YEC Internal Disputes are Getting More Bizarre

[No Other Name]

The simple idea that dynamic processes within the Creation week seem more likely as opposed to static "insta-baking" of the day's constituent elements within most YEC models is somewhat controversial among YEC circles.

On this issue, slippery slope fallacies abound and the application of the scientific method and inductive reasoning take a back seat to loose charges of uniformitarianism and almost a weird kind of "supernatural materialism".

I kind of think the tension imagined is between sola Scriptura and investigating historical science.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

I'll just leave this here:

How Old Is the Earth? - Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland

Just over three years ago there was great excitement when geologists in Canada discovered volcanic rocks which they considered to be about 4 billion years old. This made them, apparently, [Read more...]

www.fpchurch.org.uk

 

[No Other Name]

I'll just leave this here:

How Old Is the Earth? - Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland

Just over three years ago there was great excitement when geologists in Canada discovered volcanic rocks which they considered to be about 4 billion years old. This made them, apparently, [Read more...]

www.fpchurch.org.uk

Uh thanks I guess?

 

[JvMill]

 

[Deleted member 13126]

If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

 

[No Other Name]

I am beginning to wonder if some are mistaken that the age of the earth is in dispute here within YEC?

I admit I probably should have replied to the old thread.

 

[arapahoepark]

I haven't seen the video as I am on school wifi...
When I first learned about YEC as a legitimate view with a lot of backing from the Christian community I had always thought they agreed with views of adaptations/speciation within kinds...

 

[No Other Name]

I haven't seen the video as I am on school wifi...
When I first learned about YEC as a legitimate view with a lot of backing from the Christian community I had always thought they agreed with views of adaptations/speciation within kinds...

In the video, Ken Coulson lays out what everyone agrees with in YEC:

1. That God supernaturally created not only an entire planet, but an entire universe in literally, six days, all of which occurred no more than about 10,000 years ago.

2. That Adam was created from the dust of the ground and Eve from his side in a single day.

3. That God supernaturally created major groups of organisms including birds, pterosaurs, bats, land and aquatic dwelling reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, various groups of land, aquatic, and flying mammals, insects, plants, and various other groups, all in six days.

4. That sin was brought into the world through the transgression of Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit, thus advancing a literal Fall of the human race into a fallen spiritual state that brought with it the entrance of both physical and spiritual death into the world.

5. That God cursed the earth.

6. That God brought a world-wide Flood of water over the earth that killed all land breathing animals including all humans, except the eight that were in Noah’s ark.

7. That prior to the Fall, the earth was created in a “very good” state.

For 99.99% of Christians, that is all fine, well and good.

[But science explores the "white spaces" around these parameters such as cosmology models of Faulkner, Lisle, Humphreys, Hartnett et al, morphologies of extinct species that seem to suggest a marked difference between "created kind" and "ark-kind" due to phytogenic drift, and ideas that planet formation deals with differentiations of metals *possibly* revealing the order in which God forms the core, mantle and crust.]

Everything in brackets (and quite a few more ideas) are just that: ideas. Hypotheses to be investigated. And if anyone wants to put any of these under critique in brotherly love, that is perfectly fair game and is - should be - embraced by all participants.

To "police" the "white spaces" guarding against new ideas that may possibly supplant traditional ideas that have served as placeholders for decades, and to denigrate YEC scientists that have new ideas as no better than "gap theory" or "framework" uniformitarians or worse - "YEEs" (young earth evolutionists!) - these YEC "traditionalists" have been revealed to be premature, unfair and the engagement with ideas presented have been lacking in fullness before they outright dismiss these "new YECs" as "blind" and "ignoring truth for their worldviews" as if they were on the same level as atheistic evolutionists.

