech,
Methuselah,
Enoch,
Jared,
Mahalalel,
Kenan,
Enosh,
Seth,
Adam,
God.

[Fred Williams]

Fred, One question I like to ask is  this...below is the linage of Jesus.  It starts with God then Adam then Seth and so on.  Now, if the earth is billions of years old and man has only been around for several million years, just where does  the list turn from fact to fiction?

Yes, good point to add! At what point going back does the geneology morph into a poem or allegory? I can't remember who it was, maybe Ken Ham, who would quip something like "Kenan was begot by Enosh, Enosh was begot by Seth, Seth was begot by a poem".

Fred

[4jacks]

Really good article,

Didn't lose interest at all.

Found another typo, but I'm probably a little late. lol

Its influence on individuals is perhaps best summarized by the classic example of Charles Templeton, who at one time was the leading evangelist in America in the 1950s. After he went to Princeton and became convinced the earth was old, he recognized the conflict with Genesis and over time eventually abandoned the faith completely. He told Billy Graham “But, Billy, it’s simply not possible any longer to believe, for instance, the biblical account of creation. The world wasn’t created over a period of days a few thousand years ago; it has evolved over millions of years. It’s not a matter of speculation; it’s demonstrable fact.” He wrote a book in 1995 titleD ‘Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith’; most of the reasons he listed were related to his acceptance of an old earth and evolution. The number one reason he gave (according to his son) was his disdain for a God involved in millions of years of death, disease, killing, etc. Unfortunately he was led to believe this inaccurate caricature of God by “intellectuals” who taught him that the earth was old and that the fossil record represented millions of years of death, instead of the more reasonable conclusion that the fossil record was the result of a global flood and represented God’s eventual judgment of sin.[3]

[Fred Williams]

Really good article,

Didn't lose interest at all.

Found another typo, but I'm probably a little late. lol

Not to late at all, thanks.

Fred

[heddle]

I won’t for tit-for-tat over YEC distortions of science. Been there, done that—it leads nowhere except to charges of materialist-atheist-scientist conspiracies.
I’ll just mention that the presence of Carbon 14 in old minerals is not a mystery, nor is contamination the only explanation, there is also activation. Furthermore, the amounts typically found are trace amounts—this places them squarely in the area where radiometric dating is known to have huge error bars. In simple terms, any trace amounts of a radioactive isotope, whether it comes from contamination, activation, or measurement error, will be interpreted as having an age near the limit of that technique, or roughly 50 thousand years for Carbon 14 dating. This is an understood problem and is precisely why the range of any technique is limited to a handful of half-lives.

Also, Carbon 14 is irrelevant in the OEC/YEC controversy since its range of roughly 50 thousand years is still “young.” To defeat radiometeric dating supporting an old earth you have to demonstrate why all relevant techniques using different long-lived isotopes conspire to give the same wrong answer (billions of years) and you also have to explain why astrophysical and cosmological data (not to mention other terrestrial, geological data) also join in the conspiracy to give the same wrong answer (billions of years.)

But my real comment is about John Morris (who, by the way, is adamant that old earth creationists cannot be in positions of Christian leadership, but who is gracious and benevolent enough to consider that we might be qualified for church membership if we undergo remedial education.) For you quote him quoting James Barr:

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience. … Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

First of all, what I won’t do but what I could do is play dueling Hebrew scholars. That is, there are respected OT scholars who agree the yom = age is consistent. But I won’t go there. Before I make my main point, I would make a snide comment that if John Morris is so impressed by the argument that the majority of scholars at world class universities agree with a certain position, then why is he so easy to dismiss the the overwhelming majority of scientists at world class universities who agree that the universe is old?

No, my real point is the use of his quote from James Barr. Who is this James Barr, and what sort of strange bedfellow does he make?

First of all, let’s take a look at the letterfrom which that quote is taken:

Dear Mr Watson,

Thank you for your letter. I have thought about your question,
and would say that [probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of
Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe
that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the
ideas that a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the
same as the days of 24 hours we now experience b ) the figures contained
in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from
the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story c)
Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and
animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the
apologetic arguments which suppose the `days' of creation to be long eras
of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be
a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such
professors, as far as I know.] The only thing I would say to qualify this is
that most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument
and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other. But I
think what I say would represent their position correctly. However, you
might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and
are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it's really
not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is.

Perhaps I might mention that I have another book coming out soon,
Escaping from Fundamentalism, SCM Press London, which has some discussion of
these questions. Westminster Press in Philadelphia are doing the American
edition, perhaps with a different title, I don't know. It comes out in this
country on 1st June.

Thanks again for your letter and all good wishes,

Yours sincerely

James Barr [signed]

You will note that Morris leaves out Barr’s qualification—that is: Morris quote-mines Barr. Furthermore, as the letter strongly hints and as subsequent research easily shows, Barr is a strong critic of biblical inerrancy. Why is that relevant? Because Barr wants to sell books. Barr, is in effect, using YECs as (in his mind) useful idiots. He wants the YEC view to be the only reasonable interpretation of Genesis so that he can disprove biblical inerrancy by showing how that view is obviously wrong. Now if the OEC view is consistent with Genesis , that makes Barr’s job much more difficult.

Shame on Morris for using Barr without explaining to his audience that Barr has a vested interest in establishing the YEC exegesis of Genesis as the only viable one—especially when Barr’s vested interest is to use that position to sell books demonstrating what bumpkins we bible believing Christians are.

[Fred Williams]

Heddle is banned from the forum. Heddle’s post provides a good example of what we allow and don’t allow on this forum, and it also illustrates that we don’t waste time editing posts, we edit people. Our primary goal is quality, not quantity, and a big part of this is quality of time for our members. There is no doubt in my mind based on Heddle’s response that he is here to waste our time and not interested in serious debate.

Heddle’s forum violations are as follows:

1) Failing to distinguish the difference between lie and mistake/misunderstanding. This is item #1 on the Evo-Babble Percher Alert page. This occurred in another thread that I deleted since it was mostly a flame war. I believed the Christian/moderator debating him baited him into the flame war. This moderator subsequently apologized to both Heddle and the EFT moderator team. I also apologized to heddle via email for his initial treatment here, yet in his response he was unwilling to recognize our Moderator did not lie but simply misunderstood him. A big no no and a yellow flag, but we allowed him some slack due to his initial treatment. His true colors were borne out in this post.
2) Begins this thread with an attack on YEC integrity in general, then singles out John Morris in particular. Evo-Babble Percher Alert violation #1. Also Forum Rules violation bullet item 5 & 7.
3) Implies that Morris quoted out of context, Evo-Babble Percher Alert violation #3.

Now a break-down:

I won’t for tit-for-tat over YEC distortions of science. Been there, done that—it leads nowhere except to charges of materialist-atheist-scientist conspiracies.

I could easily accuse OEC and evolutionists of distortions of science, but does that get us anywhere? We both think the other side engages in misuse of science. When it comes to evolutionist vs creationist, both sides very often privately think the other side are fools, morons, etc. But to state such opinions in the public debate only invites a flame war and shows the person has no interest in reasonable debate. His claim we invoke a “conspiracy” theory is a red-herring, in fact most creation scientists and laymen I know do not claim the conspiracy Heddle mentions, I usually only hear about this “conspiracy” from OECers and evolutionists! (they say, "oh, it must be a conspiracy then, huh?")

I’ll just mention that the presence of Carbon 14 in old minerals is not a mystery, nor is contamination the only explanation, there is also activation. Furthermore, the amounts typically found are trace amounts—this places them squarely in the area where radiometric dating is known to have huge error bars. In simple terms, any trace amounts of a radioactive isotope, whether it comes from contamination, activation, or measurement error, will be interpreted as having an age near the limit of that technique, or roughly 50 thousand years for Carbon 14 dating. This is an understood problem and is precisely why the range of any technique is limited to a handful of half-lives.

Also, Carbon 14 is irrelevant in the OEC/YEC controversy since its range of roughly 50 thousand years is still “young.” To defeat radiometeric dating supporting an old earth you have to demonstrate why all relevant techniques using different long-lived isotopes conspire to give the same wrong answer (billions of years) and you also have to explain why astrophysical and cosmological data (not to mention other terrestrial, geological data) also join in the conspiracy to give the same wrong answer (billions of years.)

Other than the silly conspiracy comment, everything above is completely allowed and fair game. This is the only part of Heddle’s post with any real content. Other members are more than welcome to follow up my comments below in the proper threads that I’ll list. You cannot blame C-14 on contamination or measurement error, and if one searches even the evo’s precious home base of talk.origins, certain informed evolutionists admit you cannot blame it on contamination or measurement error. The only semi-respectable attempt to address the problem was appealing to a side-chain radioactive process that may produce trace amounts of C-14, but this was thoroughly refuted by Dr Rotta in his CRSQ article “Evolutionary Explanations for Anomalous Radiocarbon in Coal?” – CRSQ Vol 41, Number 2, 2004, pp 104-112.

Heddle is also incorrect to claim C-14 is irrelevant to the age debate. It puts a maximum age on the rock. If the rock has C-14 and it cannot be attributed to contamination or some side chain decay, then the rock cannot possibly be older than the C-14 date. This is simply an indisputable fact. If one is to remain a committed Old earther, you *must* blame it on contamination, or side chain decay. While it doesn’t prove the earth is 6000 years old, it certainly shows the earth can’t be more than 50K years; that is, it refutes an old age, and accommodates a young (6K) age.

As far as other radiometric dating giving the “same wrong answer in the billions of years”, the helium in zircons experiment provided powerful evidence that rapid decay occurred in the past to produce this effect of “billions of years” of decay. Much of this evidence is available here:

http://www.icr.org/topic/108/

We also have a thread on the Helium in zircons problem for OECers that members can respond to here:

http://www.evolution...p?showtopic=283

To respond to the C-14 argument, please use this thread:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1143

But my real comment is about John Morris

If Heddle was so confident of his position he would not have to single out John Morris. All YECers use the Barr quote against OEC, and will continue to do so because it is accurate! Heddle singling out Morris is somewhat related to Evo-Babble Percher Alert violation #4, but not strictly so.

… First of all, what I won’t do but what I could do is play dueling Hebrew scholars. That is, there are respected OT scholars who agree the yom = age is consistent. But I won’t go there.

This was fair game. The reason Heddle won’t go there is because we will be able to take his handful of Hebrew scholars and raise him by 100. Not only do you have to convince the world that Genesis 1 doesn’t mean what it plainly says, you also have to convince the world that the Bible did not teach a global flood, despite the language in both the old and new testament being as crystal clear on this as you could possibly get. For example, in 2 Peter 3 the Greek word kataklusmos is used when describing the flood that covered the world. This again was fair game for debate, but regrettably Heddle was obviously not here to have a civil debate.

