Thread 2
Copied from re:thinking Discussion Board
Topic: Age of the Earth
website: http://server5.ezboard.com/brethinkingsbulletinboard
This compilation provided by Hill Roberts.
No edits of any content were performed.
Some of the sequence of posts were rearranged for clarity.
Some posts to this discussion are contained in other threads within
these archives.
[HRobLIB@aol.com]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomCouchman
11/11/99 11:47:30 am
Putting the facts on the table
Brethren:
This is an interesting thread, one which I think affords a great opportunity
to get viewpoints from “both sides” (only two?) into the open. IMHO, here
are the key arguments which have been made.
Brother Turner rightly points out the difference between facts and
interpretations of facts. Presumably, both young-earth creationists (YECs)
and old-earth creationists (OECs) are dealing with the same data. All the
YEC writers I have read assert that if we consider the data, without a
bias toward an ancient earth, the data within the natural revelation alone—completely
apart from reliance upon the verbal revelation—will convince us that the
earth is very young—on the order of 10,000 years. OECs such as brother
Mathews are equally confident that the data support that position.
Brother Roberts asserts that, while the YECs point out the difference
between data and interpretation, they never deal with the data.
While I don’t expect a “resolution” in the sense that everyone who
reads these posts is going to arrive at the same conclusion, we can certainly
get both sides of the argument into e-print so that lots of people can
see and judge for themselves. Therefore, I propose that, rather than “pointing
elsewhere” at alleged facts and interpretations thereof, we put the facts
on the table right here, and let the YECs offer their interpretation. Then
readers can decide for themselves which interpretation better explains
the facts. And we can all be thankful that salvation is in the Blood, and
not in the rocks!
BTW, I am a very reluctant OEC who would very much like to be “converted”
back to YEC-dom. So here
is your chance, guys; prove Roberts wrong, and deal with the data.
Give an explanation—something, I would hope, better than “Because that’s
the way God did it”—for data which appear to point to an old earth. For
the sake of argument, let’s say that anything below 50,000 years is a young
earth—that’s a lot more slack than most YECs ask. What interpretation would
account for the following phenomena being produced in less than 50,000
years?
1. THE SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
Sedimentary rock formation can be observed in progress today, and it
produces the same kind of rocks which we see at and near the surface of
the earth. Even allowing for a reasonable number of catastrophic events,
the process of sedimentary rock lithification is inherently slow because
it requires not only desiccation but also chemical changes in the sediments.
Furthermore, these rocks are rich in fossils, which give every appearance
of being the remains of once-living creatures. The sedimentary rocks occur
in distinct layers—several thousand in the Appalachian Mountains where
the sediments are as much as five miles thick. A single diluvial event
cannot produce thousands of sedimentary layers, because catastrophic floods
would mix the sediments, and there would not be enough time for one layer
to harden before the superposition of another layer.
2. RIVER-MOUTH SEDIMENTS
There are massively thick layers of sediments at the mouths of all
the great rivers on the earth: the sediments at the mouth of the Mississippi
are seven miles thick, and full of fossils, including oil and gas which
give every evidence of being the remains of once-living organisms. The
rate of deposition is easily observable. Under the weight of these sediments
the crust of the earth is sinking at the same rate as the rate of deposition,
which keeps the deposition itself from changing the course of the rivers.
A single catastrophic flood could not account for these sediments, for
two reasons. First, any event which piled up sediments faster than the
rate at which the crust is sinking would block the mouth of the river.
Second, the sediments could not begin to be deposited until the end of
the flood, when the waters had receded enough for the mouth of the river
to be re-established and begin dumping sediments into the ocean at that
point.
3. CORAL REEFS
Coral reef formation is easily observed today, and the rate at which
such reefs grow readily calculated: the maximum rate ever observed is about
a half-inch a year, and this rate cannot be accelerated no matter how much
water is on the surface of the earth, because the coral polyp can only
use the calcium in the seawater at its immediate disposal to build its
home. For the upper layers of the reefs to grow the lower layers have to
be converted into limestone by the leaching of materials from sea water,
another inherently slow process. And the limestone layers at the bottom
of the reefs are full of fossils. The Capitan Reef in Texas is over 1,000
feet thick, its growth time estimated at 300,000 years, and it sits between
two formations each containing thousands of feet of multi-layered fossiliferous
sedimentary rock.
4. CLAY VARVES
Varve formation has been studied in progress for well over 100 years.
Varves begin as very thin layers of clay deposited at the bottom of still
waters which, if not disturbed, are covered with more layers until the
water is wrung out and lithification can proceed. In a year a varve “couplet”
will form, composed of a lighter and a darker layer, the difference in
color produced by the presence of summer pollen in the darker layer. The
Green River shale deposits contain two million varve couplets, indicating
that it took two million years to produce these sediments. Varves only
form in still water, not in the turbulent waters of a flood, because it
takes still water for the tiny clay particles to precipitate. Furthermore,
rapidly deposited layers of sediment always show “whorls” which are absent
from these varves.
5. EVAPORITE VARVES
If salt water is trapped among land masses so that circulation is limited,
evaporation produces a much-observed and very predictable pattern of layered
sedimentation called “evaporite varving.” The Capitan Reef encloses an
evaporite varve formation called the Delaware Basin, 1300 feet thick, which
is composed of 400,000 layers of varves. Using ratios easily observed in
a laboratory the amount of sea water necessary to produce 1300 feet of
these evaporite varves can be reliably calculated: it is over one million
feet.
6. METAMORPHIC ROCKS
Metamorphic rocks were originally sedimentary rocks which were subjected
to enormous pressures and so had their structure changed. This process
can be performed experimentally in the laboratory (for example, in the
production of artificial diamonds), and the resulting artifacts show the
same microscopic structure as the rocks seen occurring naturally on the
earth. These kinds of conditions can only be produced naturally by burial
under several miles of rock. Metamorphic rocks are found on the surface
of the earth, a condition which requires deposition of the original sediments,
lithification, burial under several miles of rock, transformation into
metamorphic rock over eons of periodic heat and constant pressure, erosion
or tectonic movement to remove the overlaying rock and bring the metamorphosed
rock to the surface. Metamorphic rocks also contain a few identifiable
fossils, indicating that living things were around when these rocks were
originally laid.
7. YELLOWSTONE FOSSIL FORESTS
Near Yellowstone National Park there are as many as 44 layers of fossilized
trees, some of them stumps which are still upright, encased in a kind of
sedimentary rock which is produced by volcanic ash. The fossil tree layers
sit on top of thousands of feet of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock. The
rock had to be there, and to be covered by a layer of soil from the weathering
of the rock, before trees could grow. Once buried by volcanic catastrophe,
the tree material underwent the “non-accelleratable” process of fossilization,
in which all the original organic material is replaced by minerals.
8. IGNEOUS ROCK INTRUSIONS
Igneous rock formation can be observed in progress today in the cooling
of volcanic lava. In some places igneous rock has been observed to “intrude”
into formations of sedimentary rock. The igneous rock pushes up over one
sedimentary formation, and displaces the sedimentary rock above it in an
obvious way. The time it takes a given volume of such igneous rocks to
cool into a solid form is easily measured, and from the size of an igneous
intrusion the cooling time can be accurately calculated. Cooling time for
one granite formation in Southern California can, by of the size of the
formation, be determined to have been about one million years. This formation
lies on top of sedimentary rocks which must have been lithified at the
time of the intrusion or they would have been destroyed by the heat.
9. SEA FLOOR SPREADING (Brother Mathews’ favorite)
The continents we see today are spreading away from a formation in
the Atlantic Ocean called the “mid-Atlantic ridge,” where new crust can
be observed being produced: yes, one can actually see the lava coming up
from a crack in the ocean floor and spreading away from that crack as new
crust. The rate of continental movement can be calculated with extreme
precision by space-based lasers, so that a calculation of about 100 million
years since pangea began to break apart fits a lot of data. But the most
convincing evidence concerns periodic reversals in the earth’s magnetic
field. Some varves contain particles of iron which, being magnetic, align
themselves toward the earth’s “north” magnetic pole. When these varves
are analyzed it is found that every few thousand years the earth’s magnetic
field reverses itself. Similar analyses of the seafloor spreading from
the mid-Atlantic ridge can be done, and magnetic readings show “stripes”
of magnetic alignment on both sides of the mid-Atlantic ridge that exactly
match the magnetic readings of the varves.
10. RADIOISOTOPIC DATING
Of all the radioactive isotopes present in the earth’s crust, none
is found with a half-life of less than 100 million years, except in the
presence of parent elements which are in the process of decay into those
daughter elements. It takes about 10 half-lives for all detectable amounts
of radioisotope to decay out of a given sample; that would indicate an
age of the earth’s crust of at least a billion years.
There are more, but ten is a nice biblical number, and if someone can
come up with an explanation of these I will be most impressed. Thanks again
for raising this issue, and for giving attention to these facts.
Your brother,
Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
11/11/99 5:20:18 pm
Re: Putting the facts on the table
Hello Tom,
My compliments to you for putting these facts on the table for discussion.
The volume of evidence from multiple independent sources is sufficient
to justify confidence in an ancient Universe.
I do not suppose that an alternative, young-earth, explanation for
any of these evidences exist. The Institute for Creation Research has become
dependent upon catastrophes and modifications of natural constants.
Thanks,
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
11/11/99 7:21:32 pm
Re: Putting the facts on the table
Dear Tom,
Welcome on board. The "facts" you've put on the table are all open
to interpretation. Personally, I had hoped to avoid dealing with these
for several reasons. First, I don't really question the data. Second, I
don't feel competent in this area at all, as I am not a flood geologist
or scientific creationist. Third, what is there is there; how it got to
be there is open for interpretation. Questioning uniformitarianism is where
I see my place in all this.
Having said this, the facts (?) you've "laid on the table" need to
be dealt with. As I don't feel competent to deal with the "science" involved
in these questions, I hope someone will come forth to do so. If no one
does, then I will feel compelled to do so. So please, for your sake and
mine, pray someone else who feels competent to deal with these questions
will present themselves to this discussion thread.
May God bless us all as we deal with this most important subject, and
may He ultimately be glorified in all we do.
Allan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMathews
11/11/99 10:33:11 pm
Re: Putting the facts on the table
Hello Allan,
My compliments to your response. I believe that your answer was honest
and honorable.
I encourage you to take as much time as necessary to familiarize yourself
with the evidence.
I will not demand or expect an answer. I believe that the present discussion
has fulfilled its original purpose and that further argument would be counterproductive.
Thanks,
David Mathews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/12/99 9:45:54 am
Re: Putting the facts on the table
Thanks to Tom, Tom has done a good job of briefly summarizing ten lines
of physical evidence that argue for an ancient timeline. For readers that
wish to learn more of the details concerning these and many other such
evidences please the information at http://www.lordibelieve.org/page15.html
On that page is a "brain teaser" concerning supernova 1987a. Simply
to illustrate one line of evidence for an ancient universe (not just earth)
I will "place that on the table" here as well. However, for the pictures,
one will have to get that from the web page.
In 1987 a rather unprincely star formerly known as Sunduleak in the
Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC*,
visible from the southern hemisphere only) was observed here on earth
to have exploded or "supernovaed" The supernova is now known as SN1987a.
(Okay, so astronomers don't always come up with the most imaginative names.)
This exploded star is about 170,000 light years from earth, as measured
by validated techniques using stellar spectral-luminosity correlations
and verified by the Cephid variable techique. Shown on the web site are
before and after pictures. In the left photo is the Tarantula nebula in
the LMC, with an arrow pointing to the unexploded star. The photo on the
right shows the same region two months after it exploded. The photo below
these shows in closeup the supernova as it appears now. This was a very
dramatic event in history. The only other such event in recent times was
the supernova in AD 1054 which left us the Crab Nebula in the Tarus constellation.
That event was so bright it was visible in the daytime sky according to
Chinese astronomers of the time.
The starlight from Sanduleak carries a "message" or picture of an event
that happened in history. The message (the light) only arrived here on
earth in 1987, but for it to have travelled from the star to earth took
170,000 years travelling at 186,000 miles per second. Up until 1987 we
could see a star at this position and distance. But now we see that no
star has been there for the past 170,000 years -- since it exploded 170,000
years ago, or 170,000 light years away.
Here's the Brain Teaser If the universe is not at least 170,000 years
old, how could that be?
1) God made the starlight in route?
2) The star isn't really that far away?
Number (1)
God made the starlight in route.
This "apearance of age" idea was first suggested for geological data
by Philip Gosse a hundred years ago. It is still a popular idea for many
such aspects of nature that appear old: that the result of a recent mature
creation gives an appearance of age but it is not really so old. In the
case of SN1987a, God simply made the star fully formed at a distance of
170,000 light years but with its light already at the earth from the very
beginning.
The problem many would have with this is that if God created stars
at such a distance, and intentionally created the starlight already at
the earth from the beginning, then in this case (and many others as well),
He would have had to encode the starlight with the history of an event
(the change from normal star to explosion) that never actually happened
- it just "appears" to have happened. Furthermore, this isn't an appearance
that applies only the Garden of Eden but only shows now in our lifetimes.
If the universe is only a few thousand years old, this supernova has always
been a supernova and never an ordinary star. But up until 1987 it was seen
in the starlight to have been just an ordinary star up until 170,000 years
ago. If God altered the history of this part of His creation to appear
to be something it wasn't, who's to say what history is real and what history
is fake? And why would God tell us to go look at natural history (Romans
1:19-20) to learn about His godly nature and power if natural history doesn't
record true history? This would seem to be a problem since that same God
tells us He cannot lie -- Hebrews 6:18, Titus 1:2.
I will not accept that God is a liar, even if its just a little "white
lie" to astronomers. Therefore, I don't think God faked this event in the
starlight. It must have really happened 170,000 years ago.
Don't misunderstand, this is not to say God couldn't make the starlight
in route. It is saying a God who cannot lie DID NOT make the starlight
in route, since that would be against His nature, and would negate the
use of the natural world as a testimony of His true nature.
Number (2)
The supernova isn't really 170,000 light years away, but only a few
light years distant.
This "science is simply wrong" idea is also a popular way to deal with
the implications of galactic and intergalactic distances, as well as many
other ancient artifacts in natural history. Science can always be wrong.
However, this must be determined on a case-by-case basis based upon the
available evidence and laws of nature (not philosophy).
There are a couple of ideas one might have in mind.
1) Starlight traveled much faster in the past than now so that such
great distances could be covered in much shorter times.
2) The distance to the LMC is simply wrong. It is only a few light
years away.
