People as Primates

[Gustave]

JoeErwin, did you get a chance to watch the video I posted with the discussion between Fr. George Coyne and Richard Dawkins? 

[Asia Joe]

I believe the earth is around 6000 years old. 

I believe the creation of this planet happened in 6 days. 

I believe God created man from the dust of the earth. 

[JoeErwin]

Gustave, thanks for the link to the debate. I will watch it later today. Dawkins is a bit too brittle for my taste, in the sense that he is a HARD atheist, who rejects the concept of deities. He embraces a level of certainty that I feel is excessive. I do not find it very helpful to be as dogmatic as he is. I suppose I do not feel comfortable with anyone from any angle being so sure they are right and everyone else is wrong. 

[JoeErwin]

For those who firmly believe in recent or instantaneous origins, is there a satisfying explanation of the existence of fossil and geological evidence that indicates hominins existed more than a million years ago, apes more than 10 million years ago, primates more than 50 million years ago, mammals more than 100 million years ago, and many other life forms more than 500 million years ago? Was all this designed to deceive us and/or challenge our faith?

[Gregory Matthews]

I am a very large poster, on many subjects, on the forum Quora.  I once got into an extended discussion with another person who challenged my understanding of creation. After some discussion he decided not to continue the discussion as he felt that neither he nor I were going to change our respective viewpoints.  But he then went on to say to me that I was the first creationist he had experienced who understood evolution and did not simply dismiss it.

 My position is:

* Evolution raises some questions for which I do not have the evidence to challenge.

* While I believe that actual teachings of the Bible are true, I acknowledge that my understanding of those teachings may not be accurate.

* My understanding of a creationist origin does raise questions for which I do not have an answer.

* I do not believe that the Bible teaches any type of time for creation.

*   In brief I believe that the Biblical teaching of creation can be summed up by the following:

1) God is the creator of all that has life.

2) All that God created was good.  IOW, much of what we see today is not the original creation of God.

As to the questions that Joe asked in the post immediately above:

* No, there is no designed attempt to deceive.

*  I do not have good responses to the questions that Joe has asked.

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, Joe Knapp said:

I believe the earth is around 6000 years old. 

I believe the creation of this planet happened in 6 days. 

I believe God created man from the dust of the earth. 

I know many folks share your view - it just means you couldn't be a scientist. 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, JoeErwin said:

Gustave, thanks for the link to the debate. I will watch it later today. Dawkins is a bit too brittle for my taste, in the sense that he is a HARD atheist, who rejects the concept of deities. He embraces a level of certainty that I feel is excessive. I do not find it very helpful to be as dogmatic as he is. I suppose I do not feel comfortable with anyone from any angle being so sure they are right and everyone else is wrong. 

It was less of a debate and more of a friendly discussion. 

[JoeErwin]

Gregory, I know you to be an honest person. I believe you also regard me as an honest person. We respect each other and each others opinions and rights to opinions. It seems to me that we are both truth seekers. Our backgrounds are similar in several ways. We both attended SDA schools all through elementary and secondary school and into college at PUC. Our mothers were both teachers. We both learned to read before we entered school. When we were in academy together we were the youngest (or nearly so) of our grade-mates. Some of the time Joe Kennedy, our mutual close friend, was in academy with us and was a few months younger. I think we agree that an external objective reality exists that can be described, measured, labeled, examined, and discussed. Of course, we also are both aware that some phenomena are easier to grasp and examine than others. We are able to see what seem to be relationships and conduct detailed examination in ways that can give us some confidence in about causal connections. All this prepares a context for discussion and increasingly valid understanding. All this is consistent with scientific epistemology. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes. Joe, we have a long background.  I value the fact that you and I have been able to keep in touch over the many long years.

I am delighted that you are now posting on this forum.  That is what we are here for.  We value civil discussions of differing viewpoints.  That is what you bring to this forum. Welcome.

[JoeErwin]

Actually, I do not think belief in YEC disqualifies anyone from being a scientist. One can consider evidence without knowing what it means. In fact, in science, it is almost essential that one be able to consider evidence without knowing what it means. YEC need not result in a closed mind or determination to reject anything that disagrees with what one believes. Following the evidence wherever it leads, of course, usually results in changing what one believes. Truth is not true because it aligns with what we believe.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

One aspect of science is that there is more to understand.  We do not know it all at this time.  So, we simply search for truth, wherever it leads.

[Gustave]

52 minutes ago, JoeErwin said:

Actually, I do not think belief in YEC disqualifies anyone from being a scientist. One can consider evidence without knowing what it means. In fact, in science, it is almost essential that one be able to consider evidence without knowing what it means. YEC need not result in a closed mind or determination to reject anything that disagrees with what one believes. Following the evidence wherever it leads, of course, usually results in changing what one believes. Truth is not true because it aligns with what we believe.

 

When my son was in school, he had a field trip to view an exhibit of dinosaur bones here in Seattle. My son observed a mother tell her two kids that God put those bones there "to test their faith". I have no idea what denomination that family was a part of but I'm just going to guess it was some hardline Evangelical "fundamental" type of Church. It would seem people who believe that way would find it impossible to practice science. But I'm not a scientist in anyway shape or form so I'll defer this question to your area as you are a man of science.  
 