You will note that Morris leaves out Barr’s qualification—that is: Morris quote-mines Barr. Furthermore, as the letter strongly hints and as subsequent research easily shows, Barr is a strong critic of biblical inerrancy. Why is that relevant? Because Barr wants to sell books.

This alone isn’t necessarily grounds for banishment, but combined with the prior over-the-top arrogant attitude and other percher violations, it was more than enough reason to boot him. Let’s grant that Barr is not as unbiased as Morris allegedly claimed - this does not prove one iota that Barr’s quote is out-of-context and that Morris therefore “quote-mined”. Is the quote accurate, yes or no? Isn’t this the important question? We all have biases! Provide evidence one way or the other, but don’t resort to the lame talk.origins-style evo-babble that Morris is quoting out of context. Heddle also fails to recognize his position is almost completely self-defeating, because if Barr wants to ridicule YEC and Bible “fundamentalists” in general, he doesn’t need Genesis 1 describing a young earth since he could then attack the YEC position on theological grounds in addition to scientific grounds!!! For example, if Genesis 1 truly fit the OEC view, he could attack YEC both scientifically and theologically, and still attack OEC theologically because of the death before sin problem (atheists use theology attacks ALL THE TIME against Christians! Case in point the death before sin issue. It’s a very good argument on their part – they understand the problem much better than most Christians; ie see Bozarth “The Meaning of Evolution,” from The American Atheist).

Even most evolutionists I have debated are typically more sophisticated when making attempts to discredit one of our quotes or sources. I have long admitted that on occasion creationists have taken quotes out-of-context, but it is mostly rare and an honest mistake, and when it occurs most of the time the problem is corrected. Speaking for myself, over 9 years of running my site I have had to remove two quotes that I could not defend as being in the proper context. So it does occur. But Heddle’s claim, aside from being self-defeating, itself is a misrepresentation since it implies the Barr quote is wrong, with no evidence to back the claim short of the ad hominem attack on Morris. Even the anti-YEC source Heddle provided did not stoop to such a specious, self-defeating position! Heddle’s own source:

http://members.iinet...s/barrlett.html

I’ve decided to leave this post up as an illustration of what is allowed, and not allowed, on this forum. Multiple forum rules violations occurred, but the one that I especially will not accept is calling someone a liar with little basis for the claim (he did this in a different thread that has since been deleted). He refused to see the difference between lie and mistake/misunderstanding, and then refusing to recant it (which in and of itself is false witness). Ironically it is because Heddle is a Christian that we must have zero tolerance for his unrepentant position on this particular issue.

Fred Williams

[deadlock]

1) Genesis 1-11 plainly teaches a literal six 24-hour day creation and a global flood. Not only does the plain, obvious rendering of the text support this, it is also widely accepted by Hebrew linguistic scholars. They offer credible testimony not only because of their expertise with the Hebrew language, but also because they are essentially unbiased on this issue. Many of these scholars are either atheist or non-practicing Jews, so they could care less about Christians squabbling over what Genesis teaches about the age of the earth. They overwhelmingly contend that Genesis 1-11 is written as a literal historical account that the earth was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and the flood was global. They totally reject the claim that the days were long eras of time and the flood was local.[1] Old Earthers therefore not only have to try to explain why numerous passages mean something different than what the plain rendering conveys, they also have to posit that they know something we don’t and that the vast majority of unbiased Hebrew scholars have also “missed the boat” on this issue. [2]

Can you give more details about this ? Because without considering the Hebrew Languange aspect, That I´m not an expert, I always thought that "day" is not a universal constant, It depends on the orbit of the planet and it´s a referencial measure.It always seemed to me that the day in Genesis was a God´s day and as the Bible says that one day for God is as one thousand years I thought that the day in Genesis might be any amount of time.

[Zedekiah Dacorath]

I always thought that "day" is not a universal constant, It depends on the orbit of the planet and it´s a referencial measure.It always seemed to me that the day in Genesis was a God´s day and as the Bible says that one day for God is as one thousand years I thought that the day in Genesis might be any amount of time.

The word for day in Hebrew used in Genesis 1 is yom. It can mean one of three things : a 12-hour period, a 24-hour period or an indeterminate period of time.

It is almost always interpreted to mean a 24-hour period in this case, though. Morning and evening even without the sun imply a day I s'pose.

[ikester7579]

Can you give more details about this ? Because without considering the Hebrew Languange aspect, That I´m not an expert, I always thought that "day" is not a universal constant, It depends on the orbit of the planet and it´s a referencial measure.It always seemed to me that the day in Genesis was a God´s day and as the Bible says that one day for God is as one thousand years I thought that the day in Genesis might be any amount of time.

Good question.

Here is what heaven is like:

Rev: 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.

14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.

16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.

17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.

19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;

20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.

21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

God's Heaven as shown in the verses above. Has no night. Why? In the spiritual realm light is a representation of good, darkness a representation of evil. So to have night in heaven would mean that evil also exist in heaven.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

This explains why the first light created for our realm had to be divided. It was not because it was just light. It was light that shined from God. This is why the word spirit is used only once in God's word during the creation. This was a hint as to what kind of light, and where the light was from. Light that cannot have darkness, does not cast shadows. Therefore day and night cannot exist when shadows do not exist.

Now knowing that God's light cannot cast shadows, and light and darkness is a representation of good and evil. What do you think went into the darkness that was created in God's light, when it was divided? This was when Satan was cast from heaven to earth. God does not create an evil realm (darkness) by dividing His own light unless He is going to put there what goes there (this happens on the spiritual side only).