 

[CovenantWord]

I submit that the rigidity of the claim that God created the universe "in six, literal, twenty-four hour days" unnecessarily complicates the debate. Genesis 1 does not actually say that; what it does say is: "So the evening and the morning of the X day" (NKJ), which strongly suggest that time itself, the fourth dimension if you'd like, was in the process of being created, just as the material parts of the universe were in the process of being created. If this be the case, then, that which is being created, namely time, cannot simultaneously be used as a measure of the nature of creation itself. A successful measurement device must be external to that which it measure. In particular, we need to be humble about the nature of miracle, being particularly careful not to limit it by providential parameters. The miraculous creation days, including their relationship with time, are the model for the providential days, not the reverse. Man must work within the inflexible march of time; the Creator was under no such constraint.
This view might soften the accusations that Dr. Coulson alleges has arisen against him on the account of his teaching progressive, differentiating creation within the six creation days.
Full disclosure: I have no opinion on the age of the earth, because I have never read or heard a persuasive reconciliation of sound theology and reproducible science on this issue. However, I will suggest that Christians need not fear an old earth chronology on the grounds that it supports the claims of macroevolution. Evolution is a risible theory, lacking internal integrity and external plausibility, so that any great length of time would reveal its fatal flaws even more clearly than shorter periods would.

 

[No Other Name]

I submit that the rigidity of the claim that God created the universe "in six, literal, twenty-four hour days" unnecessarily complicates the debate.

That is an interesting stance. You are saying that part of the problem between "traditionalists" and "new-idea" YEC is a statement that we both agree with? I am very curious how so.

"So the evening and the morning of the X day" (NKJ), which strongly suggest that time itself, the fourth dimension if you'd like, was in the process of being created, just as the material parts of the universe were in the process of being created.

How does this strongly suggest time itself is being created? I am unsure how one could read the text and naturally arrive at this conclusion? Even if somehow true, I am also baffled as to how this aids the YEC internal debate for "traditionalists" vs. "new-idea" YEC scientists.

The "new-idea" crew do not even go as far as you do here and they still get blasted incorrectly and unfairly as "framework" uniformitarian and "YEE".

Unless you have something else, your proposal would whip the "traditionalists" up into a frenzy decrying "gap theory-replacement" errors even more so than now - (not that that is necessarily a deal-breaker per se - but I am missing how this would help?

How would this "simplify" an "unnecessarily complicated debate" as you say? )

If this be the case, then, that which is being created, namely time, cannot simultaneously be used as a measure of the nature of creation itself.

Scientifically measured? Everyone agrees there. All YEC (also OEC and even most honest atheistic evolutionists) agree that the nature of creation in long past does not grant direct access to scientific inquiry.

I suspect a lot of people may have an exegetical issue with your take and the inspired use of "yom" but that's not my department and is above my pay grade.

A successful measurement device must be external to that which it measure.

I am unsure what this means? - especially in the context of creation.

If I time a falling object and graph its displacement or velocity (or both) with respect to the time it fell, it does not follow logically that the stopwatch must be run by a third party on the ground vs. the time-keeper being located within the falling body itself.

There is no "absolute time" as reported by general revelation in relativity; rather space-time is one dimension of dynamically-curved space.

Within the special revelation of Genesis, it seems that the inertial frame of reference during creation is the surface of the Earth. Going away from the surface of the Earth and speculating about what velocities may be stretching the heavens and how that relates to distant starlight etc is the subject of several creation theoretical models to be sure.

Again, I am unsure what you mean when you say time must be external to what it measures.

I am asking. And being charitable as it seems that you are disagreeing with general relativity here? If so, ok, but can you elaborate more?

And how would this help "traditionalists" in YEC relax their consternation over new ideas for dynamic processes within our mutually-agreed 24 hour creation-slices of Genesis 1?

In particular, we need to be humble about the nature of miracle, being particularly careful not to limit it by providential parameters.

Who here is limiting miracles or the nature by which miracles can occur? Can you please cite or explain where you see such an oversight of dramatic hubris in claims made by any one of either side? Thank you.

