Michael Kruse

Paula,

“I didn’t say they were equal in length, but that the days would be equal to ages, that is, they would stand for ages.â€

I went back and reread. You are correct, my error. I misread.

“How do you know Adam was created near the end of the sixth day, just because he was created 2nd last? Or that the 6th day ended right after Eve’s creation? … So even on the 6th day, we have no idea how long it was or how much of it was left after humans were made. I have to conclude that your statement here is a baseless assertion.â€

You definitively said:

“One is that Adam had to have been thousands of years old instead of what the Bible states.â€

No one knows about the timing a specific events. I was presenting you with a scenario that fits the era theory that refutes your claim, “Adam had to have been thousands of years old.†It is your claim that is the baseless assertion and my plausible scenario illustrates that.

“My point was that there is no objective way to measure time if day-age is true. But as I already stated, yom with an ordinal always means a literal solar day, especially accompanied by “evening and morningâ€.â€

I wrote the comment above that starts “Day age issue..†above after you had posted this. Please scroll up for my response.

From your comment:

…….

My dad is retired Ph.D….I have a long time friend … I have a MA… I have spent the last 25 years…I have been around scientists all my life and I have read …

This is an appeal to credentials, and as I’m sure you know, is only logically valid if all people with similar credentials agree on a given subject. That is not the case at all, so this is an irrelevant point.

I did peruse the speakers lists at AIG and found maybe four with Ph.Ds in relevant fields. Of those, it was unclear whether they believed in a young earth or were simply opposing evolution. The young earth folks at AIG are in an exceedingly small minority of even Evangelical Christians. I have been around Evangelical Ph.D scientists all my life and don’t recall ever meeting one although clearly some exist.
Here we have an attempt to “poison the wellâ€, along with an appeal to majority view. Both logically irrelevant.

…….

Please scroll up to your first response to me and reread these words you wrote to me:

“The people at AIG also have spent their lives studying science, and many were teachers of biology etc. before the evidence convinced them that YEC is true.â€

EXCUSE ME!!! Who was making the appeal to credentials? Again you wrote in response to me:

This is an appeal to credentials, and as I’m sure you know, is only logically valid if all people with similar credentials agree on a given subject.

When Paula points to credentials that is legit but when I do it is an attempt to “poison the well�??

I was not writing to demonstrate that my position has to be the correct because of credentials. I offered my credentials as context. I was trying to give you some background about myself so you know who you are in conversation with and what has shaped my convictions. Furthermore, while no argument can ultimately be settled on the basis of credentials neither are they irrelevant. Scientific fields are exceedingly complex requiring the comprehension abstract processes and relationships. That someone has gone through the rigor of being competent with these topics and has established credentials is relevant, not decisive. You offered credentials which I am to accept unquestioningly. I offered credentials and you become dismissive and trivializing.

“Evolution is the only reason day-age was concocted. It is the reason, as has been documented, that so many people have rejected Christianity because they see the futility of trying to make Genesis fit with an old earth.â€

This is false. Did you not read my second post above? Evolution emerged as a coherent theory with the publication of Darwin’s book in 1859. Did Irenaeus, Origen, Justin Martyr, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas come up with these theories because of evolution? It is irrelevant how they came to their conclusions. The point is that they concluded it could was consistent with the Bible for there to be other than 24-hour days in Genesis without ever having heard of evolution.

Did orthodox bible believing clergy in the 1600s and 1700s, venturing into geology, conclude that the earth must be ancient because of an idea that was 100-200 years away? Science emerged in Western Civilization like it did nowhere else because Christians believed in a God of order and reason. By systematically studying the material world they felt themselves entering into the very mind of God. Many of my scientist friends I know today express this same thrill. The overwhelming majority of scientists before the 19th Century were very solid Christians of this variety.

The old-earth idea came first from people who believed in the authority of the Bible and God. That doesn’t make it right but it did not emerge because of evolution. It was one of the pieces that made Darwin’s theory plausible but it categorically was not constructed to support it. You have the order of events reversed.

“Not true at all. But what good would it do for me to list the proof? If PhDs at AIG, ICR, and a host of other groups don’t mean as much as your MA etc., then what credentials are required?â€

Appeals to credentials again Paula? More sarcastic dismissive trivialization? Accept the unquestioningly accept the credential’s experts and then trivialize all dissenters? Nice!

How about scientific credentials in the areas of biology, geology and astronomy which actually relate to science that deals with age of the earth. I counted maybe four with Ph.D. degrees that relate to this. As I said, of those four, I can’t tell if they are simply opposed to evolution or they are the age of the earth. My MA in social science academically qualifies me to speak with every bit as much authority on these scientific issues as all but four or five listed based on their academic credentials. Meanwhile, I know a whole world of Evangelical scientists in these specific areas who disagree with them.

But we are going on a tangent. To me the specifics of science aren’t really central to the topic at hand. The assertion has been made that Genesis 1 must be 24-hour days and that animals must have been created after Adam and before Eve. None of us here that

“Who is militant, if not the OECs? They are every bit as narrow, every bit as biased, every bit as dogmatic about their view.â€

This says more to me than anything you have written. You are convinced that anyone who disagrees with you is a militant, biased, dogmatic tyrant. I am not a brother in Christ to have a conversation with; possibly to be persuaded to a more biblical view. I am an enemy to be destroyed and humiliated if possible. At least you are honest. You wrote “every bit as†meaning you acknowledge the YEC narrowness, bias, and dogmatism you project on me.

I am a busy a person who came her for conversation, I have no time for a flaming war. Paula, if you want to have a conversation lets have it and enough with the spite.