Genesis Debate, part 1

Here is an old online debate I had with a dear friend on our reading of Genesis 1-11.  Enjoy!

HIS THESIS:  Science proves that the earth is billions of years old and this is compatible with the teachings of early Genesis. 

MY THESIS: The earth is only thousands of years old and any honest reading of Genesis demands this view.

ME: A - your position can be summed up in w/ the words: square peg; round hole; hammer not included.

Here’s a big clue: something interesting to note - Unbelieving scholarship uniformely confirms … without blinking … the simple reading - without the pressure of having to actually make the account seem believable, … like the insecure, affection-starved girl mistaking lust for love, we confuse honest exegesis for sophisticated interpretations.

Can you give me the one or two strongest reasons WITHIN THE TEXT ITSELF for a “loose interpretation”?

HIM: B! Good to hear from you! I remember talking about this before with you : D It seems you haven't changed your mind on the age of the earth, but you have changed your mind on baptism! Your wisdom is now suspect... HAHAHA (kidding) : D"

No doubt similar arguments were made during Galileo's time...
..."If we can't trust the Bible on issues of science, how can we trust it when it comes to salvation?" Again...who was wrong about that?? Oh, yeah...US, the BIBLE BELIEVING Christians! Now we just understand the verses they argued about to be speaking phenomologically, and we move on. But that intepretation was not so popular or credible 400-some years ago. It took time to be accepted.  

So despite a fossil record that goes back millions of years, you're telling me that there was no death in the natural world until after the fall in Eden?

ME - what a can of worms! A- 1: pre-fall fossils, nope. Geocentricity - 2: can you guys list for me the chapters of the Bible that teach the earth as the center of the universe? For the record - Galileo is - in fact - a great example of what happens when theologians of one generation interpret the Bible by the science of their day, then have to recant when the science changes. kinda like ... ;?) Big question: Hath God said? Yes or no.

HIM: B - so are you telling me those trilobite fossils dating reliably to hundreds of millions of years ago...are in fact really only about 6-10K years ago? Is it really likely that all the geologists are wrong, geologists who use these dating methods (U238 and U235, for ex.) regularly, geologists who are held accountable in the field, whose conclusions have been TESTED and PROVEN to be true in the field and in the real world (most prominently the oil exploration industry, which relies on the science of modern geology to find oil sources)?? Why do you think oil companies hire paleontologists, geologists and geophysicists, but NOT flood geologists or OT scholars?? Is it maybe because the oil companies, who have no dog in the "age of the earth" fight, are abundantly aware that the science of modern geology, etc., is RELIABLE and has amazing PREDICTIVE POWER, while flood geology isn't and doesn't?

As for heliocentrism...Eccl. 1:5; Psalm 19:6; Psalm 93:1, 104:5; Joshua 10:13. And you're missing my main point - which is that we need to learn to be humble given our track record in these conflicts. Theologians then were convinced that the earth did not move, and so it couldn't be possible that the earth was actually spinning around the sun (as well as on its own axis), and they based this belief on how they interpreted Scripture. When scientists gathered compelling evidence that in fact those theologians were WRONG, I've no doubt that the theologians made similar ultimatums: "Are you going to believe these scientists with their 'evidence' or are you going to believe the WORD OF GOD??" The fact was that both the science was accurate and the Bible was accurate, but the INTERPRETATION of the Bible was DEAD WRONG at this point. I'm suggesting that history is repeating itself.