This view might soften the accusations that Dr. Coulson alleges has arisen against him on the account of his teaching progressive, differentiating creation within the six creation days.

What view? Humility? or the alleged creation of time itself along with the natural constituents of the universe over "six days" that you propose?

If humility, I will grant you that. We all need more of it.

If you meant the latter, I am still not even seeing what you mean, let alone how this view would help ease the tensions?

However, I will suggest that Christians need not fear an old earth chronology on the grounds that it supports the claims of macroevolution.

I think I see what you mean here, but an old earth chronology is in fact deeply troubling on at least one front (and more that many would argue):

Most YEC have little issue with genuine OEC brothers who show evidence of salvation since most also agree that God specially created Adam and Eve and they deny the primate "tree of life" model for Homo sapiens in faithfulness to Romans 5.

If any God-ordained old earth chronology -like Theistic Evolution - includes the primate "tree of life" as being within the genetics of first H. sapiens, then it effectually denies Christ as the Second Adam and is heresy.

From what I gather, you agree and I believe you said as much in the following sentences. I only wanted to specify clearly so all can see sola Scriptura is in full effect as always.

 

[Eyedoc84]

So the evening and the morning of the X day" (NKJ), which strongly suggest that time itself, the fourth dimension if you'd like, was in the process of being created

I’m not sure where you get this translation or interpretation. Gen 1:1 “In the beginning” starts time, and the light/dark cycle marks days on day one, with the creation of the heavenly bodies being given to mark out times, days, seasons in ongoing providence. I don’t see “time in process of being created,” but rather God telling us quite plainly how time was created and marked out.

Now, I think one could offer a modified literary framework view and stay faithful to scripture and say “I don’t know” to the age question but in my mind introducing millions and billions runs into inescapable theological problems (literal Adam, the fall of creation via Adam, etc.).

 

[CovenantWord]

Sorry. I can't seem to figure out the multi-quote feature. Italics signify quotations from the Anti-Babylon post.

That is an interesting stance. You are saying that part of the problem between "traditionalists" and "new-idea" YEC is a statement that we both agree with? I am very curious how so.

Thank you for forcing me to clarify my thoughts. I take it your term, "traditional," is the insistence that six "literal, 24-hour" days is the only viable interpretation of Genesis 1. I concede that my view calls upon us to back away from this rigidity, on the grounds that it is more polarizing than biblical. You are undoubtedly correct that, were a traditionalist to take my view seriously, there would be resistance. However, I maintain that viewing time as being created at the same time as, say, the layers of the Earth that Dr. Coulson mentioned, would render moot the question of whether the layers were created simultaneously or serially, because time would no longer be the governing parameter. The problem with the "literal" view, I hold, is that it improperly imposes the limitations of providential time upon creation time.

How does this strongly suggest time itself is being created? I am unsure how one could read the text and naturally arrive at this conclusion?

Well, my point is that it is unhelpful to seek to arrive at an understanding of the nature of time during creation week naturally, because, by nature, we mortals are bound under the inevitable succession and departmentalization of time and cannot readily place ourselves outside this conceptualization. Thus, we are constrained to take the unnatural step of setting aside our providence-ingrained understanding of time and seek to exegete our understanding of the nature of creation time strictly within the context of the creation narrative. I submit that the succession of creation of the material world suggests that time was created successively, as well, unless we find contradiction within the narrative. When we look for such, we actually find instead confirmation, namely, that dayness was created successively, not instantaneously, as the traditionalist view requires.

Scientifically measured? Everyone agrees there. All YEC (also OEC and even most honest atheistic evolutionists) agree that the nature of creation in long past does not grant direct access to scientific inquiry.

