Posted on 02/18/2009 3:30:46 PM PST by DallasMike
I became a Christian in my sophomore year of college. The people who had led me to the Lord immediately began my discipleship. They taught me to evangelize and they taught me what they felt a Christian should believe. But most importantly they were a loving family of believers which was a welcome oasis for someone like me whose home life had been less than familial. Thus, when I was told that Christians must believe in a young-earth and a global flood, I went along willingly. I believed. Being a physics major in college I had not taken any geology courses. I knew there were physics problems, but I thought I could solve them.
When I graduated from college, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid off many. I did graduate work in philosophy, and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. After six months, I found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for a major oil company.
This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers and wonder how the flood could have deposited all that sediment and still given time for footprints to be formed if it was all deposited in one year. One could follow beds with footprints from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by such thicknesses of sediment that much time would have been required. I would see buried mountains which had experienced more than ten thousands of feet of erosion, which required more time than a single year. Yet, my belief system required that the sediments in those buried mountains had to have been deposited by the flood. I would see karsts (sinkholes due to limestone erosion) and salt sandwiched in the middle of the geologic column (supposedly during the middle of the flood). Yet the flood waters would have been saturated with limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. And salt can only be removed from the ocean waters by evaporation. It was inconceivable that salt could be deposited during the Flood. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow. But my faith in the young-earth interpretation told me that the data were not to be believed.
...
Eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true. I took a poll of all eight of the graduates from ICR's school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question, "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"
That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew very silent on the phone, sighed, and softly said, "No!" A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either.
Being through with creationism, I was almost through with Christianity. I was thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that if the earth were not young and the flood not global, then the Bible was false. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. During that time, I re-read a book I had reviewed prior to its publication. It was Alan Hayward's Creation/ Evolution (Triangle, 1985). Although I had reviewed it prior to its publication in 1985, I had not been ready for the views he expressed. He presented a wonderful "Days of Proclamation" view which pulled me back from the edge of atheism. Although I believe Alan applied it to the earth in an unworkable fashion, applied differently, his view had the power to unite the data with the Scripture. That is what I have done with my views. Without that I would now be an atheist. There is much in Alan's book I agree with and much I disagree with, but his book was very important in keeping me in the faith. While his book may not have changed the debate totally, it did change my life.
It was my lack of knowledge that allowed me to go along willingly and become a young-earth creationist. It was isolation from contradictory data, a fear of contradictory data and a strong belief in the young-earth interpretation that kept me there for a long time. The biggest lesson I have learned in this journey is to read the works of those with whom you disagree. God is not afraid of the data.
Note that the author said that he had "faith in the young-earth interpretation," not faith in God. When we place our faith in God, we're not afraid of God has showed through his marvelous creation.
Good post.
I once had tried to argue the young earth theory w/ a fossil collecting friend of mine (i also collect fossils/minerals).
Felt like a fool doing it. Went against everything I had observed.
Currently in the ID school of thought.
Great post.
You will probably get flack for it but its a point worth making.
The literalists on both sides are being silly. [science literalism and genesis literalism]
The writer demonstrates extremely limited understanding of young earth creationism. Too bad!
interpreting the flood correctly or incorrectly is NOT interpreting Creation, since they are over 1000 years apart
Try taking the days of creation, in the order of creation, and making evolution fit
then tell me that the Bible and evolution are compatible.
cuz they aint.
Excellent post!
Christians who claim that we have to deny physicial reality (as perceived via our senses) in order to be Christians only hurt the cause of Christ. As St. Augustine pointed out, such people make Christianity into a laughingstock.
I know that God created the Universe and everything in it, including the human race. I also know that Adam and Eve existed, and that the Fall occurred. The exact nature of their existence, the details of the Fall, and the precise method by which God created everything remain a mystery.
If you could tap into the "broadcast" and record it, you could recreate the whole thing at any time anywhere (in whole or in part).
http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html provides a brief on the concept.
Which means a whole lot of things. One of them is that the YEC crowd puts entirely too much faith in one flood.
As you noted so well there are buried mountain ranges covered with sedimentation so thick it would take hundreds of millions of years to precipitate the limestone out of the water.
Ping!
I have always wondered, if God has what it takes to create the Earth wouldn’t he have enough oomph make it look like anything He wanted? We go to Disney World and ooh and aah as we ride through the haunted mansion. It looks like it’s old, quite old and inhabited by all sorts of ghosts and spirits. No one, except the very young, think that what they are seeing is real. They know the edifice is not as old it appears. It was designed and built to look old.
I expect that God has enough of sense of humor to put all sorts of things in His creation to mess with the minds of those who are inclined to question either His existence or His ability to create everything that is or has ever been.
So, are you a Creationist, DallasMike?
“God is not afraid of the data.”
Bingo. Not only that, he gave us the brains to interpret the data. He’d be disappointed if we didn’t try. He’d be furious if we knowingly misused it.
So few Christians believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. I think these stories are only published to make all Christians look like nuts.
