I always wondered why God *suddenly* was in such a hurry. :)

And I'm not really committed to a 24 hour day if truth be known.  Heck even today, it's not a 24 hour day.  (Yeah, yeah darn close).  Although I learned an interesting fact today.  On Jan 1 when we're celebrating the 2008 year AD, Ethopians will be dealing with Y2K on their calendar.

I also learned this week that most scholars actually put Christ's birth at 5 AD and that his birth most definitely wasn't December 25th.  I also continue to be amazed reading through Acts of events that we often picture as happening instantaneously... instead happening slowly.

I wonder if it's fair to say God worked through the night? :)

How long was the earth sitting formless?  That seems to happen *before* we even start dealing with evening and day. 

Actually I wonder if the light source was the sun initially.  Sounds like a dumbererer question until you ask yourself were the heavens just planets and not stars?  Or are we arguing that only the sun was created on that "day".  Or all the stars were created on that day?  Or gravity was introduced which caused us to "catch" onto the sun?  Did it take a bit for the sun to start revolving around the earth in 24 hour periods?  ("Galow"lian humor there in case any catches that backwardness)

My point I guess is that we humans are lousy when calculating time (or when it comes to not wasting it. ;) ) and God isn't bound by time.  I've seen fair arguments on both sides.  Do I have a problem believing either?  Erm not really. 

And with this rambling... it's bedtime. 

wow what a message God Bless you

happy new year 

Just to be clear.  Just because someone doesn't believe in young earth, doesn't mean they believe in evolution.  The two do not go hand in hand.  As I said, this is something I personally haven't decided on yet as I've been sifting through the evidence.

What's important is the evidence that God created us and our belief the Bible is the accurate, if not completely full*, account of what happened is.

* - Meaning we don't have the mechanical or engineering layouts of how everything happened.  Sometimes it strikes me that we are incredibly arrogant in thinking that "WE NEED TO KNOW".  Or as it was put in Job 38 (full chapter here because it's a great picture of what we are talking about now)

On the other hand it would be fun to have that fold out "map" in a Bible.  :)

One more asterisk. 

As I said, this is something I personally haven't decided on yet as I've been sifting through the evidence

Meaning young earth vs. old earth evidence. 

Great post once again my friend, have a great ending of your year!

I'm praising God for the wonderful comments rec'd so far! (some could easily see this topic as an excuse to pound the dissenters) Thanks Michael, Norm, Paul, Mary, Jeremy, and Lara for sharing your time and thoughts with us!!!!!!!!!! (and same goes to those who commented before/after you)

Michael, I wouldn't even begin to suppose I can understand God's timeframe, eternity (timelessness) is something I just can't get my (finite, limited) mind around! :-)  But God created a timeframe that we can understand when he created matter (universe). Amazing, isn't it?

Paul, you have "chosen the way of truth" (Ps 119:30) my friend, that ranks you up there with the greatest men and women written about in the Bible! Childlike faith is one of the most intelligent choices we can make! Mary, I'm growing right along with you!!

I just glad our day starts at midnight.  It would be so confusing if each day started at a different time based on when sunset occurred.

However, I disagree.

http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/index.html
http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html

The last article particularly refutes the point that "yom" is used in every occurrence to mean a 24-hour hour period.  One is an audio presentation.

Whether the creation occurred in a short period of time or much longer as scientific evidence indicates, the important aspect is that it was instigated by God.  Creation came from nothing.  There is no evidence for that to have been possible form anything other than God.  This is the Jewish tradition and does nothing to refute God's purpose, 

There are many theological scholars and written sources that disagree with the young earth theory.  That isn't the point when it comes to the salvation story.  Science simply tells us how - not why.  That is what was being recorded for our benefit in scripture.

I'll expand on your thought on eternity, Mike.  If God is eternal and we have an eternal life, why should it be that the universe is so young in all of eternity?  Thanks for stirring things up, Mike.

I'm still missing where the 24 hour thing keeps coming up.  Let me rephrase a question from above.  If we were on Mercury would there have to have been a different word for day?  So you don't have to look it up, a "day" on Mercury is 176 times the length of a "day" on Earth.

If all I'm worried about is that somewhere it went from night to day 7 times that still does not necessarily give me a time frame.  And remember the problem with the sun again.  We on earth get so focused on it having to be about us, we assume the galaxy (and the sun) revolves around us.  So everyone seems to assume God has to count days using the same star we do every time the word is used.

It's also always struck me as God using the creation of the earth as setting an example of how we are supposed to live, moreso then it actually being 6 days.  Why do we say it took God 7 days to create everything btw?  It took 6.  On the 7th, He showed us a model of how to live our lives.  Unless you want to believe God was actually tired. 

To tag on just one more comment, in the Genesis order of creation, the day could not possibly be associated with sunrise and sunset; at least not at first.  The sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day.  Obviously, something else was the benchmark for the first days.

OK, Mike.  I'll quit now. . .

Mike,

You missed my question.  Your argument is a day has to be 24 hours.  My question is where is it written that a "day" has to be 24 hours?  And I didn't ask because I had the answer, I asked because I didn't. 

By the way, a human idea is that the day HAS to be 24 hours.   And I haven't been arguing that the Bible has it wrong.  Just as I don't want to ignore what the Bible has written, I don't want to add or misinterpret the things it doesn't say.   Hence my constant pokes at the Gallileo stuff because the church thought that the Sun HAD to revolve around the earth because of what was written in Genesis. 

Let me pull you back to Genesis.  This may seem nitpicky but I'm a literalist.

Until God created the light there was no "Day" (which interestingly enough even though it doesn't mean 24 hour period is translated from the same word as the one you keep pointing at, so I don't know what that's supposed to prove).  So unless you count *everything* before that as evening means there had to be a day or an evening not accounted for here.  We go "nothing" to light (day) to "And there was evening and there was morning, one day".  So what do I do with that first "day" when light was made?

Correction to comment to Gene. Astrologically speaking the length of a day is defined by the rotation of the earth, but God defined day as "light". What light, if no sun? I dunno! God is light, perhaps he was shining.

Norm, I simply keep bringing up yôm (day) b/c it appears the word meant the same thing to the writer of Genesis as it does to us today: approx 24 hours, eve and morn, one full rotation of the earth. To get long indefinite ages into Gen 1, we have to reinterpret yôm to mean something the word doesn't naturally mean in the Bible.

The Bible never literally says the earth is flat, as it literally says the universe was created in six days. So I can't really see the parallel there. (Isaiah seemed to call the earth circular.)

Norm, I simply keep bringing up yôm (day) b/c it appears the word meant the same thing to the writer of Genesis as it does to us today: approx 24 hours, eve and morn, one full rotation of the earth.

Why?  I'll agree with "Evening" and "Morning".  But my question on the rest is why?  Why are you convinced it has to be 24 hours?  I mean the first couple of days we definitely have issues with how long a day is.  We don't have "markers" until vs. 14 which is day 4.  And we aren't told the markers are the same span of time now as they were then.  Additionally I don't understand for me to be reading this correctly why a day HAS to equal a certain number of hours.  Heck we've made how many changes to the calendar because our calculation of what a day since we began recording time has been wrong.  If I went back and asked Moses.  Hey, is a day 24 hours?  I really do think I'd get a look like... What???!?

Additional points that I need to be honest.  If there are over 200 living species that are existant and I'm reading Day 6 (where man and woman are created), it really strikes me as taking longer than 24 hours especially since that's not how the day started.  And all of that has to be happen in that 6th "day" because until it happens woman is not created.

All this said, it's 12:00 and the bells have rung.  The carriage is changing back into a pumpkin and I probably don't have time to followup more.

Oh and on a separate topic, I really am curious about what God would consider rest. :) 

Golden, THANKS for dropping in with that word from Strongs. I've been studying Genesis using a couple of commentaries, Be Basic by Warren Wiersbe and The Genesis Record by Henry M. Morris. Both authors are highly respected and very committed to letting scripture interpret itself rather than bending it to fit the way we think things were.

Norm, why should the length of a "day" be any different on day 1 than day 5 or 6? Each creation day ends with precisely the same language, "there was evening and there was morning, the n-th day." Now we can take the position that the days varied in length, perhaps by thousands or millions of years....but that really seems to go against the thought that the Genesis author was trying to convey -- consistency. But I'll let you take that up with Moses when you see him. :-)

why should the length of a "day" be any different on day 1 than day 5 or 6?

Why would they have to be the same? We are now living in a world of watches and clocks where we can make the argument that the definition of a day is 24 hours.  However as you have pointed out numerous times, the way Genesis seems to define the passing of a day is:  "There was evening and there was morning.".  And as has been pointed out numerous times, we don't know *where* there was evening and morning.  Realistically when I see God doing this, I could just as easily see this taking 2 seconds a day because he knew how he wanted it.  Do I also have to believe He took 24 hours a day for 6 days to get this to work?  In the end, I see nothing that says it has to be a specific period of time.

BTW, when we're in Heaven, how long is a day going to be?  Are you committed to that having to be 24 hours as well?

Oh and I forget to answer your question before.  Maybe I shouldn't answer it, because as I said above, I don't know which camp I'm in. 

I would like to ask a question of those who would be quick to reinterpret Genesis to line up with geologic ages (millions of years), evolution, and the big bang (or whatever they call it these days). When was the last time you read/studied a commentary that actually supports six-day creation, or young earth?

The last time I've read or listened to a "young earther" was Friday or Saturday when I listened to an Answers in Genesis broadcast.  Actually both Thursday and Friday seemed to be a really good outline for the argument you are presenting. ;)

I am done now. :)

Gene,
What does "and there was evening, and there was morning" all by itself convey to most people? I would venture nobody would answer "the triassic period" lol. That is my point with this blog.

Furthermore, the six days that I work is compared to the six days that God "worked", according to Exodus 20:9-11, making it easy to apply the command to rest on the seventh day. If God worked for billions of years before he rested, where's the explicit command that I work for six 24 hour days before I rest? Remember, we can make "day" mean anything we want!!

I don't agree that everything Gene lists is a mystery.  But that's a different post.  Actually I don't have an issue with someone living 600 years (or more).  But it brings back the context of what is normal.  If someone asked what is a normal life, would you answer 72 years (or whatever the statistic is now.)?  If so would you have a problem with a 600 year old person?  I don't (ok I might be a little startled at first).  But that's because my definition of what a life is, is not dependent on the length of it.  That may be telling in what was done with a life, but it doesn't throw my life off kilter if I encounter someone who dies at 1 vs. someone who dies at 110.  In other words I don't say a life has to be 72 years.  It has to be measured from birth (or time of direct creation in the case of Adam) to death.  And the fact that Adam began with a 20 or 30 year old type of body, doesn't mean the word "life" associated with the time he was living means anything different than someone who was conceived and died later.

Somehow the fact that I believe the first day *may* not have been 24 hours (but defined as a day by other parameters) makes me a non literalist.  It even means I'm beating a dead horse. :)  All I've been asking is why putting a specific constant amount of hours is important to the definition of day.

As to why I would treat the first days in Genesis different?  Well because they were in the sense that parameters we usually use to measure days were just being created and some weren't created until after the first "x" days.  Would God be lying to say it was a day if it took from evening to morning (but evening to morning took 25 hours)?  Apparently so because that's not "normal".

if days can be anything we want to interpret them to be

I don't think days can be anything "we want to intrepret them to be".  They need to be the length of time God used. :)  Do they have to be 24 hours (which is just as much an interpretation as someone saying that it may not be hour dependent)

The Bible never literally says the earth is flat, as it literally says the universe was created in six days.

And the Bible never literally says a day is 24.xx hours does it?

And things were settling down until I had to post this....  Here are my random quotes and comments.

Mike wrote, "In fact, I often wonder why he drew it out that long!"  Augustine wondered the same thing!

Valya wrote, "I think the details of creation are going to stay a mystery untill we can ask God personally in heaven."  What's so mysterious about Genesis 1-2?  I don't think God could have spelled it out any clearer.

Norm wrote, "My point I guess is that we humans are lousy when calculating time"  In this case tho, God wrote it.

Norm wrote, "Do I have a problem believing either?  Erm not really."  To believe both simultaneously is to believe in a contradiction.  The Bible says plants were created before the sun.  The world says the sun was created before plants.  You can't have it both ways. 

mstoval2003 wrote, "GOD is GOD and his creation was done in his OWN time, not OURS."  What verse tells you this?  His creation sits in our time, not His.  Also, if creation was done in His time, what basis is there for our work week?

mstoval2003 wrote, "That is why we have to stay in the word, believe what is written and pass it on."  Amen!

Paul Delucia wrote, "This much I do know........ we must, every day, live for Jesus !!!!!"  Amen!  But more:  be encouraged by Hebrews 5:11ff (discipleship and growth).

Norm wrote, "it would be fun to have that fold out "map" in a Bible.  :)"  Heck yeah!

Norm wrote, "As I said, this is something I personally haven't decided on yet as I've been sifting through the evidence [between OEC and YEC]."  What turned me was the realization that neither camp has all the answers, that both camps have very good answers, but God clearly endorses YEC.  Since YEC is plausible and God endorses it, I went with that.  Since then, I've learned to trust God alone, even when evidence appears to contradict His word.  (Years later the troubling evidence ends up confirming God's Word anyway.)

Michael ATL43:  I don't know you, but you say Pro 3:5-6 changed your life.  Why then do you use 2 Peter 3:8 to interpret Genesis 1-2 instead of using Genesis to interpret itself?  It seems you're resisting Pro 3:5-6.

Gene wrote, "the important aspect is that it was instigated by God"  It seems you are cutting your losses.  I'd say the important thing is we can trust what God wrote.  If I were to subscribe to your sentiments, then Genesis 1-2 could have consisted of a single line:  "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."  The fact is God gave us so much more than that!  We should make the most of all of it.

Gene wrote, "There are many theological scholars and written sources that disagree with the young earth theory."  Ad populum fallacy.  There are many theological scholars and written sources that disagree with the old earth theory.

Gene wrote, "Science simply tells us how - not why."  NOMA is unbiblical.  Sometimes God also tells us how.  In Genesis 1, God appears to have created everything -- How?  In six days.

Gene wrote, "God created the heavens and the earth, in a particular order (which, btw, is supported by the scientific evidence)"  The specific order I'm familiar with is plants before sun.  I haven't run across scientific evidence for this yet.  Can you link me up? 

