Why Christianity? discussion

15 views
Minor topics > Old Earth vs Young Earth

Comments Showing 1-28 of 28 (28 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Chad (new)

Chad (chadjohnson) | 63 comments I was reading, The Problem of Pain, the other day and it became pretty clear that C.S. Lewis was likely in the Old Earth Creation camp... did a little research and that seems to be accurate, though he never actually debated that topic or discussed it publicly because he thought it was a waste of time. Basically his position was... nobody really knows, we don't need to know, it has no bearing on salvation, and therefore doesn't matter...

I was a solid YEC for a while... but lately... I'm thinking the jury is still out... and I may end up taking a position similar to Lewis... it doesn't really matter, so why put a stake in the ground on it?


message 2: by David (new)

David Pulliam | 42 comments I somewhat agree with 2 qualifications: how you interpret Gen. 1 needs to account how God created the world and the historicity of Adam and Eve. Those two doctrines are connected to essential matters of faith.


message 3: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
I think it does matter.

Many would say that C.S. Lewis wasn't a great theologian. He was an academic poet.


message 4: by David (new)

David Pulliam | 42 comments Rod, according to RC Sproul everyone is a theologian. lol

Regardless what title you give Lewis his theological impact is impressive and can’t be ignored.


message 5: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
R.C. Will also agree that most people are poor theologians.


message 6: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
My problem is that all YEC very likely agree on the Garden incident. A worldwide flood. Historical Hebrew Exodus. And a divine Jesus!!!

However, OEC may easily doubt garden, flood, Exodus, and divinity of Christ.


message 7: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Robert, I'm OEC but simply from a scientific perspective. Geology, zoology, astrophysics, paleoanthropology and a few other disciplines convincing demonstrate an old earth. However, God created Man and until we figure out how (doubtful) the Garden episode will suffice. A worldwide flood isn't indicated by any reliable measurements, but a localized (Euphrates?) one is a distinct possibility. The Exodus and Christ's divinity are relatively recent events and would have occurred within either YEC or OEC


message 8: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Fun topic. So little conversation


message 9: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
It is an amusing theory. John Lennox likes it. I'm not convinced


message 10: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
The many scientists I side with have proven (to me) that the Earth Is, and must be, less than ten thousand years old. (Effects of Salt, Moon orbit, number of meteor hits...)

With the supernatural doing of God of course. Which many demand we leave out of the research. But a Christian Can't.


message 11: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod - that's SO convenient! Have a few oddball scientists wrack their brains for some outlying reason for a young earth, then chalk the rest up to the "supernatural doing of God". I must remember that for all my future debates - anything I want to justify, but can't by quantitative methods, is nonetheless true owing to the supernatural doing of God. Perfect for every occasion!


message 12: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Convenient??? As a Christian it's Essential.


message 13: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod - Ha! Ha Usually weather happens due to physical phenomena. Sure, God could control it, but rarely does. Seeing life as a big cradle that God ceaselessly rocks is ignoring your own Christian responsibility to seize the day.


message 14: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
We're talking about creation and origins- not daily fog and puddles


message 15: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod - then we're talking issues beyond the ken of mankind - stick to something you know something about Rod, not supernatural accomplishments known only to God.


message 16: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Tell that to scientists and their multiverses or universe from Nothing.


message 17: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod - that's strictly theoretical physics. Anybody can fantasize.


message 18: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
And yet people hold it as a trump card over YEC research. Hmmm...?


message 19: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod - no, that would be pretty standard, established physics. Do you think geologists have an ax to grind with YEC research? I don't see it myself - they seem to generally just pursue the truth (wish I could say that about all scientific platforms!)


message 20: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
People pursue THEIR truth. Big difference


message 21: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod - True, but some of us base our truths on evidence, a few solid proofs, and a lot of critical thinking. Others form their truths merely to flatter God.


message 22: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Study creation but be sure to leave out God's doing it???

What the hell?!


message 23: by Robert (new)

Robert Core | 303 comments Rod, Jonathan - this talking past each other is precisely why scientists and theologians are at each other's throats. An honest scientist would conclude from studying the complexity of cells that a higher intelligence was involved in their inception. An honest theologian would admit the earth is older than 6000 years. An honest broker (me, and I don't think anyone else) would try to reconcile differences. The things scientists discover involve God's natural laws. Theologists concern themselves with God's written behavioral laws. These are 2 sides to the same coin and both are necessary. Study of either branch requires different talents, with neither having a monopoly on truth. Yes, most science takes belief too.


message 24: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Why would Any theologian agree the Earth is/isn't 6000 years old?

Only a Christian should Assume the Biblical days of creation are absolute. And man was made exactly as God claims.
If you dump this then you basically Might as well dump every Miracle and supernatural event in Jesus existence. Hence, no reason for a Jesus then.


message 25: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Carbon dating is a very limited tool.

Past life???? Before the flood? There isn't millions of years of dead things. A thousand years from a perfect healthy time. (2000 more likely) that A LOT


message 26: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
The bible was not written by people that think lying to you was fun.


message 27: by Ned (last edited Feb 08, 2019 12:21PM) (new)

Ned | 50 comments Two problems with OEC:

1) It minimizes the miraculous. At bottom, there are only two positions regarding origins; miraculous and non-miraculous. Science and/or induction can tell us absolutely nothing about the miraculous. Therefore, who are you going to believe? One who infers from material things based on his autonomous intellect, or the One who was there? Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine. That seems like a good parallel to creation. What could scientific and chemical analysis accurately tell us about the age of the wine? Either you believe that God is omnipotent and does exactly what He says or you don't.

2.) OEC is deistic at heart. It minimizes God's imminence in favor of His transcendence. It leaves as little room as possible for God's direct action in the universe. The unbelief inherent in OEC is difficult to discount. The unbelief is a "leaven" that contaminates an entire worldview. Show me an OE creationist, and I'll show you someone who likely discounts a world-wide flood, and other facets of the Bible central to Christian doctrine. The denial of one thing leads to the denial of many others.


message 28: by Rod (new)

Rod Horncastle | 469 comments Mod
Well said Ned.

I'm okay with an old Universe. Matter and space. But not anything that disagrees with the functional Creation week as shown in the scriptures


back to top