And a great counter to the Young Earth/Institute of Creation Research types is “Reasons to Believe” (RTB) - headed by Dr. Hugh Ross.
RTB, and Dr. Ross believe in old universe - but also believe that for anything resembling evolution to take place - requires the Hand of God ... the Intelligent Design argument.
With a PhD in Astrophysics, Dr. Ross provides very intelligent discussion on the creation of the universe ....and can get into “the big bang” theory, and even string theory ....and also do a reasonable job of representing the accuracy of Genesis - and how there is no conflict!
Dr. Ross has lots of good books available, and if you google on “Reasons to Believe” - you can find more excellent information and materials at his web site.
Judaism thinks differently.
Which? Genesis 1 or 2?
Yes, I've read that -- thanks!
What an interesting concept. The first thing that came to mind was the Beatles' Penny Lane:
And though she feels as if she's in a play
She is anyway
Very much so. Just don't lump me in with the Young-Earth Creationists.
Thanks. I think very highly of Dr. Ross. I have loaned or given his books out to people like the author whose faith was shaken when they encountered scientific (and God's) reality. They were much relieved when they found out that there is no conflict between the Bible and science.
It's feasible to think of "being cast into outer darkness" as erasure from an incredibly complex hologram.
The only explanation that makes sense to me isshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
That’s good, because I was on a thread last night, with several FReepers avowing strong Christian faith, while attacking Creationists for all they were worth. I found it puzzling.
As noted by a previous poster, the apparent holographic nature of the universe certainly frees God from the constraints placed upon Him by literalists. God exists outside of time. It could have happened in a twinkling of an eye, in an instant, from an earthly perspective, as if that perspective existed at the moment of creation. We know that not to be true, due to Biblical accounts, whether these accounts are to be taken literally or as parable is beside the point.
The thought that strikes me, though, is that the Biblical literalists are in good stead with God, following His word, unafraid of appearing as fools for God to the world. If for some reason a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis actually is incorrect, their literalism in has in no way endangered their salvation.
Not necessarily so, for scientific literalists.
“It’s amazing how easily people accept that Jesus spoke in parables but have problems understanding that God would too. “
The Bible says Jesus taught in parables. Genesis is never defined as a parable.
If you would make anything a parable, the Red Sea could have been a myth, Moses could have been a fiction, they all pretended the water tasted like wine, and Jesus just swam heroically through a storm in a shallow (scientifically, who walks on water?). Most importantly, Jesus need not have resurrected. Liberals already say His resurrection is metaphorical, whatever.
It all becomes whatever.
Ross has a convincing argument for the “long creation” story, but I am unclear as to his idea that at some moment another kind of homonoid creature became a human. Kind of an “evolutionary zap”. Then there was Adam. He rather makes it clear it was not Neandertal, but what was it?
This all seems a bit odd.
Nevertheless, he does point out the young earth is not necessarily taught in Genesis. Heard this also from a Bible Professor that noted the whole Hebrew “day” argument was overworked for the context. Could have been long periods, like the “Day of the Lord”. But, this is still good biblical Creationism; just not 168 hours long.
It becomes a nice little social club, rich with traditions, and a moral code that, if followed on a societal level, leads to a less primitive life.
I've been told, by Jewish people, that Jews can be atheist, and still be Jews. They can avail themselves of the social club, the rich traditions and the moral code, without acknowledging a power higher than themselves. Scientists, who have found themselves bereft of meaning as a result of their own dour materialism, certainly can become Jews to assuage their existential angst.
So, why, then, is Christianity such a focus? Because it's the dominant paradigm in our society, and must be brought to heel, that's why.
You said (in a different way) what I’ve tried to explain to others about how I want to respond to God when I see Him at last:
I’d rather be able to say that I believed/acted/lived based on what I thought He said, instead of saying that I tried to make what He said match what I thought I saw.
Conversation with Him will, I believe, be rather candid...with nothing but truth involved. Specious arguments and prideful “interpretation” won’t trump what He says He meant.
C
The real story is somebody actually changed their mind!
Either way, I think that is a first. LOL
I've made that point on other threads. The response that I get is that Jesus told the crowds that the parables were were just allegories and not descriptions of actual events. Apparently, they take solace in the existence of the world's first disclaimer!
The whole argument that God just made the universe look old is silly. It is what it is. God is by nature a gardener - he builds things slowly, her nurtures them. Like the Church.
The science is solid. The universe is 13 billion years old. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Hint: these are the ages from the point of view of someone on earth.
Genesis and physical observation are not incompatible. The more we learn the more we see God in everything. That is why so many prominent biologists and biophysicists have moved away from atheism over the last 15 years.
bttt
Not really.
So, are you a Creationist, Buck W.?
How do YOU define creationist?
Your definition is what matters to you, Buck W.
So, are you a Creationist?
“Your definition is what matters to you, Buck W.”
Well, yes, that’s true—but I asked for YOUR definition.
