YEC without the bible, possible?

Hello Minority, Let me just tackle the use of the word "belief" here. Evolution is a scientific theory, in that it's based off evidence. True, human imagination is involved in fitting the evidence together, so to a certain extent it might be called a belief as well.Creationism on the other hand is based on a certain interpretation of Genesis. Creationists were opposing evolution even before they (the creationists) started doing science to support their position. Creationism therefore started out 100% as a faith issue.I am reluctant to refer to both collectively as "beliefs" for this reason, but for the sake of argument I will let that point pass.If you are at least familiar with the calculus concept of limits, the following is an analogy I like to use for science:A function may approach a value that is not defined for a given value of x. But as we get closer and closer to that value, the function gets closer and closer to its limit.In a similar sense, science may never give us all the information, but as we gain more and more evidence, it will get closer and closer to the truth. We might not know everything about evolution yet, but we don't have to. Because, for the past 150yrs, new evidence has provided more and more support for the theory, and more and more insights into how it works. One could say we are "approaching" the Theory of Evolution, or some ultimate form thereof.Whether or not you agree with the evidence is the subject of another thread. But do you see what I mean when I say that we don't need all the information to reach a conclusion? If more and more evidence kept pointing toward a young earth, it would be evident that the truth is approximately what YECs are telling us. In regards to a murder-rape trial, which would provide more conclusive evidence, a DNA test + fingerprints + items left by the killer at the scene of trial, or an eye-witness account?To answer your question, an archaeologist picking through rubble, combined with a number of corroborating eyewitness accounts would be nice. I'd go with an archaeologists findings over a poetical description of an event any day. (And historically, eyewitness accounts are almost always embellished) Usually the facts are straightforward. If there's disagreement among non-creationist scientists, it's usually about subtleties, or completely unrelated to the truth of evolution or the age of the earth. It is not presented as the ultimate infallible method to discover all truth by any sane person. Give me a scientist who claims this. Of course we can never know everything! But this whole discussion is related to the physical world!!! Science deals with physical evidence and physical evidence is what leads them to their conclusions. We are not talking about whether the pavement of heaven is pure gold or fool's gold. We're talking about how old rocks are, the age of stars and fossils. The scientific method is more than adequate for answering such questions. Oh dear, you've equated creationism with Christianity again. The poll was not about how many scientists opposed to laymen are Christians, but simply how many believe the earth is 10,000 years old or less. As I've already pointed out, an evangelical born-again Christian can be an "evolutionist". Because only Christians (and Muslims and Jews and 7th day adventists, but they are all minorities in the US) are YECs I think most of the 44% were Christians. Now, if we make the assumption that 50% of Americans are Christian (this poll make it more like 70%, but for reasons you just gave let's just say 50%)Religious identification in the U.S.Now if we say that 50% of Americans are Christians, and American scientists are drawn from the American people, we can make the assumption that about 50% of American scientists are Christians. (This survey of unknown accuracy would put the number much higher, at 70%, but let's just say 50% as our estimate)http://www.godandscience.org/...are_scientists_atheists.htmlSo if 50% of scientists are Christians (and probably more), then only 10% of scientists who are Christians are YECs. I think we have shown that most American scientists do not reject God. Even if the sincerity of their belief can not be measured 100%, we can still assume that a fair share are evangelical Christians. (Note: To make things simpler, I am only discussing American numbers) And most of these are evolutionists. Scientists are trained to be impartial. Most outsiders are not. Except that most (American) scientists do not reject God, and almost all of them accept evolution. With all due respect, the numbers don't fit your explanation. Except, according to the survey, 70% of scientists do not reject God. Some individual scientists, like Dawkins and Lewontin, do reject God, but they do not represent all of science.I will however, in a way, defend Scott Todd's statement. First of all, please notice that Scott Todd is by no means saying that there is evidence for design. He is referring to a hypothetical circumstance. Having said that: Science can only deal with the physical world. For science to continue, they can never simply assume that, just because they can't understand something, it has a supernatural causal agent.Take diseases for instance. Pasteur is often credited for the Germ Theory of Disease. It was very controversial at the time, that small creatures, invisible to the eye, cause diseases. If Pasteur had simply said: "Goddidit" we'd never have understood how diseases work, and we'd never have developed modern medicine. If Newton had ignored gravity and simply said: Goddidit, we'd never have Newtonian physics.If we, when faced with anything we don't understand just say (you guessed it) Goddidit!, we will never make any further progress. Maybe we will one day come to a point when science can not provide an answer, but until we know that we've reached that point, science has to continue looking for answers within the natural realm.That said, most scientists are not necessarily naturalistic in their every day thinking. As I think I've shown you, in the States, most scientists are Christian. But their job requires them to seek explanations within their field.If YEC was true, however, I'd expect these "natural" explanations to be much closer to a 6000yr old earth. From what authority do you take it that non-Christian scientists call Christian evolutionists "deluded"? (Besides Dawkins, but that's because he's a radical atheist, not just a scientist)
I can't recall reading any science textbooks that go off on a sidenote to discuss how deluded Christians are. On the other hand, a lot of creationist literature that I've read likes to call scientists overly biased, naturalists, or ignorant. YECs are far from consistent among each other. Unfortunately, I've gotta be going to work, but I'll try to elaborate on this point when I return.Having said that, evolution does not rule out a supernatural causal agent who sets everything in motion. We don't have the right to decide how God should create. If he prefers to create a wondrous machine (the universe) and life that develops itself, then I am in awe of that. If God has to intervene every ten minutes (sorry, every day) to add things to his creation, then that's fine too, but it doesn't fit the evidence I've seen.Evolution does not have to be distinguishable from a world created by God, because evolution may well be the vehicle used by God to create the amazing diversity we have today. Genesis certainly doesn't tell us how the world was created, it only offers a vague categorizer termed "a day" that could really mean anything. But that's a topic for another thread.Thank you Minority.

