"Deep Time" is Not Compatible with Christianity
Science is a systematic method for attaining knowledge that is dependent on the presuppositions of its users for the interpretations of facts. Christians who use naturalistic viewpoints and affirm an old earth are not only showing their lack of proper understanding of Scripture, but set in motion a domino effect of compromise from Genesis to Revelation. Old earth views are founded in naturalism, which has an atheistic basis.
There are Christians who are firmly committed to an old earth because of what they consider to be "abundance of scientific evidence". Some are even theistic evolutionists (which I believe are essentially deists), and evolution requires "deep time". Many times, biblical creationists have faced unchristian, vituperative attacks from these people, and they frequently join forces with atheopaths in this derision. (It is almost laughable when people who hate God and his Word presume to tell us what the Bible "really" means; it brings to mind Proverbs 26:7 and Proverbs 26:9.) Atheists are happy to associate with these compromisers ("moderate Christians"), because they are often not far away from outright atheism.
When I did a recent interview, some people picked up on my very brief comment about compromiser Hugh Ross, so I posted this link with information so they could research why I made my comment. His disciples are relentless. They did not discuss evidence for a young earth in the dinosaur soft tissues, the way atheists and theistic evolutionists want us silenced through lies and harassment, they neglected the extensive discussion on logical fallacies... For that matter, when I post evidence for a young earth and young solar system, we get old earthers trying to "correct" us. Amazing. This message comes to mind.
Some say that they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but send a weird mixed message: "We believe Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, without error in the original autographs, but the first eleven chapters of Genesis must be interpreted in the light of science". Right. Science philosophies and "facts" are constantly changing, so it is utter folly to depend on the magisterial view of science. Also, it is highly presumptuous to use man-made beliefs to tell God what he said and means in his revealed Word.
This is not a matter of "their" evidence vs. the Bible, or even "science" vs. the Bible. There is a great deal of scientific evidence for a young earth, but secularists and old earthers wave it off or simply ignore it. In addition, there are numerous scientific and logical fallacies used to "prove" an old earth. No, the issue here is how Christians trying to force long ages into the Bible because "scientists say" is myopic compromise that does a great deal of harm.
Professing Christians who compromise on an old earth are showing their weak viewpoints, and often do not realize that Genesis is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines. Using naturalistic interpretations of science (rooted in atheism) is self-refuting, old son.
In the second part:
There are Christians who are firmly committed to an old earth because of what they consider to be "abundance of scientific evidence". Some are even theistic evolutionists (which I believe are essentially deists), and evolution requires "deep time". Many times, biblical creationists have faced unchristian, vituperative attacks from these people, and they frequently join forces with atheopaths in this derision. (It is almost laughable when people who hate God and his Word presume to tell us what the Bible "really" means; it brings to mind Proverbs 26:7 and Proverbs 26:9.) Atheists are happy to associate with these compromisers ("moderate Christians"), because they are often not far away from outright atheism.
When I did a recent interview, some people picked up on my very brief comment about compromiser Hugh Ross, so I posted this link with information so they could research why I made my comment. His disciples are relentless. They did not discuss evidence for a young earth in the dinosaur soft tissues, the way atheists and theistic evolutionists want us silenced through lies and harassment, they neglected the extensive discussion on logical fallacies... For that matter, when I post evidence for a young earth and young solar system, we get old earthers trying to "correct" us. Amazing. This message comes to mind.
Some say that they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but send a weird mixed message: "We believe Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, without error in the original autographs, but the first eleven chapters of Genesis must be interpreted in the light of science". Right. Science philosophies and "facts" are constantly changing, so it is utter folly to depend on the magisterial view of science. Also, it is highly presumptuous to use man-made beliefs to tell God what he said and means in his revealed Word.
This is not a matter of "their" evidence vs. the Bible, or even "science" vs. the Bible. There is a great deal of scientific evidence for a young earth, but secularists and old earthers wave it off or simply ignore it. In addition, there are numerous scientific and logical fallacies used to "prove" an old earth. No, the issue here is how Christians trying to force long ages into the Bible because "scientists say" is myopic compromise that does a great deal of harm.
Professing Christians who compromise on an old earth are showing their weak viewpoints, and often do not realize that Genesis is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines. Using naturalistic interpretations of science (rooted in atheism) is self-refuting, old son.
Despite claims of contemporary Christian scholars, logic demonstrates that an old earth is inextricably intertwined with the Enlightenment worldview of naturalism. Since Christianity and naturalism are fundamentally at odds, the contrary is also true; belief in an old earth is inconsistent with Christianity—a point reinforced by its own logic. Any proposed rationale for integrating the old-earth paradigm with Christianity must overcome this relationship between the old-earth paradigm and the two worldviews.I strongly recommend that Christians read this two part article. To finish the first part, click on "Worldviews, logic, and earth’s age—part 1".
In the second part:
Despite claims of contemporary Christian scholars, history demonstrates that an old earth has been detrimental to the church over the past few centuries. Until the 18th century, the church was practically unanimous in accepting young-earth history. The concept of prehistory grounded in geology originated among Enlightenment deists and atheists and not from within the church. The church’s capitulation to deep time has led to theological novelty, often to the point of affecting essential Christian doctrine. As such, the old-earth paradigm has weakened both the church and the culture in the West. Galileo and geocentrism are falsely presented as arguments for a superior authority for science, and by extension an old earth, but geocentrism and deep time are vastly different issues. The conflict between the old-earth paradigm and Christianity is inevitable because the old-earth paradigm is intrinsically rooted in naturalism.To finish reading the second part, click on "Worldviews, logic, and earth’s age—part 2". Another important item, I recommend the video "What Would Jesus Believe?"