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.
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.