So God's light being divided cause 4 things to happen in two separate realms:

1) In the spiritual: It set up the bounderies between good (1) and evil (2). By creating light and darkness on the spiritual side.

2) In the physical: Created shadows which created night (3) and day (4).

So God's day is different from ours because God's day never ends. But the listing of the four parts of a day, on the first day of Genesis. Shows that our days do have an end.

[Fred Williams]

Can you give more details about this ? Because without considering the Hebrew Languange aspect, That I´m not an expert, I always thought that "day" is not a universal constant, It depends on the orbit of the planet and it´s a referencial measure.It always seemed to me that the day in Genesis was a God´s day and as the Bible says that one day for God is as one thousand years I thought that the day in Genesis might be any amount of time.

Hi Deadlock,

As Zedekiah correctly pointed out, just like in our language, day in Hebrew (yom) can mean a 24-hour period of time, an unspecified period of time, a certain point in time, etc. For example, “today I’m telling you that in my father’s day it was easier to preach the gospel”. ‘Today’ in this sentence means a 24-hour day, and ‘father’s day’ means an era of time. So we know by the context how to determine what day means. It’s no different in the Hebrew language. Consider that when ‘day’ is used outside of Genesis, virtually everyone, including Old Earthers agree that:

• "Day" plus a Number is used 410 times (in plural or singular), and always means an ordinary day.
• "Evening and Morning" together without "Day" is used 28 times, and always means an ordinary day.
• "Evening" or "Morning" with "Day" is used 23 times, and always means an ordinary day.
• "Night" with "Day" is used 52 times, and always means an ordinary day.

God made it extremely clear in Genesis 1 the context for day:
Verse 5: … And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Verse 8: …And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Verse 13: …And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
Verse 19: …And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Etc…

There can be no doubt that day in Genesis 1 means a literal 24-hour day. God could not have made it clearer. He repeats himself in Exodus 20:11 for those who didn’t quite catch it the first time.

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." – Ex 20:11

Again, note that when day is used with an ordinal, or the evening/morning/night/day qualifiers, everyone agrees it means ordinary day everywhere outside of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11. So why only question it in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11? Because Old Earthers want to compromise with the world and jam millions of years into Genesis 1. There really can be no other reason.

Regarding 2 Peter 3:8, "But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

We know by the context that God is speaking of his patience, given by the very next passage: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

Below are some slides I use in my presentations that further amplify the calisthenics for compromise required for Christians who accept on old earth. One of the most effective ways we have found via scripture to help an Old Earth Christian to reject an old earth is the death before sin issue. The Bible clearly teaches that death is an enemy to God and a temporary part of history that will be done away with (e.g. see 1 Cor 15:26). How do you explain millions upon millions of years of death, disease, suffering, in the fossil record if death is an enemy to God? Why did Christ die for our sins, if death already existed before Adam fell?





Finally, we should trust the One who was there. One of my favorite verses that is at the very center of the Bible:

Ps 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man.

Fred

[Zedekiah Dacorath]

I haven't really been convinced that all of Christianity rests on a 6,000 year old earth, quite simply because I don't believe it and haven't careened down the dreaded "slippery-slope." A cliff that I can see, however, is the one created when one says "The Earth is Young" and then (lets just say, for some reason) realizes it isn't. Is his faith now in jeopardy?

It is hard to stretch 'very good' to mean 'perfect and without death.'
It isn't a stretch to claim, however, that sin caused spiritual death, a schism between us and God. Faith Jesus saves us from spiritual death, and by that, takes the sting away from physical death.

A traditional literal interpretation of Genesis contradicts the fossil record's [interpretation] on what came first. I agree with the second slide.

Finally, we should trust the One who was there. One of my favorite verses that is at the very center of the Bible:

Ps 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man.

Fred

The Bible never claims the earth is a sphere (a circle isn't a sphere, flat earth proponents believe in a circular disk and use this very verse) or lists all of the kinds that God created. I would be, by the same logic, trusting in man to hear "baraminology" or the heliocentric model.

[Fred Williams]

I haven't really been convinced that all of Christianity rests on a 6,000 year old earth, quite simply because I don't believe it and haven't careened down the dreaded "slippery-slope." A cliff that I can see, however, is the one created when one says "The Earth is Young" and then (lets just say, for some reason) realizes it isn't. Is his faith now in jeopardy?

You’ve just made my argument for me. It’s not young earth creationists who say the earth is young, the Bible says it based on the historical account given in Genesis and the genealogies going back to Adam. As Trilobyte rightly pointed out earlier, where in the genealogies does fact turn into myth? Given that the Bible is crystal clear on a literal historical account of origins (including a global flood), if they “realize it isn’t true”, because of their trust in secular man’s opinions, their faith most certainly will be in jeopardy and we have scores of testimonies to demonstrate it.

I realize you are trying to say those who think the evidence shows an old earth are going to have their faith shaken unless we can somehow jam millions of years in the Bible text. I believe ultimately most people know they are engaging in calisthenics to get around the problem and why some OECers and the vast majority of theistic evolutionists over time invariably end up supporting anti-Biblical causes such as abortion, H*m*s*xuality, p*rn*gr*phy, etc.

It is hard to stretch 'very good' to mean 'perfect and without death.'

