An Argument Against Old Earth Being a Fact

My Dad and I were talking today about a particular theory out there in science, which says that no one can prove that the universe did not come into existence 5 minutes ago. Memories of people can be implanted. Things can look old. If it cannot be proven that the universe is more than 5 minutes old, then how can it possibly be proven that the universe is billions of years old?

Now, this does not get us to creation. It doesn’t even prove a young earth. However, it is a powerful argument against the idea that an old earth has been proven to be true. An old earth is only an hypothesis. The evolutionist might respond by saying that we are only dealing in probabilities. The above argument, however, is not an argument concerning probabilities. The probability of an old or young earth would have to be argued on other grounds. However, it does seem that, considered within a very narrow parameter, the above argument should be sufficient to prove that an old age for the earth can never be proven.

Advertisements

104 Comments

  1. December 9, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    Works in reverse, too. No one can prove that the universe did not come into existence five billion years ago. The age of the universe is not a question the Bible is interested in. It’s irrelevant to the purpose of the Bible. It’s always been a mystery to me why people are so interested in this subject. What’s important is that God created, not when.

  2. Steve Drake said,

    December 9, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    The age of the universe is not a question the Bible is interested in. It’s irrelevant to the purpose of the Bible.

    Oh, Richard, certainly relevant, and of extreme importance to Scriptural fidelity. I realize you don’t believe this, but unless you take a pencil to paper and do for yourself the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, you will continue to parade this false mantra ad infinitum Do the math, man.

    As to the gospel itself, oh my goodness Richard. Do you understand how an old earth destroys the basis of the gospel itself? You’ve got to get a grip, brother. Do the work. Study the chronologists. Read Julius Africanus, Eusebius of Ceasarea, Augustine, Bede the Veneralble, Ussher and the Westminster Divines, Luther & Calvin. See what the church has believed and taught for 1800 years, and then ask yourself why the change, what happened?

  3. December 10, 2016 at 6:53 am

    No scientists “proves” the earth is old as if it were a mathematical theorem just like we don’t prove that a killer committed a crime. Even eyewitness evidence can be wrong and so you could (and many today do) counter that we can’t prove a particular person is guilty. But that is why scientists generally don’t use the word “prove” though the press frequently reports this in headlines all the time. Its about reasonable doubt. We can’t prove fossils are fossils? I have a fossil fish in my office but did I see that fish when it was alive (Where you there?) to know it was alive? No, but the shape of the dark chemical stains (which aren’t even real bones) leads me to a reasonable inference that there was a fish that came to leave is chemically altered remains on in a slab of sandstone and I don’t really sit around and doubt this even though I have never proven it to be correct. I was at an Answers in Genesis conference a few weeks ago and the speaker showed a “fossil fish” on the screen and asked what we could know about it and his answer was that we “know” that it is a fish and that it is dead? And he said that is all we could know. Uh, how could he possible “know this without inference from evidence? And since his utter confidence in his knowledge is derived from inference from evidence why does he assume that this is all that can be known. It is not unreasonable to have no reasonable doubt about historical claims based on a preponderance of evidence. That doesn’t make them true but it does make it reasonable.

  4. Ron said,

    December 10, 2016 at 8:14 am

    I think the first paragraph confuses proof with persuasion. It turns on the notion that proof is invalidated given an appeal to memory.

  5. Ron said,

    December 10, 2016 at 8:32 am

    Steve,

    I hold to young earth but adding up the years of man and adding five days to arrive at the age of the earth begs the question of 24 hour days.

  6. Ron said,

    December 10, 2016 at 9:53 am

    “The age of the universe is not a question the Bible is interested in.”

    Richard,

    I’m not sure what it means to say that the Bible is not “interested” in the age of the universe. Certainly God is interested in all the Bible teaches. A more germane question is whether the Bible actually reveals the age of the universe.

    “It’s irrelevant to the purpose of the Bible.”

    Incidental might be a better word.

  7. Steve Drake said,

    December 10, 2016 at 10:41 am

    Hi Ron,
    How? I don’t follow.

  8. twebb2 said,

    December 10, 2016 at 10:58 am

    The post states in the second paragraph that this is “a powerful argument.” Honestly, it’s not, it’s just powerful skepticism.

  9. Ron said,

    December 10, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Steve,

    By determining the time from Adam forward you would merely determine that – the days of mankind. I surmise that then you would like to add the period of time that spans creation to Adam. Indeed, by adding those two values together we’d arrive at the age of the earth. So, you are absolutely correct… Given 24 hour days, the genealogies will lead us to the age of the earth. The two values being only days apart. Am I tracking so far?

  10. Don said,

    December 10, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    This isn’t really a “powerful argument” about anything other than that we should be careful with our language and not claim that science “proves” anything in the sense that a mathematical theorem or logical syllogism can be proven.

  11. Ron said,

    December 10, 2016 at 12:44 pm

    It’s a bit worse than that, Don. This post is not a commentary on inductive inference as it relates to asserting the consequent (if that’s what you’re thinking). It’s a theory about memory as it relates even to *deductive* syllogism. It “proves” way too much. Not only would “the above argument… be sufficient to prove that an old age for the earth can never be proven.” It implies that you cannot prove that you are more than five minutes old. In fact, since the present is fleeting, what can be proved?

    It’s Clarkian skepticism that is based upon the premise that since memory can at times be faulty, we can never know any proposition pertaining to the past. Infallible internalism.

  12. December 10, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    Post #2 (Steve) and post #6 (Ron). Steve, I guess you’re assuming that the genealogies of Scripture are tight, that is, with no gaps or missing persons in them. I don’t think that’s true. Also, how does an old earth “destroy” the gospel? If God created the earth five minutes ago or 50 billion years ago, what difference does that make for the truth of the gospel? The gospel is always true no matter how old the earth is.

    Ron, the Bible isn’t interested in the age of the earth in the sense that (a) it doesn’t speak to the subject either directly or indirectly and (b) no biblical doctrine hinges on how old the earth is. The true age of the earth (and the universe) can be found in Deuteronomy 29.29a. No one’s salvation depends on the age of the earth but, instead, on what God has done on the earth through Jesus Christ, His Son.

  13. Ron said,

    December 10, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    “If God created the earth five minutes ago or 50 billion years ago, what difference does that make for the truth of the gospel?”

    Richard,

    If God created the earth five minutes ago, we’d have no revelation of the historical Jesus. He never came. The gospel is lost.

    “The gospel is always true no matter how old the earth is.”

    Obviously not.

    “Ron, the Bible isn’t interested in the age of the earth in the sense that (a) it doesn’t speak to the subject either directly or indirectly and (b) no biblical doctrine hinges on how old the earth is.”

    Well, at least now you’re willing to qualify your assertion that the “Bible isn’t interested” in the age of the earth. Yet still, your assertion that the Bible doesn’t speak to the subject dismisses out of hand – without argumentation no less, that the Bible actually might intend to communicate 24 hour days. But there’s more. Since your assertion is true only *if* the Bible doesn’t intend to communicate 24 hour days, your assertion, even if true, is left without a defense. It’s just, well, an assertion. You dismiss the very possibility that God has revealed 24 hour days and then follow that dismissal with the assertion that the age of the earth is hidden from us. That sounds to me like defining your position up from and then pointing to your own self-serving definition at a defense.

    “No one’s salvation depends on the age of the earth but, instead, on what God has done on the earth through Jesus Christ, His Son.”

    There was no incarnation if creation doesn’t comport with His coming over 2000 years ago. No incarnation, no cross. No cross, no dice. So, at the very least, the age of the earth must have at least some relevance to our salvation. The Bible must speak to subject at least in some respect.

    Feel free to qualify a bit more but please don’t expect me to respond to more question begging. I can respect long earth proponents, but I fail to see how you represent them well.

  14. Ron said,

    December 10, 2016 at 11:00 pm

    “If God created the earth five minutes ago or 50 billion years ago, what difference does that make for the truth of the gospel?”

    Richard,

    If God created the earth five minutes ago, we’d have no revelation of the historical Jesus. He never came. The gospel is lost.

    “The gospel is always true no matter how old the earth is.”

    Obviously not.

    “Ron, the Bible isn’t interested in the age of the earth in the sense that (a) it doesn’t speak to the subject either directly or indirectly and (b) no biblical doctrine hinges on how old the earth is.”

    Well, at least now you’re willing to qualify your assertion that the “Bible isn’t interested” in the age of the earth. Yet still, your assertion that the Bible doesn’t speak to the subject dismisses out of hand – without argumentation no less, that the Bible actually might intend to communicate 24 hour days. But there’s more. Since your assertion is true only *if* the Bible doesn’t intend to communicate 24 hour days, your assertion, even if true, is left without a defense. It’s just, well, an assertion. You dismiss the very possibility that God has revealed 24 hour days and then follow that dismissal with the assertion that the age of the earth is hidden from us. That sounds to me like defining your position up front and then pointing to your own self-serving definition as a defense.

    “No one’s salvation depends on the age of the earth but, instead, on what God has done on the earth through Jesus Christ, His Son.”

    There was no incarnation if creation doesn’t comport with His coming over 2000 years ago. No incarnation, no cross. No cross, no dice. So, at the very least, the age of the earth must have at least some relevance to our salvation. The Bible must speak to subject at least in some respect.

    Feel free to qualify a bit more but please don’t expect me to respond to more question begging. I can respect long earth proponents, but I fail to see how you represent them well.

  15. December 10, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    Ron: I believe the days were 24 hours long. But, that being so doesn’t prove a young earth any more than it proves an old earth.. Not sure where you got the idea that I’m against 24-hour days.