[JoeErwin]

Gustave, that is a very interesting observation. I have heard that sort of thing many times. I first heard it in a Sabbath School class at PUC. Erv Taylor, one of my fellow students, was asking how fossils could be explained if YEC were true. Several people suggested that God allowed Satan to place fossils on earth as a test of faith. This explanation lacked face validity, as far as I was concerned at the time, even though I was a firm YEC believer at the time. The fact was, we were not given much information at that time about fossils, other than notorious cases of fraud. As some here will know, Erv Taylor went on to earn a PhD in archeology with a specialty in dating archeological artifacts, including fossils. And he remained an SDA, even though he changed his mind about the age of the earth and worked to ensure that others were aware of the objective evidence.

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, Joe has mentioned our joint backgrounds.  I believe that my Father was reading before he began his schooling, and his mother was not trained as a teacher..

Joe, my wife came from a very similar background as you did.  Her mother taught in the SDA school system and also raised three children. 

Erv Taylor got his PhD. in Anthropology, see:

https://atoday.org/remembering-erv-taylor/

Your comments about archaeology apply to another well-known Adventist, the name I am attempting to recall. 

 

[JoeErwin]

Gregory, thanks for posting the obit for Erv. We had an interesting cohort of students and faculty at PUC, didn't we?

[JoeErwin]

Shabat Shalom!

[Gregory Matthews]

And to you, Joe.

[Gustave]

The extent of my knowledge about primates sadly comes from watching the Discovery Channel and the one book I read on Orangutans called "Reflections of Eden, my years with the Orangutans of Borneo". By Birute M.F. Galdikas. 

 

[Theophilus]

I have always questioned the millions and billions of years--I just dont know where those figures comes from.  I found this--

1. Biblical Arguments

YEC reasoning starts with the belief that the Bible gives a reliable historical record from creation onward.

• Plain reading of Genesis

  • Genesis 1 presents six literal 24-hour days (yom with “evening and morning” formula).

  • Exodus 20:11 links the creation week to the Sabbath command, implying no symbolic “ages.”

• Chronological genealogy

  • Genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 give a relatively complete timeline from Adam to Abraham. Adding biblical dates from Abraham to Christ to modern times yields about 6,000 years.

• No death before the Fall

  • YECs argue that “millions of years” puts death, disease, and predation before sin, conflicting with Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22.

---

2. Theological Concerns

• Undermining the Gospel Foundation
  If death existed before sin, then Christ’s atonement would not be a direct reversal of the curse introduced in Genesis 3.

• Authority of Scripture
  YECs see acceptance of millions of years as reinterpreting Scripture to fit secular science, undermining biblical authority.

---

3. Scientific Objections to Millions of Years

While YECs don’t deny scientific observations, they reject uniformitarian assumptions — the idea that present processes explain all past events at the same rate.

Geology

• Catastrophism: The global Flood of Noah’s day could explain large-scale sedimentary layers, rapid fossilization, and continent-scale strata without millions of years.

• Polystrate fossils: Tree trunks found vertically through multiple rock layers suggest rapid deposition, not slow burial.

• Soft tissue in fossils: Findings of soft tissue and proteins in supposedly millions-of-years-old dinosaur bones challenge long-age assumptions.

Radiometric Dating

• Assumption challenge: YECs argue dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions about initial conditions, constancy of decay rates, and closed systems.

• Discordant results: Different methods sometimes give vastly different ages for the same rock.

Astronomy

• Light travel time: Alternative models (e.g., gravitational time dilation or God creating light in transit) are proposed to explain distant starlight without billions of years.

• Young phenomena: Observations like spiral galaxy “winding” or short-lived comets suggest a young age.

---

4. Common YEC Summary

“The Bible gives us a straightforward history of the universe. Millions of years come from naturalistic interpretations of the evidence, not from Scripture. When we reinterpret the Bible to fit those ideas, we undermine its authority and the gospel message.”

[Gregory Matthews]

The genealogies of Genesis are probably one of worst attempts to determine a time scale. 

*  The Father-Son phrase in the Hebrew culture does not mean what it is thought by us to mean today. In the Hebrew culture it simply means a relationship.  That could be grandfather-grandson.  It could be some other relationship.  

*  There are some differences in the ancient manuscripts as to the genealogical listings.  The common listings in the English Bibles that we generally read today are generally based upon the same set of listings.   However, other listings do exist.

* The bottom line is that the ancient Hebrews would never have used such to determine time.  They considered them to be of value in determining relationships.  IOW, X was related to Y, an important figure.  