The problem with the first idea is that the speed of light is not variable
but a constant: 299,792,458 m/s. {1}
Some have suggested that the speed of light is slowing down in a roughly
exponential fashion (B. Setterfield).{2}
There are two major problems with that suggestion: it violates mathematics
and is contradicted by data.{3}
[The reader can skip this mathematical paragraph if desired.] The speed
of light is not just a constant based upon empirical measurements, but
is a mathematical necessity. James Clerk Maxwell worked out the four equations
for light in the late 19th century.{4} These are a class of mathematical
expressions known as vector differential equations. There is a known mathematical
method for solving such differential equations. The method yields an answer
in the form of a set of three dimensional algebraic expressions about the
electric and magnetic field strengths, plus four mathematical constants.
The value of the constants must be determined by measurement, but the fact
that they are constant comes from the math itself. These equations turn
out to be descriptions of wave motions. Hence, we consider light in most
applications simply as a wave of energy. (Quantum effects such as for a
CCD video camera require some additional equations.) We can easily see
that waves move with some speed simply by watching waves at the beach.
Upon closer observation one can see that the speed of waves is constant
(given the same type of water "waving"). The same is true for electromagnetic
waves. As it turns out one of the constants that falls out of Maxwell's
wave equations represents simply the speed of the wave in empty space --
it has the units of distance per time, the definition of speed. One of
the variables that comes in the solution is the actual speed of the wave
when travelling through some material: light slows down in materials. Therefore
this speed constant is the maximum speed of light in a vacuum. It is a
mathematical constant if Maxwell's equations are correct. They have never
been shown to be anything but precisely correct in describing everything
from radio waves to light to nuclear gamma radiation. (There are some physicists
who challenge the completeness of Maxwell's equations in some situations,
but not their correctness for classical applications such as star light
propagation.)
To determine the maximum speed of light in a vacuum requires measurement,
not theory. Consequently scientists have been measuring the speed of light
for the past two hundred years. It is now known to such incredible precision,
299,792,458 m/s, that we no longer worry about it. If the speed of light
were not a constant, if it was changing even the least little bit, we could
measure the change in the speed of light over even a few months given that
this parameter of light is measurable with such great accuracy. It can
be measured to an accuracy better than 1 part per billion. Therefore if
the speed of light had changed as Setterfield claims so that ten billion
years now looks like only ten thousand years that would only be a change
of 1 part per million, which is a thousand times greater than the minimum
change current measurements could detect. In other words, if any changing
was there to be seen, it would have been seen even by crude student-grade
experiments.
Furthermore, the spectral content of starlight (its color emission
and adsorption lines) allow us to measure a property called the fine structure
constant (2pi e2/hc ~ 1/137).{5} This depends on three constants: the quantum
unit -- Plank's constant; the quantum charge of an electron; and, the constant
speed of light, c. Since all of these are constants of nature, the fine
structure constant is always the same, even when measured in the light
from the most distant stars observed. It is the same value in starlight
as is measured in earth laboratory experiments. Therefore this is confirmation
that all of these values are constant everywhere. This shows that the speed
of light has never changed anywhere in the universe, and more importantly
that the basic properties of physics (quantum electrodynamics) are the
same everywhere in the universe. [Yes, it is theoretically possible that
all three constants vary together so that their ratio stays the same, but
that would be what we call an ad hoc argument with no basis other than
it gives the answer desired. It is very improbable from a physical perspective,
to put it mildly.]
The problem with the second idea is that if this supernova were only
a short distance away, we would be dead. If we take the age as only 10,000
yr with this event occurring about 10 yr ago, this would mean that the
supernova must have occurred no more than 10 ly away from earth: 17,000
times closer than it appears to be -- and 300 billion times brighter! Ten
light years from a supernova is a death zone. For comparison, the visible
outer rings in the SN1987a photo are 1300 light years in diameter from
precursor ejections of dust prior to the more recent visible events.{6}
At only 10 years away the shock wave from the explosion would have been
most unpleasant here on earth. In any event, if it were much closer, but
say only 10,000 light years, it would be about 300 times brighter than
it is: more like the Crab Nebula which is much closer (~6000 ly) within
our own Milky Way and hence much brighter. (This comes from the inverse
square law for isotropic radiation sources.)
The distance to the Tarantella Nebula and the Large Magellanic Cloud
is well known through a technique using Cephid Variables. This technique
is described by Roberts in the online book available on the AgeEvidences
page that gave you this "brain teaser."{7}
References:
(1) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 74th Ed., pp1-1 to 1-6.
(2) Setterfield, see ICR materials, e.g., http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-sub.htm
, Impact #179.
(3) Fischer, analysis by a nuclear physicist of Barry Setterfield's
claim that light is slowing down (extracted from a larger briefing by Fischer
on ICR YEC views)
(4) Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Ed., John Wiley Sons, 1972,
pp217ff.
(5) Weidner Sells, Elementary Modern Physics, Allen-Bacon, 1968, pp239.
(6)David Mahlin, Anglo-Australian Observatory,
http://www.aao.gov.au/local/www/dfm/aat048b.html
(7) Roberts, Evidences That Have Led Many Scientists to Accept an Ancient
Age for the Creation of the Earth and Universe, http://www.lordibelieve.org/page15.html
, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomCouchman
11/12/99 10:08:55 am
Re: Putting the facts on the table
Allan and David (and others):
Allan, I don't think you should feel in the least reluctant to take
a shot at offering a YEC explanation for these facts. I'm not really "qualified"
either--I'm just a frustrated writer who has been forced into computer
work to make a living. Historically, the most effective proponents of Darwinism
have not been scientists but people like Tielhard de Chardin, who was a
Catholic monk. And I think the most articulate creationist working today
(albeit an OEC) is Phillip Johnson, who is a lawyer. Of course, I'd love
to see a response by anyone! I meant what I wrote about being a reluctant
OEC! And, naturally, you are right that different interpretations of these
facts are possible--indeed, that was the point of my putting them out there,
so that one or more YEC interpretations can be attempted.
At the risk of seeming to want to take charge of this thread--which
I DO NOT WANT TO DO, I make a
timid suggestion to any YEC respondent: why not deal with just one
of the ten collections of fact at a time (unless, of course, there is a
generic principle of interpretation which fits all of them). That approach
might make the discussion more manageable. I don't necessarily plan to
respond to any YEC interpretation; the objective should be to get the perspectives
out there so that people can decide which works the best. And I trust you,
Allan, to judge when it's time to say: "that's enough on this issue; let's
move to the next one."
David, I appreciate your kind words. Your observation may turn out
to be correct, but I do hope that there is something to be offered in the
way of a YEC response to each of the facts "on the table." Most matters
of controversy, after all, are controversial because there are reasonable
arguments on both sides. If nothing else is accomplished in this thread,
let us at least work toward an understanding of why the people who disagree
with us take the positions that they do. And let's continue to accept one
another, "...and not to please ourselves ... for Christ did not please
Himself..."
Your brother,
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hill
11/12/99 11:42:34 am
Reluctant OEC
To all:
Tom has illustrated well something I think most of my YEC brothers
don't understand about this situation and the role THEY play in it. Tom,
a former YEC (and I happen to know, well grounded from his youth in principles
of the gospel and Biblical interpretation), when confronted by physical
data, concluded that he could no longer be a YEC. He was most reluctantly
forced to become an OEC, and would even like to
return to that comfort zone now.