It is not hard at all, I believe the opposite is true. The Hebrew qualifier in this case is “vehemently” or “extremely”, which is as close to perfection as you can get. I believe it is a huuuuuuge stretch to fit millions upon millions of years of death with ‘very good’. You also did not explain why God would tolerate millions and millions of years of death when He calls death an enemy and it causes him to even weep (see shortest verse in the Bible, and ask yourself why Jesus would weep given the circumstances). Also, God refers to the creation as in decay, which best fits with a paradise-turned-bad interpretation, not a molecules-to-man scenario.

Faith Jesus saves us from spiritual death, and by that, takes the sting away from physical death.

The Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve were created to live forever. When they ate of the tree they died spiritually and would die physically. The Hebrew for “you will surely die”, is properly translated as, “dying you will die”.

The Bible never claims the earth is a sphere

Maybe because there was no Hebrew word for sphere?  The Bible implies the earth is a sphere from more than just the famous Isaiah 40:22 “circle of the earth” verse. In Luke 17:31-36, people are taken both during the day and at night, at the same time (see 1 Cor 15:52). In Acts 1:8, Jesus tells his disciples to go out "unto the uttermost part of the earth". This makes no sense if the earth is a flat circle; ‘parts’ should have been used instead. But it makes plenty of sense if the earth is a sphere.

or lists all of the kinds that God created. I would be, by the same logic, trusting in man to hear "baraminology" or the heliocentric model.

You wouldn’t be trusting in man to know God created “kinds” of organisms that could only produce after “their own kind”. So if we observe a Lion and Tiger produce offspring, we know it’s the same ‘kind’. Sure, there are squabbles in barminology on what is and isnt’ part of a ‘kind’, but this is just in the details.

Regarding geocentricism, if the Bible taught this, then we should reject it. But it doesn’t. Those in the church who opposed Galileo primarily did so by appealing to Aristotle, not the Bible. A good article on this topic can be found here:

http://www.answersin...geocentrism.asp

Finally, regarding the slippery slope issue, I am not saying everyone who rejects YEC slides down it - they may not slide down much at all, or they may slide down half way, or they may slide all the way down to apostasy. You claim you have not slid at all, but with all due respect I doubt it very much based on my experience. The fact you accept evolution (theistic evolutionist), is evidence you have already started your decent. I’m not saying you are guaranteed to fall into apostasy, but you are virtually guaranteed to reject major tenets of scripture and accept things such as abortion, tolerance of H*m*s*xuality, legalized p*rn*gr*phy, etc. This comes from 10 years of experience in the origins debate, and despite your youth I would be surprised if you do not already support at least some of these socially liberal (and anti-Biblical) causes. A slippery slope indeed...

Fred

[Zedekiah Dacorath]

You’ve just made my argument for me. It’s not young earth creationists who say the earth is young, the Bible says it based on the historical account given in Genesis and the genealogies going back to Adam. As Trilobyte rightly pointed out earlier, where in the genealogies does fact turn into myth? Given that the Bible is crystal clear on a literal historical account of origins (including a global flood), if they “realize it isn’t true”, because of their trust in secular man’s opinions, their faith most certainly will be in jeopardy and we have scores of testimonies to demonstrate it.

I never claimed any part of the genealogies were myth, Adam and Eve were real people living in the garden of Eden.
We are in agreement, then, that it is dangerous for the Faith to believe that the earth is old mainly because it can compromise other parts of scripture? (An old earth and
evolution strictly by themselves aren't dangerous?)

I realize you are trying to say those who think the evidence shows an old earth are going to have their faith shaken unless we can somehow jam millions of years in the Bible text. I believe ultimately most people know they are engaging in calisthenics to get around the problem and why some OECers and the vast majority of theistic evolutionists over time invariably end up supporting anti-Biblical causes such as abortion, H*m*s*xuality, P*rn*gr*phy, etc.

I would claim that it is even harder or impossible to cut off all but 6,000 years off of the earth's history, but that doesn't belong in this thread.
I understand where the slippery slope is coming in better, now, but my gut tells me these people were already gone. I can possibly see where theistic evolutionists would already be to the left, but OEC are still pretty close to the right if that makes sense.

It is not hard at all, I believe the opposite is true. The Hebrew qualifier in this case is “vehemently” or “extremely”, which is as close to perfection as you can get. I believe it is a huuuuuuge stretch to fit millions upon millions of years of death with ‘very good’. You also did not explain why God would tolerate millions and millions of years of death when He calls death an enemy and it causes him to even weep (see shortest verse in the Bible, and ask yourself why Jesus would weep given the circumstances). Also, God refers to the creation as in decay, which best fits with a paradise-turned-bad interpretation, not a molecules-to-man scenario.

Sorry I glossed over the millions of years of dying point. The way I see : time isn't anything to God. Whether death happened over millions of years or thousands of years doesn't really matter in my opinion. Humans are the only creatures created in the image of God; we have souls. The rest are here for our use, I'm not sure what their death means to God if they have no soul (if it meant something I would be a vegetarian ). Death is His enemy, and Christ conquered it. Man's first death was at the Fall as I see it. Decay of mankind's relationship with God happened at the Fall. (God is the maker of all, God sets man apart, gives us free will, we mess up and Fall, we need a Savior.)

The Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve were created to live forever. When they ate of the tree they died spiritually and would die physically. The Hebrew for “you will surely die”, is properly translated as, “dying you will die”.

I think the most important thing to draw from this section is that Adam and Eve sinned against God and them and their descendants need a Savior. I see that the text literally says that they would have lived forever, I can't reasonably say that God couldn't have given us this.

