<OCF: I see. Been reading my online history now? >>

No, which is why I said "no *apparent* effort". This impression comes from the fact that you have at times misrepresented the view of science and misused science terms, which you wouldn't do had you spent some time familiarizing yourself with the opposing view.

Also, I believe both <whatthefat> and myself have at times given you links to sites that offer the science side of the debate, and I don't recall you once giving any indication that you read them. However, you have posted and commented on your creationist sites a number of times. I don't think my surmise is unreasonable.

<YouRang: What makes you think God's intentions and purposes need to be made "reasonable" to you?

<OCF: There you go. How many times have you cited that you can't imagine God would create the world with an appearance of age?>>

That's fair enough of a point. However, which is more reasonable to believe? (1) That God doesn't mind waiting millions of years; or (2) that God would fabricate a bunch of this evidence that the earth is old so that he could fault us for thinking the earth is old? I opt for the former, albeit without proof.

Besides, I could also have answered your question differently:

<OCF: by what reasonable accounting can we believe God created an earth intended to be inhabited by man, and then left it uninhabited for millions of years?>

I misused science terms, but you and <whatthefat> were speaking figuratively about theories. Got it. If I do it, it's misusing a term and reveals ignorance.

<That's fair enough of a point. However, which is more reasonable to believe? (1) That God doesn't mind waiting millions of years; or (2) that God would fabricate a bunch of this evidence that the earth is old so that he could fault us for thinking the earth is old? I opt for the former, albeit without proof.>

Fair enough. I kind of see the difference in what starting point a person is coming from. I think you picked probably the best one for the purpose of this discussion.

<You seem to assume that her disbelief in miracles is a huge obstacle to her believing in God. I don't see a necessity for that assumption. >

That is a reasonable scenario. What is to differentiate the Bible from the Koran? Who's to say the Buddhists aren't right? While the person is on the right track, I don't think they yet have a sufficient intellectual basis for believing.

<A deep sense of guilt regarding things she has done in her life: She desperately wants forgiveness, but sees no way -- except that since she has some knowledge of the Bible, she may remember that God's forgiveness is a key theme of Christianity. (I think you know that people who don't believe in God will never-the-less turn to him during times of distress.) She asks God for this forgiveness, and the sense of relief she subsequently feels leads her to faith in God...>

Plausible again, but I still find it insufficient for an intellectual reason to believe in the God of the Bible. Many other religions have adherents who had similar experiences.

<She sees the living witness of some Christians. She sees things in them lacking in her own life: e.g. love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. >

All well and good, but again, there are admirable and charitable human beings with no belief at all in the God of the Bible.

<On a more intellectual level, perhaps she is presented with prophetic evidence in the Bible. As she contemplates the volume of this evidence and how specific it is, she may realize that her opinion that God doesn't exist isn't as easy to assume as she thought...>

I see you distuinguish here the intellectual vs. experience basis of your previous points. I think it's of greater importance than you do, but we definitely agree in general. I would consider the realm of prophecy to be something of a violation of natural law. It might as well be a miracle for a person to tell you what is going to happen in the future.

<Again, once she concludes that the God of the Bible is real, the issue of miracles will take care of itself. Or, perhaps she will always harbor some doubts about the actuality of the miracles. Does that get her kicked out of heaven? It's not for me to say.>

Romans 10:9-10 says a person must believe Jesus rose from the dead to be saved. That's a line in the sand over a miracle that is plainly evident. If you can accept a resurrection, I think most of the other miracles in the Bible are (relatively) easy to accept. But I have to repeat that I didn't have in mind the kind of reasonable person you are describing here. I had in mind even the religious types of Jesus' day. Here's what Jesus had to say to a group who denied he spoke on God's behalf:

Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. John 10:37-38

<Note that there *are* many scientists who believe in the God of the Bible. Most of them also believe in old earth and evolution. It's not a problem for them, it's a problem for you.>

<YouRang: If you followed Dr. Schroeder's reasoning, it wasn't "millions of years", it was six days (as time is measured from the origin of the big bang).>

I don't know if this would be a summary of your position. I think some of these do apply. In any case, it's where I have a problem with those who affirm the old earth position as compatible with the language of Genesis 1.

1. It's implausible for God to have created an earth that seems to have the appearance of great age.

2. Though God uses langague that in its most plain sense indicates the earth was created in 6 literal days, is later cited by Moses in Exodus 20:11 as an affirmation of 6 literal days, God didn't really mean 6 literal days.

3. Using the most plain understanding of the language of Genesis 1, God let man spend thousands of years thinking He meant 6 literal days but only upon advances in the world of science did we have a better understanding of the world of Hebrew language and hermeneutics.

4. Though it would be improper for God to create an earth that was 6000 years old but appeared to be much older, it is proper for God to have given us language that in its plainest sense meant the earth is 6000 years old but in fact it's much older. And we couldn't know that until the realm of science enlightened us.

I am not sure how #4 comes off, though I admit it has a touch of redundancy in it. I think there's a difference between all the above points but won't sweat it if you think the points are repeated.