Here is the dilemma Tom and many others face: they've been taught all
our lives that the Bible teaches a young earth, but in face of today's
evidence, they no longer believe the earth is young. What to do? This is
a dilemma countless thousands of our young people face. Not because of
hearing a LIB lecture, but because of being overwhelmed by physical evidence
they've already evaluated themselves. What to do? The statistics seem to
indicate many if not most opt out of faith entirely. This breaks my heart,
and I know it breaks all of yours.
The whole purpose behind my approach is to provide another option:
one does not have to give up one's faith or confidence in the Bible when
compelled by physical evidence to accept an ancient age conclusion. Though
we may have been teaching since the early 50s that ancient earth and Genesis
are incompatable, that is not necessarily so. The Bible doesn't really
give even a general date for the creation. There ARE alternative understandings
of Genesis in light of God's physical evidence that do not place the conclusions
from the evidence and about Genesis in conflict. There are alternative
understandings which actually build the case even stronger for the truth
of Genesis consistent with modern findings of science, which Moses surely
could not have known from his own empirical studies. Findings such as the
evidence for a finite physical universe with a definite beginning of all
energy-mass and space-time at a singular beginning moment. This is a powerful
apologetic finding in its own right. So powerful that this single piece
of physcial evidence convinced the agnostic/almost-atheist Einstein that
a transcendant creating agency must exist. However, to access that finding,
one must be willing to accept the overpowering conclusions implied by the
physical evidence -- The same evidence that argues for antiquity.
There are many OEC attempts at harmonizing antiquity with Genesis.
However, many of them are not appealing to me. Mostly because I find they
violate my sensitivites to one or more principles of interpretation of
the scriptures. So I well understand when any such interpretive approach
I might offer, likewise is not attractive to others. However, I have made
what I think is a sound hermenutical approach, which is likewise consistent
with the physical data as I can best understand it. I strongly suspect
there are better approaches, and I plead with those of you better skilled
in such things to help us learn them. However, an approach that starts
off with "forget the physical evidence -- Genesis says you must" is doomed
to failure from the start. In my assessment, that battle plan has miserably
failed and cannot now be won by current YEC ad hoc approaches. So how would
you, Doy and Allan (or any others who acknowledge that OEC barely, possibly,
might be right), help us harmonize OEC with Genesis?
My experience with sharing at least a plausible harmonization with
audiences of brothers and sisters facing exactly this dilemma is one of
overwhelming relief in them. And, I only share that possible harmonization
WHEN THEY ASK FOR IT. The only point we make in the prepared presentations
is that "the data is difficult to sort out and aren't you glad you don't
have to -- it doesn't matter to faith in the Bible whether its old or young."
Pleading,
Hill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
11/14/99 11:53:04 pm
Re: Reluctant OEC
Hill,
You're not the first to tell me I just don't understand the situation.
Frequently, this comes from those who don't think there's a proverbial
"snow ball's chance" that a preacher could understand, much less care,
about their problem. In most cases they have been wrong, and so are you.
I know exactly the dilemma countless thousands of our young people face,
because I faced it, and mistakenly made the wrong choice in becoming a
theistic evolutionist, even if it was for only a short time. Learning to
evaluate conflicting positions, circumstances, philosophies, and yes, even
data, is part of the maturing process. My old earth/young earth conflict
was further complicated by the macroevolution argument, which is so much
a part of modern science. That's why I'm so appreciative of your efforts
to demonstrate conclusively that macroevolution is not viable, from a biological
standpoint.
However, your position on natural revelation is, I believe, flawed.
You have raised natural revelation to the level of Scripture, making it,
in essence, the 67th book of the Bible. I have argued repeatedly during
this discussion that I have no argument with the data (i.e., the natural
revelation) only the interpretation (science). You have repeatedly disparaged
this, insinuating that I am afraid to see, hear, touch, taste, or smell
the evidence for OEC. This is not true and I think you ought to know it.
I have heard the so-called evidence practically all my life from the evolutionists,
who teach precisely what OECs do on the age of the earth. Even so, and
giving you the benefit of the doubt concerning your own perceptual blinders,
I have attempted to discuss this with you. What do you do? You do everything
within your rhetorical ability to exclude my arguments, which are primarily
metaphysical, from the discussion. In this, you mimic the behavior of the
macroevolutionists who have for many years skewed the "evidence" in their
favor by excluding the metaphysical/spiritual ramifications of this issue.
My only reluctance in "handling" the data has been the issue of my
competence to do so. I simply do not feel competent in this area, and I
honestly say so. Now, in truth, I may be competent to do so, and if someone
else doesn't deal with Tom Couchman's 10 "evidences" for an old earth,
then I suppose we'll all find out just how competent I really am to deal
with these things. But what's your take on this? You try to make it sound
like my motive is nothing more than a prosecutor's vendetta, which says,
"I know there's no evidence in this case, but I know this dude is guilty,
so I'm going to prosecute him anyway, even if I have to manufacture the
evidence." Hill, why can't you extend to me a little of that understanding
and compassion you say we YECs are so lacking in? I need not remind you
that painting me as the prosecutor and you as the defense is not much more
than a well-worn rhetorical device, and I really don't fault you for using
it, but I do want to make sure folks see it for what it is.
You, and other OECs try to present yourselves as data driven, which
is objective, over and against the subjectivity of Bible interpretation.
This is nonsense. I know the force of the word "nonsense," but it cannot
be helped. Your interpretation of the data (an objective standard) is subjective,
just as my interpretation of the Bible (the objective standard) is also
subjective. If you'd just admit that this is obviously true, then maybe
we could start getting down to business on this thing. Instead, you keep
claiming you've put the evidence on the table and we haven't, and therefore
this discussion is over, as far as you're concerned.
It is your interpretation, with all its assumptions and inferences,
of the data, and not the data itself, that I am questioning. It is legitimate
for me to do so and is, I'm convinced, the crux of this issue. There is
a creation science model for interpreting the data and I know you know
this because you claim to have examined it and found it to be wanting.
I believe that this model, which does not require the invoking of Scripture
nor the troublesome issue of time, is an excellent interpretive tool, which
fits the data more easily than does the uniformitarian interpretation you
are wedded to. Contrary to what you seem to think, this creation model,
which I engaged Buddy Payne to defend in a debate with a macroevolutionist
in Louisville, KY, back in the mid-1980s, does not require the one employing
it to invoke scripture for its justification. If he hasn't done so already,
I'm sure Buddy would be happy to share with you the audio tapes of that
discussion, if you'd ask for them. Furthermore, this model does not cause
the one who employs it to commit interpretive suicide when dealing with
the Scriptures, which is more than I can say about yours. Let me give the
readers an example of what I'm talking about.
The predominate uniformitarian approach to origins science embraces
Big Bang cosmology, to which you, Hill, subscribe wholeheartedly. Although
you claim this theory wonderfully describes the point of Genesis 1 (viz.,
that God created), proving that the universe is really finite after all,
you know that this theory makes no such claim. It does not argue creation
ex nihilo, and to do so would be an appeal to metaphysics, which is not
permitted. At best, the interjection of a Creator would be considered ad
hoc by most who hold this view. So, how did YOU get to this conclusion
without metaphysics, which you have so clearly pointed out that I ought
not to be appealing to? Therefore, don't you try to tell me that YECs are
just too slippery, talking out of both sides of their mouths, claiming
to be true scientists but then resorting to a "But God could do it this
way if He wanted to" argument when dealing with the ultimate questions.
