If it's a universal force of nature that even effects manmade objects like cities and computers, why has it not operated on horseshoe crabs, spiders, cockroaches, bacteria, gingkos, moss, etc., etc.? Even leaving aside all religious considerations, it still looks like bunk to me. Indeed, I don't even think the religious objections to Darwinism need be invoked--the mathematical objections alone ought to be enough to sink it.

As for disagreeing with what the Bible says--well, ain't spin wonderful? I know of, and have interviewed, so-called theologians who spin the Bible so as to allow virtually anything. This is just low cleverness, and it will not impress the Judge of All the Earth.

Actually, I didn't say that. I said that *I* had a closed mind when *I* thought it was hogwash. That same doesn't necessarily apply to you since you've seen life from a different perspective than me.

However, I believe it was you who suggested that I lacked an open mind because I didn't think evolution was hogwash, when you said: "I think if you explore it [evolution] with an open mind, you will eventually conclude it's hogwash."

<If it's a universal force of nature that even effects manmade objects like cities and computers, why has it not operated on horseshoe crabs, spiders, cockroaches, bacteria, gingkos, moss, etc., etc.?>

Who says that those things didn't evolve? That's not the position of evolutionists.

<Even leaving aside all religious considerations, it still looks like bunk to me. Indeed, I don't even think the religious objections to Darwinism need be invoked--the mathematical objections alone ought to be enough to sink it.>

What mathematical objections?

<As for disagreeing with what the Bible says--well, ain't spin wonderful? I know of, and have interviewed, so-called theologians who spin the Bible so as to allow virtually anything. This is just low cleverness, and it will not impress the Judge of All the Earth.

I suppose, in the end, I am arguing for humility.>

I'm not sure if we're even arguing about anything here. I think you and I agree that most parts of the Bible can be understood quite clearly. I think you and I would also agree that some people spin the Bible to suit their own purposes, and they do so wrongly.

So let's put all that aside and try to see where we differ. I'll ask you plainly: Do you agree that honest people who truly want to understand what the Bible says may at times disagree about what some passage says?

If your answer is "yes", then (since you are arguing for humility) I'll ask: Which is more humble? (1) To accept that that passage is difficult and that *your* interpretation might be wrong; (2) To insist that your interpretation is THE correct interpretation, and that people who see it differently are dishonest.

If your answer is (1), then we agree on that.

<All of this calls the young earth hypothesis (that the earth is only ~10,000 years old) into question. What might you conclude?

1. God created the layers of ice in Greenland, the layers of sediment in the ocean, and the radioactive decay in the ash to create the appearance of age. Not only that, he (for some reason) made it all suggest a supervolcano eruption at Lake Toba 75,000 years ago, even though it never happened.>

The assumptions made going in force the answers coming out. I think I could present 3 examples to prove the earth is 100,000 years old, 2 million years old, 50 million years old, etc, etc.

<2. These scientists have nothing better to do that get involved in a massive conspiracy to produce evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years. They do this to give people an excuse to not believe the Bible.>

I think there is a great deal of truth in this. I don't know about a conspiracy, but a prejudice that drives the assumptions and ergo, conclusions, is an important part of the problem. And yes, I think (some of)they do it to give people an excuse not to believe in the Bible.

<3. The young earth hypothesis, and thus your interpretation of Genesis, is wrong.>

Well, thank you for answering.

<<YouRang: 1. God created the layers of ice in Greenland, the layers of sediment in the ocean, and the radioactive decay in the ash to create the appearance of age. Not only that, he (for some reason) made it all suggest a supervolcano eruption at Lake Toba 75,000 years ago, even though it never happened.>

OCF: The assumptions made going in force the answers coming out.>

So what is your point? Are you saying that these three scientists, working independently and presumably making false assumptions, arrive by sheer coincidence at the conclusion that this event took place 75,000 years ago? And that by dumb luck, it leads them to the discovery that lake Toba is a supervolcano?

Or are you agreeing that God presented them with this evidence?

<OCF: I think I could present 3 examples to prove the earth is 100,000 years old, 2 million years old, 50 million years old, etc, etc. <>>

To be precise, you could find example to prove that the earth is *at least* that old. But again, what is your point? You seem to be admitting that the old-earth evidence is there.

<<YouRang: <2. These scientists have nothing better to do that get involved in a massive conspiracy to produce evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years. They do this to give people an excuse to not believe the Bible.>

OCF: I think there is a great deal of truth in this. I don't know about a conspiracy, but a prejudice that drives the assumptions and ergo, conclusions, is an important part of the problem.>

There is a great deal of truth in what? The idea that these scientists I discussed are prejudiced? Is it prejudice, for example, to count the annual layers in the ice tube from Greenland to estimate the age at each layer? It actually makes perfectly good sense.

It's much more reasonable to think that Young-Earthists are the prejudiced ones:

- Scientists draw conclusions about the age of the earth by applying sensible methods to observed evidence. They are willing to change their conclusions if the evidence demands it. That is, they start with evidence, and from it they make a judgment about the conclusions.

- Young-Earthists have *pre-judged* what the conclusions should be. They start with this conclusion, and judge the evidence. This is prejudice.