  16. Don said,

    December 11, 2016 at 1:50 am

    Ron 11,
    If someone wants to believe in Last Tuesdayism then let them go ahead. Or claim that there’s no “proof” that, say, George Washington was the first president, then fine with me. Or if you want to think that you’re lying in a hospital bed while Descartes’ evil demon makes you think you’re reading this, then go ahead. But please leave me out of such nonsense.

    Lane’s “argument” has nothing useful or relevant to say about the age of the earth. At best it’s a caution that scientists are sometimes too casual with the use of the word “proof.”

  17. Ron said,

    December 11, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Richard,

    A gap theory between 24 hour days is to me a shell game. It’s equivocal at best. Regardless, a lot more was said. Thx.

    We agree, Don.

  18. Steve Drake said,

    December 11, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Ron @ 9,

    Given 24 hour days, the genealogies will lead us to the age of the earth. The two values being only days apart. Am I tracking so far?

    Yes, you would have to assume non-chronological, non-sequential, non-24 hour days for the first 6 days + 1 day of Sabbath rest to dismiss the logical conclusion when adding the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 with these 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 that the the creation itself including the earth is not approximately 6000 years old. Is this still question begging?

  19. Steve Drake said,

    December 11, 2016 at 11:29 am

    Richard @ 12,

    Steve, I guess you’re assuming that the genealogies of Scripture are tight, that is, with no gaps or missing persons in them. I don’t think that’s true.

    Yes, the chronogenealogies are tight, no gaps. Did you do the math? I’m not trying to be flippant here Richard. I didn’t believe it myself until I actually put pencil to paper and added it up. Start with Adam at Year 0 (Anno Mundi) and proceed forward with Seth at Year 130, Enosh at Year 235, etc. The church’s great historians and chronologists through the ages have done the same thing. It’s fascinating to see the relationships. Then check Genesis 5 & 11 against 1 Chron. 1 and see if the order and names match.

    Also, how does an old earth “destroy” the gospel? If God created the earth five minutes ago or 50 billion years ago, what difference does that make for the truth of the gospel? The gospel is always true no matter how old the earth is.

    Since Ron has already so ably answered this question, I only wish to elaborate a bit further that an old earth puts death before sin, not death after sin, it puts natural evil before sin, and depending on your classification of those in the human lineage prior to Adam, it also puts moral evil before sin. This itself is of monumental importance in historic Christianity. It destroys the sin-death relationship the Church has always held. It destroys the very basis for Christ being the answer to this sin-death problem. It also maligns and impugns our Savior Himself as the agent in Creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16) and attributes to Christ in His work of Creation the awful natural and moral evil in the world prior to Adam. To do this is blasphemy.

  20. Ron said,

    December 11, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    Steve,

    No, you’re not question begging with that post. In fact, I like very much how you framed the debate rather than pointing to genealogies and assuming our view of creation. Nicely done, I think.

  21. December 12, 2016 at 12:58 am

    Steve (#19) – there’s no such thing as a year zero. You have start with year 1. For example, when calculating the age of someone born in 50 BC who died in AD 23, it would be 50 + 23 + 1 = 74. You must add the 1 to get from BC to AD. So you’ll need to re-calculate your chronologies. Also, are you taking into account that lives overlap (son born while father still living) when adding the numbers? If you’re going to waste your time, you might as well be accurate.

  22. Don said,

    December 12, 2016 at 1:40 am

    Ron 17,
    Thanks, I wasn’t sure if you were defending or just explaining.

  23. Ron said,

    December 12, 2016 at 8:27 am

    Steve,

    If there were no year zero you’d want to subtract 1, not add 1.

  24. Ron said,

    December 12, 2016 at 9:00 am

    Steve,

    My last post should’ve been addressed to Richard. My advice… don’t waste your time. Scripture doesn’t reveal a gap, yet Richard seems to know there is one. Gap is a shell game because it simply extends the duration of one day billions of years while claiming what precedes and follows the gap are 24 hour days. That cashes out as a very long day. Scofield popularized this novelty, though it didn’t originate with him.

  25. Steve Drake said,

    December 12, 2016 at 9:18 am

    Ron @ 24,
    I was just about to post my response to Richard. I never think, except in the power and might of the Holy Spirit, that my post will directly change the mind of someone entrenched in old earth thinking, but for those others who will be reading these posts, who are watching the dialog, not participating, but thinking through the arguments. This is a crucially important discussion to historic Christianity, and like the Councils of old that met to refute error, we need more godly men who are willing to stand on the historic consensus, expose this error, and like sin, put it to death.

  26. Steve Drake said,

    December 12, 2016 at 10:01 am

    Richard @ 21,

    there’s no such thing as a year zero. You have start with year 1. For example, when calculating the age of someone born in 50 BC who died in AD 23, it would be 50 + 23 + 1 = 74. You must add the 1 to get from BC to AD.

    For the purposes of this exercise, I was not asking you to get from BC to AD, simply to add up the years from Adam to Noah, and then Noah to Abraham. One must get to BC years at some point, granted, but I was simply asking you to add up the years.

    Technically, you are correct, start with Year 1 AM. Anno Mundi (AM), following Ussher, is ‘Years of the World from Creation’.

    Therefore, during the first six days of 1 AM, the entire universe was created ex nihilo including Adam on day 6.

    Again, following Ussher, you have the following:
    130AM – Seth born
    235AM – Enosh born
    930AM – Adam died
    1056AM – Noah born
    1656AM – Methuselah dies, the Flood starts
    2008AM -Abram born

    At this point, you can root Abraham in years before Christ, and move forward. Ussher in his “The Annals of the World” puts Abraham at 1996BC. Others have followed similarly.

    Also, are you taking into account that lives overlap (son born while father still living) when adding the numbers?

    I hope you see from the above that lives overlapping is specious. Ask me again in a follow-up post if you don’t see it.

    I see in your post #21 you fail to answer the most serious charges against an old earth. Ignoring those charges does not help your cause Richard, but only serves to heighten the delusion that old earth proponents can live comfortably mocking the Christ they claim to be their Savior, impugning His Holy character, and safe in their blasphemy.

  27. Ron said,

    December 12, 2016 at 11:09 am

    Steve,

    I’m not one who thinks he can influence the age debate. That doesn’t mean I mind occasionally pointing out bad arguments even from my own camp. You’re doing great, but the battle is the Lord’s, as you know. :)

  28. Steve Drake said,

    December 12, 2016 at 11:52 am

    Ron @ 27,
    Yes, the battle is the Lord’s, but he asks us to be His stalwart soldiers in that battle. Never give up in fighting for truth. :)

    Lane,
    I want to say how much I appreciate you, pastor, and your keeping this issue alive in the pages of your blog. Your steadfast commitment to this and to an uncompromising fidelity to God’s Word, especially as it relates to this topic, warms my heart, and encourages me to continually ask God’s blessing on you, your family, and your ministry. Thank you.

  29. BS Mason said,

    December 12, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    Hello Lane (if I may call you that), I truly believe the interest of this argument is mainly that it shows the limitation of materialism and the so called “scientific method” to answer metaphysical questions. There simply is no conceivable test to verify whether everything came to be exactly as it is 2 seconds ago and this helps make clear that science is not and should not be in the business of metaphysics. They can and should do retrodiction, but cannot absolutely say with any real certainty what did indeed occur. I have, if you have any free time and interested, written a touch about this subject, from a layman’s perspective, here: https://www.scribd.com/document/334023657/A-Laymans-Perspective-on-Creation-and-Evolution

  30. December 12, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    Steve: Ussher dated the creation of the world to 4004 BC (I think he even said it was a Thursday, which is good for a chuckle). I think few Christians hold to this date anymore, one reason being that the oldest still-existing human structure that can be classified as a building is nearly a thousand years older than that. Again, the Bible makes no claims as to when creation happened, although it’s crystal clear as to Who did the creating and why. It’s what has happened after creation that’s important – the redemption of sinners.

  31. Ron said,

    December 12, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    “Hello Lane (if I may call you that), I truly believe the interest of this argument is mainly that it shows the limitation of materialism and the so called “scientific method” to answer metaphysical questions.”

    Memory need not be a scientific method consideration. Why is memory an inductive inference? The rest you wrote falls according to the truth of thatconsideration.

  32. Ron said,

    December 12, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    Richard,

    You have enough mistakes to clear up or at least acknowledge before hopping onto new bunny trails.

  33. Ron said,

    December 12, 2016 at 11:34 pm

    “Again, the Bible makes no claims as to when creation happened”

    So why assert a gap theory? Why claim, as you did, mystery hidden in God only to tell us the earth cannot be 6,000 years young? Your skepticism doesn’t comport with your dogmatism.

  34. December 13, 2016 at 12:42 am

    Ron, I think you’re confused. I mentioned gaps in the genealogies. The “gap theory” states that there is a large period of time between Genesis 1.1 and Genesis 1.2 (partially as a place to put the dinosaurs), which I haven’t mentioned at all and don’t believe in anyway.

  35. Ron said,

    December 13, 2016 at 5:07 am

    Richard,

    Never been so happy to be confused.

    Please help me to understand how some gaps in genealogy along with no gaps between 24 hour creation days can lead to this: “No one can prove that the universe did not come into existence five billion years ago.”

    As I put this together, it would seem that you’re saying that given 24 hour days (no gaps) and gaps in genealogy, the earth could be billions of years old. But wouldn’t that mean the human race would have to be billions of years old too? I’ve seen discrepancies on the order of several thousands of years regarding the human race but billions of years? Redemptive history could be billions of years? Or was Adam not born during week one?

  36. Steve Drake said,

    December 13, 2016 at 11:37 am

    Richard @ 30,

    Ussher dated the creation of the world to 4004 BC (I think he even said it was a Thursday, which is good for a chuckle).