If you will pardon: This statement, although accurate, strictly speaking, is somewhat misleading. It is true, in the nature of the case, that repeatable experimentation is not available to examine historical events, but that does not mean that the past is not subject to scientific inquiry. The creation narrative itself presents the world as orderly and as predictably operating on the basis of cause-and-effect. I thus suggest that branding "uniformitarianism" as a heresy is unhelpful to the point of calling into question one of the main themes of the creation narrative as well as undercutting one of the supporting pillars of scientific inquiry, as well, both historical and ongoing. To be sure, special revelation constrains us to modify our understanding of Earth's (or the universe's) historical orderliness by the radical impact of two great miracles, namely, creation itself and the world-wide flood.

If I time a falling object and graph its displacement or velocity (or both) with respect to the time it fell, it does not follow logically that the stopwatch must be run by a third party on the ground vs. the time-keeper being located within the falling body itself.

A fundamental difficulty here is that time cannot be measured directly. It can only be measured by its presumed effect upon three-dimensional entities. Newtonian physics, operating at human-comprehensible speeds, does this by measuring motion against a frame of reference external to the time-responsive activity. When the frame of reference is internalized, as in the relativity conditions you mentioned, there is a dramatic effect on the measurement of time. This observation argues that we should be humble about our understanding of time during creation, does it not? Did God create a vast universe so quickly that time, as we understand it, would have been distorted? Possibly so. Possibly so. In any case, the temporal frames of reference for the creation week were the evening and morning of Day X. If we envision the dayness of Day X +1 to not have been created into existence until the completion of creation of the dayness of Day X, then we free ourselves of the notion that providential time comprehensively preexisted material creation.

I only wanted to specify clearly so all can see sola Scriptura is in full effect as always.

Yes, thank you. I believe in creatio ex nihilo; I believe in the special creation of Adam, with Eve, as the covenantal head of mankind. I believe in the Fall, and I believe in the direct hand of God working in human history. I believe in the plenary inspiration of Scriptures, and I believe that theology is the queen of the sciences (i.e., all intellectual disputes). I eschew metaphorical interpretations of the creation narrative.

 

[CovenantWord]

Italics indicate quotations from the post of EyeDoc84. Scripture quotations are NKJ.

Gen 1:1 “In the beginning” starts time, and the light/dark cycle marks days on day one, with the creation of the heavenly bodies being given to mark out times, days, seasons in ongoing providence. I don’t see “time in process of being created,” but rather God telling us quite plainly how time was created and marked out.

You may very well be right that, at the commencement of Day 1, God created time in its fullness as we experience it now. I am not qualified to say yea or nay. Yet, I am considering the possibility that the text does not require that interpretation. The initial clause, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1), is perhaps best viewed primarily in its literary function as introductory summary of the creation narrative as a whole. In that case, "beginning" need not refer to the earliest point of time as we know it today, but rather encompasses the entire activity of creation.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Verse 2 is a picture of desolation and chaos, as I'm sure you would agree: "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep." Why would time, being inextricably connected with the material world, be exempt? The purpose and effect of time is to impose order, is it not?. During this first week, the Creator systematically built chronological order during the successive Days: first creating light, then separating light and darkness, and then ordaining the heavenly bodies to "rule" the parts of the days.

Now, I think one could offer a modified literary framework view and stay faithful to scripture and say “I don’t know” to the age question but in my mind introducing millions and billions runs into inescapable theological problems (literal Adam, the fall of creation via Adam, etc.).

Yes, I agree with you. I separate myself from the Framework theory of creation, as well as from all other metaphorical interpretations. The creation narrative is simply too detailed and precise to admit of any interpretation other than the literal. Yes, postulating eons of Earth history challenges theological orthodoxy, but not insuperably. As things stand now, the best theology tells us the Earth is young, and the best science tells us that the Earth is old. Some seek to solve the issue by derogating science. Some attempt to do so by derogating theology. Neither approach is acceptable. I tentatively conclude that it has simply not been given to our generation to successfully reconcile this discrepancy, and thus we should humbly admit that we just don't know at this point in Christian history.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Italics indicate quotations from the post of EyeDoc84. Scripture quotations are NKJ.