I understand there's always someone we can appeal to for our position. I know of those who affirmed a similar viewpoint of Schroeder very early on. I also know I an can find someone to affirm just about anything very early on. The vast consensus of history is against the old earth position though.

Jun-24-10

delete OhioChessFan: <YouRang: Since it doesn't matter to you, I'll assume that she has a cursory knowledge of the Bible (which is certainly not something to be assumed for all such scientists). > Fair enough. I kind of see the difference in what starting point a person is coming from. I think you picked probably the best one for the purpose of this discussion.

<You seem to assume that her disbelief in miracles is a huge obstacle to her believing in God. I don't see a necessity for that assumption. >

Another accusation? Please support your statement that we were speaking figuratively about theories. We did no such thing.

<OCF: Got it. You can appeal to what is reasonable but God doesn't answer to me and what I think is reasonable.>

In case you missed it, we *both* made arguments based on what we think is reasonable to expect of God. I simply compared them.

<OhioChessFan><Your scenario is predicated on a fairly reasonable person who is open to the fact God exists. That really is not the person I am thinking about. I am thinking about the person who is innately inclined to not believe in God>

Ah, so you want to ask me about how a scientist might come to a belief in God, but only with the condition that this scientist is an unreasonable person and whose disbelief in God in innate. Got it.

And you think that's a reasonable condition because you able to judge their minds based on their disagreement with you positions. Got it.

<OCF: That is a reasonable scenario. What is to differentiate the Bible from the Koran? Who's to say the Buddhists aren't right? While the person is on the right track, I don't think they yet have a sufficient intellectual basis for believing.>

Some scientists may become Muslims or Buddhists.

I was presenting a specific hypothetical scientist who doesn't believe in miracles, and suggesting ways how she might become a Christian, as you requested.

What would you do with this scientist if she came to your church? Block her from coming in unless she passes your theology test?

BTW, this response applies to most of your other objections.

<OCF: I see you distuinguish here the intellectual vs. experience basis of your previous points. I think it's of greater importance than you do...>

You have no idea what I think. Again, I'm talking about a process by which this scientist might come to believe in God. It's only a start -- she doesn't have to stop there, nor does she have to come to a complete intellectual understanding overnight.

I think there are a lot of Christians who have a rather poor intellectual understanding of the Bible. Are we (specifically, you) in a position to judge their genuineness as a Christian?

<Romans 10:9-10 says a person must believe Jesus rose from the dead to be saved. That's a line in the sand over a miracle that is plainly evident. If you can accept a resurrection, I think most of the other miracles in the Bible are (relatively) easy to accept.>

Agreed.

<John 10:37-38> This is Jesus speaking to the religious leaders who were about to stone him for claiming he was God. His point was that if they didn't think he was God, then they needed to answer regarding the miracles to which they had been eyewitnesses.

Since I brought up Schroeder's ideas, I would like to make some clarifications regarding my view on it:

As I said originally, I'm not saying he is right. Also, his ideas do not represent the work of science. That is because his work is based on a preconceived conclusion (that creation occurred in six 24-hour days).

His work is an effort to reconcile science with Genesis. In so doing, he made some assumptions that conveniently made his idea "fit", and some may argue that those assumptions are arbitrary.

This does not imply that his work is dishonest or invalid. To my knowledge, he does not attempt to present his idea as being a conclusion of science, or anything more than an way to reconcile with Genesis.

1. It's implausible for God to have created an earth that seems to have the appearance of great age.>

It's not that he couldn't do it. It's a personal matter of looking at the options and deciding which is more credible.

Look at that example I gave a while back (OhioChessFan chessforum) involving independently discovered evidence in layers of ice, radioactive decay, and layers of sediment, all pointing to a supervolcano eruption that occurred 75,000 years ago. And from this evidence, they actually located the volcano. Did God have some reason to plant that evidence there to make us believe in an event that never happened (if the earth is <=10000 year old)? To me, and to a lot of rational people, this is hard to swallow. And this is just one example among many.

So yes, I think it's *much* easier to believe that you (and other strict literalists) are interpreting too literally -- a mistake that we know literalists have been made before.

<2. Though God uses langague that in its most plain sense indicates the earth was created in 6 literal days, is later cited by Moses in Exodus 20:11 as an affirmation of 6 literal days, God didn't really mean 6 literal days.>

Okay, now we are discussing the matter of interpretation. You can assume that its "most plain sense" is the most literal sense, and I agree that this is generally a good way to interpret. But interpretation is an act of human reasoning, and there are a number of factors that influence how we go about it. That can be a rather lengthy discussion itself, perhaps for another time.

What Moses said in Exodus 20 adds nothing to what Moses said in Genesis 1. In both cases, it may well be understood as six literal days. However, must a "literal day" during creation be assumed to be a day as as we understand a day on earth today?

Today a day represents the cycle of light and darkness resulting from the earth rotating and its position relative to the sun. How can this be equated with a day of creation when the sun wasn't created until the fourth "day"? You may have a canned answer for that, but then you are simply accepting the human interpretation of *your* choice. Schroeder's idea at least allows for a 24-hour period without being conflicted by our earthly notion of day.