    Ah, yes, belittle and mock Ussher. This old chestnut is your fall-back position? I would suggest you try something new Richard, or at least do some reading on who Archbishop Ussher was, his life and life’s work. You will find that he was a learned historian and expert in Semitic languages, a scholar of honor and repute. As Archbishop of Armagh, he held the highest position in the Irish Anglican Church.

    But I can see that this conversation is deteriorating and that you lack probity in sincere dialog. Perhaps as Ron said in #24:

    My advice… don’t waste your time.

    I am however, interested in this comment of yours:

    one reason being that the oldest still-existing human structure that can be classified as a building is nearly a thousand years older than that.

    Perhaps you wouldn’t mind providing your source for this conclusion?

  37. Roy Kerns said,

    December 13, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    When thinking about age, I find disambiguation of definition difficult (google “derp”). Concluding that something has an “age” relies on a fairly long string of assertions, many of which involve unrealized, unstated, question begging assumptions. Challenging those requires more than a few sentences. Thinking through the challenge, while worth the “aha” experience that results, demands too much for many people.

    With the caveats of that paragraph in mind (cf, eg, Poythress “Redeeming Science” for more details, tho I do not endorse his conclusions), a few comments.

    Science cannot know via the scientific method the age of the universe, a starting time. No way to reproduce the event. Science of itself, in harmony with its own suppositions, cannot, without exercising faith, choose between 5 microseconds ago, memories and all (not likely, but, per science, not impossible) and 16 billions years ago. (As an aside worth contemplating before a dismissive sniff at that, note these checkable historical factoids. First: Only fairly recently in human history did pagans (those not accepting the Bible as final, authoritative) believe the universe had a start. Ponder the implications of not until the 20th C did the idea of something like the “big bang” have even any sort of recognition. Forget acceptance. We’re talking recognition, something about which one might consider. People, including specifically scientist type people, just figured everything always was. Second: between the start of the last quarter of the 19th C and the end of the first quarter of the 20th C, the universe, as understood by science, grew by an astonishing factor. It went from mere thousands of years old, thousands of light years in expanse, to billions. An increase not of an amount of a million, but a factor, a multiplier of a million. Who knows what changes lie ahead? Of course the universe looks big, old. How else would something that reflects God appear other than ginormous, complex, ancient?)

    But while science cannot affirm any age, Christians can. They have an eyewitness record. They know: 1) the universe had a start; 2) it has a minimum age; 2) that the creation did not happen in a single instant, but in a piecewise process requiring God’s direct supervision and intervention during that process such that before completion the universe worked (light before the sun, plants before rain, etc). So the Christian can reject what was believed until recently, that the universe always was. The Christian can reject last Thursdayism. No so the pagan, at least not unless via the exercise of faith.

    How old was the earth upon which Adam stood? How about the soil in the Garden? (Leaving aside for them moment that that soil was, guess what, soil. With all that makes soil, well, soil.) Suppose one were to stand by Adam’s side when he first saw Eve. How old was she? mere seconds? or, as one friend put it, “old enough”? (20 yrs/10 seconds = 63 million times older appearing than “actual” age. Means, among other observations, that the Answers In Genesis folks et al who say, “We know the creation happened recently, so we must (mis)interpret the data to make it say relatively young” are wrong because they deny what the Bible says. Not because they do junk science. Because they do junk exegesis.)

    Could Adam have seen Proxima Centauri, the nearest star, created a few days earlier, but 4 light years away? How about the farthest lights in the night sky that one can see with unaided eye, galaxies 100s of thousands of light years away? If he had current technology, could he have detected what we can, objects 14 billion (plus) light years away?

    member Christ PCA, Tulsa

  38. Steve Drake said,

    December 13, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    @ Roy 37,

    Means, among other observations, that the Answers In Genesis folks et al who say, “We know the creation happened recently, so we must (mis)interpret the data to make it say relatively young” are wrong because they deny what the Bible says. Not because they do junk science. Because they do junk exegesis.)

    How exactly are folks like Answers in Genesis denying what the Bible says ‘exactly’?

  39. Adam said,

    December 13, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    By this logic, we also can’t prove a great many other things, but should regard them only as hypotheses, such as:

    *George Washington ever existed
    *I married my wife on a hot July day 12 years ago
    *The Cubs won the World Series in 2016
    *I came to this website via typing in the URL, and did not simply come into existence 2 minutes ago with an implanted memory of navigating to this website

  40. Roy Kerns said,

    December 13, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    Steve @38,
    Take a position answering any couple or three of the questions I asked in my last two paragraphs of @37. Specifically, take a position about Eve’s age when she first met Adam. Then I’ll answer your question of @38.

    Meanwhile, how old was the wine at the wedding in Jn 2? Don’t need to answer this, just think about it.

  41. Steve Drake said,

    December 13, 2016 at 6:38 pm

    @ Roy 39,
    You have made a serious accusatory charge against an organization that within its bylaws and constitution seeks to uphold the integrity of Scripture.

    Provide your specifics, or retract your statement.

    Otherwise, I ask the moderator of this blog to block your defamatory posts.

  42. Don said,

    December 13, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Steve 41,
    You’re being a bully. The blog rules, which I have more or less run afoul of once or twice, are clear.

    This doesn’t exactly answer your question, but it’s hard to take an organization seriously which claims that there were dinosaurs living 150 years ago.

  43. Roy Kerns said,

    December 13, 2016 at 10:10 pm

    Adam @39, I understand your conundrum. Perhaps I can help you see a way through it.

    The pagans by faith make some rather broad assumptions in order to make sense of reality. Simultaneously they assert the opposite of those assumptions. All the while they never admit that they made the assumptions. Furthermore, they vehemently deny their simultaneous opposition.

    For example, on the one hand they assert “Not God” (contrary, say Ps 14 or Ro 1:20ff and hence God, to all the evidence). How did whatever come into existence? Chance. But if chance is final, then how can one bake a cake (why should the recipe that worked yesterday work today?), throw a baseball (maybe gravity will change, maybe not), do science? So, despite the ultimacy of chance, the whatever has order, structure, regularity, predictability. So the pagan asserts natural law, in effect borrowing the God he denies. But if natural law is ultimate, then all is fixed, determined, and freedom is gone. Hence, well, chance…..

    What (unstated) assumptions does the pagan rely on to make sense of time, particularly to assert “history”? What does the pagan borrow from God without admitting doing so, without thanking God? (You made the same assumptions, Adam. But you differ from the pagan in that you rely on a God who controls history, whose rule gives you certainty–at least outside his intervention–that the creation will continue to act according to the law-word structure he has decreed.)

    I share your faith in God. I have no problem in recognizing that season will follow season because God said it would, that you can appeal to your historical examples (btw, I recall that Cubs first baseman’s face as he caught the throw making the final out and realized he had entered history). But the pagan has no basis for the same appeal. For all he has any way of knowing, all is an illusion. He himself may be an illusion. He has no certainty that Last Thursdayism is false.

    I am urging you to realize that reality. While sometimes it is appropriate, I don’t mean that you can point that out to the pagan in every case. Cf Pr 26:4-5. But that the pagan will not concede reality does not mean it is not so.

  44. Ron said,

    December 14, 2016 at 8:54 am

    Roy,

    You don’t want to give the wrong impression. Much of what you say is technically misleading. I don’t know if you’re wanting to borrow from Bahnsen or Van Til, just not accurately, or trying to borrow from Clark with greater success. I’m detecting Clark’s epistemology, which leads to false notions.

    “But you differ from the pagan in that you rely on a God who controls history, whose rule gives you certainty–at least outside his intervention–that the creation will continue to act according to the law-word structure he has decreed.)”

    The unbeliever also relies on God so he doesn’t differ from us in that respect. Moreover, he may have certainty. The issue is his creed doesn’t comport with what he believes in order to function in God’s world.

    “I share your faith in God. I have no problem in recognizing that season will follow season because God said it would,”

    You recognize many things that God hasn’t said, like the toothpaste will squirt out of the tube when you squeeze it. Similarly, although the unbeliever doesn’t know God’s written word, he does know His invisible attributes and that He is good, sovereign and faithful. He is as confident the seasons will follow as they always have as you are confident about toothpaste-physics. God hasn’t revealed toothpaste-physics and it can’t be deduced from Scripture. Yet if he had no justification to believe these things he’d not be culpable. What he lacks is a justification of his justification. His justification is God’s general revelation through providence and conscience. What he lacks is God’s spoken word, which is the source of justifying the unbeliever’s initial understanding of many things.

    “But the pagan has no basis for the same appeal.”

    Correct

    “For all he has any way of knowing, all is an illusion. He himself may be an illusion. He has no certainty that Last Thursdayism is false.”

    If he is consistent with his creed, yes. But surely he knows he is not an illusion. He does know he is culpable.

  45. Steve Drake said,

    December 14, 2016 at 10:16 am

    Your tactics are fascinating, gentlemen, First mock Ussher (Richard#30), then mock Answers in Genesis (Roy#37, Don#42), an organization that stands on the shoulders of the giants of the faith regarding the historic consensus of the Church for 1800 years, faithfully defending the Word of God regarding the age of the universe and earth, all the while offering nothing in return as a position you are willing to defend.

    Mocking a godly scholarly man, mocking a godly organization, mocking Christ Himself who said, “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female” (not billions and millions of years later) (Mark 10:6), you hide behind generalities and when asked to defend your statements, you claim I’m being the bully? Oy vey iz mir, the absurdities.