Gen 1:1 “In the beginning” starts time, and the light/dark cycle marks days on day one, with the creation of the heavenly bodies being given to mark out times, days, seasons in ongoing providence. I don’t see “time in process of being created,” but rather God telling us quite plainly how time was created and marked out.

You may very well be right that, at the commencement of Day 1, God created time in its fullness as we experience it now. I am not qualified to say yea or nay. Yet, I am considering the possibility that the text does not require that interpretation. The initial clause, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1), is perhaps best viewed primarily in its literary function as introductory summary of the creation narrative as a whole. In that case, "beginning" need not refer to the earliest point of time as we know it today, but rather encompasses the entire activity of creation.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Verse 2 is a picture of desolation and chaos, as I'm sure you would agree: "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep." Why would time, being inextricably connected with the material world, be exempt? The purpose and effect of time is to impose order, is it not?. During this first week, the Creator systematically built chronological order during the successive Days: first creating light, then separating light and darkness, and then ordaining the heavenly bodies to "rule" the parts of the days.

Now, I think one could offer a modified literary framework view and stay faithful to scripture and say “I don’t know” to the age question but in my mind introducing millions and billions runs into inescapable theological problems (literal Adam, the fall of creation via Adam, etc.).

Yes, I agree with you. I separate myself from the Framework theory of creation, as well as from all other metaphorical interpretations. The creation narrative is simply too detailed and precise to admit of any interpretation other than the literal. Yes, postulating eons of Earth history challenges theological orthodoxy, but not insuperably. As things stand now, the best theology tells us the Earth is young, and the best science tells us that the Earth is old. Some seek to solve the issue by derogating science. Some attempt to do so by derogating theology. Neither approach is acceptable. I tentatively conclude that it has simply not been given to our generation to successfully reconcile this discrepancy, and thus we should humbly admit that we just don't know at this point in Christian history.

You need time before you can have any sequence of events.

 

[MyCrows]

Beware of the gap theory variants. People can insert whatever they want into the gap. I've come across some insanely wild teachings that are purely speculative. Talk of the "First Earth Age" and other nonsense.

 

[CovenantWord]

You need time before you can have any sequence of events.

I have a challenge that you might find interesting; The applicability of this claim depends upon who the "you" is. When mortal man brings something new into existence, he does so as manufacturer, that is, he plans intentions, budgets funding, activates talents, selects tools, assembles material -- all of which activity is entirely dependent upon that which he has received -- talent, resources, material, and, yes, time. The eternal Creator labors under no such constraint. God exists outside time and interacts with time in a manner that is impossible for us time-bound creatures to comprehend. I am encouraging us to avoid viewing creation as working against the clock, as we humans are constrained to do. We are to be grateful for material creation, of course, but also for the chronological creation.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I have a challenge that you might find interesting; The applicability of this claim depends upon who the "you" is. When mortal man brings something new into existence, he does so as manufacturer, that is, he plans intentions, budgets funding, activates talents, selects tools, assembles material -- all of which activity is entirely dependent upon that which he has received -- talent, resources, material, and, yes, time. The eternal Creator labors under no such constraint.

I'm not sure God could have a sequence of events take place outside of time. He could surely do it outside of our time and in some other sort of time (cf. 2 Peter 3:8). But I'm pretty sure that if you have any sequence of events, it's going to require chronology, and chronology is going to require time. Might be worth noodling over some more.

Or we can chalk it up to Deuteronomy 29:29 and praise God that His ways and thoughts are infinitely higher than ours!

 

[MyCrows]

Time is an abstract idea, used to reference and distinguish when certain events took place.

God didn't need to create time itself, time itself is a reference point from every event back to the initial act of creation.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Time is an abstract idea, used to reference and distinguish when certain events took place.

God didn't need to create time itself, time itself is a reference point from every event back to the initial act of creation.