Four of the five people mentioned were mere mortals. There is no way to answer this question, and neither do we have reason to believe that they knew any better than we do (except Jesus, who may have been omniscient). In the hypothetical situation where YEC is correct, Adam and Eve may have known, but since evidence suggests that Adam and Eve evolved, I'd venture a guess that they wouldn't have known the subtleties of their own creation.What's the point of the question anyway?

Thanks for your input, dwise Glad you're following this thread. I started a new thread per our earlier discussion here. It's titled: "Are creationists shooting themselves in the foot?" and can be found here: http://EvC Forum: Are Creationists shooting themselves in the foot? -->EvC Forum: Are Creationists shooting themselves in the foot?It sounds like you might have some knowledge and possibly examples for that thread. Feel free to join in if you have the time.

Interesting question, Minority, and fair enough since it is basically what I asked of you. If I did not know of the evidence for evolution, I doubt if I'd ponder the meaning of the days in Genesis. I do find it remarkable that many early theologians questioned the idea of 24-hour creation days even before there was any conclusive evidence for the age of the earth.I believe Genesis is not meant to be read as a science textbook. Clearly, it was not the intention of the writers, or of God, that we should learn of the exact processes of our origins from the Bible. Genesis is supposed to tell us of how God was ultimately responsible for all that came to be.Likewise, God is omniscient, therefore he could have told us about germs, he could have taught us to build computers, air planes, lunar landers, but he didn't. It is something very much akin to free will that we are left to explore the countless, often surprising mysteries of our universe.I think the Bible tells us the basics of what we need to know. It tells us the tenets of our faith, it describes God and his involvement with humanity throughout history. But other than that, it leaves a lot to be explored by us.So, I think if there was evidence for a young earth, I'd interpret Genesis as an account of a recent creation, since Genesis doesn't give us that piece of the puzzle. Since evidence has convinced me of an ancient world, I interpret Genesis to mean an ancient creation. By no means do I discern between the two possibilities by using Genesis.Does that answer your question?

As others have recently stated in response to your question, it would have been much clearer if there were any physical evidence of a young earth in nature. Since I believe God was responsible for the creation of the universe, I think he could have made his point about YEC in the rocks.

