Creation Confusion

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I love the Biblical creation account.

From a responsible reading of the text, I cannot help but take it to be a literal account of how God created the main aspects of this reality.

I whole heartedly believe that this Earth isn’t much older than about six thousand years. I believe that a global flood brought Earth into a period of drastic climate changes, (known as the Ice Age) which lasted for about five to seven hundered years.

I could go on and on describing the more controversial aspects of the Christian scientific models, but that is not what this post is about.

Despite my heartfelt beliefs about the Earth, I have to admit that there are some troubling aspects to many of the scientific models presented by Christian scientists.

I would like to present two of the most troubling (to me) and see what there is to be made of them.

One of the biggest problems for Christian scientists is the starlight and time issue. When it comes to generating a consistent cosmological account, the problem arises about how starlight, which is millions upon millions of light years away from Earth could be visible if the Earth is only six thousand years old.

There are various models proposed to try and explain this phenomenon, none of which are very convincing to me. I read Dr. Russell Humphries book, “Starlight and Time” a few years ago, and I understand that it has problems with its consistency, specifically where it predicts a visible blue shift in the light spectrum, where in reality we observe red shifts.

Newer models have been proposed to try and account for this, but, like I say none to me seem sufficient. I’m no cosmologist, (I’m just a farm boy from NC) but the theological absurdities which arise, coupled with inconsistency between these models and the observed evidence, make me very hesitant to embrace any of these theories.

Kind of like putting a square block into a circular hole.

The other huge issue I see Christian scientists facing is the supposed physical changes underwent by creation at the time of the fall.

The Bible clearly teaches that there was no death, (per say) before the fall, and if such is true, then the question arises about the (seemingly) well crafted defense mechanisms of many animals. Some creatures are specifically adapted to their environments and exist in harmony with their surroundings via their streamlined claws, teeth, poison, etc.

It seems far-fetched to propose that, at the fall, God completely re-crafted every animal in the world, (although we DO know that he specifically changed the physical nature of the serpent.) If He adapted the serpent to the new, fallen world, then I suppose it wouldn’t be too far fetched to suppose that He re-crafted all creatures in such a way.

These are two of the really big problems that I have with current Christian models.

Any scientifically minded Christians out there care to give me your thoughts?

2

I’m not a christian, but I am an amateur scientist. I promise I won’t try to derail your thread, though, I think it is an interesting topic.

Can galactic expansion be used to solve the problem of light? A ver rapidly expanding galaxy with a constant velocity of light might allow light from stars to appear to travel farther. But that explanation veers dangerously close to the big bang model.

As for the fall, the explanation may be similar to the explanation of how the ark contained all the species: perhaps the types that existed shortly after the fall have adapted since.

I think the flood provides a significant scientific stubling block as well, though. Even fourty days of global flood would drown most plant life, many insects would die off because they have rather sensitive breeding cycles, and many animals have very specific plant diets that would make it quite difficult to keep them, even for a month, let alone the ensuing months while the plant supply regenerates.

But, we are talking about an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving god. The risk that is run when invoking him, though, is that the models become less and less scientific.

3

What is the evidence that Genesis 1 should be taken literally?

You basically say that it “seems that way to you”, and then deal with some issues that arise.

But you just made a huge assumption that I personally would challenge. So…

(i) Is there any evidence that ANY biblical character took Genesis 1 literally? Did Jesus say so? Did Paul? If not, then why do YOU assume so? Is this something you have been taught, or something that is clearly laid out in the bible?

(ii) Are there any passages of the bible at all that that you do NOT take literally? What about the book of Job? Is it a story or a real account of history? What about song of songs? Is it a song/story or did the events described actually happen? What about statements and parables by Jesus? Do you take them all literally? Did the good neighbor actually exist, or not? What about revelation? Are all the strange beasts and events described actual accounts of events that will take place? On what basis do you decide whether something is credible history or a form of literature?

4

Many of the objections you’ve raised come from an inadequate knowledge of certain Christian models.

As tempting as it may be for me to dive into a discussion about the validity of the Noah’s Ark story, I would instead like to stay focused on the two problems I’ve presented.

You’re right about the whole, “natural adaptation after the ark” in terms of the Animals.

There is a 3 volume series of “Creationist” DVD’s called, “Marvelous Creatures that Defy Evolution.”

This series highlights many aspects of all sorts of animals, from the common to the exotic, and shows how these aspects, or mechanisms could not have evolved, since the creature could not exist without this mechanism being fully functional. Many of the “mechanisms” or aspects that were highlighted were defense mechanisms.

If they want to point to these things as “evidence of a creator” one minute (as in the DVD series), but then write them off as the result of natural selection the next…well, something just doesn’t seem right about that.

5

Mr. Ned,

It is not my purpose in this thread to dispose of false (and arguably heretical) interpretations of the creation account in Genesis.

To answer part of your objection though: it is obvious that any writing needs to be interpreted in order to discern what the correct meaning of the writer was. That being the case, I would fully argue for the validity of current scientific methods of textual criticism, and proper hermeneutical procedures.

Eisegetically reading “the big bang” or “long ages” into your text is not only dishonest, it renders your entire worldview (if you form it based from your reading) inconsistent, invalid, and unacceptable.

I brought up these (and similar theological) issues with Dr. Hugh Ross when I had my little “debate” with him. (Make no mistake though, I got his autograph on the book, “Creator and the Cosmos” before I got into the hot and heavy discussion.)

For the sake of argument, I’ll discuss with you Christ’s view of creation, if you discuss with me His view of bestiality. (Although, we should do it in a different thread.)