I'm not sure this is accurate. Time is the succession of moments, from past to present to future. Before the creation of the universe there was no succession of moments, certainly no past or future.

 

[MyCrows]

I'm not sure this is accurate. Time is the succession of moments, from past to present to future. Before the creation of the universe there was no succession of moments, certainly no past or future.

There was no future? Lol

 

[MyCrows]

If in eternity past God made a decree, there has always been a future.

 

[RamistThomist]

If in eternity past God made a decree, there has always been a future.

We need to be careful not to confuse the decree with the execution of the decree.e God did not create in time. Time was concreated with the rest of creation. There has not always been a future. Time is part of creation and not eternal.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

We need to be careful not to confuse the decree with the execution of the decree.e God did not create in time. Time was concreated with the rest of creation. There has not always been a future. Time is part of creation and not eternal.

I'm pretty sure I agree with this statement, but do want to ask a clarifying question about the bit I put in bold: Time from this point on for us (as creatures in creation) is eternal (without end), is it not? The saints under the altar in Revelation 6:10 seem to experience time, etc.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

If in eternity past God made a decree, there has always been a future.

This can get pretty confusing. When I've read some things on this topic, it has been helpful for me to distinguish 'eternity' from 'timelessness'. It's also been helpful for me to think of eternity as 'time without end' (in the context of creatures in creation).

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm pretty sure I agree with this statement, but do want to ask a clarifying question about the bit I put in bold: Time from this point on for us (as creatures in creation) is eternal (without end), is it not? The saints under the altar in Revelation 6:10 seem to experience time, etc.

Eternal includes the meaning of "without beginning." The saints in Rev. 6:10 are not in eternity past. The closest equivalent would e something like what the medieval theologians called "aeviternity."

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Eternal includes the meaning of "without beginning." The saints in Rev. 6:10 are not in eternity past. The closest equivalent would e something like what the medieval theologians called "aeviternity."

Got it! Learned something new today, thanks to you! Aevum or 'improper eternity'.

 

[No Other Name]

Happy day after Lord's Day everyone.

This has gotten way off topic, but still thanks everyone for all the input.

I take it your term, "traditional," is the insistence that six "literal, 24-hour" days is the only viable interpretation of Genesis 1.

You are mistaken, good sir. The "traditionalist" YEC and the "new idea" or "dynamic-process-YEC" (still searching for a name - any name other than "YEE") - both agree that six literal 24-hour days is the only correct interpretation ("viable" depends on the theology inherent in the other individual views like OEC - cf. my Romans 5 disclaimer on any view longer than 6 literal days).

I concede that my view calls upon us to back away from this rigidity, on the grounds that it is more polarizing than biblical.

I still don't see how ... particularly in the confines of this discussion.

Even if you insist time is the overriding factor in the disagreement, (it is not) both sides acknowledge God as creating supernaturally that cannot be measured directly by any tools of science.

Each side here is biblical yet the polarizing factor is the limits of God's choosing to leave as by-products of His acts of creation as to what constitutes fair representation of a reasonable human mind to process long after the act itself (in order to be without excuse per Romans 1).

However, I maintain that viewing time as being created at the same time as, say, the layers of the Earth that Dr. Coulson mentioned, would render moot the question of whether the layers were created simultaneously or serially, because time would no longer be the governing parameter.

This is also a huge misunderstanding here.

Again, I own this misunderstanding on my part primarily as I should have added my post to the old thread about internal YEC debates rather than start a new one.

If anyone is frustrated by my lack of forthrightness as to the issues here, please take it as a high compliment to the collective IQ of the PB as normally, you all are so up-to-date on the latest issues I may have overestimated your knowledge in this area and have been unintentionally unclear.

Literal time is not the governing parameter in this debate of whether the layers were created simultaneously or serially (I mean serially as argued within "dynamic-process" YEC not OEC). Each side of this internalized YEC debate agrees on the time frame.