  46. Ron said,

    December 14, 2016 at 10:39 am

    Steve,

    I suspect the problem some have with Answers is any putting aside of the Scriptures in order to find some common ground with the unbeliever. The unbeliever has a dysfunctional philosophy of fact, so we shouldn’t give the idea that we agree with him that he, according to his creed, has any claim on the scientific method. We do well to challenge him at the presuppositional level. There are many reasons for this, both pragmatically and in principle. It’ll end badly given a sharp enough unbeliever and we don’t want to deny the epistemic lordship of Christ. Our Lord isn’t just the way back to the Father. Our Lord is the only way back to justifying any knowledge of the Father’s world. It’s not that unbelievers don’t know things. They just can’t give adequate account for things they know. The Word is the only way we can justify what all men know by nature. Lastly, science has little to say about origin or beginnings.

    A lot here I’d be happy to unpack offline if you’d be interested.

  47. Steve Drake said,

    December 14, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Ron,
    Do you have my email? Sure, I’d be happy for you to send.

  48. Don said,

    December 14, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Steve 45,
    I was at a homeschcool conference a few years ago listening to a speaker who formerly (admittedly, *formerly* but it’s not clear if that makes a difference) had some affiliation with AIG. He claimed with a straight face that out West in the late 1800’s, a couple cowboys shot a pterodactyl out of the sky. I was sitting next to my YEC pastor, and I could hear his eyes rolling in his head. If this kind of nonsense is what it takes to “faithfully defend[] the Word of God” then I’m not interested.

    Also, no, the “consensus of the church” was not nearly as uniform as you claim it was.

  49. Steve Drake said,

    December 14, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Don @ 48,

    I was at a homeschcool conference a few years ago listening to a speaker who formerly (admittedly, *formerly* but it’s not clear if that makes a difference) had some affiliation with AIG. He claimed with a straight face that out West in the late 1800’s, a couple cowboys shot a pterodactyl out of the sky.

    Perhaps that is why he is ‘formerly affiliated’? But you’re an old earth guy anyway Don, so what would it matter? You don’t believe that dinosaurs were created on Day 6 along with man together and would have lived together with man anyway. Such reports of dinosaurs living with man up until recently, even if you want to go back 500, or 1000 years or more are automatically dismissed by you.

    You’ve got far bigger theological problems that you want to ignore, dismiss, and shuffle under the rug. Failure to address these issues is the Waterloo of your old earth position.

    Does AIG endorse this claim? You don’t say. Rather, with a broad brush you paint the whole organization with this claim. Can you point to a post or article from AIG that is making this claim?

  50. Steve Drake said,

    December 14, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Don @ 48,
    And, oh Don, the consensus of the church was very uniform, contrary to your claims otherwise.Study the historians and chronologists of the Church. Read the Jewish rabbinical literature prior to the advent of Christ. Understand the Jewish calendar even today at Year 5776, the 5776th year since the world was created.

    This old red herring promulgated by old earth proponents has been dealt with many times already, and is nothing but a smoke-screen.

  51. Roy Kerns said,

    December 14, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    Ron @44. You wrote, “The unbeliever also relies on God so he doesn’t differ from us in that respect.” Well, not so. 1) He does not acknowledge the reliance. 2) He *selectively* relies. Meaning he borrows what he needs to sustain some parts of his thinking (eg, ‘natural law’, order, physics). But he simultaneously rejects the rest of what the existence of God implies (eg, submitting to that God, shaping his thinking about natural revelation by using special revelation).

    Creation provides a particular example of this dichotomy.

    To do geology, physics, biology, expect toothpaste to squeeze from the tube, the pagan assumes lots contrary to his assertion of chance. These assumptions about order, repeatability, make plausible his further *assumption* that the ‘rules of nature’ we see now is the same as what governed at any past or future. From such assumptions the pagan deduces, “Aha, billions of years ago a big bang (just) happened. Millions of years ago life on earth (just) happened.”

    Meanwhile, that same pagan says, Not God, the Bible cannot be correct. The creation cannot have taken place recently, mere thousands of years ago. (Sorta like those who did not believe the water had just become aged wine, who did not believe the loaves and fish did not come from the ‘normal’ sequences of nature.)

    I wrote: “For all he has any way of knowing, all is an illusion. He himself may be an illusion. He has no certainty that Last Thursdayism is false.”

    You replied: “If he is consistent with his creed, yes. But surely he knows he is not an illusion. He does know he is culpable.”

    He is not consistent. He both knows (Ro 1:19-20) and denies (Ro 1:21)

    Clark I think probably would not agree with what I have written above. Van Til I am fairly certain would.

  52. Steve Drake said,

    December 14, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    Correction to post #50:
    Year 5777 in the Jewish calendar, 5777th year since the world was created.

  53. Ron said,

    December 14, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Roy,

    Your second post, I think, clarifies some things. Thank you. Unfortunately in the process you mistreated my interaction with the imprecision of your previous post.

  54. Don said,

    December 14, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    Steve,

    You’ve got far bigger theological problems that you want to ignore, dismiss, and shuffle under the rug.

    This is undoubtedly true–seriously–but the age of the earth isn’t one of them.

    the consensus of the church was very uniform

    It seems to me to be very difficult to interpret, e.g., Augustine in a way that is consistent with this statement.

  55. Steve Drakes said,

    December 14, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    Don @ 54,

    This is undoubtedly true–seriously–

    I’m not sure how to read this, Don, but it does have me concerned that you’re struggling with something.

    but the age of the earth isn’t one of them.

    You and I go back at least five years in the pages of this blog, right? Are you saying, no, you’re not an old earth guy anymore, or yes, you’re still an old earth guy, but don’t think there are serious theological problems associated with holding an old earth position? If this latter, then my charge is that as an old earth proponent you are blaspheming your Lord and my Lord and attributing to God, and specifically to Christ as the second-person of that Godhead in His work of creation, actions that are anathema to His pure, undefiled, and Holy character. This is a serious charge. Do you have an answer for it?

    It seems to me to be very difficult to interpret, e.g., Augustine in a way that is consistent with this statement.

    Don, brother, come on, really? You and I both know that Augustine was an “instantaneous creation” guy; that God created the universe and earth and all that exists in an instant. He never advocated for millions and billions of years and long ages. That was a pagan Greek idea. Christianity has never advocated for long, long ages nor promoted that idea because that idea came from the pagan secularists. Sure, there were a few Church fathers who were confused on this point, but in the main, Christian historians and chronologists have promoted and written and defended a chronology of approximately 6000 years. Even the secularists admit to this.

  56. Don said,

    December 15, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Steve,
    If you agree that Augustine wasn’t a 24/6 guy, then it’s hard for me to see how you think that the church’s view was as uniform as you allege.

    If you are saying that Origen was confused, then I’d say that’s an understatement.

    It’s my understanding–and I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m missing anyone–is that the pagan philosophers generally claimed that the universe was not much more than thousands of years old, but eternal. That is qualitatively different than 6k vs. 14B.

    This is a serious charge. Do you have an answer for it?

    My answer is simply no, it’s not blasphemy. Age of the earth is not a salvation issue.

  57. December 15, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    I wasn’t mocking Ussher. I know he was an important divine who was the “unseen presence” at the Westminster Assembly. I just think it’s ridiculous that he could actually say out loud that the date of creation was a Thursday. Even an important divine can have a bad day…

  58. Steve Drake said,

    December 16, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    Don @ 56,

    My answer is simply no, it’s not blasphemy. Age of the earth is not a salvation issue.

    I”m not charging you with blasphemy against Christ in regards to salvation (although an old earth does have extreme and crucial implications to the gospel and our sin-death problem, and the reason for Christ’s incarnation to solve that sin-death problem), I’m charging you with blasphemy against Christ in regards to His holy, pure, undelfiled, and loving character, and the actions and attributes of that holy character as it relates to His creation of an old earth over millions and billions of years. Do you see the difference?

    Can you at least try Don, try, I implore you, to give a plausible defense for how you are not attributing evil, wasteful, willful, deliberate, and even pernicious actions and behavior by Christ in His creation of this earth over billions and millions of years prior to Adam and Adam’s sin?

    Give me a timeline of what Christ did when; the flora and fauna he created with specific dates in history, and then put Adam on that timeline with a specific or approximate date. Come on Don, give me a timeline, you’re the scientist, make an attempt, defend your old earth position in the pages of this blog for us to see. Otherwise, brother, you’ve got to ask yourself whether you are truly living in self-denial and self-delusion about who your God truly is.

  59. Don said,

    December 16, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Steve 58,
    I am making no such attribution. I suppose you may be inferring this because old earth implies that deaths occurred before the Fall. If there was any death before the Fall (which I suppose would include the plants that Adam and Eve ate?) then it was in no way because of any evil on Christ’s part.

    the flora and fauna he created with specific dates in history

    Lol yes, I should be able to fit this into a comment on somebody else’s blog. Even if I were able to try to do something like this, there are plenty of authors who have already done a far better job than I could.

  60. Steve Drake said,

    December 16, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Richard @ 57,

    I just think it’s ridiculous that he could actually say out loud that the date of creation was a Thursday.

    Perhaps because you haven’t read or studied how he deduced that? I would suggest you get a copy of his “The Annals of the World” if you can, or see if you can look it up on the web. Lots of old earth proponents such as yourself make light of his exact deductions and mock him for that, but the scholarly work in reaching those deductions, was nothing short of extraordinary. He explains exactly how he came to those conclusions and you can follow his logic. Whether you agree with that logic is yours to decide, but before you make light of something you don’t quite understand, I would suggest you arm yourself with a bit more study.

  61. Steve Drake said,

    December 16, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Don @ 59,
    So no, no answer to the charge, and the self-delusion continues. See if you can’t give me a shortened version of a timeline Don, it’s not that hard, right? Where do you want to place Adam, let’s start there. Give me a date for Adam according to your old earth thinking.

    there are plenty of authors who have already done a far better job than I could.