[Live4Him]

Rom 1:20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 

 

I wasted a lot of time in chatrooms in the 90's debating atheists. In my experience the "science" ends up just being someones theory. If it wasn't, then the puzzle would be solved and there wouldn't be a never ending circle of new theories. That is why it is call the evolutionary theory. A theory isn't a fact. To say that it is, is actually pseudo science. That is why sister White talks about science so called. I never met an atheist in those chatrooms who had any love for statistics and probabilities. Evolutionists generally get furious and deny this but those are the facts. If any the "evidence" was able to be proven, there would be no argument. If we refuse to see God's power in His creation, we are without excuse. If you follow the Bible it states seven days. It is sort of a mute point to argue a topic about when God created the earth when you aren't even coming off of the same springboard. I believe the Bible just as it is written, yes that takes faith. It also takes faith to believe any of the myriads of evolutionary theories. An atheist will always deny any of your beliefs because they do not believe the Bible is inspired, which is understandable. Now there are atheists trying to mix scripture with atheism. The adage that God didn't really say that or God didn't really mean that is a lie that has been going on since satan used it on Eve. I am glad I have a solid foundation to stand on especially in this crazy world. When God says it took seven days, I choose God over a theory. I no longer waste my time in atheist chatrooms. It is a waste of time. Jesus is coming back soon. I realized that Titus 3:9 is right. We should be out looking for the ripe berries. 

[JoeErwin]

Gustave, one could do worse than the Discovery channel and my friend Birute Galdikas. But, there is much to learn....

[JoeErwin]

Live4Him, you have trotted out most of the usual arguments for those who do not really understand what science is or how science works. Much of this is a defense for believing as you do. I am aware that many people have a need for an authoritative anchor that provides a sort of comforting certainty. I am also aware that some people substitute some sort of "scientism" for traditional religions. It is common for people to substitute atheism for theism and to cling to and defend their beliefs in the same way as religionists do, just using Darwin or Dawkins or someone else as their authoritative source. I sometimes refer to such people as "brittle atheists." I do not consider myself an atheist largely because I prefer to keep my mind open to the entire spectrum of possibilities.

I see science as a set of methods intended and designed to explore, discover, and evaluate evidence--a set of methods to identify what is true and what is not. I seek truth. By obtaining and examining evidence and by evaluating relationships among bits of information, understanding can be amplified. The proper use of science does require some openness to following where the evidence leads. To me, science is a process aimed at gaining reliable knowledge and understanding.

Using science is a very different way of approaching epistemology than reliance on knowledge by revelation or reference to authority. I appreciate that there is stylistic diversity across and within fields and applications of science. My experiences in editing multidisciplinary scientific journals has helped me understand that. Even so, there are some steps in the scientific process that are usually evident in published scientific reports. It might be helpful if I discuss that a bit, but maybe only if the moderator thinks that would be helpful. I do think nearly anyone can benefit from understanding more about how the scientific process works. 

 

[Asia Joe]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

I know many folks share your view - it just means you couldn't be a scientist. 

I know Science and Physics.  I have a high IQ. 

But Theophilus ,  said it very well

Most of the scientists look at science through am evolution lens. One of my favorite podcaster is Bret Weinstein, an evolutional biologist. Smart guy, but we see some things differently. 

Both sides can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. Like the Grand Canyon. One side sees the cut in the soil and the deep gorge and says that's proof of a long period of erosion. The other side says, no, those are sediment layers put down by a large flood.

I do like to see what other people have to say on the topic. 

 

[Live4Him]

2 hours ago, JoeErwin said:

Live4Him, you have trotted out most of the usual arguments for those who do not really understand what science is or how science works. Much of this is a defense for believing as you do. I am aware that many people have a need for an authoritative anchor that provides a sort of comforting certainty. I am also aware that some people substitute some sort of "scientism" for traditional religions. It is common for people to substitute atheism for theism and to cling to and defend their beliefs in the same way as religionists do, just using Darwin or Dawkins or someone else as their authoritative source. I sometimes refer to such people as "brittle atheists." I do not consider myself an atheist largely because I prefer to keep my mind open to the entire spectrum of possibilities.

I see science as a set of methods intended and designed to explore, discover, and evaluate evidence--a set of methods to identify what is true and what is not. I seek truth. By obtaining and examining evidence and by evaluating relationships among bits of information, understanding can be amplified. The proper use of science does require some openness to following where the evidence leads. To me, science is a process aimed at gaining reliable knowledge and understanding.

Using science is a very different way of approaching epistemology than reliance on knowledge by revelation or reference to authority. I appreciate that there is stylistic diversity across and within fields and applications of science. My experiences in editing multidisciplinary scientific journals has helped me understand that. Even so, there are some steps in the scientific process that are usually evident in published scientific reports. It might be helpful if I discuss that a bit, but maybe only if the moderator thinks that would be helpful. I do think nearly anyone can benefit from understanding more about how the scientific process works. 

 

The reason why it is a usual argument is atheists have no true or logical answer to it. I have never gotten any other answer from an atheist than the one you just gave, "You're wrong and just to simpleminded to understand science" Several prominent atheists have admitted it takes just as much faith to believe in atheism as it does to believe in  God. Admitting that it is in fact a theory, not truly science. Those are just the facts, none of which has ever been dis proven to me with anything but I was just to simple to understand. You do know that not only atheists attend college and take the sciences taught by atheist don't you?