The governing parameter is literal differentiation of materials. If God creates a mature creation spontaneously there should be none.

Coulson et al would argue that - by certain observations - God leaves it fair for a reasonable non-believing human to analyze the layers of the earth and arrive at the conclusion that our planet has a core, mantle, and crust yet is still broken into three very distinctive parts revealing literal differentiation of both very-high temperature and gravitation.

If this differentiation were not literally true, then it would only "appear" to be true.

If the "traditional" YECs are correct, then it would seem their model of a "mature" creation is misleading and unfair to an unbelieving scientist who could argue God is "lying" in Genesis 1.

"Traditionalists" argue that supernatural creation is supernatural creation and if the other side capitulates due to appearances, then where will the compromises end up??

Now, no one on the "dynamic-process" YEC side argues the "traditionalist" YECs are necessarily in error at all - let alone serious error.

Coulson et al have been upfront that they could very well be misguided in their applications of science or logical reasoning regarding the science.

But most of these "traditionalists" have prematurely abandoned scientific analysis and logical argumentation and have reflexively resorted to charges of "no different than evolution".

That is the primary issue. And that is the error that "dynamic-process" YEC is accusing of the "traditional" YEC.

The problem with the "literal" view, I hold, is that it improperly imposes the limitations of providential time upon creation time.

Yeah I gather. It seems like you really want to put out your "creation time" theory which, in my humble opinion, is very confusing and seems to have just as many issues (or more) than you purport to resolve.

I have a ton of questions about it, but I refrain as I really kind of want to get opinions regarding mature creation internally within YEC.

If no one really engages that issue here, we could discuss further, no problem.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Happy day after Lord's Day everyone.

This has gotten way off topic, but still thanks everyone for all the input.



You are mistaken, good sir. The "traditionalist" YEC and the "new idea" or "dynamic-process-YEC" (still searching for a name - any name other than "YEE") - both agree that six literal 24-hour days is the only correct interpretation ("viable" depends on the theology inherent in the other individual views like OEC - cf. my Romans 5 disclaimer on any view longer than 6 literal days).


I still don't see how ... particularly in the confines of this discussion.

Even if you insist time is the overriding factor in the disagreement, (it is not) both sides acknowledge God as creating supernaturally that cannot be measured directly by any tools of science.

Each side here is biblical yet the polarizing factor is the limits of God's choosing to leave as by-products of His acts of creation as to what constitutes fair representation of a reasonable human mind to process long after the act itself (in order to be without excuse per Romans 1).



This is also a huge misunderstanding here.

Again, I own this misunderstanding on my part primarily as I should have added my post to the old thread about internal YEC debates rather than start a new one.

If anyone is frustrated by my lack of forthrightness as to the issues here, please take it as a high compliment to the collective IQ of the PB as normally, you all are so up-to-date on the latest issues I may have overestimated your knowledge in this area and have been unintentionally unclear.

Literal time is not the governing parameter in this debate of whether the layers were created simultaneously or serially (I mean serially as argued within "dynamic-process" YEC not OEC). Each side of this internalized YEC debate agrees on the time frame.

The governing parameter is literal differentiation of materials. If God creates a mature creation spontaneously there should be none.

Coulson et al would argue that - by certain observations - God leaves it fair for a reasonable non-believing human to analyze the layers of the earth and arrive at the conclusion that our planet has a core, mantle, and crust yet is still broken into three very distinctive parts revealing literal differentiation of both very-high temperature and gravitation.

If this differentiation were not literally true, then it would only "appear" to be true.

If the "traditional" YECs are correct, then it would seem their model of a "mature" creation is misleading and unfair to an unbelieving scientist who could argue God is "lying" in Genesis 1.

"Traditionalists" argue that supernatural creation is supernatural creation and if the other side capitulates due to appearances, then where will the compromises end up??