Gil T wrote, "I would say the question which most occupies scientists is "what" (has happened)"  I would say the primary question is "what" (is happening)," not past-tense "has happened."  There is a HUGE difference between operational science and forensic science.  Operational science gets us space shuttles and medicine.  Forensic science gets us archaeology, paleontology, and origins theories, which are all, fundamentally unobservable and untestable. 

This next paragraph should have been stated two days ago to save confusion. 

Norm wrote, "I'm still missing where the 24 hour thing keeps coming up."  Norm, the vast majority of the Bible is written in a "phenomenological" way.  Example:  "the sun will rise at 6:32 tomorrow."  No, the sun does not actually rise!  But that's certainly what it looks like to us on Earth.  When a YEC says "24 hour day," they mean a whole rotation of the planet that the events are taking place on.  It might have been 23 hours for all we know.  But it cannot linguistically be millions of years.  The symmetry in days 1 through 3 are identical with 4 through 6.  Plus the parallel with the sabbath regulation as Mike keeps pointing out.

Golden wrote, "I have never had a doubt that ANY of his Word can be figured out and fully understood."  Thank God that some of His Word can be understood partially, particularly John 3:16.  Actually, that's a good example:  we understand enough of it to respond to His call, if not how Jesus could have died for our sins.  Likewise, we can understand enough of Genesis 1-2 to see that He created the world in six days, if not how exactly an "evening" and "morning" happened before the sun was created.

Golden, yom = yowm.  It's just a difference of transcription.

Gene wrote, "yowm...is used in other places of the Old Testament...to mean "time", "age" and "period in which an event has occurred.""  Yes.  Here is an example of three kinds of "days:"  Back in the day, I spent 90 days investigating Genesis during the day.  Refer to your third link from way up.  It's the yom + number combo which really locks the definition down to the regular kind of 24-hour days.  Your article really doesn't address that claim well.  For example, they list no exceptions to "the second day" or "the third day" meaning anything other than a 24-hour day.  That raises the original question:  why is Genesis 1 treated differently from the rest of the Bible?

Here is an interesting article.  AiG applies the non-literal reading comprehension OEC use on a letter written to them by an OEC.   

I'll finish with this poetic:  Millions of years ago I used to believe in long ages.

If I may be more candid and present a more coherent comment...

Belief in an earth that is millions of years old does severe damage to the larger picture that the Bible presents.  It is very good to stick to the problem area -- in this case yom -- but perhaps it's also good to step back and look at the bigger picture.  If the earth is millions of years old, according to the standard mainstream model:

* The order things came to be contradicts the Bible -- the sun before plants, for instance.

* Adam and Eve came about at the "end" of creation, not at the beginning.  200 thousand years divided by 13 billion years means man has been around for only the last 0.002% of the age of the universe.

* Death is not the "last enemy" but an intrinsic part of creation.  God did not create a world of no-death, followed by the temporary curse of death (in which we now live), followed by the future removal of the curse of death.  Instead, God created a universe full of death, disease, and suffering, and called it "very good."  Hugh Ross attempts to address this, but fails IMO.

* The geneologies are reduced to absolute nonsense.

I could continue.  From what I can see, if a Christian "compromises" with old-earth theology, there is nothing stopping the Christian from cutting out whatever else of the Bible he doesn't like.

On top of that, old-earth creationists are being inconsistent.  Consider this table:

Furthermore, for the majority of Christian history, theologians have affirmed the young-earth position.  It wasn't until uniformitarian assumptions became in vogue that the standard hermeneutic of Genesis was challenged.  This is yet another warning to me that old-earth creationism is based on man's ideas and not on God's Word.

That's probably enough for now.  In the larger scope of things, OEC runs into more problems than I'm comfortable with.  The YEC view, while unpopular with "worldly" mainstream science, is 100% Biblical and theologically sound.

Norm wrote, "Do I have a problem believing either?  Erm not really."  To believe both simultaneously is to believe in a contradiction.  The Bible says plants were created before the sun.  The world says the sun was created before plants.  You can't have it both ways.

Didn't say I could.  I actually said I hadn't decided on either.  As I've looked at the arguments I've seen valid points on both sides.  So until one can go through the evidence and sort it all out, believing that both are plausible explanations isn't saying the same as both are true.  And you note as much in the next comment.

Norm wrote, "As I said, this is something I personally haven't decided on yet as I've been sifting through the evidence [between OEC and YEC]."  What turned me was the realization that neither camp has all the answers, that both camps have very good answers, but God clearly endorses YEC.  Since YEC is plausible and God endorses it, I went with that.  Since then, I've learned to trust God alone, even when evidence appears to contradict His word.  (Years later the troubling evidence ends up confirming God's Word anyway.)

I've got to be honest.  I read "God endorses it" and started thinking "Vote God".   And then I got a picture of George Burns in my head.  As for the actual statement this was less than helpful because it gave no information on HOW.  You get to that later though, so alright.

This next paragraph should have been stated two days ago to save confusion. 

Norm wrote, "I'm still missing where the 24 hour thing keeps coming up."  Norm, the vast majority of the Bible is written in a "phenomenological" way.  Example:  "the sun will rise at 6:32 tomorrow."  No, the sun does not actually rise!  But that's certainly what it looks like to us on Earth.  When a YEC says "24 hour day," they mean a whole rotation of the planet that the events are taking place on.  It might have been 23 hours for all we know.  But it cannot linguistically be millions of years.  The symmetry in days 1 through 3 are identical with 4 through 6.  Plus the parallel with the sabbath regulation as Mike keeps pointing out.

So when that planet is not in place for rotation, we still know that it has to be 24 hours?  The symetry is evening and morning not hours. Am I missing the point with linguistically?  I don't know maybe.  But now it is beating a dead horse.  And I do appreciate this as I have things I want to do further reading on now.  The only thing that has frustrated me about this entire thread is the conveyance that anyone who has an issue with a day needing a certain number of hours is out to reintrepret the Bible.

Gene, I can't agree with you more that we need to avoid Satan's trap.  We are brothers and are called to love each other.  So far, everyone on this thread has done so marvolously!

Regarding God talking to simple people (nevermind C.S. Lewis called that "chronological snobbery"), God could have written Genesis 1 using simple Hebrew in a way that they could have understood evolution and long ages.  Hebrew has the ability to express these ideas.  Genesis According to Evolution.  But God didn't write that.  He wrote six days.

Regarding Genesis 2 in light of Genesis 1, it makes more sense if Genesis 2 is read as a detailed account of the 6th day.  At least, it does to me.

Norm, I just wanted to jump in and thank you for your posts (again)!! Even though we've been somewhat at odds over the issue of day vs age, you've had the courage to post your disagreements, whereas many readers have certainly said to themselves "modern science has enlightened us to the degree that we now know it simply couldn't have been six days of ordinary duration." Thanks for a thought provoking if not occasionally frustrating dialogue! May it continue! Unless you admit 1 day = 1 day. lol

Eric, I appreciate your posts, they may be just what this dialogue has needed. I believe my point was simple, though very difficult to simply accept! :-)

Other Gene, great post as well! Especially the part Eric quoted -- thanks!!

Gene wrote, "the important aspect is that it was instigated by God"  It seems you are cutting your losses.  I'd say the important thing is we can trust what God wrote.  If I were to subscribe to your sentiments, then Genesis 1-2 could have consisted of a single line:  "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."  The fact is God gave us so much more than that!  We should make the most of all of it.

It's more than that.  It's about what it is what makes us Christians.  God is so much greater than we.  God did give us so much more than the creation story and we shoudl make the most of it.  My point is taht although we may not all see eye-to-eye on all aspects of Scripture (Gee, THAT debate hasn't been going on long now has it?  lol), the essence of the Christian faith are not diminished.  It is about dissension without division.  Grace in God's Kingdom.

Gene wrote, "There are many theological scholars and written sources that disagree with the young earth theory."  Ad populum fallacy.  There are many theological scholars and written sources that disagree with the old earth theory.
True.  This neither credits one nor the other.  Point taken.  However, there are few scientific sources who consider the young earth theory as valid since it is validated through various paths scientifically.  The point I was trying to make is that science and religion are not enemies and opposites any more than green is an enemy to red or differing politics means people must be enemies. 

I pointed to a few theological scholars previously.  Most Judaic scholars agree taht the early texts were not written in order to be a historical account of early pre-pharaonic events but rather an explanation to the Hebrews about who they were and how they came to be God's chosen people.  From speaking with Jewish scholars, they think most Christan literalists are taking it wrong.  It is what God intends us to learn.  "Otherwise we are only trying to twist his words to our comfort."

Gene wrote, "Science simply tells us how - not why."  NOMA is unbiblical.  Sometimes God also tells us how.  In Genesis 1, God appears to have created everything -- How?  In six days.
Please explain NOMA.  I tried Googling it and came up with the New Orleans Museum of Art.  (I think it a safe bet that's not what you meant.)  See comment above.

Gene wrote, "God created the heavens and the earth, in a particular order (which, btw, is supported by the scientific evidence)"  The specific order I'm familiar with is plants before sun.  I haven't run across scientific evidence for this yet.  Can you link me up? 
According to current old-earth concepts, first was the big bang (day one - light separated from darkness; the "void" is obvious).  Day two is that the earth developed an atmosphere where condensed water and water vapor are distinguished. The atmosphere was saturated with water vapor.  When much of it condensed, the land and waters were separated (Day three).  Thereafter life in the form of plants came in to existence (Day four).  It was, however, not until much later that the thick atmosphere was able to give way to blue skies.  Only at that time would there be any distinguishing between the sun and moon as even existing (day five).  In other words, there was no sun or Moon because they could not be seen from the earth (remember the texts are written to people standing on the earth - not astronomers).  The Links are here.


btw: the application of logic to the email letter you reference is significantly flawed in that it seeks to apply the argument of ancient language interpretation to contemporary speech.  You cannot argue the same issues without the same parameters.

Eric wrote: * The order things came to be contradicts the Bible -- the sun before plants, for instance.
See my comment above.

Eric Wrote: * Adam and Eve came about at the "end" of creation, not at the beginning.  200 thousand years divided by 13 billion years means man has been around for only the last 0.002% of the age of the universe.
True.  The age of man is very recent.  It is the pinnacle and last of creation.  We are talking "ages" again not percentages or fractions.

Eric wrote: * Death is not the "last enemy" but an intrinsic part of creation.  God did not create a world of no-death, followed by the temporary curse of death (in which we now live), followed by the future removal of the curse of death.  Instead, God created a universe full of death, disease, and suffering, and called it "very good."  Hugh Ross attempts to address this, but fails IMO.
Death is a part of life.  Where does it say that no plants or animals died?  If he was a real gardener, Adam pulled weeds!

Eric wrote * The geneologies are reduced to absolute nonsense.
No.  The geneologies may make more sense than we know.  They point back to a time when God breathed the breath of Life into the nostrils of man.  That is when mankind arose.

There is no contradiction.

Mike, do you ever feel like the cat in the Hat?  "This is Gene One and that's Gene two."

PS Don't you know we have instant credibility?  Any discussion of Genesis begins with Gene.
haha


Peace, my brethren.  I am leaving the blogosphere for physical landscapes and a drive home.

May you all have a pleasant repertoire and the most Blessed and Happy New Year!

Hey! That last paragraph up from glovergj does a much better job of pointing out the Galileo thing than I have done previously. :)

Honestly, the whole bashing of science is a bit silly especially when you point to websites like Answers in Genesis which use science to prove their points.  Science will not disprove God and we need to stop acting like it's the "Boogie Man".  We need to be careful in what we accept as truths from science, but it's not just science we have to do that with.  Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Look at recent archaleogical finds.  Look at "The Gospel of Judas".

Something both sides need to keep in mind.  I wasn't kidding when I said I'm not decided between either point of view.  Comments made bellittling people who are considering "the other side" does not help your argument.  And trust me, there were a couple that made me want to prove some people wrong.  And I'm sure the same can be said the other way.

Anyways, I think I've said all I can or want to for now Mike.  I keep saying I am going to walk away and given that I'm answering this at 1:45 in the morning I think now is the time (and the notify box is now unchecked although based on where a couple of my responses fell in relation to others I seem to be missing some e-mail anyways).

I need to go to Mary Ann's blog to repent of my sleepless ways. :) 

Mike,

Since you sent me a message and than posted it here, let me point a couple things out. :)  And then unless you message me again, I'm out of here.

I would like to ask a question of those who would be quick to reinterpret Genesis to line up with geologic ages

From a thinking standpoint, I'm not *quick* to do anything.  I'm still debating whether that's a blessing or a curse (does that mean I'm even slow with thinking about that?).  However making a statement that because I am not convinced a day = 24 hours, that I (or anyone else) is quick to reintrepret Genesis is not something that is going to win an argument.  Actually it will turn me off from wanting to listen to it.  Maybe I'm alone in that.

I commented on this one above, however let me point out the offensive thing here (besides "God clearly endorses YEC"): 

Norm wrote, "As I said, this is something I personally haven't decided on yet as I've been sifting through the evidence [between OEC and YEC]."  What turned me was the realization that neither camp has all the answers, that both camps have very good answers, but God clearly endorses YEC.  Since YEC is plausible and God endorses it, I went with that.  Since then, I've learned to trust God alone, even when evidence appears to contradict His word.  (Years later the troubling evidence ends up confirming God's Word anyway.)

Honestly in the sea of words on either side, that's a bizarre statement.  The implication is that anyone who doesn't "endorse" young earth creationism doesn't trust God alone.  Interestingly enough if you continue reading, you find out that science is continued to be looked at. :)

By the way in the light of the link that was used pointing out that 6000 years is a long time in the space of infinity (and therefore OEC believe in 6000 years and OEC), anyone who refers to themselves as a YEC is just as guilty as the OEC who wrote the letter.   :)

-----

I'm sure as I say that there are things on both sides that would get someone going.  Those are but two I noticed.  

On this argument there are things on both sides that give pause and questions.  I still haven't heard a reasonable explanation for chapter 2 happening in one 24 hour day.  Actually I had a cartoon bubble last night while I was considering it again.  I have a visual of God going to Adam.  "Hey man, you realize we're on a deadline here.  Would you hurry it up?" :)

Either that or a line of animals with Adam at the end with a sign saying "Now serving: 3".

In naming animals in the past, names usually take a bit to come to me.  Maybe this is the slow thinker part of me but from watching others I'm not alone.  Unless God was "feeding" Adam the names (which would seem to defeat the point) and this was an assembly line, even with 100 species (and I'm just making that number up but it hardly seems unreasonable) this took a fair amount of time. 