    Give me the author and his timeline that you wish to proffer here Don. Is that too hard?

  62. Don said,

    December 16, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    I don’t “want to place Adam” anywhere. I’m not interested in constructing any sort of timeline, far too many events would require far too unsupported guesses to produce anything of value. I am in fact comfortable with ambiguity. I don’t feel any need to know whether Adam lived a few thousand or a million years ago. If you, for theological reasons, wish to follow Ussher’s chronology, that’s fine with me. But then you should understand that there’s no empirical evidence that is consistent with that timeline.

  63. Steve Drake said,

    December 16, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    Don @ 62,

    I don’t “want to place Adam” anywhere. I’m not interested in constructing any sort of timeline

    I don’t feel any need to know whether Adam lived a few thousand or a million years ago.

    And thus herein lies the theological and intellectual emptiness, obfuscation, dishonesty, and dare I say, laziness, of the old earth proponent’s viewpoint. Mocking and challenging the young-earth Biblical position clearly communicated in the Word of God, and believed in by the Church for 1800 years of its history, of six 24-hour days of creation and deduction of age from the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 & 11, the old-earth proponent offers nothing in return. A big zero.

    Unwilling to produce a timeline that makes sense of the theological data communicated within the Word of God, unwilling even to place Adam within a timeline of his own old-earth thinking, unwilling to discuss the character assassination of the Christ he claims to have saved him, the old-earth proponent beggars off, hoping the rest of us don’t notice his theological and intellectual dishonesty.

    Holding to a form of schizophrenia, the old-earth proponent believes the Word of God when it comes to the resurrection, oh yes, his salvation depends on it, believes the Word of God when it comes to the Virgin Birth, for oh, yes, Jesus must certainly be both God and man who alone as High Priest can offer atonement for our sin problem, believes the miracles of water into wine, the sick being healed, the dead raising to life, for oh yes, we can’t discount the power and might of Jesus, yet in the same breath and with schizophrenic abandonment and frenzy disbelieves that same Word of God when it speaks on a 6-day 24 hour beginning and young earth, or disbelieves that same Word of God when it speaks of a universal, worldwide, and cataclysmic flood in the days of Noah that wiped out every land dwelling creature and human save 8.

    This same old-earth proponent naively thinks his colleagues at the institution, or within the halls of academia, in the office place, or around the water cooler, don’t see the utter hypocrisy of his dualistic position, believing some things to his sanctimonious benefit, but not others.

    He preaches to his unbelieving friends that they must believe Jesus when He claims that He is ‘the way, the truth, and the life’, must believe Jesus has been resurrected from the dead and lives eternal, and that He Himself is ‘the resurrection and the life’, but no, doesn’t have to believe Jesus when it comes to His very own description of how and how long it took Him to create all that exists, or no, doesn’t have to believe that God wiped out all humanity save 8 in the Flood of Noah, and no, Jonah didn’t really get swallowed by a great fish either, live 3 days in the belly of this fish, and get vomited up alive to tell the tale, Mere fables all, but oh yes, you must believe that Christ was once dead, but came alive.

    It never ceases to fascinate me, that of all the numerous occasions I have asked the old-earth proponents on this blog and elsewhere over the years, to defend their old-earth views with a timeline of history, never once have they been willing to do so. It just goes to show the utter paucity of their position.

  64. Roy Kerns said,

    December 16, 2016 at 11:35 pm

    Steve @ multiple posts:
    Timeline? OK. Sometime about 6K years ago God created everything that is. Adam could see stars 100s of thousands of light years away, tho created only days earlier. He could drink water from Eden’s rivers, tho there had not been time for water to evaporate from an ocean, condense somewhere, and drain to Eden. He walked in a garden, which means it had exactly everything appropriate for a garden, such as soil. Bunnies took seriously the idea of multiplying. But did not overrun the earth because they served as God-given dinner for lions (not says me, says God, Ps 104). Adam, not critters, had access to the Tree of Life. Adam, not critters, heard the sentence of death for disobedience. Any thing in creation was exactly what that thing should be in order to be that thing, everything about that thing just right. The sun had exactly the right mass, exactly the right hydrogen/helium ratio that it could produce just the power needed to heat the earth at the distance it had to be, meaning that the sun (created just days earlier) had an age somewhere around several billion years plus of its life cycle. The earth, too, was just right in every way to be a home for people. Adam could have found gold, diamonds, igneous rock, metamorphic rock, coal, oil, dino bones. God could have used a ‘normal’ process to accomplish that sci fi term we all understand (terraforming). But he did not. Instead (and we know this because he told us), he did the creating in steps over 6 days about 6K yrs ago.

    Now how about going back to @40 and answer the questions asked of you. That exercise may help you think thru the puzzle you face.

  65. Steve Drake said,

    December 17, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    Roy @ 64,
    You’re not making much sense to me Roy. You’ve got such an eclectic mixture of things in your posts it’s hard to ferret out any discernible structure. You seem to be saying you’re a young-earth creationist, about 6000 years ago, that God created in steps over 6 days (I’m assuming you’re saying they were 24-hour days about 6k years ago), but then you jump into lions eating bunnies, only Adam with the curse of death upon him, only Adam hearing the sentence of death itself, and then want to proof text this all with Psalm 104.

    Taking up the charge I have written about old-earth proponents, you take exception with me in what regard? Be specific. Is it the death before sin charge? When did the lions start eating the bunnies Roy, day 5? And they were eating the bunnies from day 5 onward right through and past Adam’s sin on Day X?

    Now how about going back to @40 and answer the questions asked of you. That exercise may help you think thru the puzzle you face.

    The puzzle is of your own making Roy. Your theology is a bit confusing.

  66. Roy Kerns said,

    December 17, 2016 at 1:43 pm

    Steve @65,
    I realize I’m asking you to confront the unstated assumptions of your paradigm. So your response “you’re confusing, Roy” does not surprise me. But note that you asked for a timeline. I gave you one (a timeline, btw, which eliminates any need for assumptions. That timeline puts me squarely in the recent creation, 6×24 camp). However, you still have not answered the request of @40. Do so. Perhaps doing so will help you understand your own position better as well as what I’m urging. (Recall the issue from your perspective is my taking AIG to task for exegetical failure. Not junk science–which is also the case, and what the, sorry, naive make the central critique–but junk exegesis. Thus far you have not stated in your own words what I think is that exegetical failure.)

  67. Don said,

    December 17, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    Steve 63,

    And thus herein lies the theological and intellectual emptiness, obfuscation, dishonesty, and dare I say, laziness, of the old earth proponent’s viewpoint.

    I, rather, think it’s honest and in fact humble to not speculate, not claim more than is clearly revealed in Scripture and not claim that disagreement with one’s own interpretation is blasphemy. Where, for instance, does it say that the first six days were 24 hours long? Did the concept of “hour” as we know it even exist when the text was written?

    … the old-earth proponent believes [etc.]

    Interesting that you think you can explain my theology to me, and yet get much of it wrong. When did we ever, for example, discuss Jonah?

    It never ceases to fascinate me, that of all the numerous occasions I have asked the old-earth proponents on this blog and elsewhere over the years, to defend their old-earth views with a timeline of history, never once have they been willing to do so.

    This is not really that complicated. The age of the earth is not a salvation issue. (Well, other than Last Tuesdayism-type nonsense, which was covered above.) I feel no need to construct such a timeline. It would neither benefit my faith nor my understanding of the natural world.

  68. Don said,

    December 17, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Roy, I would say your Omphalos hypothesis is quite an assumption! I understand you’re comfortable with it, but you should be aware of its theological difficulties too.

  69. Roy Kerns said,

    December 17, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Don @68. Not an assumption, but conclusion. Convinced by multiple lines of exegetical arguments that creation recent, that 6×24 only view that takes Bible seriously. Convinced of last point also from debates and results over the course of church history, including especially last 150 yrs. (For a recent eg, consider the last couple decades developments in half a century of discussions about the historicity of Adam. Finally people realized that this not side track who cares trivia about that which is at best secondary. Instead, realized that this would not only attack anthropology and the idea of a fallen race, but also eventually attack soteriology and the headship of Christ.) Exist zero exegetical arguments for alternate view, only attempts at figuring how to understand scripture to not disallow alternate view as advanced by something other than exegesis. Do not know of Omphalos having theological difficulties that have not been answered.

  70. Steve Drake said,

    December 19, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    Ah yes, foolish me, the lions didn’t start eating the bunnies until day 6, the same day that Adam and Eve were created, and the same day “God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good” (Gen.1:31). This was also the same day that just one verse earlier God says:

    and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food, and it was so. (Gen 1:30)

    So Roy, I’m assuming you’re saying that the lions eating the bunnies starting on day 6 is part of God’s ‘very good’ creation? That carnivory was instituted right from the beginning as part of Christ’s grand plan of creation, in direct contradistinction to His testimony in verse 30 that He gave to every beast, every bird, and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, every green plant for food?

    I understand now why you claim groups like Answers in Genesis ‘deny what the Bible says’, for you wish to avoid that charge yourself. Proof texting your claims with Psalm 104, denying what the Bible says in Genesis 1; you wish to deny God Himself saying what shall be food for all beasts.

    I would suggest you study the science of hermeneutics a bit better, Roy, so that you avoid these hermeneutical infractions. Your theory that lions were eating bunnies right from their creation on day 6, and that carnivory was part of Christ’s ‘very good’ creation from day 6 onward, even before Adam’s sin, doesn’t comport with Scripture at all, nor those of the faith through history that have championed the young-earth Biblical position.

