Old Earth / Young Earth Discussion

 

Carson T. Clark shows how most of these discussions pan out. He avoids the issue if possible, knowing in general it would be fruitless and destructive.

He does a brilliant parody how those conversations go and have a look at the series of video clips he has posted up. Brilliant.

Btw… for what it is worth…I’m neither for young or old earth…I’m for the God who is before and after time… so does this make him young or old?

Advertisements

About Craig Benno

I'm an average aussie guy who has lived perhaps a not so average life.
This entry was posted in creation and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Old Earth / Young Earth Discussion

  1. tildeb says:

    The age of the earth is a fact (in principle) and not ‘open’ to any kind of debate other than quibbling over an exact beginning (in practice). This is one of the many unfounded problems the theology of some special kind of creationism introduces to the world of science but by no means the only one; creationism is a belief that just keeps causing unnecessary impediments to people who think they know something because they simply believe it to be so. That’s not enough and it certainly isn’t knowledge. Creationists of any stripe do not have the right to make up their own facts. When it comes to the age of the earth, there is no debate based on facts.

    • Craig Benno says:

      Tildeb; every body is a creationist of some sort. Some may have a agnostic / atheistic foundation to their theory; others have more of a theology base for their theory of creation…the facts of the matter is that what ever theory we have about the beginning of the earth; it is and can only be a theory.

      Within the Christian community there is a wide range of thought about how God created… did he create in a literal 6 day period or were those days actually symbolic of periods / seasons of time. There are no real scientific facts about the age of the earth…there are actually many theories and within the A/A scientific community there is doubt and debate about the age of the earth; how accurate is carbon dating and the actual time frame for various theories regarding periods of time….

      • tildeb says:

        …it is and can only be a theory!

        There are no real scientific facts about the age of the earth…!

        Aaarrrrrgggghhhh!

        This is what is meant by a theory.

        This is what is meant by scientific facts.

        You will note that these meanings inform my response but neither meaning is present in your response. This is a problem of communication that allows your comment to appear to have some measure of tolerant benevolence when it has none: it actually undermines what is known and what is true with belief based misinformation and intentional ambiguity.

      • Craig Benno says:

        I am so glad that you have provided this link to facts… did you know that according to your link… Jesus Christ who is the foundational centrepiece of Christianity is a proven FACT… perhaps that is a fact you would like to make yourself conversant with?

      • tildeb says:

        I’ve always gone with the general consensus of historical experts who conclude that there is good evidence that Jesus was a real person. Notice that my preferences play no part in this ‘belief’. Wouldn’t it be rather arrogant of me to presume that my preferences – my preferred belief – about Jesus’ reality were as valid as and equal to whatever the historical evidence was?

      • Craig Benno says:

        I don’t know know what you believe about Jesus… its telling though that you don’t agree to the historical validated claims of Christ though!..

      • tildeb says:

        If, by validated claims, you mean the unsubstantiated claims of supernatural examples of his divinity, then – again – we have a failure of communication because one of us is changing a definition merely to suit one’s belief preferences.

      • Craig Benno says:

        If your going to accept science Cart Blanche then you also need to recognise the valid science in understanding and reading historical literature. Simple put; while many of the claims that are made in Scripture appear to be unreal and surreal… the historical evidence to support them as real and not myth is overwhelming…. If your not ready to read the scriptures in the same way historians do other historical literature; which is what many do when it comes to Scripture then you have lost your objectiveness as a scientist.

      • tildeb says:

        First off, no one should simply ‘accept’ science; they should strive to understand how and why it offers us the best method we have for figuring out stuff about our world and helping us determine what is consistent and reliable understanding upon which to build our knowledge about it (including ourselves).

        Secondly, by all means understand what is and is not good historical knowledge (again, what methods produce the most consistent and reliable information of what was?) and see how that applies to various narratives.

        Of what importance might there be, for example, for there to be no anthropological evidence of any mass exodus of jews from Egypt? How does this lack of evidence impact on various historical narratives? Does it increase or decrease the reliability of such narratives? Why? How can we compare and contrast various narratives if there is no corroborating evidence to help us verify any of them? How might we better inform these conclusions so that we develop what is known as convergence?

        There are yogi in India right this minute who make the same kinds of divine claims – virgin birth, healing, miracles, raising the dead, walking on water, etc. – as we find in biblical accounts about Jesus. Are these claims true?

        If you don’t care about what is true (or should I say, care more about what you believe must be true than what is true), then none of this matters. But if you do care about what is true and want to base your beliefs on this foundation rather than one’s wishes for something to be true, then the key question is “How can we know?” And as soon as you go down this path, you will quickly realize that faith in a particular answer as a starting point adds not one whit of anything meaningful to our quest to arrive at a justified conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s