AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 204 times
Been liked: 97 times
Contact:

Re: AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

#16

Post by neo-x » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:14 am

Ok, it seems I can't delete my posts anymore. so feel free to delete these and lets just continue.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

//johnadavid.wordpress.com

Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6509
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 277 times
Been liked: 488 times

Re: AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

#17

Post by Philip » Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:07 pm

Neo, you know this is not a personal issue – you're my brother in the Lord. It's just that you believe some illogical things – and some I find downright dangerous. Particularly at the bottom of this post, I show how and where Jesus (as did His apostles), confirmed the ENTIRE Old Testament as being God's Word, reliable and true!
Neo: Let me reiterate:
1. God can do anything.
2. I believe in miracles.
Here we agree. As a matter of fact, you should know, as I've repeatedly stated, that I as well have questions about our origins – even to wonder whether there might have been a greater humanity created first. And you also know that I don't – nor does Scripture teach – that all things found within in it have a literal meaning, nor do they necessarily have a meaning as perceived by modern ears – this is where scholarship, ancient language experts, archaeology, and science can help to inform us. But you often seem to fight a straw man of asserting certain LITERAL meanings make the text untrue. But the questions we post SHOULD include where in Scripture is a meaning literal, or what other things might it refer to.
Neo: 3. There is evidence that certain things like Adam and Eve being the couple that populated the world as we see today, is not true. So then I conclude that it wasn't a miracle. The difference is, I am not negating miracles. I am simply saying this didn't happen as such.


“As such” WHAT – as per how YOU have interpreted what the text MUST be referring to or mean? Or how you interpret it to suit your own belief narratives (particularly those in relation to evolution).

See what a VERY knowledgeable ancient Bible languages and cultures scholar (Michael Heiser) says about the possible meanings and conclusions about the relevant texts about Adam and Eve and the whole issue of genetics: Heiser states that the various texts legitimately allow for a meaning that NEGATES “that all human beings come from a single pair of humans. Rather, there were humans on the earth along with the pair known as Adam and Eve. It therefore matters not if the human genome data requires more than a single pair of humans. This view also doesn’t require one specific view of how humans wound up here, so long as God is in the process.” Read more of his analysis on this here: http://drmsh.com/genesis-13-face-compat ... -research/

See what Hugh Ross says about the genetics science concerning Adam and Eve:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDKFiCV4I54
Neo: Evidence, then, is important.
I totally agree!
Neo: Science simply doesn't assert, it has data and evidence to show for it. To offhandedly ignore it, is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.
However, one must A) correctly understand the science – KNOW that it has determined such and such, and B) be certain that it is appropriately being applied to Scripture in a relevant manner.
Neo: So, God can do miracles and has done miracles. It's not a question of whether God can do miracles, but did he at certain points?
True: But the question needs to go beyond that – because the text can certainly be true IF it is correctly understood AND other data is correctly applied to it. HOWEVER, if other data is NOT correctly understood, and/or it's not appropriately applied to the Scripture, then one could have an incorrect understanding and thus wrong belief.
Neo: I can totally believe that God seeded the first couple to raise all mankind
Great – so can I, but there are uncertainties surrounding other, potentially, previously existing people.
Neo: … however, the evidence suggests he didn't do it that way.
And I'm not sure either. But as for Christ's line from Adam, the applicable Scriptures are very clear as to how Adam and Eve were created, and how their line (to Christ and ALL believers) was preserved through those left alive on the Ark. Despite whatever residual humanity might have been alive elsewhere, there is a thread between Adam, Jesus - which He then imparts to all believers. And, of course, Moses and the Biblical writers' focus is Adam to Christ.
Neo: Now, Jesus' resurrection can't be explained by any known laws or mechanisms of nature, therefore it indeed is a miracle.
Obviously!
Neo: Especially, since TOE explains it, you don't need a miracle to get to Adam and Eve. And at this point, I believe many OEC's insist on the miracle angle needlessly, despite their obvious acceptance of other substitutions they have made in the Bible, like day being ages and accepting the age of the universe is billions of years.