Oh well.

And Mike, to be clear.  I don't think there is an issue with either of those comments I pointed out at the end of the day.  My argument here is that if you try to take these out to the "real" world be careful not to dismiss someone who is "arguing" the other side.  While there are lots of people who don't want to think about this, there are many who do and are looking for answers.  Giving the impression that because I don't believe what you do (again on either side) that I'm doing something wrong just does not help.

Mike,

Did you really just send me a cigarette smiley in a message? :)

Glancing at your response.  I realize now I only made it sound like the "quick" bugged me.  Apparently I answered too quickly.  How does asking the question of what the word day in Genesis meant equate to reinterpreting the Bible?  So far I think I've asked valid questions.  Heck I haven't even really asked scientific questions.  I've asked questions from the text itself.  Or things that are observed from that text.  And some still haven't been answered. 

Switching to an example: 

How should I interpret the word sword in Revelation when it's coming out of a mouth? 

Is that actually a sword?  Obviously a question for a different day (ha!).  But the point of the matter is that it's perfectly legitimate to ask "What does the sword mean and is it actually a sword?".  How is a day any different?

And before you ask why I don't question what a "day" is elsewhere, you'll need to provide an example, because maybe I do.  :) 

I agree Mike, good point.  If the creation miracle doesn't leave any scientific data to analyze (like the natural-looking wine that Jesus made at the wedding) - then an honest naturalist should just shrug his shoulders and admit that he doesn't know.  Many of them do this, but sadly - many others do not.  But if there is data left over from the creation event, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, then you can bet that scientists will go over it with a fine-toothed comb!  However, Christians needn't be alarmed.  As long as we understand that all of science is based on God's providential governance of the created order, then nothing can really be natural anyway, now can it?  Not even a sparrow fall to the ground apart from the creator!  Even the cast of the lot...

So God can turn water into wine "in an instant" without using the laws of nature (ordinary providence), or He can cause it to rain on a vineyard, cause the sun to shine, cause man to pick to the grapes, and cause yeast to ferment the grape juice - thus turning "water into wine" using the laws of nature.  Both methods are of God.  One thing that I think Christians would do well to remember is that Science, by definition, is only equipped to deal with the second case (ordinary providence).  It has no way to prove or disprove the first case (miracles).  So we shouldn't get too upset when it fails to reveal the miraculous works of God (but we should get upset when scientist try and disprove miracles!). 

But we do need to work extra hard to ensure that our children understand that God is the author of naturalistic science, as well as the miraculous.  So even the falling sparrow proves that He is before all things and in Him all things hold together!  If we teach our Children to only look for miracles, than they might respond to naturalistic science the way you did in public school growing up - "I guess it all came to be by itself!"  But I know you already knew with that ;)

Keep up the great blog!
Jason

Norm wrote, "I've got to be honest.  I read "God endorses it" and started thinking "Vote God".   And then I got a picture of George Burns in my head."  For humor's sake, I did an image search for Burns and God and got this:  Hehehe.

Norm wrote, "So when that planet is not in place for rotation, we still know that it has to be 24 hours?"  Before Day 4 there was no "heavenly lights" like Sol and Luna to mark off time, so I imagine it would have been impossible to measure time unless one had a clock.  Nevertheless, I think it's safe to speculate that God created time in verse 1, on Day 1.  God called Day 1, 2, and 3 "days," just as he called Day 4, 5, and 6 "days," which WERE marked by the sun.  This tells me that God had a clock and there was no temporal difference between the first three days and the last three days.

Norm wrote, "Am I missing the point with linguistically?"  What I mean is that, if one throws out all notions of modern science, the inescapable conclusion of the text from the text and by the text, is that God created the universe, solar system, planet, plants, animals, and people all in six days.  Linguistically, this is an airtight argument and a closed case (one that was closed 1400 years ago).  Search Hugh Ross's website (on theistic evolution) for Hebrew scholarim.  You will find a little, but it's pathetic.  I would link you up, but Answers In Genesis boils them down to the essentials.  Read what they have to say (Mike linked them), and re-read the "rebuttals."  None are up to the task.

Norm wrote, "The only thing that has frustrated me about this entire thread is the conveyance that anyone who has an issue with a day needing a certain number of hours is out to reintrepret the Bible."  I think the claim as you phrased it is legitimate as I demonstrated earlier:  the age of the universe as God tells it is clear-cut.  When uniformitarianism became popular with Charles Lyell in the 1830s, and even more so with Charles Darwin (who was influenced by Lyell) in the 1860s, Christians  sought to reinterpret the Bible to make it fit with the then-new scientists.  If you are uncomfortable with the word "reinterpret," perhaps that should tell you something, for that is exactly what OEC do.

Gene wrote, "However, there are few scientific sources who consider the young earth theory as valid since it is validated through various paths scientifically."  Aah, Science has finally stepped onto the stage!  He's been behind the curtain the whole time, you know.  This is also an ad populum fallacy, and I'll leave this with a small comment:  there is enough scientific evidence out there for a 6000-year-old earth to convert an evolutionist into a YEC (namely, me). 

Gene wrote, "Most Judaic scholars agree taht the early texts were not written in order to be a historical account...."  (Another ad populum.  One of AiG's big financial contributors is a Jew because they uphold the Tenach.)  You didn't link any sources.  Here, I will ask:  are these modern Jewish scholars or are these from the Talmud or another source predating uniformitarianism?  If they are post-uniformitarianism, I call your sources tainted and exempt.

Gene wrote, "It was, however, not until much later that the thick atmosphere was able to give way to blue skies."  Aah, the phenomenological approach!  Thanks, that makes sense.  I hadn't heard that .  (BTW, I could point out severe scientific problems with most of your steps but now is not the place.)  This may look like goalpost-shifting, but does your scientific explanation of Genesis make nice with the Bible on all of these temporal contradictions when one blends long ages with the Bible?  (Yes, I think you've fixed some, but not all.) 

Gene wrote, "the application of logic to the email letter you reference is significantly flawed in that it seeks to apply the argument of ancient language interpretation to contemporary speech.  You cannot argue the same issues without the same parameters."  It's my understanding that all the phrases used actually occur in different parts of the Old Testament.  Phrases such as "expanded," "eventually," "slowly," "thousands upon multiplied thousands of years," "after a further number of long ages," etc.  This means that ancient Jews had the toolset for comprehending the example I linked.  If this is so, and if the universe is billions of years old, why then did God use linguistically-deceptive phrases such as "on the X day" and "evening and morning," and "when A was Y years old he begat B?"

Gene wrote, "True.  The age of man is very recent.  It is the pinnacle and last of creation.  We are talking "ages" again not percentages or fractions."  This causes problems for Mark 10:6-8 (Matthew 19:4-5) - "At the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" (emph. added).  Ankerberg and Geisler (OECs) wrote a good response to this, but it was rebutted by AiG.

Gene wrote, "Death is a part of life."  With maximum respect and love to you, Gene, I'm going to pull a Galations 2:11:  You are so wrong!  John 5:24 -- "whoever...believes...has eternal LIFE...[and] has crossed over from death to life."  Also John 6:47 and John 14:6.  With that said, read Isaiah 25:8 which speaks of our future:  "[God] will swallow up death forever.  The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; He will remove the disgrace of His people from all the earth."  Also Rev 21:4.  Conclusion:  we will have eternal life, which consists of no death.  Death is NOT a part of life.  Death is a temporary interloper, something God did not design to be part of His "very good" (Gen 1:31) creation, and plans to remove when Jesus returns.  Paul says death is the "last enemy" (1 Cor 15:26) that entered the world through the consequence of sin (Rom 5:12ff; Rom 8:20-22; 1 Cor 15:21-22), not as a result of life as you contend.  God does not enjoy death (Eze 33:11).  You (and Charles Darwin) glorify death.  God despises death.  Death and God cannot be reconciled.  The difference couldn't be more stark:

Consider heretic Bishop Spong:

… But Charles Darwin says that there was no perfect creation because it is not yet finished. It is still unfolding. And there was no perfect human life which then corrupted itself and fell into sin … . And so the story of Jesus who comes to rescue us from the fall becomes a nonsensical story. So how can we tell the Jesus story with integrity and with power, against the background of a humanity that is not fallen but is simply unfinished?

Gene wrote, "Where does it say that no plants or animals died?  If he was a real gardener, Adam pulled weeds!"  The Hebrew word nephesh is used to differentiate "soulish" organisms from the rest.  Humans and animals are nephesh.  Plants, insects (and presumably bacteria) are not, therefore the scientific definition of death we have today is not the same definition God used.  Animal death:  vegetarianism in both humans and animals before the Fall (Gen 1:29-30); rescued animals (nephesh hayyah) on the Ark did not include plants or invertebrates, meaning a difference between plants and animals; the restored paradise will have no bloodshed in the animal kingdom (Isaiah 65:25); God subjected "the whole creation" to futility and is in bondage to decay (Rom 8:20-22), and the only possible time He could have done that is at the Fall.  Those that believe death is part of God's "very good" creation sap Genesis 3:21 of it's potent power, an image that points straight to the Son of God on the Cross.  Finally, Genesis 3:17-19 says that before the Fall, Adam didn't have to pull weeds because they didn't exist.  What didn't exist can't die.

Gene wrote, "No, [the geneologies are not reduced to absolute nonsense].  The geneologies may make more sense than we know.  They point back to a time when God breathed the breath of Life into the nostrils of man.  That is when mankind arose."  There is a systematic formula in the geneologies of Genesis 5:  A begat B when A was Y years old.  It doesn't matter if there were missing generations, the "Y years old" covers it.  There are 1056 years between Adam and Noah.  Genesis 11 continues the geneology using the same formula.  There are 892 years between Noah and Abraham.  Abraham's life can be roughly framed by modern Archaeology to have been around 2000 BC.  That puts Adam at about 4000 BC.  Old-earth creationists like to put Adam around 100,000 BC, at the "dawn of civilization" secular paleontologists believe existed.  In order to pull this off Biblically, one must insert ten "missing generations" per actual listed generation, ignoring the formula, which makes absolute nonsense of the geneologies.  Perhaps you could clarify what you meant.

Mike wrote, "I know, what the heck is a tacky ball??"  I do.  In college my fraternity made Tape Ball by making a ball out of duct tape.  As of last year, he's grown to 80 pounds and 2' diameter.  At one of our black tie formals Tape Ball showed up sporting a black and silver duct tape tuxedo.  Now that's a tacky ball!  (Bada-BOOM!)

Gene wrote, "Gen  1: plants, humans...Gen 2: human, plants."  This applies to your position as well, Gene.  Nevertheless, if one looks closely at Genesis 2:8, it says "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east" and Genesis 2:19 says "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field."  Genesis 2 can be easily read with the prior understanding (Genesis 1) that man was created last, such that Genesis 2:4-7 makes chronological sense.

That's enough for now.  My responses go up to 1/1/08 12:47 AM.  I apologize if some comments have been addressed later down; it's a lot to read and I haven't gotten there yet!  At the end of the day, Norm and Gene, we are all standing at the foot of the cross.  I hope what I've written makes sense and the readers here see that it is solidly Biblical, and any other interpretation introduces horrors all of us would prefer not to have (such as cancer and death being "good").  For the readers that are worried that I am condemning the Bible to error because science has proven the earth is millions of years old, I tell you that science has done no such thing:  science actually confirms what the Bible says, but this thread is not the place for science, we are talking about the Bible.  For that I direct you to AnswersInGenesis.org and ICR.org.  Grace and peace everyone.

GE 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. [NIV]

Gene

GE 1:11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation..." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation...[NIV]

Everyone takes this to mean all of the land over the face of the whole earth produced plants.  And this assumption is shown to be correct in v29:

GE 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. [NIV]

So in the first account of creation, all land over the whole face of earth had some kind of a plant on it.  But this is clearly different from what is contained in the second acount of creation.

Yes, it is an obvious contraction, which is exceptionally meaningful.  A careful examination of the two creation accounts will reveal several others contraditions.  To note these two accounts and their differences is to lead the Christian into a search for a deeper understanding of, among other things, how important each person is to God.

The points made in the first account of creation are largely different but complementary to the points made in the second account.  But one point that comes across in both accounts is the extreme care and purpose with which God created mankind.  We are here, each one of us, because God wanted us to be here.  We are no accident.

Each individual is here for a purpose.  Each individual is important to God.

The Other Gene

Norm wrote, "Honestly, the whole bashing of science is a bit silly especially when you point to websites like Answers in Genesis which use science to prove their points."  The distinction is subtle.  If you read carefully, they do not use science to prove their points.  The inerrency of the Bible is their assumption (assumptions cannot be proven), and from that a YEC position based on solid hermeneutics (the topic at hand), and then they interpret science through the lens of the Bible.  This act does not in turn "prove" their points, for that would be circular.  What it does is show that looking at the evidence of the world through the Bible actually makes sense of the world, not nonsense. 

Norm wrote, "[Eric wrote, "Since then, I've learned to trust God alone"]  Honestly in the sea of words on either side, that's a bizarre statement.  The implication is that anyone who doesn't "endorse" young earth creationism doesn't trust God alone.  Interestingly enough if you continue reading, you find out that science is continued to be looked at. :)"  In order to deviate from the clear "24-hour" interpretation, one must trust extrabiblical interpretations and allow them to influence your interpretation of Genesis 1, hence more than God is trusted.  It doesn't seem bizarre to me.  I suppose if you're on the fence, this doesn't describe you.

Norm wrote, "Interestingly enough if you continue reading, you find out that science is continued to be looked at. :)"  The difference is science is interpreted by the Bible instead of the Bible is interpreted by science. 

Norm wrote, "By the way in the light of the link that was used pointing out that 6000 years is a long time in the space of infinity (and therefore OEC believe in 6000 years and OEC), anyone who refers to themselves as a YEC is just as guilty as the OEC who wrote the letter.   :)"  Sure, and I think AiG has called their position as OEC at one point.  "Old" and "young" are relative.  And I think that was their point in the article.  God uses absolute measurements, though:  normal days.