<3. Using the most plain understanding of the language of Genesis 1, God let man spend thousands of years thinking He meant 6 literal days but only upon advances in the world of science did we have a better understanding of the world of Hebrew language and hermeneutics.>

Man spent a lot of time thinking that the sun orbited the earth based on their most plain understanding of the Bible. But only advances of science gave us a better understanding, and it properly influenced Biblical hermeneutics. Good point, thank you.

(Yes, I think your #4 is redundant).

<The vast consensus of history is against the old earth position though.>

<"Why would a scientist who knows about Christianity be motivated to REJECT it?">

Our scientist is a bright person familiar with making observations and inferring conclusions from them.

Here are some of the observations that our scientist might make about Christians.

== Christians are money-grubbing:

Our scientist is aware that TV evangelists are constantly begging for money, and they live like kings. Consider Robert Tilton, whose "ministry" brought in $80 million a year, until it was exposed that he was taking advantage of vulnerable people who mailed him their money with prayer requests. His staff took the money and tossed the requests. (Today he is the star of youtube videos called "farting pastor"). There are and have been many others living lavishly like him going back decades.

== Christians are corrupt hypocrites:

Our scientist is probably aware of high-profile preachers caught in scandals. Oh, there's Jimmy Swaggart, Paul Crouch, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, Peter Popoff, Mike Warnke, and the list goes on and on.

== Christians are gullible:

Our scientist has probably seen thousands of Christians line up to see charlatan "faith healers", like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Oral Roberts, etc.

On a smaller (and funnier) scale, our scientist may also be aware of young-earth creationist Kent Hovind who created an absurd little theme park called "Dinosaur Adventureland" (http://roamingiomi.blogspot.com/200...) [you should check this link - it's hilarious]. It's closed now, but it got enough business from Christians (and a few who came to laugh at Christians) to last from 2001-2009. Hovind is currently in prison having been convicted on a number of tax evasion charges.

== Christians are ignorant:

Many Christians accept the creation science arguments and try to defend them without having even a basic working knowledge of science. They make mistakes about scientific terms (e.g. theory, fact), and misrepresent the positions of science so that they are unwittingly making strawman arguments. They confidently make claims even though they literally don't know what they're talking about, which makes them look stupid.

== Christians are hostile:

This one hits home for our scientist, since she finds herself (and most other scientists) being accused of dishonesty by Christians [such as yourself] she has never met. The basis of the accusation is that she supports the prevailing scientific views of cosmology and biology.

== The impression that the Bible is incompatible with science:

This also hits home. On the side of popular science, people like Richard Dawkins say that the Bible is false because it disagrees with science. On the Christian side, Christians [such as yourself] actually *affirm* Dawkins' logic by also arguing that the Bible disagrees with science (the only difference is that they conclude that science is false).

Our scientist, seeing that both sides agree that the science and the Bible are incompatible, assumes that it must be true. Unfortunately, she started off on with the perspective that science was true, so she concludes that the Bible must be false, without considering the possibility that they could both be true.

~~~~

Our scientist probably realizes that these observations don't apply to *all* Christians, but shes sees enough evidence to conclude that there is nothing special (in a positive sense) about Christianity. Consequently, she takes no interest in the Bible or the God it reveals.

Encourage her to read the Bible.

<You have no idea what I think. >

No comment for now, but I'll keep that in mind the next time you start reading my mind.

<I think there are a lot of Christians who have a rather poor intellectual understanding of the Bible. >

I think the same thing.

<Are we (specifically, you) in a position to judge their genuineness as a Christian>>

<YouRang: I wouldn't say that this verse necessarily applies to someone who was not an eyewitness. I also don't think that this verse was intended to block someone from being a Christian. I think it's possible (in fact probable) that someone will embrace Christianity *before* they embrace all of the theology. BTW, I am not defending the doubt of miracles (besides the ressurection), I am saying that I'm not to judge if that's really a dividing line of salvation.>

You took that a different direction than I intended. I meant to say that Jesus makes a logical point in that even if they don't want to believe him, they should believe he is from God because of his ability to perform miracles. As Jesus isn't here today, we are left with the eyewitness testimony of those who saw him. A person today who denies Jesus was of God is in the same boat as those people who did see him. They are without excuse because the miracles of Jesus prove he was divine.

<As I said originally, I'm not saying he is right. Also, his ideas do not represent the work of science. That is because his work is based on a preconceived conclusion (that creation occurred in six 24-hour days). >

I've had the discussion and it is about as long as the Isner-Mahut match. The factors themselves tend to be self serving, which is just human nature.

<Man spent a lot of time thinking that the sun orbited the earth based on their most plain understanding of the Bible. But only advances of science gave us a better understanding, and it properly influenced Biblical hermeneutics. Good point, thank you.>

<whatthefat: What would that render you? An atheist? An agnostic? A non-denominational theist?>