This is precisely where you go to your strawman narrative, because Bible scholars clearly point out how certain passages concerning the days also make complete sense in other than literal days – this has been redundantly shown, but you reject it because it conflicts with your faith that man, including Adam and Eve, would have to have evolved. So you can keep arguing against a literalism in passages that many Bible and ancient language scholars refute. But they don't fit your narrative.
Neo: If anything I should say you are the one who doesn't believe the Bible obviously.
Ridiculous comment – obviously, again, per your strawman of applying how you've applied literalism. BTW, this is the very same tactic which YECster Jac used to repeatedly attack OEC.
Neo: You insist that creation didn't happen in 6 days. Why? because you also hold scientific data sacred and understand that if the data shows the earth is old then obviously this must mean the scriptures 6 days can't be true. But you cherry pick where you regard data and where you don't like. In the matter of days being ages, you do that because of scientific evidence but strangely don't accept other evidence which flies in the face of your belief.


NO, Neo, I can understand that there are nuances to the text, and not every word is meant to be taken literally. YOU deny it, because while realizing a day/age scenario would make sense – least if you've studied what Biblical scholars say – but as the text ALSO refers with great specicifity to how Adam and Eve were created – AFTER ALL of the animal kingdom is completed, separate from their “kinds” and created from the dust and a rib (didn't evolve – text in no way can support that), then you reject the entire text as untrue because of your unshakable faith that ALL mankind had to have evolved.
Neo: I have clearly stated before that the evidence doesn't match the bible and therefore I give up inerrancy. I can't make any sense of it. When you take TOE you can't be selective about it as to which parts you agree with and which you don't.
And so there we have it – you don't like nuances that legitimately challenge your belief that man evolved. Your solution: The text cannot be true! And THAT is a very dangerous way of looking at the Bible. Because you well know it is quite possible, as you believe in the miraculous, that whatever pre-existing mankind could have evolved, but that Adam and Eve had origins independent of that (no, I personally don't believe mankind evolved, even though I see it possible that mankind outside/pre-existing Adam may have been true.).
Neo: I can see that scientific evidence is the backbone of OEC. Yet you call me out for regarding the same evidence. The only difference here is, I am taking the evidence completely and I can see it doesn't fit the biblical narrative.
That's because you are only willing to perceive the Biblical narrative in a certain way, and you deny Biblical and ancient Hebrew scholarship that refutes your narrow view. So since you refuse to be open to scholars' views that the text has nuances of meaning that conflict with your view that ALL of humanity (including Adam and Eve) had to have evolved, you reject entire passages – including some in the NT, that conflict with what you THINK science has disproven about the Bible.
Neo: Are you saying that this is as impossible as saying that all mankind came from Adam and Eve?
To clarify, Neo, what I'm attacking as dangerous is your dismissing fundamental Bible passages as being fictitious (and because they are also crucially interconnected with other key passages) – not necessarily just your issue with greater humanity and Adam and Eve. If we correctly understand the textual meanings, and the perception of whatever science is at odds with that, then we must conclude we've got something wrong with the science, OR haven't correctly applied it to our Scriptural understandings. There is also the possibility that we have certain correct scientific understandings, but have misunderstood the text in some important way. And, again, there are nuances in which mistakes can be made in both ways. But dismissing the Bible as error-filled or false – ANY of it – Jesus and His hand-picked apostles didn't leave that door open to you!

Jesus confirmed ALL of the Old Testament (“The Law and the Prophets) when he said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill," (Matthew 5:17) – one of the most important passages in all of Scripture, from the Sermon on the Mount – are we to doubt Jesus affirmation of the entire OT??? And we know precisely what that OT of Jesus' time included, particularly per the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Jesus also confirmed many individual passages and people from the OT:https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don ... t_1239.cfm

Jesus again referred to and confirmed the entire OT again, and as ONE unit, per Matthew 23: 34-35: “Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.”

Jesus again confirmed the entire OT in Luke 24:27, where He explained to His disciples the Scriptures, “beginning with Moses (which includes ALL of the Creation passages), and “ALL of the prophets” (Luke 24:27) – So the ENTIRE OT / The Law and the Prophets. This passage is immensely important, as it records Jesus' teachings to His disciples POST-Resurrection.

There is no getting around that Jesus confirmed the OT as God-inspired/given Scripture! Believe it or not! So, to not believe that God's originally inspired texts word are filled with myths, and outright errors, as to whether science or history – this would be a God who did not care about His Words to man, nor how it might lead to false beliefs, dangerous understandings, or arguments causing bloodshed, or personal confusion and wrongful actions. That would be a God who either was unable to protect or saw it as unimportant to do so – this from the God who came here to die a horrifically painful and emotionally devastating death to FULFILL HIS WORD!!!

So, Jesus came here and both confirmed the OT as His word, and He died for it. His hand-picked apostles all echo the things which He said. And all we know about Jesus came from these same men, most of whom also died martyrs deaths. So a factually false, non-historical, scientifically corrupt (where it's truly addressing SCIENCE) is illogical to believe.

It's also very dangerous that anyone would use ONLY their science beliefs to form opinions over whether a Bible passage is true or not! Of course, believing whatever passage to be God's truth, yet without knowing precisely HOW it is true, is a different and understandable position to be in – as Scripture, like its Giver, is filled with mysteries. And so why would anyone think the mysteries of God are all explainable by whatever puny humans can determine long after various miraculous things occurred? Does God say that we are to ONLY determine truth through human rationalism?

Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6509
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 277 times
Been liked: 488 times

Re: AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

#18

Post by Philip » Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:33 pm

And here is a whole YT video series Hugh Ross and RTB did on the questions surrounding our origins, Adam and Eve, genetic research, the relevant Scriptural passages, etc:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=42321

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4430
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 153 times

Re: AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

#19

Post by abelcainsbrother » Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:53 pm

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:
neo-x wrote:
I believe in a real Adam and Eve as individuals—the first humans in the image of God—and that we are all descendants of this family
He lost me at the last part of the statement. I am fine with beliefs, the first two things in the above statement I can agree to. The last is simply not true.
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.It is important to put scripture first over what man and science says.You often seem to put science first over what scripture says.Many Theistic Evolutionists seem to think Genesis was written more as poetry and read it that way,atleast some do,maybe not all.But I have a problem with this. I think the most important thing to notice about this is how they are trying in a Christ-like way to convince YEC's of their errors when it comes to Geology and how they try to make everything fit into Noah's flood.
What if Genesis 1 is a mix of poetry and literalism? I see a rough similarity between it and what we find in science, yet it also takes ideas from surrounding cultures to teach truths.

Like Psalms? We can tell when it is written in poetic form and Genesis does not read as poetry.Even when it is like poetry though it still has truth in it.I'm just trying to remind people to go by God's word first,instead of science first.I understand that Theistic Evolutionists can make a very persuasive case when it comes to Genesis 1,and if evolution were true? I'd accept evolution,but it is'nt.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 204 times
Been liked: 97 times
Contact:

Re: AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

#20

Post by neo-x » Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:25 pm

Phil, I think it's better if this is moved to another thread? We can continue there. As the current dialogue seems more about what you and I believe and not necessarily what the OP is about.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

//johnadavid.wordpress.com

Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6509
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 277 times
Been liked: 488 times

Re: AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

#21

Post by Philip » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:50 pm

Here, today - evidence of Homo Sapiens living outside of Africa 180,000 years ago?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42817323

If the fossil identification is accurate, what does it suggest?