Gene wrote, "can someone post up those scientific links for the scientific evidence to a YEC"  The evidence you ask for is actually the same evidence you already have, but perhaps you are simply not aware that it confirms the Bible.  You're probably already aware of this effect if you reject the idea that man came from ape-like creatures.  Lucy is not a transitional:  her hips match that of a chimp and are impossible to walk upright on, which they need Lucy to do if the 7ma "humanlike" Laetoli footprints are hers as they claim.  Likewise, the magnetic fields on Uraneus and Neptune, the spin of Iapetus, the existence of comets, the temperature of Uraneus, the geologic activity of Io, the missing Population III stars, and the smooth CMB are all better explained with a YEC model than an OEC model.  And that's just a fraction of the cosmological sciences, let alone geology and paleontology.  If you'd like to see the evidence for yourself, read secular scientific journals.  If you need some hints, try AiG or Creation Safaris (a news condenser) to help you look for them.  Note, this does not mean uniformitarian scientists don't have an answer to all them, just that the plain evidence better fits YEC than OEC.  Likewise, some evidence is better explained in an OEC framework, such as distant starlight.  But that doesn't mean YECs are without an answer.  They actually have three answers for distant starlight, and each one is plausible, and none involve God creating light "in transit," as Glover pointed out some suggest.  Also note:  I (personally) prefer this thread to stay in God's Word and not get side-tracked with science.  I defer to the thread originator, tho.

Glover wrote, "The other weird thing about the appearance of age hypothesis is that you could never tell the authentic from the apparent, and so "old earth" science should still work in the laboratory."  I see where you are going.  In principle, I think I'd be okay with this.  The problem is when people say a certain fossil is 65 million years old because it is in an "apparent" 65-million-year-old layer.  Now suddenly we're entertaining the "false child hood memories" category.  No, we must assume those fossils are real and died after the Fall (see earlier post), which took place less than 6000 years ago (see earlier post; Gene's contention, see further).  Now suddenly the "apparent" old rock is leading to false authentic results, as it's not part of the originally-created earth, but deposited post-creation.  In other words, the radiometric "age" of "apparently-old" rock is contradicted by fossils inside them, since there is no theological room for death before sin (see earlier post).  That means, if God's Word is true and if the theological outworkings are on-target (I would grant both but feel free to challenge the second), the radiometric dating methods are flawed in some fundamental way. 

Mike on Psalm 5:3 and prayer times:  I think I will have to disagree with your morningist position in favor of my eveningist position!  Burn, heretic!!!!11!  ;)

Norm on swords*:  I'm barely an ameature with hermeneutics, but your question highlights the extreme importance of a proper one.  As I touched on earlier, good hermeneutics pretty much demands a literal "24-hour" interpretation of yom in Genesis 1, as Glover agrees.  Genesis 1 is, by all counts, historical narrative genre.  The sword example is amidst poetic metaphor genre, if I'm not mistaken.  A different hermeneutic is used there.  * "That's S-Words, Mr. Connery."

Norm wrote, "And before you ask why I don't question what a "day" is elsewhere, you'll need to provide an example, because maybe I do.  :)"  Jonah 1:17:  Was Jonah in the fish for three long, indeterminate periods of time?  Genesis 40:12:  Was Pharaoh's birthday three eons later?  If no to both, why do some question Genesis 1 when none of us were there to witness it?  The burdon of proof lies on the non-literalist.  They need to show where yom plus a number (besides "one day") can mean something other than a "24-hour" day.

Glover wrote, "In your own field of geo-spatial information science, can you imagine the ruckus if someone tried to push an alternate theory based something they read in the Koran without any data to support their claims?  I suspect you would be the first to dismiss it."  Since I worked in Mike's office at one point I can answer.  The difference is that Mike's office deals with operational science, which has no room for origin theories.  It doesn't matter if the shoreline is 100 billion years old or 100 years old.  What matters is that it is there and it needs to be drawn, and it's in a different spot than it used to be 100 years ago, so now we know erosion trends.  That's good, operational science.  Saying the universe is 14 billion years old is not operational science precisely because unobserved age is invoked.  In this sense, it's no different than saying the universe is 6000 years old.  If you object to the latter, you should object to the former.  I'm fine with both being removed from science class, but I object to only one view being taught.

Glover wrote, "In order to gain scientific consensus, you need a theory that can make testable predictions, and you need laboratory data that unequivocally confirms the theory."  With all respect, Glover, you are making quick and fast claims about the demarcation problem and are handling epistemology with too rough of a hand.  These are not easy subjects.  For instance, the Big Bang theory is not testable nor has it made any predictions that haven't later been falsified.  Therefore, by your definition, the Big Bang theory is pseudoscience.  In order to exclude creationism, you will also have to exclude evolution (i.e., universal common ancestry) and uniformitarianism.  

Glover wrote, "The next step on the road to acceptance is to then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and present your research at professional conferences where others in the field can check and re-check your assumptions and experimental results."  This is being done.  CRSQ and TJ are two such peer-reviewed journals.  CRSQ has been publishing continuously since 1964.  Regarding being published in secular journals, the upcoming movie "Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed" with Ben Stein will document the extreme prejudice in the academic world, preventing scientists upholding a literal interpretation of the Bible from publishing their works.  The system you require is controlled by God-haters, Glover.  Rom 1:18ff.

Glover wrote, "The neat thing about this process is that it is open to anybody with a testable idea and conclusive data."  Again, you are confusing operational science with forensic science (search upward for "forensic").  With the former, yes, it's exciting work!  With the latter, God-haters will rip apart anything that smells like God, even if their reasons are unjustified, illogical, or against other evidence, and the rest of the secular scientific community will applaud them.  Visit Pharyngula, a hangout of PhD's, for a sampling of the vitriol.

Glover wrote, "...as did germ theory, quantum theory, or big bang theory..."  Again, a confusion of operational and forensic science.  Germ theory and quantum theory are operational.  Big Bang theory is forensic.  The former is testable and repeatable.  The latter is not.

Mike wrote, "Materialists seek to explain the presence of life and the universe through purely natural mechanisms. But what if there is no purely naturalistic explanation??"  I've presented this question to materialists several times.  This is their answer:  "So be it."  In other words, they'd rather be wrong than invoke an "unprovable" God.  But we know God exists and interacts with the universe.  Materialists, who control mainstream science, are essentially teaching something wrong simply because that's the best their philosophy will allow at the moment.

Glover/Jason wrote, "But if there is data left over from the creation event, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, then you can bet that scientists will go over it with a fine-toothed comb!"  The smoothness of the CMB actually destroys the Big Bang theory, but the theory persists because secularists don't want to give it up and instead opt to patch untestable auxiliary hypotheses like Inflation Theory to "save" their sacred cow.  For more problems with the Big Bang, visit this secular page that lists 30 problems.  My question to OEC:  if the Big Bang were tossed out the window tomorrow by secular, mainstream scientists and offered no new paradigm, would you become a YEC?

Heh, finally caught up to my previous post! 

The Other Gene on the "contradiction" in Genesis 1 & 2:  I forgot to bold the key words in 2:8 and 2:19, "had" and "had" apiece.  In other words, past tense:  the garden was planted before Adam was put there.  The animals were formed before they were brought to Adam.  KJV and ASV renders v.4 as "in the day."  Here, "day" (yom) means an indeterminate period, as NIV also shows.  It could refer to all six days as outlined in the last chapter.  There's a hermeneutical rule of thumb you're neglecting, Gene:  interpret the less-clear passage in light of the more-clear.  Genesis 1 is strongly linear.  Genesis 2 does not have a clear temporal framework.  If you want to figure out which came first, go with Genesis 1.  Genesis 2:4-7 works if we believe man was created after plants (Genesis 1).  If we do that, the speculation we draw out is that it is giving extra details about the 6th day, perhaps the method God used to create plants (created a few days earlier, but took a few days to germinate?).  And then there is Mike's suggestion (which I haven't heard before.)  So, if it works, why are you forcing a contradiction?

My "debate nature" is keeping me from adding this bit, but we're not here to debate but talk amongst brothers and encourage:  Yes, Gen 2:4-7 is a sticky passage for me which can cast doubt on my position (and a little bit on my position of Inerrancy). I haven't found a good response to this yet.

The Other Gene wrote, "Everyone takes this to mean all of the land over the face of the whole earth produced plants.  And this assumption is shown to be correct in v29"  Would God's Word be impinged if we said God meant, "wherever God created plants" (i.e., there are some bare spots, perhaps to be filled in with secondary generations)?  V.29 would still hold. 

The Other Gene wrote, "To note these two accounts and their differences is to lead the Christian into a search for a deeper understanding..."  Agreed.  Case in point above:  I wonder if there are some extra details in God's creative account that I hadn't noticed before.  All-in-all, I think I gave a reasonable response to your alleged contradiction.

The Other Gene wrote, "We are no accident."  Which goes against the "fact" of evolution.  (Glover/Jason and Mike hashed out this nuance of the role of science to some degree.)  Here's the kicker:  If you doubt mainstream science about our human origins, why do you believe them about Earth's origins?  Isn't this inconsistent?

Mike, careful you don't confuse careful study with long-winded tripe!  ;)  

The Other Gene on weeds:   Sure.  And it could also mean God modified groundcover to produce thorns where originally they did not.  I would say the key word "produce" and not the non-existant word "find" (as in they'll find thorns outside the garden) determines this.  But perhaps there's enough flexibility that I shouldn't be dogmatic here.

The Other Gene on geneologies:   Most OEC I've talked with put Adam at 100,000+ years.  If you believe Adam existed 6000 years ago, then you are respecting the geneologies.  But this belief puts you at war with secular scientific interpretations, despite your intentions.  Did God breathe spirit into a pre-Homo sapiens predecessor animal and thus turn it into a man?  Did a near-Homo sapiens animal exist until God created a new creature from the dust 6000 years ago and then wiped out all near-Homo sapiens?  (Wouldn't this be a "false childhood memories" category?)  Neanderthals burried their dead with trinkets.  Secular scientists put Neanderthals as going extinct as recent as 24,000 years ago.  Were they just animals, not related to Adam?  In the past few months, secular scientists found evidence that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens (us) interbred.  What theological implications does this have?  Secular scientists have dated the earliest Egyptian artifacts at 15,000 years ago, contrary to your claim.  Was this art created by non-Adamite animals?  Is this race still alive?  If so, would the Egyptians be exempt from the Curse?  Are they under Christ's redemptive plan?  If I could summarize:  Christians making peace with the world's ideas are going to cause a lot of problems.  In my experience, the Bible is the one that gets edited, not the textbooks.  Why not trust God with His simple, inerrant creation account and cast your doubt instead on man's interpretations?

Regarding the TO Index to Creationist Claims, they've been thoroughly rebutted years ago.  They can be found at http://www.trueorigin.org (stale) and http://www.creationwiki.org (mostly up-to-date, links to TO articles).  Good to have all sides :)

The other stuff in Glover's post was addressed in my last post.  Nice to chat with you, Glover.  It's kind of intimidating to talk with a published author!!

Norm wrote, "And before you ask why I don't question what a "day" is elsewhere, you'll need to provide an example, because maybe I do.  :)"  Jonah 1:17:  Was Jonah in the fish for three long, indeterminate periods of time?  Genesis 40:12:  Was Pharaoh's birthday three eons later?

So you have no doubt it was exactly 72 hours.  Or if you prefer the use 23 hours (with rounding) as you have in the past, 69 hours?  Or it was exactly 3 distinct revolutions around the sun?  Or was it a case where 3 evenings passed?

There are other measures of days.  

Obviously that's 2 evenings and 3 periods of light. :)

BTW, since you used the Jonah example, do you believe that it had to be exactly the same number of hours, minutes and seconds that Jesus was in the tomb in order for that to have significance? 

Norm, I dunno why you're getting hung up on exactly 24:00:00.000000000 hours (as measured by a Hydrogen maser atomic clock).  For your sake I've been putting "24-hour" in quotes to signify the general idea or ballpark precision (by a factor or so), not the precise time. 

Look at Jesus in the tomb for "three days."  If you figure he was burried at 6 PM Friday afternoon and was found by Mary at 6 AM Sunday, that's only 36 hours, far short of the 72 hours in a "full three days."  Apparently, though, the hour or so of Friday* counts as a whole day and the 12 hours or so of Sunday* count as a whole day, and this satisfies the Matthew 12:40 prophecy.  This is why I'm loose with the hours, and Mike as well.

The huge difference is that -- 36 hours or 72 hours -- it's nowhere close to the millions of years that OEC want to attribute to Genesis 1.  To do so is to destroy all meaning of the word "day X."

* The Jewish day began at sunset. 

1) Hours

2) Lighting events

3) Rotation of the earth

Your argument so far has been that if I consider a day could be anything but 24 hours I'm reintrepreting the Bible.  My point has been it seems, there are other ways to point at something as a day.  How am I hung up on it any more than you? 

nowhere close to the millions of years

Let me point you back to the AIG link you provide and a quote from there. 

Hey guys, allow me to offer some perspective to this interesting debate you are having about the word day.  I mentioned it earlier, but 350 years ago there were debates over how to understand the luminaries that God created, and Moses describes, on the fourth day.  During ancient times, the sun and moon were considered the two greatest lights (or gods) of the heavenly realm, and the stars were seen as a multitude of lesser lights or gods (planets were just a different species of star, but considered greater).  Indeed, Moses describes them just as anyone in the ancient Near East would have.

The problem came during the Middle ages when two important discoveries were made: 1.) that the wandering stars (to later be considered planets) were actually greater than the moon, but only appeared smaller to the eye on account of their great distance.  And 2.) that the moon is a dark body that merely reflects the light of the sun.  Both of these discoveries were made through natural, or extra-biblical revelation.  There were some Christians during this time who felt that such discoveries would threaten the authority of God's Word by allowing novel interpretations of scripture, or it might open the door for some to accuse Moses of incorrectly describing the heavens under inspiration or teaching a demonstrably false cosmology.  Many felt strongly that accepting the scientific account would give Scripture a lower status than what fallen man surmises through his senses.

The most consistent interpretation of the word used by Moses to make the sun and moon "great" lights seems unequivocal.  This was consistent with both science (up to that point) and church tradition.  To force these lights to be less than the stars or planets was to them clearly reading into the text, just as forcing Moses' day to be longer than 24 hours would seem to us.  And the word that we translate to "luminary" or "lights" was always used to describe original light, not reflected light.  Why deviate from the standard hermaneutical practice? 

And the general feeling was that if God had wanted to say that the stars were greater, we would have done so.  Or if He wanted to say the moon reflects, there were other words that He could have chosen.  Not unlike the way we argue over "yom" today.  Again, to force the text to conform to the scientific description was seen as imposing extra-biblical knowledge into the clearly literal meaning - which is was.