Now, no one on the "dynamic-process" YEC side argues the "traditionalist" YECs are necessarily in error at all - let alone serious error.

Coulson et al have been upfront that they could very well be misguided in their applications of science or logical reasoning regarding the science.

But most of these "traditionalists" have prematurely abandoned scientific analysis and logical argumentation and have reflexively resorted to charges of "no different than evolution".

That is the primary issue. And that is the error that "dynamic-process" YEC is accusing of the "traditional" YEC.



Yeah I gather. It seems like you really want to put out your "creation time" theory which, in my humble opinion, is very confusing and seems to have just as many issues (or more) than you purport to resolve.

I have a ton of questions about it, but I refrain as I really kind of want to get opinions regarding mature creation internally within YEC.

If no one really engages that issue here, we could discuss further, no problem.

I'm a YEC. I think God made everything with a certain kind of maturity (what we now think of as only coming with age). Adam wasn't formed as a baby, but as a man. Fruit could be found already on the newly created trees, etc. I see the formation of the Earth (core, layers, etc.) as also having a certain kind of maturity.

I don't believe that the model of a mature creation is misleading or unfair to an unbelieving scientist, because that unbelieving scientist still has to appeal to a miracle on a scale far larger than planet Earth, that being the Big Bang. I think in some sense we could even go further and say that an unbelieving scientist is already misled and unfair prior to evaluating any evidence (cf. Watanabe's Ugly Duck Theorem) in that they're applying the wrong bias or perceptive lens to the right evidence, like glasses with distorted lenses that can't be removed.

Such a scientist, I think, ought to have presupposed God as Creator foundationally in light of the fact that things don't spontaneously come from nothing, and then gone from there, as opposed to beginning where ever he likes and trying to work his way back to proving the existence of God as Creator.

 

[No Other Name]

I'm a YEC. I think God made everything with a certain kind of maturity (what we now think of as only coming with age). Adam wasn't formed as a baby, but as a man. Fruit could be found already on the newly created trees, etc. I see the formation of the Earth (core, layers, etc.) as also having a certain kind of maturity.

I don't believe that the model of a mature creation is misleading or unfair to an unbelieving scientist, because that unbelieving scientist still has to appeal to a miracle on a scale far larger than planet Earth, that being the Big Bang.

Such a scientist, I think, ought to have presupposed with God as Creator foundationally in light of the fact that things don't spontaneously come from nothing, and then gone from there, as opposed to beginning where ever he likes and trying to work his way back to proving the existence of God as Creator.

I do not disagree with anything you said, particularly the leap of faith required in secular cosmology. You are not wrong.

When it comes to transitions within kinds, layers of the Earth etc, it is not necessarily about what God could have done, but what he did in fact do.

You may be right in that a spontaneous act of layering the earth is not misleading or unfair for some (those who already decided there cannot be a God for sin reasons which is a fair point to the other side, no doubt).

I think the question Coulson et al ask is why not create a hypothesis of literal differentiation and explore where it goes?

Far deeper than literal differentiation is the possibility of a new YEC paleontology allowing for transitions within kinds that have already been measured over decades that could help tremendously with reconciling the fossil record with Biblical timelines.

This question gives "traditional" YEC deep consternation to the point of calling Coulson et al "YEE" - for no good reason that I can see at all.

 

[lynnie]

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4,7).

There seems to be various views of when angels were created, but I don't have time now to research it further. Some say day 1, some say before the start of this material physical earth creation, ie, before Genesis 1:1. The beginning being the start of the visible creation, but angels came before it.

If angels were here first, that affects what you think about time. They may be invisible, but that that does not make them outside time, any more than invisible radio waves are outside time. I'm not saying they are like the electromagnetic spectrum, I don't know what they are exactly, but they were created beings and we can assume if they had a beginning then they existed in time from the start.

Is there any strong Reformed position on when angels were created? Just curious, thanks. It sort of goes with the subject so I hope I am not digressing.