I admit these are challenging questions. I'm not a biblical scholar, and I'm certainly not God, so I will only offer my rather limited guesses at your questions. I'm not sure how they pertain to this thread, but I have a feeling that you'll be able to connect it in some way. So here goes:1. Ask God. Maybe Adam and Eve were the first humans to be given souls (although, if they lived 6000yrs ago, I think that's unlikely). The garden may have been metaphorical, as may Adam and Eve.2. The soul is whatever part of you that carries on to the afterlife. Since emotion, memory, personality etc can be explained through physical processes, I'm not sure what that leaves. Some sort of consciousness presumably. If you know anyone who's had a near-death experience, they can probably guess better than I can.3. To set an example for how God wanted families to be, presumably.4. Are you? I don't go around thinking about my soul all the time. Humans are self-aware, but so are chimps, dolphins and elephants, so I don't think that has anything to do with it. I don't even know what a soul is, except that it must be some sort of spiritual component to a person's being. I'll leave it at that.5. He does in the Bible many times. He even takes on human form in the New Testament. A lot of people claim to communicate with God on a personal level. I believe God communicates with me, through the world, through His book, and even at a personal level at times.I have faith in the messages the Bible conveys. I don't treat it as a science book, certainly not the first chapters of Genesis, which to me, reads like allegory. As long as you take this approach you don't need to struggle to fit observational evidence with the Bible.I'm curious to see where you're going with these questions.Edited by Meldinoor, : Fixed a typo

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I for one avoid applying bias and perspective as much as I can when looking at the data. I think that makes for a more objective interpretation, but I won't digress any further on that. Instead I will try my utmost to reply to your question.The Bible uses several types of literature. Some of it is lyrical, like the psalms. The first chapter of Genesis hints at being lyrical. It even has a recurring chorus: "And there was evening and there was morning" which provides structuring and aids in the memorization of the passage. Remember, before it was written down, people had to memorise the story. Giving it a structure and dividing it into "verses" (days) and "choruses" would have made remembering it easier. Perhaps not making a nod in the direction of poetry would have made it easier to interpret literally."And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so."A recurring theme is that God commands, and then it is. It doesn't say: God gathered the water to one place. But that he commanded it and it was so. Seems to me he might be letting a created agent (laws of physics) do the job."Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds."*Notice that God commands the "land" and it "brings forth".The Earth bringing forth and God creating is used interchangeably in the passage, possibly implying that from God's point of view, the two really mean the same thing."And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds."Here's an example of the two being used together. The ground brings forth = God creates. But from our perspective, God has created the ground (or the planet) through physical processes (the planet's formation is not described in Genesis, probably because the writers didn't know what a planet was, or that they lived on one), and the planet has been given the ability (requirements) to produce life in all its diversity.I'd say not having the ground "bring forth" would have made a better case for a young earth."The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam"Adam means man, or human presumably (I may be wrong). This makes me wonder if even Adam was a metaphor for the human race."In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"Tree of life, and tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are amazing plants. I know of no plants in the world that have the ability to convey knowledge. I wonder if the trees might have been metaphors for something else. The tree of life = The desire for immortality perhaps? Something people have always sought and something that we will be awarded with in heaven where the tree of life stands. The tree of knowledge may have represented our desire to become our own judges of morality. But this is just my own speculation.If it had said: The tree of life was similar to the pine tree, but with purple pinecones and the tree of knowledge of good and evil is related to gopherwood, then it would have been clear that it was referring to actual trees."Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?""Snakes are not very crafty. At the best they can find a nice warm spot to sunbathe in. However, Satan is often referred to metaphorically as a serpent, even in revelation. Satan was also created by God. Notice that it doesn't say he was a wild animal, only that he was craftier than the animals. Another metaphor added to the picture. It doesn't point anymore to the age of the earth, but the fact that there are so many possible metaphors makes a point about how the text should have been interpreted."But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."They didn't die that day. Nor the next day. Nor the day after that. Funny how day suddenly has a metaphorical meaning to it, isn't it?Some of my points may be wack. I'm not a Bible scholar. But I think there are enough suggestions in the text for it to be metaphorical. I think if all the points I brought up were addressed and changed in the text, then perhaps a more literal interpretation may have been easier to reach.*Notice that evolution does not violate animals and plants reproducing by their "kinds". An animal will never give birth to a separate species, but through gradual change, a population of animals may become significantly distinct from another population that it can be called a new species. Genesis doesn't rule that out.- I notice that I have now made enough posts to be awarded the title of fully-fledged member of evcforum *proud* Yay!Edited by Meldinoor, : Added footnoteEdited by Meldinoor, : Added another little noteEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Interesting point, Minority. I think your point is very valid. I'm not saying that "evening and morning" being a sort of mnemonic makes it necessarily a metaphor, but that it provides an alternative purpose for that line which means it doesn't have to be interpreted literally.I want to be careful not to stray off topic too far. This thread isn't so much about individual arguments, as why we have the same evidence, but believe differently. How much do we rely on the Bible versus evidence, and do we try to make one fit the other, or are they already in agreement. The point of my last post, and I think your question, was to see if there is a purely biblical reason to believe in YEC.We're still on topic, in fact, your question is the same as my OP, just turned around. I asked, is there reason to believe in YEC from a purely science based standpoint, and you asked from a purely biblical standpoint. Let's just be careful to avoid getting too hung up on individual arguments, that we miss the point of the thread.My question to you now, Minority, is: Do you agree, based on the arguments I laid forth in my last post, that it is possible to interpret Genesis from an Old-Earth perspective? I'm not asking about your interpretation, just whether you think it is possible that Genesis could be referring to a creation spanning more than 6 days, and involving natural processes? From a purely scriptural point of view. Look at what you're saying. I'm not sure if I've understood you correctly, but it looks like your saying that God couldn't have made a clear point in the rocks, or that he chose not to. Scripture does not only tell us to go to scripture, in fact, it encourages us to look at God's work in nature.Psalms 19:1 - 2:
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