  71. Steve Drake said,

    December 19, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    Don @ 67,
    I suppose the issue that most Biblical creationists see with our old-earth brethren, Don, and to what my posts have been saying, is this issue of a timeline. We understand your desire to do good science, to see and gather the empirical data and to interpret it. What we take issue with, is the interpretation of that data in accordance with secular naturalistic assumptions. The data doesn’t speak for itself, it must be interpreted. And when that interpretation, in accordance with the assumptions of a pagan philosophical bias towards naturalism, contradicts the clear eyewitness testimony of God in His revelatory Word, we chafe.

    The failure lies in the old-earth proponent’s unwillingness to back up his old-earth timeline with specific sequencing of events in accordance with Genesis 1 and to explain how those events comport with Christ’s character as revealed in the rest of Scripture (sinless, pure, majestic, glorious, benevolent, loving, pure, undefiled, Holy, perfect, and untainted by any evil whatsoever ((both naturally and morally)).

    Old-earth proponents wish to camouflage this by continually saying it’s not a salvation issue. Hiding behind this ‘not a salvation issue’ dictum, to which Biblical creationists readily agree, the old-earth proponent obfuscates and distorts, hides and beggars off, unwilling to justify these old-earth sequencing events against those character traits of God that make Him who He is.

    Willing to sin against the ninth commandment, the old-earth proponent doesn’t just wish to bear false testimony against his neighbor, oh no, but against God Himself when He said that He created the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them in six days and rested on the seventh (Ex. 20:8-11). The old-earth proponent is willing to say that God has borne false witness against Himself and sinned against His own ninth commandment, that the prophets and apostles have continued on this same path, and that Christ Himself would have borne false witness against His Father. Can you imagine?

    We all have a choice to make Don. There is a cosmic conflict happening in our hearts and minds on a continual basis; do we believe the Word of God or the ideas of man?

  72. Don said,

    December 20, 2016 at 3:19 am

    Steve 71,

    What we take issue with, is the interpretation of that data in accordance with secular naturalistic assumptions. The data doesn’t speak for itself, it must be interpreted.

    I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here–or maybe I’m not sure if you realize the implications of what you’re suggesting. The scientific method is not compatible with sectarian interpretations thereof. Well, the basic rules/assumptions of Western science (that there are comprehensible, universal laws of nature; that they can be ascertained via observation; that man is rational; etc.) do of course derive from the Judeo-Christian tradition, but do not depend on the scientist being Christian (even if the pagan scientist cannot explain why natural laws should exist. That’s a separate issue). But an observation or equation does not depend on the religious beliefs of the scientist. So basically you are asking the scientific process to proceed unscientifically.

    Beyond that, I’m not sure what data you are asking be interpreted in accord with your reading of Genesis. There is no empirical evidence which suggests the earth is six thousand years old. There is, even more obviously, no solid firmament that holds the waters up over the heavens (Gen. 1:6). Calvin, as you probably know, recognized this and said that Moses was just using common language and was not speaking scientifically. The important point of this verse, Calvin says, is that God is creating an orderly universe and that rainfall occurs by His provision.

    Old-earth proponents wish to camouflage this by continually saying it’s not a salvation issue.

    This is because certain parties do make it sound like a salvation issue, or label as “blasphemy” any idea which disagrees with their own interpretation of Scripture.

    The failure lies in the old-earth proponent’s unwillingness to back up his old-earth timeline with…

    As I covered above, I don’t share your need for a timeline. There is no “failure” here.

    to justify these old-earth sequencing events against those character traits of God that make Him who He is.

    OK, I can help you here: The more we learn about creation, the more awesome we realize the Creator is. This is true from the scale of the universe, to the unimaginably small Planck length, to protein folding, to the fact that your GPS needs to incorporate General Relativity to be accurate. Science at its best is a day-to-day living out of Psalm 19:1.

  73. Steve Drake said,

    December 20, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Don @ 72,

    But an observation or equation does not depend on the religious beliefs of the scientist. So basically you are asking the scientific process to proceed unscientifically.

    I see, define what the scientific method is according to secular rules, and then claim the scientific process cannot proceed unless done in accordance with that secularistic definition of the scientific method. Quite circular. Well done.

    What I think you are not seeing Don, is that every single one of us is religious in some form or another. We all have a presuppositional understanding of ultimates, and come to any data we are attempting to understand with those presuppositional biases. You wish to tell me, and are tacitly assuming that we agree, that the scientific method as defined by secularists…in other words, a presupposition of methodological naturalism, is how science is done, and that all data interpreted with this presupposition should be believed and accepted by everyone alike. You yourself accept this premise, don’t see that you are accepting this premise, and wish me to buy into this premise as well. To this I do not agree and will not do.

    Methodological naturalism, as pushed by secularists, should be viewed suspiciously by Christians. It is an open door to philosophical naturalism, or as Platinga called it, “provisional atheism”; a view contrary to the Biblical view that God both maintains and upholds His creation by his providence, both what we perceive as natural processes and what are miracles. Theologically, they are spoken of as God’s ‘mediate providence’ and ‘immediate providence’. Unfortunately for the secularist, this theological approach punctures the illusion of human infallibility, especially as it relates to his conclusions on science or history.

    As it relates to your old-earth position and billions and millions of years, and I assume, your concomitant position of molecules to man common descent, (the two sides of the same secular coin) you are completely outside the bounds of historic and orthodox Christianity. Historic Christianity will not stand if your views ‘win’ Don, or if the Church relinquishes and takes a syncretistic and accommodationist view of these early chapters of Genesis and the age of the earth. It will cease to exist. The erosion is already seen in the debate over an historical Adam, an historical Fall, and the effects and consequences of an historical Curse.

    I pray God that theologically minded men who understand this, will stand up, root out this egregious error, expose it for the lie that it is, hold accountable our old-earth brethren for their blasphemy and false witness against God Himself, restoring them in love, and restoring and maintaining the great doctrines of Christianity that make it the only and absolute system of truth that it is.

  74. Don said,

    December 20, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Steve 72,

    I see, define what the scientific method is according to secular rules, and then claim the scientific process cannot proceed unless done in accordance with that secularistic definition of the scientific method.

    Lol, yes, the scientific method is nonsectarian by definition. Where do you see that a sectarian interpretation of data would fit into the scientific method?

    Historic Christianity will not stand if your views ‘win’

    What a weak view of God’s power! You sincerely think that Christianity is threatened by some empirical observations?

    But anyway, let me ask: How would you define a sectarian scientific method? Using this method, for certain observations, should a scientist who is Muslim or Buddhist necessarily come to a different conclusion than a Christian? How would this method be used to interpret (for example) the cosmic microwave background?

  75. Steve Drake said,

    December 21, 2016 at 9:53 am

    Don @ 74,

    What a weak view of God’s power! You sincerely think that Christianity is threatened by some empirical observations?

    The quote below is from non-Christian Philosopher of Science Professor David Hull:

    “The problem that biological evolution poses for natural theologians is the sort of God that a Darwinian version of evolution implies … The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror … Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history ( read billions and millions of years) may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galápagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.”

    —David Hull, The God of the Galápagos, Nature 352:485–86, 8 August 1991.

  76. Don said,

    December 21, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Steve 75,
    I’m not sure why you’re sharing this quote, as if this guy is some sort of relevant authority. Why would I be surprised when a nonchristian philosopher infers reasons to not believe in the God of the Bible? (I should probably put “reasons” in quotes.) The gospel has been foolishness to the Greeks for a long time, but it’s still the power of God.

    Nevertheless, I would be interested if you have any answers for my questions in 74.

  77. Steve Drake said,

    December 21, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    Don @ 76,

    I’m not sure why you’re sharing this quote

    I would have thought Hull’s quote would be obvious. Even the non-Christian professor and philosopher of science can see the logical connections and conclusions of an old-earth evolutionary position, and Christians such as yourself, trying to tie it together with Christian belief. In fact he is mocking you mercilessly.

    But that is where you sit: a God who is indifferent, a God who is careless, a God who is incredibly wasteful, a God who is almost diabolical. A God of horror, a God of pain, a God of suffering, a God of contingency and happenstance, a God not of love, and a God that no one would be inclined to pray to.

    You fail to see or even acknowledge what Hull sees, Don. This is where you are blinded. Hull’s not the only one that sees this. Perhaps this quote from Bozarth will make it clearer:

    Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”

    –G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30, February 1978

    Nevertheless, I would be interested if you have any answers for my questions in 74.

    Sure, I get it Don, refuse to provide me with your timeline and answer my questions, saying you feel ‘no need’, and then demand I answer your questions. Slick, Don, real slick. You’re a crafty one all right. See you in the next go ’round, Don. And oh, Merry Christmas brother.

  78. Don said,

    December 21, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    Seriously, Steve, why do you think I would give any weight to an atheist’s thoughts on God? Do you think that if 24/6 creationism was the reigning scientific paradigm, that this Bozarth guy would be a Christian instead?

    refuse to provide me with your timeline and answer my questions, saying you feel ‘no need’, and then demand I answer your questions.

    I already told you why I don’t share your need for a detailed timeline. (Are there any other questions from you that I missed? I skimmed thru the previous posts and didn’t notice any.) But you (in 71 and 73) are the one who says there is a deficiency in the nonsectarian scientific method. I asked you what you would replace it with. You won’t or can’t reply. How am I supposed to take that seriously?

  79. Steve Drake said,

    December 21, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    Don @ 78,
    Don, brother, I sense a bit of fear and desperation in your last post. I can tell I might be rockin’ your world a little bit. I’m ready to wind this down, but you’re not ready to let it go?

    In an earlier post you alluded to theological problems you might have questions about. Did I read you right?