Thanks for the clarification of the issue though,
God bless

6

The earth could be 6000 years old, i dont know. I dont think the Bible specifies how old the earth is. It just says “in the begging God created the heavens and the earth” Then it goes on to say “the earth was Void and without form” From this time to when God created light trees people etc the bible does not specify how long that period was. It could have been hours or hundreds of years or millions of years. The bible does not specify. I do believe that man and animals have been around for 6K years.

I dont think the distant star light argument holds any water considering scientists depend on many unstated assuptions that can not be known.

1 The Constancy of the Speed of Light: It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.
2. The Assumption of Rigidity of Time: that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. There are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.
3. Assumptions of Synchronization: Another way in which the relativity of time is important concerns the topic of synchronization: how clocks are set so that they read the same time at the same time.
4. The Assumption of Naturalism (my Favorite of all)
One of the most overlooked assumptions in most arguments against the Bible is the assumption of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that nature is “all that there is.” Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws.
5. Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument
Many big bang supporters use the above assumptions to argue that the biblical timescale cannot be correct because of the light travel-time issue. But such an argument is self-refuting. It is fatally flawed because the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. This serious difficulty for the big bang is called the “horizon problem.”
I have sited this from the New Answers book.

so the bottom line for me is no one can know how old the earth is for sure. Only God knows.

7

OK, if you don’t want to divert your thread, I’ll make a new one. :slight_smile:

8

You know, I just read the “New Answers Book” a few months ago, after my visit to the new Creation Museum in Ohio, (or is it in Kentucky? It’s right on the border.)

Anyway, I agree that when anyone views facts they do so from a foundational set of presuppositions. These foundational assumptions profoundly affect the conclusions drawn from the “data.”

I’m just not sure how valid current Christian models are in their attempts to describe this particular set of data.

9

Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is six thousand, or six million, or 6 billion years old, or any age whatsoever? I can’t ever recall reading such a thing?

10

It was in the same passage that commands us to use intelligent inferences when reading the text.

11

My now retired pastor gave me the impression he views the interpretation of the Bible in more of a literal sense. I have no problem with that if that is how his faith is based. I don’t judge people’s thought’s on the Bible if that is where their comfort zone lies. There was one time when he and his wife and a couple of church friends had Thanksgiving dinner with us and to promote coversation, I brought up the discussion of dinosaurs. Well, there was some denouncement starting to occur along with some hemming and hawing. The discussion was heading to a vehement stance when my wife interceded and quelled the debate. Needless to say, I didn’t learn much during those short exchanges. You have to realize I regard my pastor in high esteem with an intelligent head on his shoulders. He is a very devout Christian, so I didn’t pursue any other conversations concerning such topics, because I feel people are allowed to believe the Bible however the want.

Regarding Genesis’ storyline, Moses was told in his mind through God’s direction the accounts of those times. Moses transcribed the first few books of the Bible the best he could (in my opinion), plus through King James’ scribes along with interpreters, I feel some of the transcriptions were mistakenly done. It is very possible some descriptions were muddled being translated through several people.

I take some scriptures literally, some metaphorically, some in an allegorical sense and the rest as parables. I have no problem thinking this universe is billions of years old…time has no constraints for God. Dinosaur’s remains have been recovered and I have seen tracks for which I believe to be T-Rex foot prints in hardened riverbed. God gave us minds to reason and if Christians use prayer along with the study of the Bible, then we will use that reason to help us understand in a way that comforts us personally. I have also witnessed anomolies which I feel God was responsible for which there was no scientific way to explain them. Most assuredly I was sober and sound of mind when those incidents occurred.

I have found correlations between the fall of satan and the fall of man. How they closely follow each other in accounts of the Bible. The biggest difference being is the possibility of redemption of man where satan does not. However cruel or harsh it is perceived how God will carry out His plan, is not for man to understand. I feel we are allowed to question in our minds this course God takes, but we will ultimately have to reconcile the fact these things will come to pass. Whether we come to God in a fundamental frame of mind or through a discerning manner, we must hold onto our faith that God acts in our best interest and give thanks for all things in our lives.

12

Wait, which is it, you’re a simple farm boy or a scientist?

13

If Thomas Jefferson were alive, I’m sure he could shed some light on the dilemma.

14

Trust me, you’re no Thomas Jefferson.

Look for my new thread on science and Christianity, coming soon to a message board near you…

15

You’ll have to forgive me for not taking your word for that Mr. Anthem.

Besides, I never claimed to be Thomas Jefferson.

I’m probably much better looking than him anyway.

16

Well, due to some side study I’ve been doing on the whole Starlight and Time issue, I no longer see it as a major roadblock on the highway of creationism.

At best, it is a sharp curve.

I highly suggest that you guys all subscribe to the Creation Technical Journal, and read up on the latest Scientific cosmological models being offered by Christians.

17

I prefer to get my scientific information from scientists.

18

^^ Indeed.

19

If you get your science from scientists…who do you get your logic from?

It certainly isn’t logicians, because, they’ll tell you that the ad hominem appeal to a persons religion as a way to indicate the validity of their scientific proposals, is fallacious.

But hey, if you’ll compromise with the God-haters about the nature of reality and Gods creation, then, sharing with them in their irrationality (when it comes to logical reasoning) shouldn’t be too far fetched for you either.

I suppose we’ll see.

We are at war with ideas and demonic doctrines. Be sure that you’ve considered the implications of your opinions Mr. Ned.

God bless

Shotgun

20

This is an ad ad hominem attack.

It is not fallacious to question the motive of scientists who come searching for an data to fit an explanation, not an explanation to fit their data.

I talk about it here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=163327