Maybe because there was no Hebrew word for sphere?  The Bible implies the earth is a sphere from more than just the famous Isaiah 40:22 “circle of the earth” verse.

Already addressed; those that look for Biblical support of geocentrism use the very same verse to support a disk earth, as circles are flat. Maybe the trouble is from there being no such word for sphere or evolution.

In Luke 17:31-36, people are taken both during the day and at night, at the same time (see 1 Cor 15:52). In Acts 1:8, Jesus tells his disciples to go out "unto the uttermost part of the earth". This makes no sense if the earth is a flat circle; ‘parts’ should have been used instead. But it makes plenty of sense if the earth is a sphere.

The flat-earth model accounts for day and night happening simultaneously. From the flat earth society :
The sun is a spotlight which shines light on a concentrated area, so not everywhere on Earth will be lit at once. Times zones exist so that everyone's clock will be at 12:00 around the time the sun is approximately directly overhead.
On the other side of the coin, the earth doesn't have corners and makes little sense on a spherical earth. Uttermost part makes sense if you take it to mean a remote region of the disk.

You wouldn’t be trusting in man to know God created “kinds” of organisms that could only produce after “their own kind”.  So if we observe a Lion and Tiger produce offspring, we know it’s the same ‘kind’. Sure, there are squabbles in barminology on what is and isnt’ part of a ‘kind’, but this is just in the details. Regarding geocentricism, if the Bible taught this, then we should reject it. But it doesn’t. Those in the church who opposed Galileo primarily did so by appealing to Aristotle, not the Bible. A good article on this topic can be found here:
http://www.answersin...geocentrism.asp

Fair enough. Some modern geocentrists do appeal to the Bible, however.

Finally, regarding the slippery slope issue, I am not saying everyone who rejects YEC slides down it - they may not slide down much at all, or they may slide down half way, or they may slide all the way down to apostasy. You claim you have not slid at all, but with all due respect I doubt it very much based on my experience. The fact you accept evolution (theistic evolutionist), is evidence you have already started your decent. I’m not saying you are guaranteed to fall into apostasy, but you are virtually guaranteed to reject major tenets of scripture and accept things such as abortion, tolerance of H*m*s*xuality, legalized P*rn*gr*phy, etc. This comes from 10 years of experience in the origins debate, and despite your youth I would be surprised if you do not already support at least some of these socially liberal (and anti-Biblical) causes. A slippery slope indeed...

I am socially conservative. It isn't that evolution includes liberal beliefs, but that Young Earth Creationists are conservative. I think we can agree on the following statements :

There are few conservatives that accept the theory of evolution.
There are many liberals that accept the theory of evolution.

I don't think, here, that correlation is implying causation. They probably didn't become liberal just because of their beliefs on biology.

[Fred Williams]

I never claimed any part of the genealogies were myth, Adam and Eve were real people living in the garden of Eden.

That’s good to hear. Many if not most theistic evolutionists do not believe Adam & Eve were real people in the garden of Eden, but instead think they were some sort of allegorical figures.

We are in agreement, then, that it is dangerous for the Faith to believe that the earth is old mainly because it can compromise other parts of scripture? (An old earth and evolution strictly by themselves aren't dangerous?)

My apologies ahead of time but I’m not sure what you are getting at. I’ll take a shot and answer possible variations of your question:

1) If you are not a believer, then regardless of what you believe about origins, you are in a very dangerous situation. My guess is you agree with this.
2) If you are a believer and accept an old earth, you are in a dangerous position because you compromise with the foundation of scripture, Genesis. Once you compromise in the very first book of the Bible, why not compromise on other scripture? OEC increases the risk that you will go down a slippery slope. You may not go down at all, you may go part way down (ie a Christian with their works burned up; see 1 Cor 3:13-15), or you may go all the way down to apostasy and be as bad off as the person in #1 above.
3) If you are a believer and accept evolution, same as 2 above except it greatly increases the risk that you will go down a slippery slope.

I understand where the slippery slope is coming in better, now, but my gut tells me these people were already gone.

I’m not prepared to say that Christians who are socially liberal are “gone”, certainly not new Christians. I know many people, including myself, who were socially liberal at least to some degree in the past, even after becoming Christians, but over time rejected a socially liberal worldview once scripture and the Holy Spirit began convicting us.

I can possibly see where theistic evolutionists would already be to the left, but OEC are still pretty close to the right if that makes sense.

This is a good point and I hope illustrates to some degree the slippery slope. YEC are much more likely to be conservatives, OEC tend to be conservative or moderate, and theistic evolutionists are much more likely to be liberal.

The rest are here for our use, I'm not sure what their death means to God if they have no soul.

Animals have a soul (nephesh, or breath of life), but no spirit. I do not believe our pets are going to be in heaven, but neither side can make a slam-dunk case. This of course is another thread.

Death is His enemy, and Christ conquered it. Man's first death was at the Fall as I see it. Decay of mankind's relationship with God happened at the Fall. (God is the maker of all, God sets man apart, gives us free will, we mess up and Fall, we need a Savior.)

There’s just too much scriptural evidence that creation was a paradise before the fall and that creation was altered after the fall. We know for example that plant life was altered in some way: Gen 3:17-18 "Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you”. If you believe in evolution, this is yet another verse you have to mark out of your Bible since plants supposedly evolved 450 million years ago.

The flat-earth model accounts for day and night happening simultaneously.