    If you’d like to discuss this offline, click on my gravitar, which takes you to my website, click on the about page, and you will see my email. Email me there. Don’t email me Don, if you are not serious or don’t have theological questions I might be able to help with. This is a sincere offer to help, but if you just want to pull my chain, we can do that here in the Green Baggins blog posts.

  80. Don said,

    December 22, 2016 at 12:18 am

    I sense a bit of fear and desperation in your last post.

    Lol, fear? No. Puzzlement that you would treat an atheist as a religious authority? Yes Annoyance that you won’t follow up on your criticism of the scientific method, with how you think it should be done? Yup. If you want to “rock my world” then propose something constructive.

  81. Roy Kerns said,

    December 22, 2016 at 11:51 pm

    Steve @70,
    God did indeed declare his creation stepwise good and upon completion very good. But that declaration does not tell us that any use man makes of the creation is therefore evil (as you know, a popular meme). It does not allow us to pour into the declaration our own definition of what “good” implies. (Reminds me of one of my favorite quotations, Blake’s “Tyger”, which says, wrestling with this very question, “Tyger, tyger, burning bright, in the forest of the night, what hand or eye, dare frame thy fearful symmetry”. Worth a look if you’ve never read the poem.)
    Agreed that it appears one can make a case for universal vegetarianism from Gen 1:30. You could also have appealed to the different, but obviously intentionally parallel words in Gen 9:3. These couple with the intuitive recognition of the realities of “nature, red in tooth and claw” and with our (correctly) recognizing that at some level we are ourselves creatures (part of what Adam learned by his Gen 2 study of the animals). For these reasons (and more) I grant the legitimacy of your puzzlement about animal predators. It does violate all the pictures in children’s books about Eden.

    On the other hand,

    No, Steve, I am not suggesting lions starved until after the Fall. Instead, I am taking God seriously when I hear his voice in natural revelation where the designed equipment of and awesome glory of a lion is not to eat grass. I hear, too, God’s voice in special revelation where his creation (a theme of Ps 104, cf, eg v5) includes both vegetation as food v14 and predation v21, where prey are a *gift* from God, a point explicitly emphasized in v 27-28. Furthermore, God tells us that he takes care of all of his creatures, v24, including those in the sea v25, and that these latter (which include carnivores) get their dinner as a *gift* from God v27, a gift that God calls *good*. Would we defiantly call it something else? Maybe our understanding should change.

    I am taking Gen 2 seriously where I read that the Tree of Life’s promise/curse was given to Adam/people not to ants and animals.

    I am taking Gen 3 seriously where I read that the curse of death fell upon Adam/Eve and, by virtue of headship, upon people. When the rest of scripture exegetes that curse of death, it reads as does Ro 5:12, where animals are not listed.

    I am taking Gen 2:17 seriously, realizing from it that Adam understood at least some of what *death* meant, having this understanding from his animal inspection taxonomical exercise of Gen 2:19ff.

    I am taking Gen 1 and 2 seriously, realizing from the text that, contra the “mother earth”, Gia crowd, the earth was made for man, including everything in it. The glory of dirt, sun, rain, is to serve man as he obeys God and lives to serve and glorify God’s. So, too, the glory of a cow is to serve as steak. I praise God as I salivate at its aroma and savor its flavor. I don’t say, “Thank God for the Fall.”

    I am taking Gen 3-8 seriously, where I read of *godly* folks whose occupation was animal husbandry. Nothing in the text suggests much less labels this a sinful occupation. Nothing in the text suggests that what was once sinful became righteous only after Gen 9:3.

    Now, how about going to @40 and answering the questions asked of you.

  82. Steve Drake said,

    December 24, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    I find it fascinating that at this point in this thread “An Argument Against Old Earth Being a Fact”, we’ve boiled it down to three, separate and distinct views on all this. Three very separate, very distinct, and all diametrically opposed to one another. My, my, what confusion we have. Dorothy, you’re not in Kansas anymore. Does anyone out there have the truth? Chime in with a fourth view, perhaps? Someone out there in blogland has got to know the answer to all this, right?

    Don wants to put death and carnivory, pain and suffering, way back in the fossil record hundreds of millions of years ago. Roy, on the other hand, wishes to put death and carnivory, pain and suffering, right there on day 6 when the lions started eating the bunnies. right there the same day they were created. Both Don and Roy wish to do all this even before Adam came along and before Adam sinned.

    This must be what in the Chinese Mandarin language is called a ‘jye bu kaide wenti’, a puzzle that cannot be opened or solved.

    All three views cannot all be correct. Where are you theologians, teaching elders and ruling elders, who will stand up, explain this, and set this straight? Where are your posts, where is your guarding and rightly dividing the Word of God in the pages of this blog? The people suffer for lack of a righteous Shepherd.

  83. Steve Drake said,

    December 26, 2016 at 8:16 pm

    Don, Roy,
    Since our theologians won’t step up–they’re very busy at the moment debating the meaning of ‘baptizo’ with long, long, blog comments, back and forth with each other and arguing whether its intent is to pour, sprinkle, or immerse–I will attempt, as a layperson, to lay this out. (Oh, for a righteous Shepherd who understands the Word of God to step in here.)

    Death is the penalty for sin. Cf. Gen.2:17, 3:19, Rom.5:12, 6:23, 1 Cor. 15:21. It is not just ‘death’ for Adam, but death in the entirety of its meaning and spectrum for all of creation; death in its constituent parts as physical, spiritual, and eternal. This ‘death’ affected both Adam and the created kingdom of creatures that Adam had dominion over (Gen. 1:28). It was ‘the’ major aspect of the Curse, but not the only aspect as is brought out in Gen. 3 when the animals were cursed, when Eve was cursed, when the ground was cursed, and in Romans 8: 20-22 where Paul says God’s creation was subjected to futility and groans and suffers the effects as if in childbirth. God’s curse was not just for Adam, but for the whole created order.

    It does you no good to claim that death existed in the plant kingdom prior to Adam’s sin, when plants were given to Adam and the creatures of the earth as food by God’s direct command in the first place. (Gen. 1:30). (The vegans and animal rights activists have a better understanding of this, albeit from a secular presuppositional starting point, than many Christians do.) A vegetarian diet was God’s original plan, animals were not eating each other, there was no carnivory, but as part of God’s gloriously created order were therefore under Adam’s protection and dominion.

    If death is not the penalty for sin, then Christ’s incarnation, His perfect life, His work on the cross, His penal substitutionary atonement, His ‘reason’ for coming as an answer to this sin-death problem we have, is obliterated. The gospel is destroyed. If death was part of the perfectly good process that God used before Adam sinned, then death is not an enemy which needs to be destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26), there would be no need for a resurrection of the dead, nor a resurrection of Christ, and if in Adam, we did not all die, so in Christ, we will not be made alive. Your salvation becomes impossible, and you are still dead in your sins.

    Death is the penalty for sin. You both want to put death before Adam’s sin, This brings you outside of the historic orthodox position of the Church. You blaspheme God in doing this, sin against the ninth commandment in bearing false witness against God, and destroy the very reason Christ had to come as the God-man in the first place. You obliterate the very gospel you claim has saved you.

    (Please Lord, may one of your called to the ministry, step in, and confirm or deny, and may your Word be honored.)

  84. Ron said,

    December 27, 2016 at 5:36 am

    I am taking God seriously when I hear his voice in natural revelation where the designed equipment of and awesome glory of a lion is not to eat grass.

    Roy,

    Reading back natural tendencies into prefall existence is hazardous. By your standard you’d have to surmise there was no fall. Man was created sinful and the earth was always cursed with respect to labor.

    Natural revelation no more reveals to you the original habits of lions than it does the righteous propensities of our first parents.

  85. Ron said,

    December 27, 2016 at 7:12 am

    So, too, the glory of a cow is to serve as steak. I praise God as I salivate at its aroma and savor its flavor. I don’t say, “Thank God for the Fall.”

    Roy,

    That you don’t thank God for the fall when you enjoy steak doesn’t strike me as an indicator of much. After all, I would suspect you don’t thank God for the fall when by His providence He accommodates you with things that are only occasioned by the fall. We all agree that much of what is praiseworthy since the fall is only praiseworthy through the fall. Salvation for instance. Yet we don’t thank God for the fall in order to thank Him for redemption. Rather, we just thank Him for our salvation. Similarly, that you don’t thank God for the fall when you give thanks for a tasty morsel of steak doesn’t get us any closer to the question of whether steak, like our salvation, is an accommodation occasioned by the fall.

  86. Reed Here said,

    December 27, 2016 at 10:44 am

    Steve, I’m not a theologian, but I have engaged this specific question here at GB before. Might I offer a summary?

    Yes, it seems patently clear that in the Scriptures ALL forms of death are expressly and only from God’s judgment on Adam’s sin.

    To be sure, we need to define what is meant by death. For example, the cessation of plant life is NOT in the definition, simply because plants were eaten before the fall. Likewise processes of nature prior to the fall (e.g., cell processes, astronomic processes, etc.) are not a part of the definition.

    Yet as Romans 8 makes clear, the whole of creation, all of nature, is in some manner subject to the rule of death. This means at most two things: 1) processes prior to the fall were corrupted, subjected to futility, and (possibly) 2) new processes only serving death were introduced.

    All this needs to be fleshed out with a bit of refinement. Suffice to say that death, the destruction of life, was NOT present, in any manner, before the fall.

    Roy, Don, not sure if I’ve engaged with you previously on this and similar questions, but I have at least with others. Please bear with me in saying that I don’t expect anything I say will persuade you differently.

    Suffice to say I’ve heard the arguments and studied the exegesis involved in “proving” there was death before the fall. My opinion, worthless tho it may be, is that those arguments are foolish eisegesis serving to support arguments that truly are antithetical to the atonement.

