//
you're reading...
Biblical authority, Creation/Evolution

Old-Earth vs. Young-Earth

The following image I assembled breaks down the debate between Christians who accept old-earth theories such as the Big Bang and evolution and those who do not to the very core of the issue:

oldyoungcreationist

Most Christians who accept old-earth will also maintain that the Bible is a result of human error, full of contradiction, and relies on faulty translations.  This is fodder for atheists!  They have just undermined their entire belief system.  Through a series of simple questions, opponents can break the faith of old-earth Christians to ridicule in minutes.  Although they obviously disagree with our conclusions, atheists already know that YEC is the only Christian worldview that is internally consistent and defendable.

If the Bible is the word of God, then it only makes sense that we would use that to compare all other truth claims to.  If it is the word of man about a god, then it is not worthy of second thought.

Advertisements

About Tim

http://www.gracewithsalt.com

Discussion

21 thoughts on “Old-Earth vs. Young-Earth

  1. I can never understand why Christians NEED an old earth. They find all sorts of excuses to compromise and shove atheistic interpretations of the evidence into the Bible, but the Word of God is not their final authority. And what happens to them when the “evidence” changes? There are changes all the time, and if they’ve based their faith on the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies, they ultimately have nothing. So they continue to compromise and make excuses just like mentally enfeebled atheists, defending their own strange faith. Some keep it up so much they are Christians in name only, or even renounce their faith.

    Posted by Question Evol Proj (@PiltdownSupermn) | December 20, 2013, 10:58 pm
    • I agree. I tell people all the time – when I debate atheists there are normally no winners to the debate. When I debate old-earth creationists – there is!

      Posted by Tim | December 20, 2013, 11:01 pm
    • “I can never understand why Christians NEED an old earth. ”

      For the same reason some christians feel the need to believe in a ROUND earth. They want to know the actual truth and understand reality. Bear in mind several centuries ago christians rejected the idea that the earth went around the sun for the same reasons. They saw it as contradicting the bible and therefore violently opposed it.

      Posted by agnophilo | December 23, 2013, 11:57 pm
  2. Proper science is naturalistic not necessarily atheistic. If it supported the Genesis account there would be little argument – but there is plenty of argument (within Christianity as well as from outside it). So,me Christians SINCERELY believe Earth is very old even though that does not come from the Bible (which is not a scientific text). They would prefer to be sincere even if that provides ‘fodder’ for other people.

    Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | December 20, 2013, 11:52 pm
    • You said proper science is naturalistic but not atheistic. Naturalistic equals atheistic because God is supernatural and thus ruled out of the picture. Science simply means the exploration of truth… period. If truth COULD come supernaturally, how could you test that scientifically if science is limited to naturalistic means? I find it so comical when atheists claim that science proves there is no god – well OF COURSE it does. If I tried to see if there are no giraffes while excluding giraffes from my tests, I would probably come to the conclusion that there were no giraffes…. but that doesn’t make it so.

      Posted by Tim | December 20, 2013, 11:59 pm
      • Well science is ‘open’ to a God that ‘could’ be discovered but not one of which there is NO visible sign at all because he is ‘supernatural’.

        Many Christians also accept that science should be based on naturalism as otherwise it is not science. The problem is that proper science does not support the opening chapters of Genesis, even though God could have ensured that it did. Just insisting on adding the supernatural to somehow ‘make’ science fit Genesis is not on – that is an abuse of the scientific method.

        It sounds like you are saying that God must be anti-science. Because he hides out of sight of naturalistic science – the ONLY science we have or can have.

        Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | December 21, 2013, 12:18 am
        • I am not implying that God’s actions cannot be discovered by science. It’s called creation science for a reason. But it is also historical science – and that is problematic because it leaves the realm of what most consider strict science. The past is no longer observable, testable, or repeatable – and those three qualities are required for science. So you tell me if it is science or not? I say it is because it is a pursuit of knowledge, but at the same time I recognize that science that deals with the past is going to have major hurdles in place. Since it cannot be tested like modern science can, a LOT of interpretation is needed… and two can play at that game.

          Posted by Tim | December 21, 2013, 12:25 am
          • You are implying that God himself cannot be discovered by science.

            Creation science is not science because it ignores, twists or cherry picks the evidence. That is why even many Christians, who have examined its claims, REJECT creation science. There is NO reason from science – only from religion – to assume that the things YECs claims operated ‘differently’ in the unobserved past actually did operate ‘differently’.

            Whether or not you realise it, you are arguing that science must either be Christian creation science or else it is ‘atheistic’ and thus not real science because it ignores the ‘supernatural’ whatever that is.

            That is a piece of unacceptable bigotry from fundamentalism. Sorry, but it is.

            Naturalistic equals naturalistic ie it ONLY considers what is, undeniably, real. If God chooses to hide from reality that means that creation science introduces considerations that are not undeniably real ie that the Bible is ‘infallible history’ because it was written by a supernatural, invisible, deity that knows everything, has all power and can be everywhere at the same time.

            “If truth COULD come supernaturally, how could you test that scientifically”. How indeed. Only by behaving as YEC science deniers do?