This is a classic example of ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion. Who cares what the knuckle-headed flat earthers say. Far left nut jobs who think they were abducted by aliens typically believe in evolution, but this says nothing about the validity of evolution one way or another.

On the other side of the coin, the earth doesn't have corners and makes little sense on a spherical earth. Uttermost part makes sense if you take it to mean a remote region of the disk.

‘Four corners’ is a colloquialism still used today! Therefore it cannot be a valid argument against the shape of the earth.

I am socially conservative. It isn't that evolution includes liberal beliefs, but that Young Earth Creationists are conservative. I think we can agree on the following statements :

There are few conservatives that accept the theory of evolution.
There are many liberals that accept the theory of evolution.

I don't think, here, that correlation is implying causation. They probably didn't become liberal just because of their beliefs on biology.

I disagree, there is definitely a causation and IMO it’s very easy to prove. I’ve known quite a few conservatives over the years who believe in evolution, but it was largely due to never being shown the counter arguments. When someone is taught a theory for a quarter century and is seldom exposed to counter arguments, they tend to believe it (its call indoctrination). I was in this camp for 30 years. So you will find conservatives in both the evolution and YEC camp, but I know by experience that conservatives are much more likely to be swayed by evidence.

On the other hand, it is very rare to find someone with socially liberal views in the YEC camp. I have been debating origins for over 10 years, and to this very day I have yet to find anyone who was an activist evolutionist who wasn’t also socially liberal, or an activist liberal who wasn’t an evolutionist. This connection is powerful evidence that the liberal committed evolutionist believes what he does not because of evidence, but because of worldview.

As far as your claim to being socially conservative, I think we need to define terms since the secularization of this country over the last several decades has shifted everything to the left. For example, by today’s standard JFK would be a social conservative, and 40 years ago BUsh would have been considered a liberal democrat! So the best way to determine if you are socially conservative is perhaps by answering a few questions:

1) Do you believe abortion should be criminalized?
2) Do you believe H*m*s*xuality should be criminalized?
3) Do you believe adultery should be criminalized?
4) Do you believe P*rn*gr*phy should be criminalized?
5) Do you believe 1-3 above should be capital offenses?

Let’s see if you are as conservative as you think.

Fred

[Zedekiah Dacorath]

1) If you are not a believer, then regardless of what you believe about origins, you are in a very dangerous situation. My guess is you agree with this.

Sure.

2) If you are a believer and accept an old earth, you are in a dangerous position because you compromise with the foundation of scripture, Genesis. Once you compromise in the very first book of the Bible, why not compromise on other scripture? OEC increases the risk that you will go down a slippery slope. You may not go down at all, you may go part way down (ie a Christian with their works burned up; see 1 Cor 3:13-15), or you may go all the way down to apostasy and be as bad off as the person in #1 above.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. I don't see how this this piece of doctrine is all important to the church; why assuming an interpretation of Genesis that doesn't change our relationship with God is going to make the entire Bible fall apart.

3) If you are a believer and accept evolution, same as 2 above except it greatly increases the risk that you will go down a slippery slope.
I’m not prepared to say that Christians who are socially liberal are “gone”, certainly not new Christians. I know many people, including myself, who were socially liberal at least to some degree in the past, even after becoming Christians, but over time rejected a socially liberal worldview once scripture and the Holy Spirit began convicting us.

While I meant something slightly different by "gone," it is just the same. I don't see evolution as being this way.

This is a good point and I hope illustrates to some degree the slippery slope. YEC are much more likely to be conservatives, OEC tend to be conservative or moderate, and theistic evolutionists are much more likely to be liberal.

Yep, all are saved if they believe that Christ is their personal savior, though .

There’s just too much scriptural evidence that creation was a paradise before the fall and that creation was altered after the fall. We know for example that plant life was altered in some way: Gen 3:17-18 "Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.  Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you”. If you believe in evolution, this is yet another verse you have to mark out of your Bible since plants supposedly evolved 450 million years ago.

I'm not sure that I follow. It doesn't say He created weeds on the spot, just that they would grow when he tries his hand at farming. We can both agree that there weren't weeds in the garden according to this verse?

This is a classic example of ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion. Who cares what the knuckle-headed flat earthers say.  Far left nut jobs who think they were abducted by aliens typically believe in evolution, but this says nothing about the validity of evolution one way or another.
‘Four corners’ is a colloquialism still used today! Therefore it cannot be a valid argument against the shape of the earth.

I was merely illustrating the ease of wielding the Bible to exclude all other interpretations but your own; in this case, the flat earth model is supported by every verse, just interpreted differently. Another example would be the Catholic church using Matthew 16:18 to install the rule of the pope.

I disagree, there is definitely a causation and IMO it’s very easy to prove. I’ve known quite a few conservatives over the years who believe in evolution, but it was largely due to never being shown the counter arguments. When someone is taught a theory for a quarter century and is seldom exposed to counter arguments, they tend to believe it (its call indoctrination). I was in this camp for 30 years. So you will find conservatives in both the evolution and YEC camp, but I know by experience that conservatives are much more likely to be swayed by evidence.

I got swayed the "wrong" direction I suppose.

On the other hand, it is very rare to find someone with socially liberal views in the YEC camp. I have been debating origins for over 10 years, and to this very day I have yet to find anyone who was an activist evolutionist who wasn’t also socially liberal, or an activist liberal who wasn’t an evolutionist.

I think the people furthest to the left and right are the ones that you're more likely to hear from, as they are activists.

This connection is powerful evidence that the liberal committed evolutionist believes what he does not because of evidence, but because of worldview.