    I recognize that is a strong statement. I do not back away from it, even while I agree that this is not your intention, nor do you believe I am right.

    So be it.

  87. Ron said,

    December 27, 2016 at 11:23 am

    Reed,

    I’m not following closely so I might have missed it, but has anyone dealt with the fallen state of the serpent, which precedes “the fall” of man? I’d be interested in understanding how that span of time between the tempter becoming the tempter and “the fall” might relate to this discussion. Particularly, how it might relate to the animal kingdom.

  88. Steve Drake said,

    December 27, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    Ron,
    Not trying to speak for Reed, and thank you both for your contributions here, but the idea of a pre-Fall fall of Satan that affected the created order including the animal kingdom is not new. It is the major premise of the Gap Theory proposed and promoted by Thomas Chalmers in 1804 A.D. that there is a gap of untold millions of years between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 where Satan fell and corrupted the whole of the created order including flora and fauna. God then recreated from Gen. 1:2 forward. The Gap Theory held sway for about a half-century until George Stanley Faber came along in 1823 and advocated the Day-Age Theory, which was then promoted by geologist Hugh Miller as well (1802-56).

    Whatever the correct answer here is regarding Satan, and how we think that might have affected the animal kingdom, you must then also parse and define and explain what tov me’od (very good) in Gen. 1:31 means at the end of the six days after the whole creation had been completed including Adam and Eve.

    I’m not sure any discussion regarding a pre-Fall fall of Satan and its affects on the animal kingdom (where do you want to put it, Day 1, Day 2, Day 5, Day 6? ) can be entertained without also explaining what is meant by God’s statement that His completed creation was ‘very good’.

  89. Ron said,

    December 27, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    Thanks, Steve. I kinda figured such would make room for the gap theory yet not without the big problem of “very good.” So, I was thinking in terms of tempter’s sin occurring after creation and how that might relate to animals and such. Thx….

  90. Steve Drake said,

    December 27, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    Thanks Ron. Hey, you were going to unpack some things in an email to me offline. I’m still interested in hearing your thoughts.

  91. Ron said,

    December 27, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    Woukd you mind posting your email on my site? I won’t publish it. Actually though, I had in mind talking after we swapped emails. It’s much more efficient… thx Steve

  92. Steve Drake said,

    December 27, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    Ron @ 89,

    So, I was thinking in terms of tempter’s sin occurring after creation and how that might relate to animals and such. Thx….

    Ron,
    Email posted. If Satan’s sin and fall occurred after day 6, and after God’s declaration that the whole of His created order was tov me’od. what does that buy you? We don’t know when Adam sinned; i.e., how long after Day 6 it was that he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Was it days, weeks, months; Scripture doesn’t say. If Satan’s fall occurred before Adam’s Fall, it still doesn’t get one to an old earth with its billions and millions of years. At best it only introduces animal death and carnivory (and this is still a big assumption as an effect of Satan’s fall for there is nothing in Scripture to even hint at this) for a few weeks or months before Adam sinned. If such is the case, it still makes nonsense of the sin-death-curse causality problem introduced in Gen. 3.

  93. Ron said,

    December 27, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    Steve,

    I agree. Yet there seems to be a bit of cat and mouse going on, so now we can at least grant for argument sake that creation could’ve been effected by transgression prior to human transgression (i.e. “the fall). Probably not helpful for anyone who would infer created propensities by post fall observations, or age from apparent age.

  94. Ron said,

    December 27, 2016 at 10:07 pm

    No posts awaiting moderation and nothing in spam. rondig1 Comcast

  95. Steve Drake said,

    December 27, 2016 at 11:06 pm

    Ron,
    A bit of cat and mouse in what sense? What is assumption and pure speculation, and what can be derived from the actual text? We need to state our assumptions, and lay them on the table, right? What are we assuming about Satan’s fall and when it occurred?

    We know Satan is a created being. When was he created? Scripture doesn’t say. When did he fall? Again, Scripture doesn’t say. Do we have Scriptural support for an assumption that he fell prior to Adam’s sin? Possibly, but where is that explicitly stated?

    If so, do we have Scriptural support that this affected anything happening on earth? I would argue No, we don’t see that what happened in the heavenly realm affected the earthly realm until his conversation with Eve in the garden.

    What we do have is Scriptural support that this conversation with Eve had ramifications to Adam and to their disobedience to God’s command.

    God’s curse then follows where he curses the Serpent and all other animals, He curses Eve, and He curses the ground and Adams working of that ground.

    I don’t think we have any Scriptural support for saying that God cursed His creation upon the fall of Satan. The curses follow Adam’s fall, not Satan’s.

    I’m not a theologian, and we may be getting in way over our heads on a discussion of Satan’s fall when Scripture doesn’t provide much data about it. This may just all be pure speculation. But how does any of this relate to an old earth?

  96. Reed Here said,

    December 28, 2016 at 10:28 am

    Ron, initial thought would be that we work through the covenant considerations of Adam’s vice-gerency, the parameters of his rule under God. We might begin by observing that Satan as an angel was outside of that rule. Thus his fall was not a part of Adam’s.

    His use of the snake is the anamoly. It appears that this is the initial act of usurpation, yet not something consequent of Adam’s fall. That can be deduced from observing that the physical alteration of the snake (on your belly; limbs removed?) comes after Adam’s fall, as a pronouncement of judgement.

  97. Ron said,

    December 28, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    I think I follow, Reed. Thanks.

    Steve,

    Catnmouse referrred to the less than forthcoming people you’ve been dealing with, not you. For instance, one guy believed in no gap, 24 hour sequential days yet billions of years. It was like pulling teeth. Things haven’t gotten better with your more recent opponents.

  98. Steve Drake said,

    December 28, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Ron,
    Okay, so yes, a correction and clarification: one result of Satan’s fall prior to Adam eating the forbidden fruit was the usurpation of a snake. We can also say that Eve sinned as well prior to Adam eating the forbidden fruit in the twist of God’s words in Gen.2:16-17, she amended the meaning of die in Gen. 3:3, and she omitted that God allowed them to freely eat of any of the trees in the garden except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. I have no problem with Satan’s fall prior to Adam’s Fall or Eve’s sinning prior to Adam eating. But since Adam was created first, and is our representative head, Scripture indicates that all mankind fell in Adam. That’s what Rom.5:12 and 1 Cor. 15:21 are telling us–I’m sure a reference by Paul back to God’s curse of death on Adam in Gen. 3:19, ‘for you are dust, and to dust you shall return’.

    I guess I fail to see how this relates to the ‘age of the earth’ question. What suggestion are you trying to infer from all this as it relates to an old earth or young earth?

  99. Steve Drake said,

    December 29, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    Ron @ 97,
    Hey Ron. Still waiting on that email you promised way back in post #46. Have we blown past that now, or are you still planning on sending it? :)

  100. Ron said,

    December 30, 2016 at 9:24 am

    Steve,

    Again, there’s nothing awaiting moderation on
    my blog or anything in spam filter. For whatever reason the attempt to provide me your email was unsuccessful. Subsequently, I posted my email in the thread.

    Please mind, I am not inclined to email back and forth. I could do that sort of thing here at GB. If you’re willing I’d be happy to explain to you over the phone the philosophical flaws that someone had alluded to regarding a particular apologetic approach you might favor.

  101. Steve Drake said,

    December 30, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Ron,
    I typed in my email at the top of your blog page, hit submit, received a confirmation email from your list server and clicked on the link to confirm. I don’t know what else to do. I’ve also described how to get in touch with me in my post #79 above. You could have easily followed those instructions if you had truly wanted to email me something.

    But naw, thanks anyway. I think I’ve figured out what you hope to tell me what someone has alluded to are my ‘philosophical flaws’ regarding my apologetic approach. You described it in post #46 above in connection with the discussions from post #37 through #51 or so.

    A bashing of all the creation science organizations is perhaps a topic for some other thread.

  102. Ron said,

    December 31, 2016 at 10:45 am

    Steve,

    I’m not avoiding you. Please don’t suggest non truths.

    People post their email all the time in the comments section under any given post on my blog. I don’t publish them and we then begin discussion – even phone discussions, on various subjects. You just informed that you didn’t do as I suggested. Maybe you’re now following my blog but as far as I can tell, that doesn’t give me access to your email. It only allows blogger to send you emails. I went so far as to post my email in this very thread and reminded you of that, yet you didn’t make use of it. Lastly, I’ve offered no refutation of your apologetic, though I did point out question begging, but they had nothing to do with the apologetic. You don’t read carefully I’m afraid.

  103. Steve Drake said,

    December 31, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Ron,
    Forgive me for not understanding in #94 that the words ‘rondig1 Comcast’ was your email. I had no clue what that was. It was not in most email formats that I am accustomed to with a period or @ symbol, followed by .com, .edu, etc. You also didn’t address post #94 to me directly as Steve, another clue to me at least, that this was not something I would normally pay attention to. I thought it had something to do with ‘moderating’ the blog or something. As you have mentioned you don’t like to go back and forth in emails, so what’s the point? I would expect in the normal course of events we would have to go back and forth a couple times at least to clarify positions, ask questions of each other, etc.

    Forget that I asked brother, and forgive me for not understanding your post #94. My fault entirely.

  104. Ron said,

    December 31, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    NP

    Agree, we’d have to go back and forth over email too much, which is why I’ve tried to suggest twice that we talk; we’d exchange phone numbers over email. Talking is much more efficient. I’ve done that tons of times over philosophy, theology and domestic quarrels / marriage issues. Have in time met in person at least four guys I can recall off the top of my head, Works well. But no issues. You have my email.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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: