OEC vs. YEC Debate

You would, of course, put the trophy head of the challanger on your website!

Make it a little less formal and try us here as a group on the Baptistboard.

Rob

 

It might be more appropriate to begin the discussion in the Science Forum; the topic gets so divisive.

SCIENCE FORUM

Rob

 

Without the evidence from science, there is no reason to challenge the yec viewpoint. It is only the evidence from science that makes the yec viewpoint suspect at all! On the other hand, from the benefit of hindsight, I believe it is possible to see how God has prepared the Bible to be acceptable to those who have learned the true age of the universe; it is necessary, however, to realize the first two chapters are no longer to be interpreted literally in order to be understood as God intended they be ultimately understood.

It is strange, however, that the dare is to debate the issue without considering any evidence. Do we expect people to start having faith in the Bible as God's word for our day without any evidence? And if that is not the case, but we find it reasonable to expect and provide evidence in favor of the Bible as God's word for our day, why do we feel we must, however, exclude the scientific evidence as a means of helping us interpret the Biblical truths?
What is the difference between "scientific" evidence and any other evidence?

 

How can we debate what the Bible says about the age of the earth when the Bible says absolutely nothing about it? That would be like debating from scripture which is the better truck, the Ford F-150 or the Nissan Titan. What could possibly be more absurd?

And besides, science has already settled the issue!

 

I believe that we should make a distinction between science and science fiction.

 

If you believe that you have a scripture that teaches that the earth is only thousands of years old, I will debate you by showing exclusively and conclusively from the Scripture that you are mistaken. Science is not necessary to prove that the Scriptures do not uphold your theory.

 

What OEC do you want to debate?

The OEC that says that the earth and life forms were created billions of years ago?

Or the OEC that says that the earth's foundation might be billions of years old (although as Craigbythesea has already pointed out, the Scriptures are silent on the age of the universe), but the earth's biosphere is recent and formed literally during seven 24 hour days.

I think Gorman Gray has already proven and in my mind, settled this debate. The age of the universe and the earth's core (foundation) are undefined in regards to age in the Bible. The earth's biosphere, making the earth habitable for man, is recent and took place during seven lieteral days (Gen. 1:3ff).

Read his book and get back to me.

 

Gorman Gray has shown how the Hebrew text has been misinterpreted.

So if you are really interested in debating Scripture, I would start with Gray's assessment.

I believe that his interpretation is literal, based on an inerrant view of Scripture, conforms with the rest of Scripture and does not violate true scientific observations like the "speed of light" and the distance other galaxies are from the planet earth.

 

One more thing, why do you need to wait to find "one" with whom you can debate on another thread?

Go ahead, have your debate. But why can't you take your chances here with the rest of us yahoos?

I think Craigbythesea and I would be more than willing to disabuse you of your faulty understanding of Scripture!

 

Please begin. I'm all ears...

Show us exclusively and conclusively from Scripture without reliance on naturalism that YEC is false and that evolution is true.

 

Without evidence from the Bible and nature itself, there is no reason to challenge evolution.

It is only evidence from the Bible and science (in particular sources for intelligent "information") that make the theory of evolution completely suspect.

I believe that if God had wanted to communicate something ambiguous so that ancients could have accepted it but moderns could have clarified it- He was fully capable. He didn't do that. He gave an account with details that are either literal or false, eg.- the ages of men, order of creation, "morning" and "evening", the height and extent of the flood, each animal reproducing after its own kind,...

That is a bias coming purely from human wisdom- philosophical naturalism. It has no necessity nor basis in Divine revelation.

Wow. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. You assume naturalism as a non-negotiable premise for science thereby negating intelligence as a source of design as well as direct creation by God then complain that someone else wants to limit the evidence?

I think that to a large degree, yes. God gave His Word the way He sovereignly chose. It in no way glorifies Him to kowtow to the whims of men whose philosophical presuppositons would limit God.

We don't. Evidence can be and is being interpretted in ways that are consistenly with scripture.

God's special revelation first- interpretations of general revelation subordinate VS. human philosophical presuppostion first- interpretations of both general and special revelation subordinate.

None as long as you don't artificially limit what is scientific to naturalism.

Intelligence is a much more direct, reasonable, and evidentially supported theory for the complexity we see in nature than chance + natural selection could ever be.

No one sees a functioning watch on the ground and presupposes that it must have had a naturalistic origin. Yet explanations for everything from the precisely set constants of the universe all the way to the complex, interactive, information rich machines that make life possible are limited to only that which conforms to naturalism.

Naturalism as a presupposition is wholly unreasonable. It is no more falsifiable than the assumption of intelligent design... and maybe less so.

 

From what I have seen so far, I think I would be more impressed with yours than his... though I find it strange that you would side with him.

If I understand you correctly, you believe in an old universe but young biological creation with most of Genesis being literal (Adam, the fall, ages of men, Noah, the flood, etc). Am I incorrect?

If I understand Craig correctly, he thinks that evolution accounted for everything except the creation of man.

 

Paul33 raised a good point. Is this a debate on ONLY the age of the earth or will it involve debating evolution.

Jason has seemingly indicated that he would be more interested in scriptural side rather than the scientific. But if the age of the earth is the sole topic then science is going to have to come into play.

I agree with Craig that the scriptures seem more concerned with the fact that God created rather than the timetable - but then I suppose that too could be debated.

 

I am undecided on OEC(old earth creationism) vs YEC (young earth creationism). The primise of both is that God created everything but the age of the Earth is either billions and billions or ~5000-6000 yrs old.
The reason I am undecided is because the Bible is not clear. The first day is represented in verses 3-5 of Genesis 1. From that point forward I am confident we are talking about 24 hour periods in which God created everything on Earth.
Now let's look at verse 1 and 2:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Very clearly put here. "In the beginning" literally "In the head of things" at the start of every thing God, He was already there, created (Hebrew word is 'bara',only God can bara) the heavens and earth...this states that the earth is now here in some fashion.
Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
From verse one we know that the earth is now here. Now we know in what fashion. The earth was formless, literally this could be translated as a wasteland, or desolate. The earth was void, literally this could be traslated as empty. In any fashion we now have an earth that is formless, worth nothing, empty, and dark. Now we come to see this and this is the key to OEC talking about the possibility of an old earth core, "and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." Look at the word moving, the Hebrew word is "rachaph" and means exactly what is said moving or hovering. However, the Hebrew use of the word is interesting. 'Rachaph' is used to describe the act of a hen sitting on her eggs. How long did the Spirit of God incubate the earth before He started speaking things into place? I have know idea, it could have been instantaneous, a day, week, 14,000,000 years. Again my point is not that humans, animals, or even plants have been around that long, but that the earth at it's core very well could have been.

As a side, think of the personal touch the word 'rachaph' gives the formation of the earth. Kinda cool, when you think about a bird on a nest with eggs.

 

How many scriptures are there in Job and in the New Testament where it specifically says "In six days God created the Earth" or at least something very similar?

This is why I have trouble believing the first day was longer than a normal day.

If we understand the first two verses this way, we have to assume that the other scriptures, elsewhere in the Bible are not literal. So, either way, part of the Bible is not literal--if you take an old world view.