This is a leap. Regardless, then, it works both ways.
I choose to accept it because of the evidence (another thread, another time).

As far as your claim to being socially conservative, I think we need to define terms since the secularization of this country over the last several decades has shifted everything to the left. For example, by today’s standard JFK would be a social conservative, and 40 years ago BUsh would have been considered a liberal democrat! So the best way to determine if you are socially conservative is perhaps by answering a few questions:

1) Do you believe abortion should be criminalized?
2) Do you believe H*m*s*xuality should be criminalized?
3) Do you believe adultery should be criminalized?
4) Do you believe P*rn*gr*phy should be criminalized?
5) Do you believe 1-3 above should be capital offenses?

Let’s see if you are as conservative as you think.

Okay, you got me. *pretends to be off balance and then falls over, clutching an imaginary gunshot wound.*
I'd be aligned with this century's conservative party. I shoulda been more specific. I always get that one wrong on the final test.

The questionnaire:
1) Yes.
2) Criminalized? No. Is it wrong? Yes, but is it the government's concern? No.
3) Criminalized? No. Is it wrong? Yes, but is it the government's concern? No.
4) Criminalized? No. Is it wrong? Yes, but is it the government's concern? No.
5) Leaves a really unchristian taste in the mouth, eh? "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7 If he/she continues sinning without repentance, he/she will goto hell.
Captial punishment, however, serves to eliminate those that are never going to be functioning members of society ever again. Kill H*m*sexuals, adulterers and mothers who had abortions? Send them to la guillotine if you really think it best. What happened to the God that is compassionate and whose enemy is death, and weeps for it?

I think I scored a 20%, F- Will you take my test? It is an extrapolation of sorts. I implore you not to take it the wrong way, I am merely prodding.

1) Is it acceptable to physically harm someone who practices H*m*s*xuality?
2) Should work on the Sabbath day be criminalized?
3) Should the theory of evolution be criminalized?
4) Should coveting your neighbor be criminalized?
5) What is the limit to legislating the laws of the Bible?


Edit : De-emoticonizationized the posting and changed a few words around... a smiley emoticon would do the trick, right here... =)

[jason78]

1) Do you believe abortion should be criminalized?
2) Do you believe H*m*s*xuality should be criminalized?
3) Do you believe adultery should be criminalized?
4) Do you believe P*rn*gr*phy should be criminalized?
5) Do you believe 1-3 above should be capital offenses?

Does the forum have a questionaire or a polling option? I'd be interested in the results.

[ikester7579]

I am socially conservative. It isn't that evolution includes liberal beliefs, but that Young Earth Creationists are conservative. I think we can agree on the following statements :

There are few conservatives that accept the theory of evolution.
There are many liberals that accept the theory of evolution.

I don't think, here, that correlation is implying causation. They probably didn't become liberal just because of their beliefs on biology.

This comment right here makes a valid point I never really put together until now.

Evolution is the basic support, and excuse for someone to live a certain type lifestyle. To do what ever with the human body they see fit because through evolution, we were not directly created by God. Nor in His image. Evolution is the basic idea that man can sin, and there is no one to answer to. For even a theistic evolutionist has to deny certain parts of God's word in order to make the one belief he prefers supreme over the other.

Evolution is man's way of accepting man's ideas over God's. And anything you put in front of what God says, becomes the correction of God. Which in turn becomes God itself. For how does something become the correction of a God when God is all knowing? So Evolution also denies God's Omniscient.

Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.

Evolution also has to deny God's ability to create in 6 days. Which is denying the power of God to do anything. It causes a phobia I call: The "God did it syndrome". Which denies God's Omnipotent.

2tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Evolution also has to deny God's ability to create through the power of eternity time. Because evolution requires that time in order to work. Eternity explains why everything was created with different ages. So evolution denies God's Omnipresence.

Can you deny a trinity of God?

Evolution is the total opposite of God's creation. God's creation is God's alpha for man kind. It takes away that God created man directly.

1jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

If what you believe denies the word, then the record in which the word will bear in heaven will deny you. Because hear again, a trinity is being denied to believe in a theory.

Evolution also takes away God's Holiness. By making the comment that man was created in His image sound like God is some type of animal because man had to evolve from one. So the actual evolving process mocks God as well. And makes God lower by suggesting He too evolved from animal. For how do you make an direct image of one's self, have it evolve from an animal, if you are not implying that the original, in which the man was made was animal as well?

Besides, how does God evolve into God if we, who are made in His image, had to evolve from animal to look like Him? It puts into question the image of God, the role of authority in heaven (animals don't rule in Heaven). And suggests that God did not create man in the manner His word says He did. So if God's word is not true in the creation account. Then it's not God's word. Which brings to question: Who's word is it? Because only man, and Satan are capable of the sin called a lie.

Evolution also denies the spiritual Heaven's power and authority over a temporal world (Physical world). And gives more power to temporal things. And makes the temporal world god. By making a spiritual God have to obey "all" temporal laws. Which would also deny that eternity exists because temporal death is more powerful.

Three questions:

1) What part of the evolution theory supports God?
2) What part of God's word supports evolution?
3) What part of God's word supports old earth?

In order for God to have create through evolution, both have to have support for the other. For can it be explained as to why God would leave out the process of evolution, that would have been an important process in the creation? And why God left out Old Earth (actual time passage), but make it clear that He created in 6 days?

Remember, you can't deny what is written without denying one of God's trinities.

1jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.