When I see you guys argue about how many hours "day" is - to the precise second - I can't help but think about these Medieval Christians arguing over whether "light" means "original light" or "reflected light" - or what percentage of reflected and original composed the entire compliment of observed light - and whether "great" means "greater in size" or "greater in light output" etc...But the whole debate misses the point of the text, as the great Protestant Reformer, John Calvin (1509-1564) said this in his commentary on Genesis 1:16:

"Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study [of astronomy] is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God."

If that's true, then why didn't Moses just tell it like it is - according to what science would ultimately reveal?  Calvin anticipates this very question:

"Had [Moses] spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage."

But if Moses spoke under inspiration, why would he "lower himself" to accommodate his use of language to the ignorant and unlearned?  Why not take the opportunity to give a divinely-inspired astronomy lesson?  We might have got somebody in space before the Russians if we had the straight scoop!  Calvin anticipates this objection as well:

"There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendour of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God...For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere."

You mean Genesis is not an encyclopedia of science or natural history?  You mean it's ok to look elswhere for knowledge of astronomy and other sciences?  Not an easy thing for the modern mind to accept.  I think, because we are so easily influence by our modern post-enlightenment culture that demands all truth be explained in precise scientific terms, we can easily be drawn into such debates.  Rather than allow the Word of God to stand on its own, we assume that the best defense is a scientific one.  But once we accepted the world's terms, we are no longer standing on the promises of God, but on the ever-chaning winds of empericism.  Rather than think like ancient Hebrews and see the scriptures through their eyes (and the lens of Christ), we would rather adopt the worldview of a modern materialist and see everything in terms of scientific truth.  This was clearly the case in Calvin's day when great advances in astronomy were being made at the expense of biblical literalism.  Christians wanted to make sure the Bible remained relevant despite the wealth of information that was coming to us by way of secular astronomy.  So they used the Scriptures to argue for and against certain discoveries, rather than judging them on the available data, and not judging the Scriptures according to data that were unavialable to the original audience. 

But we need to be willing to accept that perhaps the things we think are so important today were not that important to Moses, or to his original audience.  And that when we belabor the material details of the point, we miss the deeper theological point that transcends the material details.  In fact, one might make the argument that when it comes to the Hebrew creation narrative, the material details are the medium, and not the message.  And that the same drama of creation, the fall, and the promise of Christ could have unfolded on any cosmological stage.  But given the context from which Moses wrote, the Holy Spirit naturally allowed him to use the cast, props, and characters most familiar to his audience.  And that we actually undermine the authority of Scripture when we impose modern concerns (such as the age of the earth or the relative brightness and sizes of the heavenly bodies) onto the text - whether it be reinterpreting the word "great", "light", or "day".  This is mostly what my book is about if anyone is interested, although there is quite a bit of science in there as well.

GJG

Glover, enthusiasm indeed!  Sorry about not picking my arguments! 

Big Bang Theory, Cosmic Microwave Background, and Inflation Theory.  Check out the link I sent a little closer.  These 30 things, if the BBT is falsifiable, kill the theory utterly and completely.  The real data is not as fantastic as you make it out to be.  I became disillusioned with "mainstream" cosmology when I learned some things that I wasn't taught in college, things that can be found in secular, peer-reviewed science journals.  Now, with the Bible clearly not teaching a Big Bang cosmology, I have even more reason to conclude secular scientists are way off.  I can only conclude that the reason secular science has not abandoned the BBT is because the alternative offends them spiritually (Rom 1:18ff), and the Christians who follow the secular scientists (not seeing this spiritual aspect) are helping neither God nor man.  (I don't disrespect the actual operational science done like COBE or WMAP, but I am talk about the promoting of anti-biblical philosophies and histories (1 Timothy 4:7).)

Most scientists are--in practice, research, and writing--atheistic materialists, even if they are Regenerate Christians.  The system is indeed controlled by the majority who are God-haters who want nothing to do with the supernatural (two examples).  Instead of starting with God's Word, they start with man's ideas, such as materialism and uniformitarianism.

I've posed this question numerous times to my atheist astronomy friends and they refuse to answer it:  If the Big Bang is a good theory, what criterion would falsify it?  Their silence is telling.  Further, how exactly is the Big Bang, a postulated event in the past, tested without invoking unbiblical assumptions?  The Big Bang is quite a different animal from rocket science, nuclear theory, Newtonian physics, and cancer research, Jason.

Likewise, universal common ancestry:  consider two hypotheses:  (1) the chimp and human look similar, therefore they share a common ancestor; (2) the chimp and human look similar, therefore they share a common Designer.  Are either testable?  Can either be falsified?  Can (2) be thrown out unequivocally?  The answer is no to all three.  This is forensic science, not the kind of science that cures diseases.  Yes, forensic science has an important role in the sciences, but it cannot be lumped together in the same way as operational science as you do to make your points.

Glover wrote, "Mainstream science also says the earth moves around the sun, so we can't just throw out everything."  This can be empirically verified -- operational science.  The claim that the earth revolved around a tortoise four thousand years ago is a forensic science claim.  Likewise, to claim the earth started out as a molten ball of lava is a forensic science claim, hardly in the category of heliocentricism.  Are you understanding the difference yet?  I don't mean to be rude, but this is a very, very important distinction, one that uniformitarians (in my experience) never get, possibly because they don't want to (Rom 1:18ff).

Glover wrote, "if there are overwhelming data to support an idea that seems to contradict a traditional interpretation of scripture, we need to tread carefully and prayerfully."  It turns out scripture can support both heliocentricism and geocentricism.  Big Bang cosmology is antithetical to the scriptures on multiple levels, some touching on the Gospel itself (see earlier).  At any rate, I see a repeat of the Galileo thing in this century, with the Church succumbing to the world's views (uniformitarianism, universal common ancestry).  The YECs can be seen as Galileo.

No, we shouldn't ignore the "67th book of the Bible," but this new controversy in our day is another animal from Galileo's.  It's about forensic science, not operational science.  As such, it relies heavily upon man's assumptions.  The bottom line is:  do we get our assumptions from God or from God-haters?  One of my biblical assumptions (and Mike's) is that operational science will always support the Bible.  There is absolutely no way, hermeneutically or theologically, that cosmologies espousing millions of years can be reconciled with scripture. 

I appreciate the historical perspective with Calvin's commentary.

Glover wrote, "we need to be willing to accept that perhaps the things we think are so important today were not that important to Moses, or to his original audience."  I think a burning question all of us have is "where did I come from" and "how do I cope with what I see (reality)?"  These express a desire, in part, to know who we are.  Gene and Mike also consider this part of the point of scripture.  I think it's rather kind of God to reveal this to us.  For God to have revealed a false history of ourselves and our planet is to call God a liar, for what else did He mean by "in the beginning" than in our beginning? 

Remember, Jesus believed in the literal account of Genesis (Mark 10:6, Mark 13:19, Luke 11:50-51).  Jesus made it clear one must believe Moses (John 5:45-47).  One of the things Moses wrote was Exodus 20:11 ("in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them").  This is our basis for our work week.  Jesus considered the sabbath a regular day (Luke 13:14), so there is no evidence the creation week was any other length than a regular week.  Jesus also considered Adam & Eve, their marriage, Abel, Noah and the Flood all as historical narrative.  Why then would Jesus consider the creation week as anecdotal or metaphorical as you seem to want to do, Jason?  Was Jesus deceived?  Jesus clearly used the Genesis account as the foundation for his teachings.  His points are weakened if Genesis is just the "cultural norm of the day of Moses."  Finally, contrary to NCSE and other secular scientists (more emph. on "contrary", Rom 3:13), no operational science has falsified the YEC position, and most of it has supported it.  So why do you not trust God's plain word regarding our actual history?

Glover wrote, "when we belabor the material details of the point, we miss the deeper theological point that transcends the material details"  From what I've seen in this thread alone, the only people that can point to the "deeper theological points" are the YEC.  Gene tended to simplify the Genesis account, but I showed that if there was death before sin then the powerful image that points to the cross in Genesis 3:21 is completely missed.  What "deeper theological points" do you have in Genesis that I lack? 

Yes, when we each return to our Bible privately, we should not dwell on these fine points but let the Spirit influence and speak to us in our readings.  But right now we are acting out 1 Timothy 4:16 and Titus 1:9 (and a little Galations 2:11 ;) ). 

Your book sounds interesting.  I can also tell you are a much better writer than the rest of us here.

Glover wrote, "If figuring out the perfect and eternal counsel of God were that easy, then it probably wouldn't be perfect or eternal!  But poeple are not content unless they can stuff God into a box."  There are bits we can put in a box, though.  "Did Jesus walk on this planet?"  Open and shut case.  Yes.  There are no buts about it.  "Was the planet actually created in six normal days a few thousand years ago?"  I think an equally-clear answer can be had from scripture.

Glover wrote, "Anytime you see multiples of 3, 7, 10 or 12, there is usually more going on than simply enumeration."  So, Jesus wasn't in the tomb for three days?  Jacob didn't have 12 sons?  The only part I challenge in your quote is the word "usually."  I'll grant "sometimes" or "occasionally."  I think God orchestrated these numbers to actually occur more often.  For instance, God could have created the universe in two days, but apparently God prefers the number seven, so He made sure actual history reflected this number!

Glover wrote, "If something appears to be out of sorts, like Moses making the moon a greater light than the stars, then we simply conclude that astronomy is either wrong, or astronomy is not the point"  You're forgetting the phenomenological approach.  Applying this to God's actual method of bringing about reality, it would appear to an observer that God created the planet in six days, not in a billion-year cosmic waltz, because there is no phenomenological hint of that in scripture. 

Glover wrote, "science would not be possible if were not for God's faithful governance of the created order"  Amen!  I love this aspect!  John 1:1 ftw!

Norm on 24 hours again:  Norm, the POINT of the article I linked was to show how OEC who read millions of years into the Bible must first turn the Bible into nonsense, just as they made nonsense of the letter they received.  The original intent of the author of the letter was quite different from how AiG read it.  This is what OEC do to Genesis.  That's a Bad Thing. 

Hopefiend:  Presumably this includes Titus 1:9.  That's what I'm shooting for as well :)

Anyway, I've said about all I think I can say on this topic.  Mike, you really know how to stir up the hive!  Grace to you all and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Grace to you, Jason.

Big Bang, CMB, etc:  I've been trying to stay away from technical science stuff here since Mike's blog was on linguistics alone.  Plus, you've forced me into areas I'm less solid on and thus am uncomfortable about discussing further until I've learned more.  I'll again redirect you to that website of 30 items, as the authors there are credentialed (secular) scientists who know much more than I.  Additionally, I'll just mention that the originally-predicted CMB "lumpiness" was greater than observed, and that subsequently the Big Bang was modified to accommodate the data.  This leads me to suspect that the excellent match between theory and observation is contingent upon a host of assumptions and flexible parameters, thus "postdicted," not predicted.  I encourage you to keep an eye out for these things.

Glover wrote, "why would God litter the universe with evidence of an event that never happened?  Especially if the evidence is not necessary for the universe to function?"

To the first question:  I'd say you're letting your non-Biblical assumptions color your perceptions.  I see the same evidence you're looking at supporting a (non-exploded) created origin.  Further, you might be confusing interpretation with evidence.  To the second question:  What evidence do you mean?  You mean things like countless other galaxies?  I'm sure we both could find verses that talk about how God's glory and might are declared by the stars.  Whatever the true answer, I'd file this with the "why did God do X?" questions, things we really don't even have a right to know, and God rarely answers for us.  The important question for Genesis 1-11 is, "what did God do?"  I think the answers to that are very clear in scripture.

Glover wrote, "[Eric wrote,] "Further, how exactly is the Big Bang, a postulated event in the past, tested without invoking unbiblical assumptions?"- God's providence works the same today as it always has.  "For I the Lord, Changeth not."  He upholds and sustains all things - a God of order and patterns.  We can trust a scientific investigation into the past to give accurate results because of God's covenant faithfulness.  How are these unbiblical assumptions?  You're going to have to give me an example of one."

God's nature is unchanging.  This I agree to.  But it is clear (observationally) that the world we live in changes quite a lot.  Consider a bathtub example:  You come home from a week-long trip and find the bathtub full of water with the faucet dripping.  You can measure the drip rate and calculate how long it took for the tub to fill up from empty.  But suppose a note was left that read, "I turned the water on full-blast for five minutes and then turned it off to where you see it now," and it has a date of a few hours earlier.  Now you realize that the eyewitness account also fits with the same evidence, and that your earlier assumptions were incorrect in light of the account.  This example also exposes the insufficiency of uniformitarianism (which is not taught in the Bible), particularly when we have an eyewitness account of an event that absolutely rearranged the face of the Earth (the Flood). 

Consider radioactive decay rates.  These are determined by physical "constants," which are established and upheld by God.  Generally, it's safe to assume uniformitarianism with future tests, as you agree, based on 100 years of observation and the assumption that God is not a god of chaos.  But to extend this assumption into the past where we do not have observation points (particularly when extending millions of times beyond the observed time frame) is unwarrented -- God could have changed these rates at any time.  You assume He did not, despite a worldwide catastrophic event documented in His Word where practically everything we call familiar was changed.

Operational/forensic science:  I do not disagree with you on Newtonian physics, string theory, and gravitation.  Tell me how the Big Bang -- an event postulated 15 billion years ago -- can be observed in the same manner as, say, Newtonian physics.  Answer:  it cannot, for it lies in the past.  You will point to evidences of the Big Bang, such as the CMB.  But the CMB does not "show" the Big Bang in the same way a bowling pin and bowling ball show Newtonian physics.  The CMB and its characteristics exist, the CMB exists in the present and can be observed and measured in the present.  However, that's all it is.  To claim that observing the CMB is observing the Big Bang is to assume that which needs to be proven, which is circular reasoning.  The dichotomy between operational and forensic/historical science is most definitely real.  If you still want to blur the two, I highly recommend you study the philosophy of science and epistemology more.  I don't blame you:  this stuff is rarely taught in undergrad and graduate classes.  But the distinction is very real. 

Here's a simpler example:  prove to me that George Washington was the first President of the United States of America.  Formulate a test that I may repeat in my own lab to confirm your observation.  Take note of all assumptions required to arrive at this conclusion.  (Note, I agree he was the first president; this rhetorical challenge illustrates that this fact can only be "proven" with historical science techniques combined with many assumptions not used in operational science.)

(1) the chimp and human look similar, therefore they share a common ancestor;
(2) the chimp and human look similar, therefore they share a common Designer.