---

Dude#1: Job 10:9 says: "Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again?" So are we literally made out of dirt?
Dude#2: Yes. We should always read the Bible literally.
Dude#1: Job 10:10 = "Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese". So are we more toward edamer or brie?
Dude#2: ...Ecclesiastes 3:18-20
18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [b] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.Was Solomon an evolutionist?

Minority has so far been courteous and open-minded, and I have yet to hear him/her call evolutionists "evil". Your post is a mischaracterisation.

Hello Minority, I think you'll find that the above quote elicited quite a few responses. And I agree with them. You seem to be neglecting the fact that what you are comparing is an interpretation with an interpretation. Not an interpretation and an absolute.Let me explain. We both hold the Bible to be the infallible word of God. AND, we both agree that the Bible contains metaphorical as well as historical information. Where we disagree is on what is metaphor, and what is not.Both of us believe that the Bible is a source of absolute truth, but our interpretations differ, meaning that one or both of them does not coincide with this "Truth". Both of us can provide "valid arguments" to support our positions. But you can not prove which one is correct. You claimed this yourself in an earlier post: Both interpretations of Genesis are based on incomplete knowledge, so there is always the element of doubt. Both could be wrong.And it doesn't matter how many theologians agree with you. It doesn't matter how well versed they are in scripture. Using the logic that you applied to science, as long as I can present a valid argument for my interpretation (as I indeed did in message 69) the truth will be indiscernable.Your own logic now has you in a vicegrip. You can not choose between any two scientific theories if both sides present valid arguments. And you can not choose between our two interpretations of Genesis for the same reason. You are stuck, and its a matter of flipping a coin, or going with the prettier theory.Wanna borrow a penny?Edited by Meldinoor, : Added rhetorical question

---

Ecclesiastes 3:18-20
18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [b] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