<OCF: And yes, I think (some of)they do it to give people an excuse not to believe in the Bible.<>>

It seems to me that people have always exercised their liberty to not believe the Bible. They don't need scientists for that.

<YouRang: <3. The young earth hypothesis, and thus your interpretation of Genesis, is wrong.>

OCF: I guess there's always a chance anyone is wrong, but from what I've seen, the argument here simply doesn't hold up to a natural reading of the Bible. I have read the case made for theological evolution and am completely unpersuaded.>

Is this sort of a general admission that you *might* be wrong, or do you mean "anyone *else*"?

How can you be so certain that your natural (literal) reading is the correct one?

Long before scientists knew the age of the earth and before evolution was even an idea, there were theologians who didn't assume that the age of the earth was revealed in Genesis. For example, the Jews counted days starting after the 6 days of creation. They referred to the prior time as "days of old". Why do you suppose that is? Is it possible that they realized something that you missed? Could it be that the book you are "naturally reading" is a translated & interpreted copy of the original, and that some information may have gotten lost in any of those steps performed by imperfect humans?

"Theistic evolution", I think, is trying to be faithful to God while staying on the world's good side. I really see no support for it in Scripture.

But we were talking about rebellion. Let me see if I can explain my position by offering examples. 1) For a theologian or clergyman to say "God blesses homosexual activity" clearly constitutes open rejection of the plain meaning of Scripture. The only nuance here is totally imaginary. 2) For anyone to say "I believe God created everything by natural processes, including evolution" falls into a kind of gray area. I'm sure I have never called it rebellion, even if I do think it's in error. All rebellion against God begins with an error in doctrine: but not all errors lead to rebellion. Who can say which ones will and which ones won't?

I would not kick anyone out of my church (figuratively speaking: I have no power) for believing in theistic evolution. But it's certainly something that ought to be discussed within the church, at great length (as we are doing here).

"Mathematical objections"--simply put, the observation that the universe has not existed anywhere near long enough for life as we see it to have evolved by chance. This objection is not a religious objection and has been around since Darwin's lifetime.

I am not aware of such different conclusions about the age of the earth among scientists.

Do you honestly not see the illogic of your statement?!

If I had evidence that you were alive 10 years ago, would it be logical for me to conclude that you were just 10 years old? Of course not -- that would be a dumb conclusion, right? The only thing I can conclude is that your are *at least* 10 years old, right?

And yet that's the same dumb reasoning you are using here. My post gave evidence of an *event* that took place 75,000 years ago. It says nothing about the actual age of the earth, except that that is must be *at least* 75,000 years old. The general consensus among scientists is that the earth is much older than that -- around 4.5 billion years old.

<"Theistic evolution", I think, is trying to be faithful to God while staying on the world's good side. I really see no support for it in Scripture.>

You seem to be saying that theistic evolutionist are trying to impress both God and man. If so, you are making a claim about the motivations of others. Why can't someone arrive at theistic evolution as a result of an honest effort to seek truth?

For example, you have stated that you're agnostic regarding the age of the earth. An ardent young-earthist might conclude that you are selling out your faith! You are doing so to stay on the world's good side. Would he be right about your motives?

Or, might you have honest motivations for holding your position? Perhaps you are not fully convinced that it's valid to draw conclusions about the earth's age by counting days mentioned in Genesis. Or maybe you've decided that all the scientific evidence that points to an old earth is more difficult to refute than a specific literal interpretation of Genesis.

Whatever the case, I don't have cause to doubt that your position is based on an honest motivation to seek truth. But for the same reasons, I don't think you have cause to doubt that theistic evolutionists have honest motives. Disagreement doesn't mean that you have to attack their motives. In fact, it's a logical fallacy to do so.

<For anyone to say "I believe God created everything by natural processes, including evolution" falls into a kind of gray area. I'm sure I have never called it rebellion, even if I do think it's in error. All rebellion against God begins with an error in doctrine: but not all errors lead to rebellion. Who can say which ones will and which ones won't?>

Indeed. But one Christian's gray area is another's Christian's black (or white) area. It's all a matter of how you process information to arrive at truth.

I think this argument is flawed, as follows:

== FLAW #1
Who has decided what the probabilities are that life could emerge chance? How did they arrive at those probabilities? I ask because it's a question that has no valid answer.

(1) We don't yet understand what processes might cause life to form, so how then does one determine the probabilities of those processes occurring?

(2) We don't have a definite understanding of what conditions are necessary to support life. We only understand the forms of life that appear on earth, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of life emerging in very different environments. In fact, even on earth, we see life flourishing in extreme conditions, from cold depths of the sea to hot deserts. So, if we can't even say with certainty what conditions are necessary for life to form, how can one determine the probability for those conditions to occur?

== FLAW #2
Your statement seems to admit that there is *some* possibility -- however unlikely -- that life could emerge by chance. To put it another way, the probability of that happening may be arbitrarily tiny, but not zero. And yet, a nonzero probability is all that is needed to make it possible. Given enough time and enough space, even the tiniest non-zero probability will produce a certainty. BTW, we can't even begin to comprehend how much time and space there is.

The reason I am agnostic about the age of the earth is that I believed in Old, Old Earth for most of my life and have only recently come to reject it. That's not something that happens overnight. I would love to be able to simply adopt Young Earth: but the Scriptures aren't shouting it at me.