            “I am not implying that God’s actions cannot be discovered by science”. You are trying to have your cake and eat it. God is supernatural and beyond real ie naturalistic science, and his actions in nature cannot be tested, yet YECs also demand that things we observe and which real science can account for in a more sophisticated and diverse manner ie the fossil record must be interpreted instead as God’s (biblical) ‘actions’ ie the fossil record ‘cannot’ highlight millions of years of past, evolving, lifeforms but must point instead to a year-long worldwide flood a la Genesis (even though such notions are very easily debunked as I have done online in various places on Amazon and at the BCSE community forum over recent years).

            Anyone who rejects Christian or Muslim creation science and has no other biased agenda generally accepts the SAME science about the past – whatever their religious faith or lack of such.

            Atheists say there is no God because the real evidence does not match Genesis. Their science (owned by NOBODY and shared by many who are religious as well), does test hypotheses. Creation science

            If I was anti-Christian as some YECs imply, I would attack theistic evolutionists too even whilst agreeing with their position on science (some atheists/agnostics probably do that).

            A somewhat time-consuming, though also rushed and also delayed, reply as I need to sleep sometimes and am also trying to spend a little less time online over Christmas!

            Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | December 21, 2013, 5:15 pm
          • By your logic we should throw the prisons open and let all the rapists and murderers convicted by forensic and DNA science loose. In reality if we know enough about the present and have remnants of the past we can and do test hypotheses about past events. This argument (widely circulated by creationists) that science is valid but only when it comes to recent phenomenon is just spin. There are living trees that have lived longer than some creationists claim the universe has existed.

            Posted by agnophilo | December 24, 2013, 12:05 am
  3. I meant to delete the words “creation science” in my comments above.

    Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | December 21, 2013, 5:26 pm
  4. People redefine “science” in atheistic and naturalistic terms, but that is entirely self-serving and a case of moving the goalposts. (That ridiculous court case involving Dover was a clear case of stacking the deck and moving the goalposts. It was an intellectual travesty and the judge was willingly led into his absurd ruling.) It is also contrary to the spirit of true scientific inquiry. Despite the protestations of the Evo Sith, science is a philosophy. Actually, there are many philosophies regarding science.

    Posted by Question Evol Proj (@PiltdownSupermn) | December 22, 2013, 1:24 pm
    • Like I said, Bob will, NEVER speak to me only ABOUT me.

      There is no substance to his biased remarks.

      Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | December 22, 2013, 11:26 pm
    • Naturalism, for a theist, simply means that god acts through the laws of nature rather than (or in addition to) miracles, which are supposed instances of the properties of the universe being suspended in order to let impossible things happen. I see no reason why a god would need to reverse elements of it’s own creation. For instance a supernaturalist would look at a waterfall and say “look at this beautiful thing god created, he put all of these rocks and this dirt and this water just so!”. A naturalist christian would say “Actually, god created the universe with the property of gravity which allowed meteors to draw each other together to form a sphere of super-heated liquid rock, which after hundreds of millions of years of cooling formed a solid crust which formed cracks due to changes in the liquid and moving conditions inside the sphere. These moving conditions sometimes then pushed matter up or down, forming mountains which, when evaporated rain fell down onto them (again due to gravity) it followed the path of least resistance and moved down the mountains forming rivers, some of which came to similarly disjointed and uneven land, which produced a waterfall.

      The first view has a god that makes every little detail of the universe individually (and brings up problems like “why did god make the waterfall there knowing that guy in the canoe would plummet to his death?). The second view is of a creator which does not just make a waterfall, but makes every kind of waterfall imaginable, and makes new waterfalls on billions of worlds of every imaginable configuration, and will keep making waterfalls until the end of time.

      If you ask me the naturalist has a much more profound view of creation. And it is made even more profound by the fact that the atheist, who does not assume a creator, can still share in the awe of the creative powers of nature.

      Posted by agnophilo | December 24, 2013, 12:14 am
  5. “Most Christians who accept old-earth will also maintain that the Bible is a result of human error, full of contradiction, and relies on faulty translations.”

    Citations please? How did you make this determination? What surveys are you relying upon?

    Or are you simply assigning such negative traits to your opposition because you think it will make your position “superior” by default? I affirm an old earth and yet I don’t maintain any of those alleged assumptions.

    As to “faulty translations”, which translations are faulty? How did you determine they are faulty? Are you fluent in Koine Greek, Aramaic, and Classical Hebrew? Or do you accept those allegations by faith?

    By the way, one of the main reasons I left the young earth view is that it requires that one impose many contradictions into the Biblical text and it embraces the human errors perpetrated by faulty TRADITIONS—including reliance on archaic translations which were well done for their day but which naturally lead to misunderstandings (and therefore errors) today.

    Posted by bibleandscienceforum | July 17, 2014, 3:06 am
    • Yes, this is a generalization based on the hundreds of conversations I have had with theistic evolutionists. I would say around 95% of those conversations have eventually led to “the bible was written by man” excuse – which is basically saying that the Bible is untrustworthy, full of contradictions, etc. I am glad to hear you don’t buy into those excuses.

      Posted by Tim | July 17, 2014, 1:30 pm
      • So, who could the bible have possibly been written by, if not by humans?

        Posted by Arkenaten | October 3, 2014, 6:22 pm
        • I’m not saying the Bible was not written by humans, but when opponents use this position they are saying that because it is written by humans that it is subject to bias and problems, etc. What they fail to mention is the concept that the Bible is written by humans, GUIDED by the Holy Spirit. In other words – God is powerful enough to make sure the words He wanted communicated to us were recorded accurately and preserved correctly.

          Posted by Tim | October 3, 2014, 6:28 pm

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: