More On the Evidences of Origins

I am glad that Nam mentioned the website http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp. It contains some of the arguments which I made reference to, many more which I have heard in the past, and some that I had never heard before. After reading through that page and looking at some others on the site, I would say that this is a much more reliable and better reasoned source of information than the one I linked to previously.


I have been told about the calculation of the age of the earth using the Biblical genealogies and other Biblical data by James Ussher. In fact, AnswerinGenesis says that this was a commonly held position before Ussher, but Ussher offered the most thorough research behind it; they also say that well-respected figures in the scientific community long after Ussher, like Kepler and Newton, also agreed to this dating. I have not tried to verify that this dating is consistent with Scripture; it certainly seems to be, and I have heard it enough from other respected Christians. Yes, I am of the opinion that this is an appropriate interpretation of the Bible which is at the very least an accurate estimate of the age of the world.


I had not thought of that comparison between the “evidence” of the sun and the “evidence” of radiometric dating, but I am glad you brought that to my attention. It’s sort of a moot point now, since I accept that the sun idea is probably invalid, so it would not be so consistent to say that radiometric dating is also invalid. I would like to point out that AnswerinGenesis also offers the suggestion that radiometric decay may be accelerating at rate which is only now perceptible. Also, both AnswerinGenesis and CreationScience both reiterate that the dating depends on a relatively stable system, but the flood of Noah may offer a sufficient traumatic event to disrupt the stability of the process. This is something of cyclical reasoning, as we are using the Bible to justify the Bible. That’s not inherently incorrect, it just doesn’t prove anything. What it does prove, however, is that it is not inherently inconsistent.


As to the idea of the world being created yesterday, I would like to point out an important flaw in the reasoning Nam made, which is perfectly understandable because it depends on an overlooked distinction. In the model suggested, all of matter, from inanimate rocks and water and air even to biological plants and bodies are created in a state that, observed today, would be indicative of age. What I did not suggest is that a rational soul is being created with an appearance of age (and by soul I only mean something like the Platonic/Aristotelean definiton of the emotion, reason, and volition). Even this point must be further refined, as we assume that Adam and Eve had maturity in knowledge and practical wisdom, at the very least more than an infant would. However, I would say that experientially, they were fully aware of having been “born yesterday,” so to speak. It does not entirely exclude the possibility of recreated memories, but the jump from one to the next is not direct, and doing so requires philosophical considerations which lend themselves to another discussion entirely.


Creationism definitely explains the existence of Whit.


Sadly, I didn’t even arrive at any of the things I really wanted to talk about. I guess I’ll have to postpone them again; this is enough for now. I intend to move away from the topic of creation, but I will be picking up on a point which arose during this discussion.