To argue that science alone can drive men to the correct understanding
of our origin, and hence compel one to see the necessity of a Creator does
not reflect the attitude of origins science. It erroneously assumes that
fallible men, using a man-made (and hence fallible) methodology (i.e.,
science—in particular origins science) can, with an incorrect postulate
(materialism/uniformitarianism), come to the truth about God. It would
be most unexpected and quite illogical for a system of thought to reach
a conclusion that is in contradiction to one of the basic postulates of
that system.
Remember, this kind of knowing (science) has excluded the metaphysical.
In fact, the only obvious similarity between Creation and the Big Bang
is the idea that one moment the universe wasn't there and the next moment
it was. The Bible says (doesn't it?) that God spoke it into existence,
"that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which
are seen were not made of things which do appear [i.e., the natural revelation]"
(Hebrews 11:3). If this scripture is true, how can natural revelation (which
must be interpreted, which, in turn, equals "Science") ever be equal to,
much less dominating of, God's special revelation? But, this is exactly
what you claim, and it is here that I take serious issue with you, appealing
to you to drop your nature-is-the-67th-book-of-the-Bible approach, an approach
that causes you to so twist the Scriptures that I am afraid it could ultimately
lend itself to your own destruction, or the destruction of someone else
(2 Peter 3:16). I realize that using this scripture here will probably
offend you, but please see it as an expression of my genuine love for you,
my brother. What follows is an example of what I'm talking about.
Your "Big Bang" cosmology has you convinced that the stars preceded
our planet Earth. Although you think the universe is about 15 billion years
old, you believe the planet we live on is about 4.7 billion years old.
In your uniformitarian interpretation, this all means that the formation
of the Sun preceded the formation of the Earth by billions of years. However,
this "seems" to put you in conflict with the events described on day four
of the Creation Week. Nevertheless, you assure us that it only seems to
be so. In fact, you claim your interpretation of the natural revelation
fits extraordinarily well with the Creation Week. Let's see if this is
the case.
In your draft, Genesis and Time (A Harmony), you argue that Genesis
1:1 is the beginning of all time, space, and matter, the latter of which
evolved into stars in a process of stellar and cosmic evolution. Genesis
1:1 is the beginning point, you say, but also functions as a summary of
the whole unfolding process that has been set in motion viz-à-vie
the Big Bang. You write:
"The transformation of energy to matter continues until the creation
is fully prepared for His next acts of design. Space is flung far
and wide with just the right elements, density and dynamic balance of forces
to sustain a place called Earth. But at this point in the narrative it
is only an [sic] barren land that stands ready for further shaping. It
is as Churchill put it, "The end of the beginning."
"
A lot of folks agree with you on this, but I don't. The actual summary
of the Creative Week is found in Genesis 2:1, and comes after the work
was done. In Genesis 1:1, time, space, and matter are created by God. Later,
on the fourth day, the same God who spoke "light" into existence, speaks
the "lights" in the firmament into existence (verse 14). The "and it was
so," statement echoes the same creative effect as when God spoke light
into existence. Verse 16 clearly says: "God made two great lights: the
greater to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made
the stars also." Of course, your naturalistic, uniformitarian prejudices
must be fitted in here somewhere, so you take us back to Genesis 1:1, where
you say stars were originally created, which was, according to your cosmology,
actually 10 billions years earlier. Man, this interpretation has nothing
on Shane Scott's bonsai cedar tale (I mean, tail), does it?
In an attempt to justify yourself, you claim that the Hebrew word 'asah
translated "made" should really be translated "made to function in the
manner now described as the chronometers and distinct identifiable sources
of light with which we are familiar today." In other words, you agree with
your cohort, Dr. Hugh Ross, that the word means made to appear. But if
so, the word would have been ra'ah, which is used in Genesis 1:9, where
the exact type of process you're trying to describe in verse 16 occurred.
So, this interpretation seems mighty weak coming from one like yourself
who says that when it comes to hermeneutics the most important thing is
"context, context, context."
According to your interpretation, opaque atmospheres of hydrogen, helium,
methane, and ammonia had obscured these "lights," but now, as a result
of the words spoken by God on the fourth day (which is, to you, just a
pronouncing day), these lights begin to appear. This may, as you claim,
be the right interpretation, but it had to wait for an OEC to come up with
it. Perhaps this is why Dr. Ross likes to talk about his "absorption in
science" preparing him to see things other can't. In truth, there is no
reason for one to think that bara (created) and 'asah (made) are not used
interchangeably throughout the context of Genesis 1 and 2—nothing, that
is, but your interpretation of the natural revelation, which you feel compelled
to interject into the special written revelation of the Creator Himself.
I could go on, but this serves to demonstrate why I have problems with
your interpretation of the data, and not the data itself. It seems clear
that you got your interpretation of the fourth day of Creation from the
same place you got those opaque atmospheres of hydrogen, helium, methane,
and ammonia—which are all transparent—that were hiding the sun and moon
for millions or billions of years. Is this science, or pure conjecture?
But, in you effort to further justify your previous interpretations, you
come up with even more novel interpretations. In doing so, you distort
biblical concepts and demonstrate your sometimes illogical thinking. For
example, speaking of the above "processes," you write:
"Does this diminish in any way the fact and awe of creation in six
days? Not at all. The glory of Christ's church was created, purposed,
by God's will, even before eternity and time began; but He used many thousands
of years of making and preparation before it came to fruition. Rather than
diminishing God's glory, the church glorifies God even more as this mystery
is revealed. When the fullness of times came, the Word (Christ) came to
bring life to us who were dead. So it is in Genesis 1 after the fourth
day."
Remember, Hill, you are using this to illustrate something that was
already created (i.e., in existence) but not revealed. To do this, you
use, of all things, the church of Christ, which had been purposed (not
created) to demonstrate how something that had already been "created" was
later revealed to God's glory. At best, this is shoddy exegesis, and has
the Lord saying (in the time/space continuum) that He would build (future
tense) His church (Matthew 16:18), which, you're telling me, already existed
in eternity past. Hill, my brother, you couldn't scripturally prove this
if you tried! This, as I see it, is just an effort to justify your hermeneutical
gymnastics. Therefore, I do not agree with you that yours is a "sound hermeneutical
approach." I could go on, but this is enough to illustrate my point.
In closing your reply, you make an appeal to Doy and me to help you
and other OECs harmonize your position with Genesis. I don't know of any
way, other than the one you've attempted, and to use your own words, I
believe that approach has "miserably failed." Tom Couchman has mentioned
his reluctant OEC status, pleading with us YECs to help him convert back
because he is uncomfortable where he is. I think this is a positive sign,
as his uncomfortableness is probably not so much with his interpretation
of the physical data, as it is with these slippery interpretations of God's
Word. Perhaps our continued honest discussion of these things will provide
the catalyst for him to reconsider his position and how he got there. I
hope so. I would like to think that you are a bit uncomfortable as well,
but I think not. A person who is not expecting any evidence to the contrary,
as you've said elsewhere, sounds to me like a person who is quite comfortable
with his position. After all, as you and Matthews have affirmed in this
discussion, world history "is" billions of years old! Without President
Clinton here to tell us what "is" is, I think one can safely conclude that
you don't think this issue is really open for debate.