Regardless, no I am not a creationist.
Then Judaism ignores the Bible
What both "young earthers" and "old earthers" don't seem to get, Uhaul. Time is not only relative, but God exists outside of it.
Show me where Genesis 1 and 2 differ
Well, do you consider yourself a Christian?
That’s nonsensical to the point of being offensive to Jews.
Yes, I do.
That’s two questions. How many more before we get to a revelation?
Not when I am responding to his comment claiming to speak for all Judaism
I'm just making sure I understand where you're coming from, that's all.
I find it puzzling, that a professing Christian would deny His Creation.
How do you rationalize this? It certainly doesn't seem to be by faith.
If one gets caught up in a literal interpretation you can lose the actual meaning of the scripture.
One would not read Psalm 104:5 to think that the Earth was motionless, the meaning of the passage is that God created a safe and stable Earth.
I linked to a statement issued by the Rabbinical Council of America, which speaks for Orthodox Rabbis in the United States.
~~~~~~~~~
There are creationists (those who believe God's word is true and that Almighty God created -- caused to exist where nothing had existed before -- everything: space, time, mate, energy, life -- the universe as we observe it...
Then, there are the YEC (Young Earth "Creationists") who place their own constraints upon God, and who demand that all believers must adhere to their own literal misinterpretation of Genesis and, who, thereby, worship at the feet of the MAN/MEN who wrote this:
For as much as our Christian epoch falls many ages after the beginning of the world, and the number of years before that backward is not only more troublesome, but (unless greater care be taken) more lyable to errour; also it hath pleased our modern chronologers, to adde to that generally received hypothesis (which asserted the Julian years, with their three cycles by a certain mathematical prolepsis, to have run down to the very beginning of the world) an artificial epoch, framed out of three cycles multiplied in themselves; for the Solar Cicle being multiplied by the Lunar, or the number of 28 by 19, produces the great Paschal Cycle of 532 years, and that again multiplied by fifteen, the number of the indiction, there arises the period of 7980 years, which was first (if I mistake not) observed by Robert Lotharing, Bishop of Hereford, in our island of Britain, and 500 years after by Joseph Scaliger fitted for chronological uses, and called by the name of the Julian Period, because it conteined a cycle of so many Julian years. Now if the series of the three minor cicles be from this present year extended backward unto precedent times, the 4713 years before the beginning of our Christian account will be found to be that year into which the first year of the indiction, the first of the Lunar Cicle, and the first of the Solar will fall. Having placed there fore the heads of this period in the kalends of January in that proleptick year, the first of our Christian vulgar account must be reckoned the 4714 of the Julian Period, which, being divided by 15. 19. 28. will present us with the 4 Roman indiction, the 2 Lunar Cycle, and the 10 Solar, which are the principal characters of that year.We find moreover that the year of our fore-fathers, and the years of the ancient Egyptians and Hebrews were of the same quantity with the Julian, consisting of twelve equal moneths, every of them conteining 30 days, (for it cannot be proved that the Hebrews did use lunary moneths before the Babylonian Captivity) adjoying to the end of the twelfth moneth, the addition of five dayes, and every four year six. And I have observed by the continued succession of these years, as they are delivered in holy writ, that the end of the great Nebuchadnezars and the beginning of Evilmerodachs (his sons) reign, fell out in the 3442 year of the world, but by collation of Chaldean history and the astronomical cannon, it fell out in the 186 year c Nabonasar, and, as by certain connexion, it must follow in the 562 year before the Christian account, and of the Julian Period, the 4152. and from thence I gathered the creation of the world did fall out upon the 710 year of the Julian Period, by placing its beginning in autumn: but for as much as the first day of the world began with the evening of the first day of the week, I have observed that the Sunday, which in the year 710 aforesaid came nearest the Autumnal Æquinox, by astronomical tables (notwithstanding the stay of the sun in the dayes of Joshua, and the going back of it in the dayes c Ezekiah) happened upon the 23 day of the Julian October; from thence concluded that from the evening preceding that first day of the Julian year, both the first day of the creation and the first motion of time are to be deduced.
— J. Ussher, The Annals of the World iv (1658)
...and further "refined"
..."heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water," and that "this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning."
by one
John Lightfoot (1602-1675), Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University was a contemporary of Ussher. Lightfoot published his calculations in 1644, before Ussher's were completed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To quote one of the cleareast thinkers here on FR:
Be wary of those who would have you place their own constraints upon God.
I realize it was a link, but I responded to your statement.
If Judaism, as you linked to, believes that evolution is compatible with the Bible, then Judaism does not believe the Bible.
For us (the Rabbinical Council of America), these fundamental beliefs do not rest on the purported weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory, and cannot be undermined by the elimination of gaps in scientific knowledge.”
If you faith is not inherent in the incorrectness of a scientific theory, it can also never be undermined by the furtherance of knowledge under that theory.
If one doesn’t take literal statements spoken literally, they tend to believe error, also
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.