tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post7399777464159090098..comments2023-10-30T08:13:43.200-07:00Comments on Questioning Answers In Genesis: On the oversimplification of Genesis and the "tyranny of experts"Chemostrat1646http://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-56737033143631331912014-03-05T11:51:11.599-08:002014-03-05T11:51:11.599-08:00Thank you, I had not seen this post, but it seems ...Thank you, I had not seen this post, but it seems a fair and accurate critique.Chemostrat1646https://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-54030333907215257012014-03-05T11:46:48.275-08:002014-03-05T11:46:48.275-08:00Hello James, thanks for your feedback. I have come...Hello James, thanks for your feedback. I have come across several people (mostly friends), who essentially hold to the young-earth reading of Genesis but are skeptical of AiG's creation science approach. Generally, they are not themselves scientists, but tend to accept the scientific evidence stands against a young Earth. One of the more intriguing positions is articulated here:<br />http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/search/label/Neo-Omphalos%20theory<br /><br />I tend to agree with your friends that your position risks depicting God as deceptive in his work. It's not simply that the world must bear an appearance of age; it must bear an appearance of complex history: the Earth's surface appears to have gone through tectonic recycling, transformed by long standing oceans, supervolcanoes, earthquakes and more. Life appears to have shared a common ancestry, which diversified over millions of generations. It's one thing to drink the wine at Cana, and proclaim "This wine only appears to be aged!" It would be quite another to meet a 45-year old woman with scars of childbirth, and a diverse biochemical history written into her memories, hair, teeth, and bones, yet still proclaim: "Maybe she was just created like this, a full functioning adult?" There is a complex backstory reflecting the beauty, pain, joy, and toil of the human condition. So I think the move to consider the universe in the same way is rather arbitrary. What's the difference, from God's perspective, between making a universe that appears to have a complex backstory and one that actually does?<br /><br />I wrote another post a couple years back along this line of reasoning. It addresses the possibility of "appearance of age" to reconcile the geological record. Perhaps you'll find it of interest: http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com/2011/10/appearance-of-age-or-true-age-better.html.Chemostrat1646https://www.blogger.com/profile/01067579479402100587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-50309692362818275202014-03-05T09:55:56.101-08:002014-03-05T09:55:56.101-08:00You may have seen this blog critiquing Sarfati'...You may have seen this blog critiquing Sarfati's 2010 book ('refuting Dawkins'):<br />http://www.greatesthoaxonearth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/my-review-of-greatest-hoax-on-earth.html<br />I think the writer is a Christian.ashleyhrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04408129014757944228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3728725441575309638.post-30153095833575779152014-03-05T01:12:52.625-08:002014-03-05T01:12:52.625-08:00I'm a YEC graduate student in medieval literat...I'm a YEC graduate student in medieval literature, and appreciate the thoughtfulness of your writing. As a layman in other fields, (and really not much more than that in my own field, so far) I particularly appreciate how open you are on your background page about what specifically you are an expert in. When tremendous expertise in a specific area is presented as tremendous expertise in a whole field, I get a bit skeptical. It seems impossible to me, for example, to hold in one's mind everything there is to know about western medieval lit and keep up with and evaluate all the relevant controversies about the contexts that inform criticism of it. Because of specialization in research, I assume that a similar limitation applies to researchers in the sciences, but not many people seem to think about it when they try to persuade others by appealing to experts. When one is a non-expert it's quite difficult to make assuredly accurate assessments of controversy that can appear expert on both sides.<br /><br />Have you come across many people who take the days as 24 hr and believe in a short timeline but accept that scientific evidence shows that the earth is old? I think the simplest explanation is that God took a craftsman's interest in making the earth. That is, maybe it looks old because God was more interested in making something that he found pleasing than making something that would be an open book to scientific observation. Some of my non YEC friends hold that my view makes God into a great deceiver. Would you agree with them? (perhaps referring to Romans 1:20) or maybe reject my view on other grounds? <br /><br />To be honest I think it's silly to call God a liar for creating something that looks old to scientific eyes but isn't. So far I haven't come across any convincing arguments to the contrary, but I've been wrong before, and I'm interested to hear your thoughts.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13408767609716293567noreply@blogger.com