Brotherly,
Allan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomCouchman
11/15/99 3:04:52 pm
Re: Reluctant OEC
Brothers, Alan in particular:
I'm not sure exactly why I am a reluctant OEC; introspection is one
thing, self-psychoanalysis another. The OEC part would come, I think, from
a propensity to take the easiest explanation for any fact--of the physical
universe or of a text in scripture. I don't know how I got to be that way;
that would be a psychoanalytical issue. The reluctant part comes from the
obvious tension between a straightforward reading of some (not all!) parts
of the Genesis creation record and the interpretations of science, and
with the aggressive atheist/agnostic preaching of the Dawkins/Lewontin
science set. I would love for somebody to be able to demonstrate that the
universe is a mere 10,000 years old--in fact I'd love for somebody to be
able to demonstrate that it's a mere 100 million years old. We haven't
got any closer to that goal with this thread, yet... but I haven't given
up, which leads me to...
...trying to get this discussion re-focused. Setting aside your many
expressions of endearment for our esteemed brother Roberts, here are the
points I take from your recent postings:
1. There is no investigation of the facts of either scripture or nature
without some level of philosophical predisposition.
I concede the point without qualification or quibble. I would only
ask that, allowing for the differences in the types of evidence that each
discipline of inquiry encompasses, we apply the same set of untestable
axioms to both products of God's hand.
2. The conclusion that the natural data speak of great age is the product
of a combination of the data with certain interpretations--in particular,
a uniformitarian assumption which is inherently untestable; if we detatch
the data from the uniformitarian assumption we may reach a different conclusion.
I concede the point, with a minor quibble: I think we all accept some
level of uniformitarianism--no YEC that I have read believes that the entire
history of the earth has been composed of natural catastrophes.
3. My presentation of the ten sets of facts also contained some assumptions
which neither you nor any other YEC should feel compelled to allow.
I concede the point. I tried to present not only facts but the most
obvious conclusions of age. Please note, however, that to the best of my
ability I pointed out only those inferences which result from testing which
is available to us today; e.g., rates of lithification of sedimentary rocks.
Obviously, if the "laws" of physics and chemistry which we use today did
not apply in antediluvian times we have a different ball game.
4. There was a great flood in the days of Noah.
I not only concede the point but insist on it.
5. The world was different before the flood.
I concede the point. I'm not sure what the implications are--as Mathews
points out, the same rivers were in place both before and after. I don't
know of any widely published YEC writer who contends that the "laws" of
nature were changed by this event--in other words, that the deluge would
have changed radioactive decay rates, the speed of light, the rates at
which coral polyps work, etc. But scripture calls the antediluvian world
"the world that was," which I will accept.
6. Catastrophes, including the flood, are responsible for some (or
all?) of what we see on the earth today.
I do not dispute that catastrophes have happened. One of the lines
of evidence I cited--the Yellowstone fossil trees--is almost all the result
of catastrophes. However, unless these catastrophes were miraculous both
in source and in effects, we should be able to see signs of them in nature.
That is why I pointed out that one flood does not produce four million
varves--unless, of course, the varves were directly produced by God during
the process of the flood, in which case the one was really irrelevant to
the other. Which leads to ...
7. There are other interpretations of the evidence.
Not only do I concede this point, I hope you and others will supply
these. What kind of catastrophe can have produced four million layers of
paper-thin sediments which hold fossil pollen and which look just like
sediments which we can see being produced today which are laid down two
per year? That was the whole reason for my original post.
8. Nature is not the 67th book in the Bible.
I concede the point.
9. Therefore, the findings of science should not be used to help us
understand scripture.
Non sequitur. I assume you believe that the earth orbits the sun, not
vice-versa. While nature and scripture have different purposes, where they
cross paths I would argue that it is valid to have one comment on the other.
Nature tells me that dead men do not come back to life; scripture tells
me differently. Scripture interprets nature in this case. Obviously a "commentary
upon" a "contradiction" are different matters, and you feel the OEC position
comes closer to the latter than the former.
10. Genesis requires us to believe that the universe is 10,000 years
old or less.
Is it really necessary to take this position in order to read the scripture
faithfully? Does the Bible say, anywhere, how long ago Adam and Eve lived?
If not, why would you want to put yourself into the position of doing so?
Last thing... I am not a scientist either, as I have previously made
clear. I don't think the "scientific" arguments for a young earth or an
old earth are beyond either one of us. Let's get them on the table, so
we can forge the best weapons for the fight!
Your brother,
Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
11/16/99 9:40:34 am
Re: Reluctant OEC
Tom,
I'll comment on your 10 points in the order you made them. I'm still
working on the "ten set of facts," hoping some other YEC will effectively
deal with them before I give it a try. I've already made it clear how I
feel about that.
1. All minds are right on this.
2. I do not believe the entire history of the earth is the result of
natural catastrophes. So, there is no need for the minor quibble, as I've
admitted to the validity of uniformitarianism in this thread, clearly identifying
the culprit, as I see it, as capital "U" uniformitarianism carried to the
nth degree.
3. When the "facts" to which you allude in your "ten set of facts"
(and I'm NOT denying the data referenced) are viewed through a materialistic/uniformitarian
grid of interpretation, then the resulting "evidence" IS overwhelming.
I have not denied this in this discussion. I grant you everything you wrote
on this point and readily acknowledge that I believe you've set these "10
set of facts" on the table to the best of your ability (i.e., with honesty
and integrity). Nevertheless, the assumptions (and they are many) are all
built into the interpretive grid, and I am happy that you have so readily
acknowledged this. It is refreshing.
4. I'm glad to hear you say it. But just to make sure there is no hedging
on this point, I will ask you this question: Do you believe the Bible teaches
the Noachian Flood was a worldwide (universal) flood? If you
do, and I hope you do, this may be one reason why you would like to
give up your OEC position.
Unfortunately, many who take an OEC position beat around the bush on
this, trying their best to sound like they are not denying a great flood
in Noah's day, but always trying to explain it in terms of a localized
or regional flood. I call this "orthotalksy," which is a made-up word.
For a rather comprehensive explanation of what I mean by the use of this
word, I would suggest a reading of my article, "The Sham Gods of Orthotalksy,"
at http://allanturner.com/ss03.html.
5. No significant disagreement here.
6. All uniformitarians accept that catastrophes happen, and, in many
cases, are able to clearly identify them in the geological record. I understand
this and readily admit it. Conversely, catastrophists acknowledge and operate
under many of the assumptions inherent in uniformitarianism. There is,
I think, no disagreement between us on this. But, with what little I know
about the "science" involved, uniformitarianism carried to the nth degree
cannot factor in the apparent age of that which has been created ex nihilo.
This, I think is a serious limitation. Further, the uniformitarian assumption
of 4.7 billion years reduces the Noachian flood (whether universal or local)
to nothing more than a "hiccup." Creation science/flood geology a la Whitcomb
and Morris, which I readily admit is not taught in the Bible, is, nevertheless,
based upon what these folks believed to be a literal interpretation of
the Bible, admitting that even the meaning of "literal" is open for debate.
I do not know of any scientific creationist who argues that ALL the geological
record is explained by the Flood. To do so would be absolutely preposterous.
Your point about varves is noted, understood, and, assuming all the uniformitarian
assumptions are true, quite powerful. Creationists have recognized this.
However, I understand that some information is now extant that these varves
may be formed much more quickly than assumed. This short response is not
the place to present this information. My (or someone's) attempt to answer
your "ten set of facts" is the place, and I (or someone) will have to do
so, or you will have the opportunity to point out that it wasn't. Frankly,
I would not be impressed by an answer to this question that says, "Well,
that's just the way God did it." So, I think you and I are in agreement
here.
7. I understand. I'm working on it.
8. Amen!
9. Yes, it does not follow, as you've said, but I didn't say that the
findings of science should not be used to help us understand the Bible.
I simply believe that an interpretation of data (science) cannot be the
final arbiter of divine revelation. We are, I think, in agreement on this
point.
10. I did not say that Genesis requires us to believe that the universe
is 10,000 years old or less. Yes, I do favor 6,000 to 10,000 years, and
closer to the 6,000 than the 10,000. I have granted the possibility of
long periods of time and do not wish or intend to make time, per se, a
test of fellowship. Ussher, as you and I know, went too far, but to dismiss
lightly the genealogy of Jesus, which is traced all the way back to Adam,
is a serious mistake. Yes, there are some gaps in the genealogy, but there
is no reason for me to think we can fill it with 15 billion years, or 4.7
billions years, or millions of years, or even thousands of years.
In connection with your last paragraph, I have not forgotten what you
have ALREADY placed on the table. I have told you what I intend to do.
So, please, I'm asking you to be patient, my brother.
Shalom,
Allan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomCouchman
11/16/99 12:30:42 pm
Re: Reluctant OEC
Allan:
First, two apologies:
1. For misspelling your name on my last post (my only excuse is that
it was Monday morning!).
2. For seeming to be impatient to get yours or someone else's response
on the eleven points raised. Quality that takes time is preferable to speed.
It might even be good that some time lapses before any replies to provide
some opportunity for rumination.
Brief comments on your comments where you have requested or I feel
"provoked."
POINT 3: "...interpretive grid..." On most issues on which people disagree
there is some disagreement about
what's "fact" and what's "interpretation." Those of us who have studied
the Bible with someone else who is already religious are very familiar
with this phenomenon. I don't want to be pessimistic, but I think we should
expect and prepare for this type of disagreement, though I hope it is mimimal.
I would readily acknowledge that my current position that the earth and
universe are very old is an interpretation from the facts.
POINT 4: "global flood" At the moment I hold the position that this
was, indeed, a global flood. I cannot think of any fact or interpretation
of fact of natural science that would much bear upon this matter, so at
least in my mind the flood does not have anything to do with my being a
reluctant OEC. If I changed my position on whether the flood was global
or local it would be because of something in scripture, not something in
nature.
POINT 6: "hiccup" I am (and I mean this sincerely) very confused on
what is at stake here. Scripture says God determined to "destroy the earth"
by water. The flood followed. All human beings except one family died,
and all terrestrial animals except those on the ark (and possibly some
birds and other creatures which could survive afloat). But from my "interpretation"
of scripture it appears the "destruction" was on the order of a "cleansing."
The earth seems to have looked much the same before and after. If we combine
an old earth assumption with what scripture says, the flood doesn't appear
to have done much to the earth. If we combine a young earth assumption
with what scripture says, the flood still doesn't appear to have done much
to the earth. To me, geologically, the flood looks like a "hiccup" either
way. I don't get it, unless one does take the position--which you have
said you do not--that the flood accounts for most of geology.
POINT 6A: "apparent age" I think this is a crucial point, and I'm glad
you raised it. All the YEC authors with
whom I am familiar argue that the only appearance of age which would
result from creation ex nihilo would be that appearance which was unavoidable--then
they all break the rule by arguing for "starlight in route," "created trees
with annual rings," etc. I'm not asking you to answer for anybody but yourself,
and I would consider a sincere argument that Gosse was right, that God
created with the intent of deception. But we need to be clear about what
is "unavoidable" appearance of age and what is "deceptive" appearance.
I won't go back and thrash those eleven items on the table right now, but
here's where I suspect the opportunities for "mutual sharpening" will come.
POINT 10: "six or ten" ...and some things in your midnight post to
Hill last week... I guess we are all slaves to something (cheesecake is
one of my masters, ha!). I suppose a lot of OECs are slaves to (big U)niformitarianism.
It appears to me that a lot of YECs are slaves to "six to ten" interpretations.
This is a question, not a challenge: what's so valuable about "six to ten"?
Why are you so determined to reject any explanation of the scriptural text,
even a very plausible one, which would allow us some flexibility in dealing
with the facts of nature? Will you concede--not agree with, just concede--the
possibility that there are interpretations of Genesis 1/2 which both support
plenary inspiration and allow for the possibility that the universe is
billions of years old? Please believe I am not taunting you. This is a
serious question, and I need to understand better what's behind this point
of view.
Thanks for your kindness and willingness to discuss these issues.
Your brother,
Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allanita
11/20/99 8:36:04 am
Re: Reluctant OEC
Tom,
Point 6: You are trying to make it appear that I said the Flood does
not account for "most" of the geological record. I never said any such
thing, and by now you ought to know this. What I said was: "I do not know
of any scientific creationist who argues that ALL the geological record
is explained by the Flood. To do so would be absolutely preposterous."
What is so hard for you to understand about this?
Point 6A: If the universe slowly evolved over 15 billion years, then
there is no "apparent age" factor. On the other hand, if the universe and
the earth were created in six days a fairly short time ago, then "apparent
age" would be a factor. You take the first position and I take the latter.
This is why "apparent age" is a factor in this discussion. I don't know
whether trees created ex nihilo had growth rings making them appear very
old, but I suspect they didn't. Even so, there would have to be an appearance
of age if some were created full-grown. However, when God has given us
enough information to know that some things are going to look older than
they really are, and then some folks want to completely ignore this information,
claiming that if there really is "apparent age" inherent in the natural
revelation that this somehow makes God deceptive, is, in my opinion, troubling.
I am in total agreement with you that it is probable here that the "opportunities
for 'mutual sharpening' will come."
Point 10: I am not "so determined to reject any explanation of the
scriptural text, even a very plausible one," as you have said. If you think
so, either I have failed you in my honest, straightforth answers and comments,
or you have failed to read carefully and comprehend what I've plainly said.
I haven't tried to be cryptic at all, which is more than I can say for
your "'six or ten'...and some things in your midnight post to Hill last
week...I guess we are all slaves to something (cheesecake is one of my
masters, ha!)." I'm sorry, Tom, but I get lost with something like that.
Do you want me to read between the lines on this? What are you writing
about? I don't have a clue. Matthews has done the same kind of thing and
so has Hill, writing mysteriously that I conceded to him in one of my posts.
Where? I don't know what he's talking about.
So, if I've failed you by not being clear as to what I'm saying, I'm
sorry. Most people don't have trouble understanding what I write or say,
they just don't like it or they don't agree, and I understand how that
goes. But, as I've tried to demonstrate in this discussion, more than Genesis
1 and 2 are involved.
I thought my previous response to "point 10" was adequate about the
time factor. I do not make this a test of fellowship. Now this does not
mean that I'm not willing to argue it. Making something a test of fellowship
and arguing about it are two different things. For instance, Doy thinks
a woman ought to wear a covering on her head in the assembly of the saints,
I do not. I not only know why he takes the position he takes, I understand
the position. I do not make this issue a test of fellowship and neither
does he. We have debated the issue on more than one occasion, and my respect
for his integrity has only increased, although I continue to disagree with
him on this issue. Not once have I ever suspected him of anything near
what I have described during this discussion. Although I continue to disagree
with his interpretation of certain passages, I have never felt like he
was messing with them just to accommodate a preconceived idea. (November
20th—Brother Moyer informs me he does not take the position that a woman
must wear a covering on her head in the assembly of the saints where prayer
is being offered. His wife wears one as a matter of conscience. The misunderstanding
was my own, and I apologize for it.)