This is another important distinction.

Jason, you say (1) is "very testable and entirely falsifiable."  They used to say humans and chimps were 99% similar.  (Now they say humans and chimps are 94% similar, going by a "fuller" metric.)  Can you quantify a percent similarity threshhold that would determine humans and chimps are not related?  90%?  80%?  50%?  20%?  0%?  I'm looking for a falsification criterion of homology.  As far as I know, no scientist has given one.  You say (2) is "not even a scientific claim."  Again you claim knowledge of the limits of what science is and is not, something philosophers of science are still struggling to do.  (This is the Demarcation Problem.)  Furthermore, as I just illustrated, the homology argument is not falsifiable, therefore by your own demarcation criterion, your homology argument is not science!  (By the way, did you know humans and bananas are 50% genetically similar?  Does this mean we are half-bananas?)

The distinction I highlighted above with (1) and (2) is very critical.  There is absolutely no difference between the merits of (1) or (2).  I'll attempt to draw this out:  Consider a Porsche and Volkswagon "Beetle" car.  They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cyl engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies').  Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities?  Because they share the same designer!   But if these were animals, a Darwinist would imply a common ancestor.  No case can be presented that can exclude (1) or (2), unless one arbitrarily decides to do so a priori, which is what mainstream science does because they wish to remain 100% materialistic (a non-Biblical assumption), but it should be noted that to exclude (2) and hold on to (1) exclusively is position of faith, not science.  (As you and I know, faith is not a bad thing, but to call faith "science" is.) 

Are (1) and (2) mutually exclusive?  I'd like to direct you to the parable of the horse and the tractor.  In short:  Darwin's theory was designed to replace God; it's supposed to work without God.  Only now, 150 years later are Christians scrambling to put God back in the picture, but this is a silly notion, for Darwin's theory is supposed to work just fine without God!  As such, you are given strange looks by both YECs and Darwinists, for you are strapping the horse to the tractor.  It'll get the field plowed, but you'll sure look strange doing so!

Yes, I will grant God could have used evolution as his method of "creation" (by virtue that God can do almost anything), but there's one key point you forget:  the method God used for creation as described in Genesis is decidedly not evolution.  Consider these temporal contradictions (linked earlier) evolution has in light of the Bible:  sea creatures before land plants, land animals before trees, death before man, reptiles before birds, land mammals before whales, insects before mammals, dinosaurs before birds....  And then there's yom and the work week....

No, you've failed to present a compelling case that Moses wrote a historical metaphor/parable.

Glover wrote, "Like most Christians, you severely underestimate the scientific case for common descent, and how the science of molecular genetics can answer these questions with a high degree of certainty."

You mean young-earth creationists, since I'd guess "most Christians" buy into the secular, mainstream view.  Again, I don't want to get into heavy science here, since the topic is on the linguistics of Genesis 1 and the meaning of the word yom (which actually was answered a week ago).  However, I'll state that the evidence for molecular genetics makes a much, much stronger case for creation than rock-to-rockstar evolution.  For example, random mutations cannot produce the information required to turn a dinosaur into a bird or a fish into a philosopher.  (This has been observed to occur in only one single, recent, questionable case.)  You can say that God specially "directed" evolution, but this response would alienate you from your secular scientist friends (see above).  Remember, the grand theory of evolution is a materialistic attempt to explain all life without the need for a God.  Genetics clearly points to the need for an intitial design (creation), followed by degradation, disease, and gene pool reduction, for this is exactly what we observe, and exactly what we read in the Bible.

Glover wrote, "Basically, if God didn't creat using common ancestry, then He went to extraordinary lengths to make us think that He did!  If common design were achieve through fiat, then none of these patterns should exist.  Why are they there?" 

Hidden assumption:  if created, homology patterns should not exist.  My question to you:  Why should these patterns not be there?  Both a Porsche and a Volkswagon can share the same polymer plastics because the plastic is a good design that works well in both cars.  Many animals have four legs because it's a good mode of locomotion.  Besides, are you to tell me that the eye evolved forty separate times, and that the wing evolved four separate times?  Are you to tell me that the sheer improbability of this is overcome by God's divine direction?  Why not take God's clear creation account at face value?

Glover wrote, "[Eric wrote,] "There is absolutely no way, hermeneutically or theologically, that cosmologies espousing millions of years can be reconciled with scripture."  Once you make that statement, you can't be objective about the evidence."

Jason, nobody is objective with the evidence.  That's one of the conclusions drawn from the modernist movement, never mind the Bible plainly teaches every human is biased in one way or another.  I'm biased toward the Word of God to correctly report our past in areas that it touches on.  You appear to be biased toward the abilities of science to correctly discern the unobservable past.  Nobody is unbiased.  This is one of the major problems in the philosophy of science that goes all the way back to Socrates.  Every scientist must bring assumptions to the lab.  The question for us is:  do our assumptions align with God?

Glover wrote, "I'm willing to [be unobjective] with the resurrection of Christ, only because the entire faith rests on this fact.  But I'm not willing to bet the whole enchilada on a scientific theory that lacks any empirical support.  In a time where unbelievers doubt the power of the Gospel to change lives, why would we give them aven more reason to think we are delusional and irrational?  I thought our only offense was supposed to be cross?  Not the exact method God used to create all things!"

It's this very block of text that encourages me not to be ashamed of the message of the Bible.  Skeptics see that your position is logically inconsistent, and therefore (correctly) dismiss all of Christianity as illogical.  By standing firm on God's Word and interpreting the evidence around us from His Word, we can (1) make sense of the world, and (2) show others how God's Word can be trusted.  The road to the Cross starts in Genesis.  If the beginning of this road cannot be trusted, then the end cannot either (see my table earlier).  I've read so many testimonials of people coming to Christ after being able to trust God in His first book. 

You believe there is zero evidence for a young earth.  To overcome this would require lengthy instruction on the basics of science, presuppositions, philosophy, epistemology, the scientific method, and proper scientific interpretation.  This is not the place for that.  But such an instruction would be beneficial for both the Christian and the atheist -- it would make better scientists out of both.  Sadly, most scientists know very little about these things and often confuse speculation for actual evidence.  This is ubiquitous in journals and the media, and if you don't have a solid handle on these things, you're simply not going to notice this or understand anything I say.

Glover wrote, "show me one single verse that supports a heliocentric cosmology and I'll show you 67 that clearly describe a geocentric universe" 

This is a form of the ad populum fallacy.  Scriptural truth is not determined by the number of verses.  My point is that scripture can support both; scripture is not impinged by one belief or another, as it is impinged when the current evolutionary paradigm is forced upon it.

Galileo -- I realize you are much more studied on history than I am so I'll let this one go.

Glover wrote, "the evidence of an old earth is so overwhelming that many YECs have to invoke the "appearance-of-age" argument to make it go away."

I've rarely had the need to invoke the "appearance-of-age" argument, although, upon reflection, it's an important consideration.  For instance, when God created the bedrock on Day 1, there is no reason for me to doubt that He created it containing both uranium and lead.  Had Adam performed U-Pb dating on the bedrock, he would probably have gotten an "age" in the millions of years.  The reason for this fallacious conclusion (determined so by God's eyewitness account) lies in the assumptions (see above) one brings to the lab.  But I've rarely needed to invoke this argument.  The evidence for a young age is loud and strong and legion.  I'm skipping these here because they're off-topic.

Glover wrote, "Of the 90 or so most commonly used as "evidences" for a young earth..."

You missed the point of these evidences.  They are not calculated ages.  They are all maximum limits.  Every single one of the 90 or so evidences cannot be reconciled with the mainstream paradigm of billions of years, but are no problem for a young earth paradigm.  For example, the amount of sodium in the oceans:  starting with a freshwater ocean, add the conservative input rate, subtract the liberal output rate, and one arives at a maximum age of the ocean of 80my.  This is using the same uniformitarian assumption that is in vogue with old-earthers these days.  Unless one postulates aliens visited within 80mya to harvest table salt, or there were billions of years when no additional sodium entered the ocean (against the grain of uniformitarianism and invoking a new mystery), the earth cannot be older than 80my.  But God could have created the oceans a few thousand years ago with an initial sodium level, thus science remains in complete harmony with scripture (see the bathtub example).  I hope this is making sense to you.  There is nothing faulty with this argument, save perhaps your understanding of it.  (I mean that respectfully.)

Glover wrote, "...and that He alone brings order from chaos by organizing the primordial chaos."

That, Jason, is unscriptural.  Read it again:  "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."  There is no chaos.  In the beginning was logos.  Is this an example of "liberal" interpretation spreading to the rest of scripture or is this just a fluke?  Time will tell.

Concluding remarks:

Glover wrote, "I suspect that you are not [interested in science], not because you don't like science or are not capable of understanding it, but because you are convinced that it is 100% diametrically opposed to Christian orthodoxy - so why bother?"

I thought I mentioned this earlier but I cannot find it:  for people who are set in their positions (you and I), discussions like this serve only to sharpen each other, not to sway.  But I suppose these questions should be asked:  Is this conversation glorifying God in any way?  Are we encouraging one another?  Are we helping each other hold stronger to God?  Are we training each other to better address the secular world?  If not, perhaps we should close this discussion.  What do you think?

It seems to me that we are agreed on the scriptural front, but that you declare the whole first eleven chapters of Genesis to be disconnected with physical reality because Science says so.  You think I'm a flat-earth, geocentric, science-ignoring ignoramus.  I see room for improvement on your end with primers in the philosophy of science.  You see improvement on my end with primers on scientific evidence.  In both cases, the next topic seems to be Science, so perhaps I should visit your blog and continue this discussion there.  Truthfully, these comments have taken up all of my blog-reading time in the past two weeks, so I haven't even had time to even glance at your blog yet.

At the same time, however, I would like to encourage you to study the abilities of science further.  You won't find them on Talk.Origins, Pharyngula, NCSE's website, National Geographic's website, or NAS's website.  You're going to find them in dusty philosophy publications and on creationist websites, because it seems only the creationists have realized what the state of science has become in the past 50 years, where just-so stories replace operational science and, as long as Saint Charlie is paid tribute, nobody complains.  For initial starters, I encourage you to research further my claim of the dichotomy between historical and operational sciences.

From Him, through Him, and to Him, Jason.

Seasons: 

Restore, you asked this way back in December:

What season of the year did this all take place might? Would it be Spring?

The four seasons we know aren't mentioned until after the flood (Gen 8:21-22), so there would be no season involved.  From a physics standpoint, that would mean the earth was not at a 23 degree tilt until after the flood.

Genesis 8:21-22     (NASB)
21  The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
22  "While the earth remains,
       Seedtime and harvest,
       And cold and heat,
       And summer and winter,
       And day and night
       Shall not cease."

Time Periods: 

While I've heard the "day meant time periods" arguments before.  I can't see any scientific or spiritual reason for accepting or refuting the arguments.  I like Huckabee's reply to Wolf Blitzer about creation time periods: "I don't know, I wasn't there."

I was never a fan of Isaiah 40:22 ("circle of the earth"), which AiG continues to use, because phenomenologically-speaking, if one stands on a mountaintop and traces the horizon, it makes a circle.  To claim it describes the earth from the viewpoint of a satelite is to force onto scripture something I don't think Isaiah intended.

Jason, are you saying that YECs are like those that simply misunderstood how the earth was a sphere, and how gravity worked, and that they were mistaken that the equator was unpassable?  Are you saying that in the future, new discoveries in evolution might reveal how some of our assumptions (which lead to untennable theological conclusions) are wrong, such as with the people in the quotes on how they thought the equator was impassible?  If so, this seems to close all discussion into the indeterminite future.  What do you suggest be done?

The issue was cut and dry.  How can all of humanity be represented in the fall by one man, Adam, and also be saved by one man, Jesus, if some people are living “outside of the system”?  This problem is clearly seen in a statement made in the sixth century by Procopius of Gaza (A.D. 465-528),

And since the Bible speaks of no such duplicate Adam, serpent, flood or second death and resurrection, they simply made a scientific conclusion that that habitable antipodes did not exist.  And this without even looking at the evidence! 

I’m not sure exactly how the antipodes scandal was finally resolved by the Church, but I do know that somehow Christian orthodoxy survived the proven fact that the Southern hemisphere was widely occupied by indigenous peoples long before the time of Christ.  And despite not being able to account for their physical whereabouts during inportant biblical events like the Garden of Eden, the Flood of Noah and the Resurrection of Christ, thousands of missionaries have treated these people as though they are spiritual descendants of Adam, and heirs to the Kingdom of Christ. 

You asked a few other good questions as well: Jason, are you saying that YECs are like those that simply misunderstood how the earth was a sphere, and how gravity worked, and that they were mistaken that the equator was unpassable?  - Perhaps.  The antipodes controversy shows how easy it is to let our theology dictate what is science.  Notice how Augustine called the idea of lands down under a "fable" even though he had no evidence one way or the other.  We all just need to realize that understanding God's works is not so easy.

Are you saying that in the future, new discoveries in evolution might reveal how some of our assumptions (which lead to untennable theological conclusions) are wrong, such as with the people in the quotes on how they thought the equator was impassible?  - I don't know.  But I am calling on theologians to take a better look at it.  See my antipodes comments above.  I never question that through Adam all have sinned, and that through Christ all (who believe) will be made alive, but I'm not so sure that this theology can be used to decide whether evolution is true.  God might be bigger than we think (I hope He is!).  Just as Magellan had to find South American Natives before the issue was settled, I think we need to focus on the evidence.  Because if we say that our theology is not compatible with the theory, and then we "find the natives who know nothing of Adam or Christ" - then we have just shot ourselves in the foot.  In my mind, the antipodes are crawling with indigenous people, so now it's up to the theologians to make sense of it.  But only liberal theologians seem interested.  B.B. Warfield and A.A. Hodge did some work back in the 1800's, as well as C.S. Lewis.  This is actually the subject of another book I'm working on.