Hi Minority, I understand that you are appealing to our common faith. BUT what I don't understand is this.Why does YOUR interpretation of Genesis have precedence over mine, and over observational evidence?A variety of interpretations of Genesis have existed throughout the Church, many have had valid arguments. But you seem convinced of the inerrancy, not of the Bible itself, but of your interpretation of it. That's what confuses me. You say scripture should interpret the evidence for us. But first you have to interpret the meaning of Scripture. So if 50 Christians interpret Genesis in 50 different ways, they will have 50 different interpretations of the evidence and no common ground to argue from. I agree with you that Scripture is the true Word of God, but that doesn't show me how to interpret evidence. Your interpretation? My interpretation? Or one of the many other theological interpretations of Genesis?In short, why are you convinced that a "young earth" interpretation of Genesis is sufficient reason to interpret evidence from a young earth perspective? Yup, most definitely. I don't advocate treating anything as metaphor unless there is sufficient reason to believe that's what was intended. Heck, I'm not a trained theologian, I don't claim to understand the ins and outs of scripture, and I'm careful not to read to much into the text. I would argue however, that reading 24-hours into the Genesis text to describe "days", before there was a sun to mark that timescale, is as great a stretch of the imagination (if not greater) than simply reading it as unspecified lengths of time. Anything is self-evident from a plain reading if that's what you believe it says. Even YEC. The perspective you have as you read the text plays a large role in determining what seems "self-evident". I for one do not believe it is self-evident that the Earth was created 4004bc on October 23rd, in seven days, and that a flood covered the entire "planet" at the time of Noah. (Exaggerating a little, but even with less specifics I don't see why it's self evident). Here I was just talking about perspective and reading things into the text, and you give me a perfect example! Tell me, where in the above passage does Jesus say the entire planet was covered with water? Perspective perspective... No. Because nature reveals that ordinary people under purely natural circumstances don't rise from the dead. However, we don't believe Jesus was an ordinary person, so your argument doesn't apply.It is true, however, that there is no physical evidence of it actually happening. I'm willing to take it on faith because there is no physical evidence AGAINST it. That's the difference between the Resurrection and creationism. The former has no observational evidence in support of it, but nonetheless would be possible for an omnipotent God. The latter not only does not have proper support from evidence, but has heaps upon heaps of evidence to the contrary.While I believe an omnipotent God is perfectly capable of creating an earth with appearance of age, my faith holds that God is not deceptive. What about cold hard fact? It seems to me that you rely heavily on your interpretation of Genesis being correct. If you interpreted the flood as being non-global, you would see no reason to interpret (skew) the evidence in favor of a world-wide flood.It strikes me that your belief in YEC is remarkably faith-based. But not faith in the Bible per se, but faith in that Genesis is indeed referring to a six, 24 hour day, creation.Why am I wrong?

Yes I have, but maybe I should clarify. For an omnipotent, eternal Deity, the creation of a planet directly, and the creation of a chain of events and the natural processes to acheive some end-goal would not be very different. I think if God created the universe in the Big Bang, designed with the processes needed to produce planets, He'd still consider the planets His creation. It would be absurd to give credit to the universe as a creator, if God created it in the first place. Therefore, I think "the earth bringing forth" refers to the processes that God ultimately created bringing forth His creation. Good point. If you assume that Adam was the first human. If he wasn't, Adam may simply have been the most ancient reference in Jewish genealogical records. A fruit off a metaphorical tree is a metaphorical fruit. Show me the verses you refer to. I don't think it's self-evident that Adam and Eve were to have an eternal physical life.

Hi BobAliceEve, Is it possible that this is a metaphor that conveys a specific message to the reader. Let me ask you; Since God could create humans directly from dust, why bother with a rib? Perhaps the passage is metaphorical but conveys a message that Moses wanted to get across. You are assuming that the death they were warned about was physical. Can you speak for the views on creation of all the individuals you are naming? This reminds me of a quote by a former governor of Texas: An appeal to authority where the authority figure is ASSUMED to have agreed with her. While I respect your opinion BobAliceEve, I know of no support whatsoever for the above quote. Be careful to distinguish between "your thinking" and established scriptural and scientific support.This response has been entirely off-topic, and while I really want YECs to participate on this thread, PLEASE make your next post have some bearing on the OP. I will not respond to anymore posts unless I can see relevance to the topic. If you can connect your posts to the topic of this thread I will be happy to discuss them with you.

I agree. But I'm interested to see how Minority Report reconciles his earlier statements that evidence played an important role in coming to his conclusions, with his faith-based statements that all evidence must be interpreted according to a young-earth interpretation of Genesis.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.