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 314 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

#22

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:27 pm

Philip wrote:Here, today - evidence of Homo Sapiens living outside of Africa 180,000 years ago?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42817323

If the fossil identification is accurate, what does it suggest?
It suggests our subspecies was traveling much earlier than thought. Which doesn't surprise me.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 19464
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino
Has liked: 168 times
Been liked: 910 times

Re: AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

#23

Post by RickD » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:35 pm

Philip wrote:Here, today - evidence of Homo Sapiens living outside of Africa 180,000 years ago?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42817323

If the fossil identification is accurate, what does it suggest?
#impossibletheearthis6000yo
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6509
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 277 times
Been liked: 488 times

Re: AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

#24

Post by Philip » Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:17 pm

My point of the article is not merely how old it shows humans to be, but that they are FAR older and WAY outside of ancient Mesopotamian and Noah's floodzone. This means humanity had already spread far by the time of the flood, seeming to indicate that the flood had to be regional. It also makes me think that Genesis 1 might well be referring to the creation of the first of a greater mankind that came before Adam's creation. As that seems the only scenario that can fit humanity in apparently continuous cultures far outside of the flood zone, AND that the evidences for them date out far older than the best guesstimates for the time of Adam and Eve. While I've not read any of their materials in quite some time, I believe the YEC crowd always dismissing the dating techniques involved. Only problem is, there are so many correlations with these ages.

The other huge issue, is if these ancient cultures show no catastrophic disruptions (like by a huge flood), the very fact that we find intact evidences in which these ancient culture's contexts seem relatively undisturbed, then it just seems they absolutely have to be FAR older than Adam.

Anyone heard of any other ideas that can reconcile Adam coming first, and these seemingly far older early evidences of man?

thatkidakayoungguy
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 314 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

#25

Post by thatkidakayoungguy » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:38 pm

Philip wrote:My point of the article is not merely how old it shows humans to be, but that they are FAR older and WAY outside of ancient Mesopotamian and Noah's floodzone. This means humanity had already spread far by the time of the flood, seeming to indicate that the flood had to be regional. It also makes me think that Genesis 1 might well be referring to the creation of the first of a greater mankind that came before Adam's creation. As that seems the only scenario that can fit humanity in apparently continuous cultures far outside of the flood zone, AND that the evidences for them date out far older than the best guesstimates for the time of Adam and Eve. While I've not read any of their materials in quite some time, I believe the YEC crowd always dismissing the dating techniques involved. Only problem is, there are so many correlations with these ages.

The other huge issue, is if these ancient cultures show no catastrophic disruptions (like by a huge flood), the very fact that we find intact evidences in which these ancient culture's contexts seem relatively undisturbed, then it just seems they absolutely have to be FAR older than Adam.

Anyone heard of any other ideas that can reconcile Adam coming first, and these seemingly far older early evidences of man?
Well I did put them at about the time of Heidelberg man around 600K or so and Babel probably being around the same time along with the flood, but that is REALLY stretching the scripture and assumes things that science hasn't yet said about the cultures of those early humans (like Homo Sapiens Heidelbergensis) like that they farmed and experimented in metal and used bricks.
So, with that, anyone else have ideas that reconcile Adam being first and those old evidences of humans?

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 86 times

Re: AIG / Young Earth Geologic Age Positions Critiqued

#26

Post by DBowling » Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:50 am

Philip wrote:Here, today - evidence of Homo Sapiens living outside of Africa 180,000 years ago?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42817323

If the fossil identification is accurate, what does it suggest?
Whether these fossils date to 90,000 years ago or 180,000 years ago, it appears that species homo sapiens sapiens had made unsuccessful efforts to migrate out of Africa prior to the successful migration that occurred around 50,000 years ago.

According to genetics, all non-African humans can trace their genetic ancestry to those humans who crossed the Red Sea and migrated out of Africa around 50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago is also time frame that anthropologists give for when species homo sapiens sapiens began exhibiting 'modern human behavior'.

So it appears that something happened to species homo sapiens around 50,000 years ago that enabled them to successfully migrate out of Africa and 'fill the earth' where previous attempts such as those 180,000 or 90,000 years ago apparently failed.

Post Reply