Jason

"Consider radioactive decay rates.  These are determined by physical "constants," which are established and upheld by God..But to extend this assumption into the past where we do not have observation points (particularly when extending millions of times beyond the observed time frame) is unwarrented -- God could have changed these rates at any time.  You assume He did not... " - no assumption is necessary.  WE CAN DIRECTLY TEST THIS HYPOTHESIS!  WE HAVE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF OBSERVATION POINTS!  As far back in time as telescopes can see (10 billion years), nuclear decays rates are always constant.  A supernova creates many unstable elements, and the no matter how far away they are, these isotopes always decay at constant rates.  Moreover, the temperature of the earth's core depends on the rate of decay.  The level of decay required by YEC to account for current observations would have melted the earth.  So if you are going to assume that God changed the nuclear decay rates at some point on earth, then you are going to have to explain why he kept them the same everywhere else in the cosmos.  And if he did accelerate them to give the appearance of antiquity, did he also perform a miracle to protect the earth from nuclear meltdown?  When you try and fit the data to a predetermined conclusion (as YEC does) then these are the kinds of problems you will have to deal with.

"Tell me how the Big Bang -- an event postulated 15 billion years ago -- can be observed in the same manner as, say, Newtonian physics.  Answer:  it cannot, for it lies in the past." - this is very simple.  We don't know the material mechanism that causes Newtonian phenomena like gravity, but we observe the effects of gravity.  Likewise, we observe the effects of the big bang - the CMBR and Redshift.  In both cases, if these effects can be attributed to something else, then perhaps we need to rethink the theory.  But until such time, they remain the best physical explanations.  When Newton first proposed that gravity was responsible for the motion of the heavenly bodies, the Church took exception to this.  It was said that Newton "took something that was formerly attributed to God's providence and replaced it with a material mechanism" - the YEC attitude toward cosmology is no different.

" You will point to evidences of the Big Bang, such as the CMB.  But the CMB does not "show" the Big Bang in the same way a bowling pin and bowling ball show Newtonian physics.  The CMB and its characteristics exist, the CMB exists in the present and can be observed and measured in the present.  However, that's all it is.  To claim that observing the CMB is observing the Big Bang is to assume that which needs to be proven, which is circular reasoning.  According to your logic, it would be circular reasoning if I woke up tomorrow to snow and I concluded that it fell from the sky.  Most people would see the snow as the effect of a snowstorm - even if the storm occurred overnight and nobody had direct evidence of it.  Since there are no other known physical phenomena that can account for the white stuff, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the snow fell from the sky.  When cosmologists predicted that the temperature of the universe would have been 3000K at the moment that atomic hydrogen became stable and the glowing fog lifted, and that this radiation should still be detectable, although redshifed by cosmic expansion down to only a few degrees above absolute zero, and it should have no spectral absorption lines characteristic of other cosmic radiation, and that it should be totally uniform in every direction, except for a very small amount of roughness (but not too much) - there was no other known phenomena to account for such a wacky prediction.  And since this prediction was made by the redshift data, the testimony of two winessess is confirmed.  The fact that it was found 35 years after it was predicted is really quite amazing if you think about.

"I highly recommend you study the philosophy of science and epistemology more."  - I'm glad you haven't lost your sense of humor. 

"They used to say humans and chimps were 99% similar.  (Now they say humans and chimps are 94% similar, going by a "fuller" metric.)  Can you quantify a percent similarity threshhold that would determine humans and chimps are not related?  90%?  80%?  50%?  20%?  0%?  I'm looking for a falsification criterion of homology." - 99% is based on genes that we both share.  However, there are 9 sections of DNA that are inverted between chimp and human, and 1 site of chromosome fusion.  If you consider these inverted sections as "different" - even though they contain the same genes, then you get to 94%.  But raw percentage is not how ancestry is determined.  You can't just do a lump-sum comparison between two genomes.  That would actually tell you very little if you understand molecular genetics.  You have to compare similar genes for identical proteins between species, preferably genes from mitDNA that have nothing to do with physical appearance.  Since the genetic code is redundant, there are trillions of different ways to write a code for an identical protein.  Common design suggests that the "designer" would use the same code for the same protein, like a computer programmer would write a similar code for the idential function, or He would write a different code for the same protein shared by all living things (that would provide unmistakable proof of special creation).  Common descent REQUIRES that the degree of similarity for identical proteins must match the standard phylogeny drawn from comparative anatomy and the fossil record.  The odds of the Common descent being falsified in a test like this are 1 to 10E+38 (for 30 biological groups).  However, studies with multiple shared proteins have all confirmed the standard phylogeny.  If God had a choice in designing every creatures' DNA, and he didn't use a natural process like common descent, then why did He select the only 1 out of a possible 10E+38 possibilities that seems to confirm evolution?  He didn't have to.  In fact, by giving each speices a unigue code for identical protiens, His exact method of creation would have been clear!  Is this a test?

"Consider a Porsche and Volkswagon "Beetle" car." - Forget about this one.  Automobiles do not fall into a non-trivial nested hierarchy - so there is no reason to believe they are related.  Living things, on the contrary, fall into a perfect pattern of groups nested within groups.  And the criteria chosen to build the taxa are non-trivial.  If you try to classify automobiles like biologists classify organisms, 20 different people will give you 20 different phylogenies because the criteria used to determine the taxa are completely trivial.  EXACTLY WHAT YOU'D EXPECT FROM THINGS ARE DESIGNED AND CREATED SEPARATELY!  But not so with living things.  Of the 30 million species discovered to date, they all fall perfectly into the pattern required by common ancestry.  Your use of the worn-out car analogy shows that you get your biology from creationist groups who don't understand the first thing about basic taxonomy.

"Darwin's theory was designed to replace God; it's supposed to work without God." - unless you also believe that medicine replaces prayer, or that meteorology replaces God's sovereignty over the atmosphere, you are being less than honest here.  All of science is designed to work without God - if not, then how could you distinguish astronomy from astrology?  Medicine from witchcraft?  Shaman from meteorologists?  If evolution is a natural process, then it is no different from any other natural process.  The bible says that we are knit together in our mother's womb by God's hand - so does that mean the science of embryology was designed to replace God?  If your God is not sovereign over natural processes, then He is not the God of the Bible!

"No, you've failed to present a compelling case that Moses wrote a historical metaphor/parable." - So I guess that means you believe in a solid firmament?  That the moon generates its own light?  And that there are waters above the sun, moon, and stars?  Or are you free to reinterpret only those things you feel comfortable with?

"I'm biased toward the Word of God to correctly report our past in areas that it touches on.  You appear to be biased toward the abilities of science to correctly discern the unobservable past." - unless you believe in a solid firmament, a flat earth, the waters above the heavens, geocentricism, etc..., you are also biased toward science to correctly discern the "unobservable" past.  After all, if God wrote these things, and He knows better than us, why do you chose to reinterpret some things and not others?

"It's this very block of text that encourages me not to be ashamed of the message of the Bible." - Except for the physical details of the Hebrew Cosmos.  Why not be unashamed about proclaiming these from the rooftops?  And you can join www.fixedearth.com - Christians who are unashamed to proclaim that the Bible clearly teaches a geocentric universe!  Why do you pick and chose what scriptures you will be "unashamed" about?

"To overcome this would require lengthy instruction on the basics of science, presuppositions, philosophy, epistemology, the scientific method, and proper scientific interpretation."- you forget that I was YEC for almost 20 years.  It was only after studying these exact things from other CHRISTIANS who are also REAL scientists doing REAL science in secular institutions that I realized how dishonest YEC "science" is.  Another reason I abandoned creation science is because they pick and choose what verses are literal, what are historical, what are phenomenological, and what are metaphorical - according to the SCIENCE they accept.  I realized that a YEC would be considered "liberal" by a gencentric creationist, and a geocentric creationist would be considered "liberal" by a flat-earth creationists.  This is all silly.  I would rather interpret God's word plainly as the author intended, not according to some kooky scientific model.  And once we do this, it becomes clear that God used the scientific perceptions of the ancient Near-East to make his theological points - which frees us to be honest and objective about the scientific data of modern times.

"They are not calculated ages.  They are all maximum limits.  Every single one of the 90 or so evidences cannot be reconciled with the mainstream paradigm of billions of years, but are no problem for a young earth paradigm."- exactly.  The young-earth paradigm doesn't have to make sense.  The data doesn't have to be statistically significant, it only has to disprove the old earth paradigm!  You lecture me on how science if supposed to work, but that not science!  That is litigation - that's what trial lawyers do!  In science, you have to prove your case, you can't just throw a bunch incoherent numbers at the other guys data and declare victory.  The data for an old earth is extremely tight.  There are 100 or so data points for the earth being 4.55 billion years with a very small uncertainty.  You can have the meaningless and statistically incoherent data, I'll go with the coherent data.

"For example, the amount of sodium in the oceans:  starting with a freshwater ocean, add the conservative input rate, subtract the liberal output rate, and one arives at a maximum age of the ocean of 80my.  This is using the same uniformitarian assumption that is in vogue with old-earthers these days." - there is a reason you will never see these kinds of arguments in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and it has nothing to do with religious bias.  Even a seasoned geologists will admit how little we know about rates of sodium coming into and out of the ocean.   Perhaps that's why when you do this same exercise with other salts you get such varying answers!  To use this as a basis for deterimining the age of anything hardly qualifies as science.  In order to reach that far back into the past, you need a physical process that is as regular and as steady as an atomic clock.  Something that is not influenced by any other environmental variables.  Something based on the fundamental forces of nature, like the weak and strong nuclear forces.  That is why real scientists use radiometric decay to date old things.  It is a very well understand and simple phenomea with extremely steady rates.  It is only limited by being able to determine you initial conditions, which is made possible by a method called isochron dating.  I can explain it to you if you are interested, but there is plenty of info on the web about it.  Using a complex nonlinear system, like salts in the oceans, to reach back millions of years is pointless unless you can completely model all the complexities of the system.  No real scientists would ever even attempt such a thing.  I don't even think there enough computing power at Pixar or Dreamworks for this!

"I hope this is making sense to you.  There is nothing faulty with this argument, save perhaps your understanding of it."- OK, since you obviously think I've been brainwashed by atheists, you tell me what's wrong with this argument: I went to the beach for 6 hours today, and the water level rose 2 feet.  Therefore, I calculated the rate at which the oceans are filling up and the earth therefore can't be older than XX years, and XX years from now the highest mountain will be covered up.  Hopefully, you can see right through this.  This argument assumes that because a complex system is observed for a instant of geological time, that extrapolations can be made as far forward or backwards as one wants.  That is pretty much how young-earth arguments work, and this is why they are 100% dismissed by the scientific community.  That's exactly what I meant when I said "shameful" so I'm glad you brought it up.

Conclusion:  I am very familiar and well-read on what science is and isn't able to tell us about the past and present.  In fact, I devote the entire first section of my book to an epistemology that starts by presupposing that God's word is true, not because we can prove it empirically (elevating the authority of science over the Bible), but because it is a self-attesting truth.  Likewise, science is also based on self-referential assumptions such as the uniformity of nature.  My argument, which is the classic Van-Tillian prepositional argument, is that only a universe created from nothing and sustained by God can provide the rational and coherent system that science requires.  I am fully awar of the assumptions that go into building a scientific model, and how nothing can established with absolute certainty, yada yada.  So in that sense, all knowledge starts with God and creation ex-nihilo.  You and I would not disagree on any of this stuff.  You mentioned that you have not studied much on the historic conflicts between science and Christianity.  Perhaps you should.  When you realize that this YEC approach to science/faith issues has failed to ever produce a lasting scientific contribution to the world, it will cause you see things more objectively. 

I hope to see you over at my blog - but don't let blogging get in the way of the important things in life!

Jason

Amen Spooksam - the Word is simple and straightforward indeed!  But science is very complicated and our understanding of the cosmos is constantly changing.  So the relationship between science and the Bible can get very interesting at times!

My point to all is that while science has no authority over God's Word, and the Bible is a self-attesting truth that does not depend on anything else for its authenticity, things we learn about the created order (nature) help us to understand the Bible in its proper context.  If I only read Isaiah and never ventured outside, I might conclude that trees have hands and can clap.  However, because I know from empirical analysis that trees don't have literal hands, and that Isaiah must have also known this since He had access to the same information about trees, I can confidently say that this verse is using a literary device to make a point that transcends the material details of the text.  That is obvious. 

Other things are not so obvious.  Pretend for a moment that we are Christians living in the 1400's.  At this point in time, science tells us that the earth is fixed at the center of the universe and that the heavens are in constant motion around it.  We go outside, we observe the heavenly bodies "moving" across the firmament and we do not feel the earth moving, so we have no reason to doubt the astronomers.  When we read our Bibles, we see that the heavens are always described as "moving" and the earth is always described as resting on its foundations, and this fits our perceptions about the cosmos.  As one medieval theologian put it,

"Just as man is made for the sake of God--that is, that he may serve Him,--so the universe is made for the sake of man--that is, that it may serve HIM; therefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe, that he may both serve and be served."

In addition to this, everybody knows that the heavenly and earthly realms can not be mixed.  As St. Augustine declared, "The firmament represents an impassable boundary between heaven and earth."  The heavens were perfect, eternal, and unchanging - home to God and His angels.  The earth was the realm of sin, death, and decay - home to the devil and his demons.  To mix these two realms was to violate the created order.  Calvin says in his commentary on Genesis 1:6,

"The work of the second day is to provide an empty space around the circumference of the earth, that heaven and earth may not be mixed together. For since the proverb, 'to mingle heaven and earth,' denotes the extreme of disorder, this distinction ought to be regarded as of great importance."

This is the background from which Polish astronomer Copernicus suggest that perhaps the sun occupies the center of the cosmos, the stars are fixed, and the planets and earth are all in motion around the sun.  This was immediately recognized as scandalous, mixing heaven and earth.  Calvin preached that,

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature."
 
Luther commented,

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

The Catholic Church said,

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin."

Believe it or not, we can actually excuse these silly comments because at the time, mainstream science also believed that the earth did not move.  So the theologians felt that since there was no physical evidence of this new system, they will simply trust what God has plainly revealed to us in his Word (although they should have been a little more humble about it).  After all, if God had wanted to tell us that the earth moves and turns, He could have easily done so.  But instead, He tells us the opposite no less than 67 times.  The lesson here is that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we should always trust God's word first.  The most plain and straightforward reading of Scripture is usually the best way to understand it.  The Copernican hypothesis simply had no evidence to support it.

But then some very testable predictions were made.  It was said that if the Copernican hypothesis was true, then Venus and Mercury should show phases like the moon, and the fixed stars should demonstrate a "parallax" as the earth travels around the sun.  And around 1610, Galileo's newly invented telescope confirmed the phases of Venus.  He also noted that Jupiter and Saturn had many moons, proving that perhaps not everything orbits the earth.  His observation of sunspots and moon craters also called into question the assumption that the heavens are perfect, eternal, and unchanging.

So now that the Copernican theory had evidence to back it up, you might expect the Christians would realize that perhaps they have been reading too much science into the scriptures and that perhpas the Bible was never meant to teach celestial mechanics.  Perhaps the new revelations of God's 67th book would cause us to realize that God was either (1) using phenomenological language to describe the heavens and the earth, or (2) He was accommodating the language of creation to the cosmology of His original audience.  The lesson here is that while we should always assume the Bible is literal unless there is sufficient reason to believe otherwise, when overwhelming evidence shows that we can no longer do this, there is no shame in humbly coming back to the Scriptures and making some adjustments in our expectation of the text.  Perhaps our initial emphasis was incorrect?  Perhaps the material details are not the point, but are only used for the purposes of illustration?

But instead of taking this approach, the Church took the YEC approach and assumed that science must always be wrong and the literal reading of the Bible must alwasy be right.  Father Clavius declared that "...to see satellites of Jupiter, men had to make an instrument which would create them."  A painting of Virgin Mary which also showed imperfections (craters) on the moon was denounced as sacrilege based on the astronomer's new heresy.  It was also said of Galileo that "his pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation."  Father Lecazre declared "it casts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation."  Others declared, "It upsets the whole basis of theology. If the earth is a planet, and only one among several planets, it can not be that any such great things have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam? How can they trace back their origin to Noah's ark? How can they have been redeemed by the Saviour?" 

This should give a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach.  Are we guilty of this same attitude today?  Like the modern YEC movement, the medieval version of creation science also had its own folk-scientists trying to fight the real scientists.  They came up with all sorts of pseudo-scientific argument trying to disprove the moving earth.  They said if Galileo was right, then "the wind would constantly blow from the east"; and that "buildings and the earth itself would fly off with such a rapid motion that men would have to be provided with claws like cats to enable them to hold fast to the earth's surface." Another argument was that, "If we concede the motion of the earth, why is it that an arrow shot into the air falls back to the same spot, while the earth and all things on it have in the meantime moved very rapidly toward the east? Who does not see that great confusion would result from this motion?" And finally one of my personal favorites, "Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles; the earth has no limbs or muscles, therefore it does not move. It is angels who make Saturn, Jupiter, the sun, etc., turn round. If the earth revolves, it must also have an angel in the centre to set it in motion; but only devils live there; it would therefore be a devil who would impart motion to the earth...."  I could go on and on with these, but I think you get the point.  These were the medieval equivalent of "salt in the oceans" and "dust on the moon" arguments used by modern day YECs.  One thing still gave hope to scientific geocentrists was that stellar parrallax had still not been observed. This was a very important prediction of heliocentric theory and the fact that it has not been observed gave hope to the geocentricist.  It was the medieval "missing link" just as we still have with modern theories.  Can you not see that YEC is medieval geocentricism all over again?  Consider these two quotes:

"The only way we can know for certain whether or not geocentricity is true would be to leave the universe, take a look around outside the universe, and then come back in to tell us what is really happening in that larger scope. Since God is infinitely greater than the universe, and so extends beyond the universe, what God says must present the ultimate case... God, in His Word, consistently teaches geocentricity."- A Christian Geocentricist

"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology." - A YEC

As you all know, when the "missing link" of heliocentric cosmology, stellar parallax, was confirmed by Herschel in the 1800's and the rotation of the earth was confirmed by Fouccault a few years later, the Church finally abandoned Artistotles' false cosmology.  My question to every YEC is this, Why did the we abandon geocentric cosmology?  Was it becasue biblical scholars discovered heliocentric theory in the bible?  Was it because theologians decided that heliocentric theory was more theologically correct than geocentric theory?  NO and NO.  Only SCIENCE was able to sort these things out.  And were it not for a YEC-like mentality, it probably would sorted itself out much sooner without having to arrest Galileo and charge with crimes.  In the long run, does it really matter that the earth moves through the heavens?  Did any of our historic doctrines give way to heresy because we "mixed heaven and earth" or because the heavens were shown to be less than perfect, eternal, and unchanging?  NO.  So why should we believe the YEC theological scare-tactics today?

We should automatically assume that old-earth science threatens anything taught to us by God's word - unless you believe that God's work definitely teaches an young-earth.  But if you really believe this, then you need to also join the modern geocentricity movement.  They are unashamed that the Bible teaches a fixed earth.  They think that all science since Copernicus is wrong.  They are the only ones with a consistent approach.  YECs just pick and choose. 

I would encourage all YEC-minded Christians to study the past.  If we don't learn from these mistakes, we will continue to repeat them.

For His glory,
Jason

Good stuff Mike.  You reminded me of a very important point that I might not have mentioned yet.  No responsible scientist would claim that science has the ability explain how either the UNIVERSE OR LIFE began.  The only thing science tries to do is explain their development over time.  This is a very important distinction.  Big Bang cosmology says at some point in the distant past, the universe was created from nothing, and the event defied all known laws of physics.  It might have well been a miracle, so they don't attempt to explain it.  They are only interested in reconstructing the evolutionary history of the universe from the the first second until now.  Ditto for the beginning of life.  Biologist also agree that man was created from the dust of the earth, and that this event defied all known laws of physics.  They are only concerned with what happened between "dust" and "man".  As Christians we know that God created all things from nothing and sustains their existence.  This is a teleological statement of fact accepted by faith rather than a scientific statement. 

I also agree that any miracle will naturally by accompanied by a certain amount of "appearance" so that the miracle makes sense.  I especially like the "wine at the wedding" example.  In fact, the Bible says that the wine was very good wine, which probably meant it seemed really old.  So a miracle will always have a certain amount of necessary appearance.  I'm totally fine with that.  In fact, I much prefer the "appearance of age" argument than creation science.  Why not just admit that God created the universe in a very old state and stop looking for evidence of a young earth?

Here is my only problem with that.  What if Jesus also created empty wine skins and put them in the kitchen trash?  What if he also created receipts showing that the wine was just purchased that morning and put them in the house ledger?  What if he planted false memories in the minds of the kitchen staff so that they have a detailed recollection of purchasing the wine?  And what if the folks at the winery also remember selling it to the kitchen staff?  None of this would make sense because these are not necessary consequences of the miracle.  These appearances go too far and make the miracle appear completely ordinary.  Why would God perform a miracle only to cover it up with carefully crafted "cover story" that makes perfect sense?

When scientists look at the natural history of the cosmos, they see a long and fascinating history of events that brought the universe from its tiny hot beginning to its cold enormous present.  Molecular biologists see the same thing when they look at human genome.  Only 2% of our DNA is translated into proteins.  The rest contains "molecular" fossils that give a very coherent and detailed history of our evolutionary development.  For instance, humans have the same 3 genes that all other mammals use to synthesis vitamin C.  However, the human GLO gene has a single base pair deletion that breaks the entire gene.  Therefore, all humans require vitamin C in their diets.  Why would God create humans with a broken copy of a gene that works perfectly fine in the other mammals?  Even more disturbing, all primates have the exact same point mutation at the exact same location on the exact same GLO gene.  The odds of the exact same point mutation occurring in all primate species are astronomical.  And there is no reason why God would create all primates with the same broken gene. 

Ken Ham might claim that the evidence can be interpreted differently, but what does that mean?  The scientific interpretation make perfect sense: it simply says that sometime after primates split from the other mammals, a mutation occurred in the GLO gene.  Since the primate diet was rich in vitamin C, this broken gene was passed on without consequence.  Therefore, all species descended from that population inherited the 3 genes for vitamin C production, including the exact same copy of the broken GLO gene.  That makes perfect sense to me.  What is the YEC explanation?  If God just made it like that, then what does that say about God?  To me, that's worse than just admitting that God used a natural process to get from "dust" to "man". 

Either way, there are theological problems.  If God used a natural process, then we have to explain what common descent means for original sin.  But if God used a miraculous process, then we have to explain why he made it look like common descent.  Either way, we have some explaining to do.  But until Christians start taking the evidence seriously, these questions will remain unanswered.

Hey, Jason.  I'm going to humbly bow out of our running dialog and grant you the "victor" to this "debate."  I still see factual errors, oversights in thinking, and some fallacies with your last reply, and I'm interested in pursuing them, but this thread has gotten long and the topics have multiplied to a number that cannot be handled well.  Furthermore, I think I'm outclassed in both writing and knowledge.  Finally, I see a few areas where I am wrong.  I'll visit your blog when I get a chance.  Also, I think I need to read your book before I take up any more of your time.

Here are a few random comments I want to make since I last visited:

Golden wrote, "I do not bother with "Theology" which is the study of God's word with science."  Actually, theology is the study of the nature of God.  I'm sure you just got the wrong definition, but what I read was "I do not bother with God."  (Bonus:  contrast "theology" with "religion," which is the study of man's attempt to reach God.)

Jason wrote, "Here is my only problem with that.  What if Jesus also created empty wine skins and put them in the kitchen trash?  What if he also created receipts showing that the wine was just purchased that morning and put them in the house ledger?  What if he planted false memories in the minds of the kitchen staff so that they have a detailed recollection of purchasing the wine?  And what if the folks at the winery also remember selling it to the kitchen staff?"  If you've ever read a murder mystery novel, you know how apparent evidence can be stacked up to suggest one thing, but turns out to not point to reality.  If I may submit, secular, materialist scientists (Christians who submit to the authority of the Bible are a minority in the scientific establishment), are looking for any evidence to support their belief in a naturalistic orign and are very good at knitting them into a coherent story.  If I may further submit, you are being swept along by their story.  The empty wineskins and receipts could have been from the first wine served in the beginning of the party.  You see what I mean.  Two alternate interpretations of the evidence lead to two conclusions that are mutually exclusive.  This train of thought is picked up in Mike's newer blog on science and faith where I just posted, so little sense writing back on this here.

Jason wrote, "When scientists look at the natural history of the cosmos, they see a long and fascinating history of events that brought the universe from its tiny hot beginning to its cold enormous present."  They see nothing of the sort.  They see mostly stasis.  The "change in time" is connecting distant dots into a line, dots that might not be connected in reality, and much evidence suggests they shouldn't be connected.

Jason wrote, "The rest [of the non-coding 98% of our DNA] contains "molecular" fossils that give a very coherent and detailed history of our evolutionary development."  This is also false.  The "junk DNA" is turning out to be critical and functional.  A secular paper published last summer suggested that the idea of "junk DNA" be junked.

Jason wrote, "Why would God create humans with a broken copy of a gene that works perfectly fine in the other mammals?"  Genesis 3.  You forget we live in a cursed world.  There's your alternate explanation. 

Gene wrote, "We need to engage our children, not in brainwashing or doctrinal absolutisms but in an understanding of the differences between science and faith - as evidenced in this conversation."  I've been looking into classical education.  There's the idea of "grammar" school, "logic" school, and "rhetoric" school, which are roughly equivalent to elementary, middle, and high schools.  In grammer, kids are taught absolutes, such as "the earth is round."  They're not taught why.  In logic, basics in correct reasoning is taught.  In rhetoric, they are taught how to bring diverse ideas together into rational arguments.  It is here they are taught the why of things (in this case, gravity).  I might be a bit off with this description. 

Anyway, the "brainwashing" happens no matter what when kids are very young.  What's important is that they are "brainwashed" with correct information, not false information.*  The differences between science and faith cannot be fully addressed until the student is mature enough to handle this stuff (rhetoric school).  As of six months ago, I was under the impression that eight-year-olds could handle such topics as epistemology, but apparently I'm wrong (going by parents much older and more experienced than I; I'm not a parent nor a teacher). 

* Job 12:11 NASB - "Does not the ear test words, as the palate tastes its food?"  Job uses an interesting metaphor for discerning truth.  Did you know that the human palate can be trained at a very young age to like or prefer certain kinds of foods?  American kids like concord grape jelly, but British kids like currant jam.  This is what they grew up with, what their palate has learned.  They've been "brainwashed" to prefer one over the other.  Likewise, we are instructed by God to teach our children the things of God (Deu 11:19), so that Godly things may become "palatable" to them.

Jason wrote, "The rest [of the non-coding 98% of our DNA] contains "molecular" fossils that give a very coherent and detailed history of our evolutionary development."  This is also false.  The "junk DNA" is turning out to be critical and functional.  A secular paper published last summer suggested that the idea of "junk DNA" be junked.

If you notice, I was careful not to use the word "junk" - that was your word.  I simply said "non-encoding" which is technically correct.  Any piece of DNA that doesn't get translated into a protein is "non-encoding" even if it has other uses like gene regulation.  I'm familiar with the exciting new discoveries that some of these segments perform necessary functions.  The non-encoding sections can accumulate mutations must faster than an expressed gene can, so they are often referred to as molecular fossils.

"Jason wrote, "Why would God create humans with a broken copy of a gene that works perfectly fine in the other mammals?"  Genesis 3.  You forget we live in a cursed world.  There's your alternate explanation."

Brother - how can I forget the curse of sin?  But if that be the cause, why not just leave out the genes altogether?  Why give us all three, but only mutate one?  And the curse still doesn't explain why we all have the exact same point mutation in the exact same base pair!!!! 

It's truly been enjoyable.  I look forward to conversing with you again!

Jason

Eric Said, "I've been looking into classical education.  There's the idea of "grammar" school, "logic" school, and "rhetoric" school, which are roughly equivalent to elementary, middle, and high schools.  In grammar, kids are taught absolutes, such as "the earth is round."  They're not taught why.  In logic, basics in correct reasoning is taught.  In rhetoric, they are taught how to bring diverse ideas together into rational arguments.  It is here they are taught the why of things (in this case, gravity).  I might be a bit off with this description."

All 3 of my kids go to classical Christian school here in Maryland (Rockbridge Academy).  I can vouch for their method of instruction.  They are not a "pharisee factory" and they don't produce robots that are fearful of the world, but they train our kids to be thinking Christians who can hold their own in any secular environment.  My wife was also educated in classical Christian education.  Since I noticed you live in the area, you should attend an open house.  I highly recommend it!

Your Friend, Jason.

A quote from a physicist friend of mine, who is among the most intelligent men I personally know: 

"Also, I'm continually amazed at how wedded some Christians are to OEC ideas.  Where does the tenacious devotion come from?  How is God enhanced in their view if the old-earth evolutionary paradigm is true?  What scientific 'evidence' has convinced them to contest minutia in the Genesis Hebrew in an attempt to overturn the obvious layman's first-glance meaning of Genesis?"  

To which I say, I agree wholeheartedly!!