Now I wrote all that to say this: I have made it abundantly clear that
I do not make the time factor a test of fellowship. (You must know that
I catch flak on this from those who do.) I do think it is a mistake—and
a serious one—to raise an interpretation of "natural revelation" (i.e.,
the data) to the level of the 67th book of the Bible, then using it to
interpret the other 66 books of God's "special revelation." Having said
all this, making it very clear in most of my posts, you now want to know,
"Will you concede—not agree with, just concede—the possibility that there
are interpretations of Genesis 1/2 which both support plenary inspiration
and allow for the possibility that the universe is billions of years old?"
YES, I will and do concede to this point. Tom, have you fogotten that in
the past I was a theistic evolutionist? Further, have you not read what
I have written in this forum about granting the possibility of long periods
of time being interjected into Genesis 1? What is the point of making me
repeat these things over and over again? You say you don't get it, well
I can assure you that I don't get it either. What's the problem here, my
brother?
Until I know otherwise, I must believe YOU when you say you're not
taunting me, but I want you to believe ME when I say that you are beginning
to bug me with your quibbling. You came to this discussion as a Johnny-come-lately,
telling me you didn't want to take charge of the direction of this board,
but... you posted your reply at the very beginning of this discussion,
so that your putting of the "10 set of facts" would be there at the beginning
before readers got on down into the thread and could see where you entered
the discussion. You then throw your "10 set of facts" on the table, knowing
it will take much time and effort to effectively rebut, and in the meantime
you and I are evidently to be engaged in a never-ending discussion over
your "10 points" as well. In the interim, Hill, who I thought was feeling
some pressure, claims victory and retires. This could not have worked better
if it had been planned, although I have no way of proving it was.
I have admitted that your "10 set of facts," when examined from a materialistic/uniformitarian
standpoint are "overwhelming." Based upon what I've already experienced
on this discussion board, I'm surprised one of you OECs isn't jumping up
and down claiming victory because I admitted the "facts" were "overwhelming."
Nevertheless, you must know that because of the way this issue has now
been couched (sorry, I just couldn't resist it), I MUST now deal with these
"10 set of facts." If I don't, you can point this out, and rightly so.
Actually, I'd like to see these "10 set of facts" debated orally at a place
and time designated by men agreed upon by either side. Wouldn't that be
interesting and profitable?
I have, as you know, never questioned the actual scientifically verified
data, only the interpretation. There are many creationist websites that
deal with your "10 set of facts," but in order to demonstrate that I am
not just ignoring "the facts," I'll have to deal with these on this board.
I have written that I hope someone else will deal with these, and I still
do, but I have said that I'll do my best to deal with these if someone
else doesn't. Hill Roberts has left claiming a busy schedule. Now when
it comes to busy schedules, I would imagine we are all pretty much in the
same boat. Of course, Roberts is also claiming—and I think a little early—that
he CAME, he SAW, he CONQUERED. Now, he tells us, he must go on to more
important, pressing things. As administrator of this discussion board,
I can't quit, even if I wanted to—and I don't want to, in case you're wondering.
Even so, I am extremely busy, as we all are. To top it off, I'm trying
to get ready for a preaching/teaching trip to Kenya and Uganda. I'm leaving
on the 29th, Lord willing.
So, I hope you can appreciate that I'm quite pressed right now. Therefore,
I hope you will try to understand how I might be starting to get a little
perturbed by the direction of this discussion, even though I accept the
fact that you are not taunting me. But even your mentioning of this possibility
had to be in consideration of how it all might appear. So, brother, I'm
asking you to please cut me a little slack here. I am thanking you in advance
for your consideration in this matter.
Now, back to those "10 set of facts." I have been doing some thinking
about the best format for answering each of them, knowing that there will
be discussion back and forth. It looks to me like your earlier suggestion
to separate them into ten different threads will be the best way. As this
is your suggestion, I hope this will be acceptable to you.
Sincerely,
Allan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TomCouchman
11/19/99 10:17:43 am
Re: Reluctant OEC--Apologies
Allan:
Well, I started my last post with an apology, and I need to do the
same again. Obviously neither my attempts at levity nor my earnest questions
in that post struck the right chord. I am sorry for leaving the wrong impression.
I think we're actually near agreement on most of these matters, pending
only the YEC reply to the eleven points... and let me quickly add, preparation
for a preaching/teaching trip overseas is more important in my opinion
than your posting that reply. I hope others following this thread agree
and will understand and accept any delay as "logistical" on your part and
not reflecting any weakness in the YEC position.
My question concerning the effects of the flood stems from my efforts
to apprehend and understand the strongest possible YEC interpretation.
I was looking for your perspective on whether the flood should be regarded
as "merely" (if one can possibly apply such a term to a global catastrophe)
a water inundation of the earth, or whether (on the other extreme) it was
associated with changes in fundamental physical laws like the speed of
light and the rate of radioactive decay. As someone who has obviously studied
and thought about the matter, and who does not take the position that all
geological phenomena have to be accounted for by the flood, what do you
feel is the strongest YEC position?
I do not dispute that creation artifacts would have apparent age, and
I agree that apparent age is not in itself deceptive. The question will
be what amounts to "unavoidable" appearance of age.
I apologize again for what turned out to be cryptic comments... Forget
I mentioned it.
I appreciate the distinction between making something a issue of fellowship
and discussing it. Obviously we are never going to come any closer on issues
of dispute if we cannot discuss them (as in forums such as this one), and
discussions are going to be much more fruitful if fellowship is recognized.
Relative to most Christians I am in the position of the "weak brother"
on this matter, so I am genuinely greatful for your approach.
I thought I had read the previous posts in this thread thoroughly,
but I missed your granting the possibility that long periods of time might
have been involved in Genesis 1. For that I also apologize.
I really did not mean to hijack the thread. It seemed to me that the
discussions among those who were participating were not going anywhere,
and I thought that introduction of facts and the OEC interpretation of
those facts, and soliciting the YEC interpretation, would be a good way
of getting down the road. I am genuinely interested, as I think any truth-seeker
on this matter would be, in getting the best OEC and YEC interpretations
that we can (given that apparently nobody with a scientific background
is at this moment directly involved), so that everybody understands the
reasons that others take an opposing view. And--you never know--since I
am a reluctant OEC you might convince me to change my mind. In the meantime,
if my violation of a protocol of this discussion site and/or my continuation
to post to it is a problem, at your request I would desist.
You will not see this OEC jumping up and down and claiming victory,
even if I thought I had posted "overwhelming" evidence of an old earth,
which I don't. I am confident, as I wrote to Mathews much earlier, that
there are arguments to be made for the other side. "Victory" is not "winning"
the argument about the age of the earth. Victory is going to Africa and
winning souls.
Humbly,
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan
11/19/99 2:35:43 pm
Re: Reluctant OEC--Apologies
Tom,
I appreciate your last post and admire your good spirit. You are a
valuable participant in this forum.
Brotherly,
Allan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Thread 2
back to Thread
1
Thread
3