Earl, your post was flagged as inappropriate as it is reminiscent of a disreputable technique called the Gish Gallop. That is when someone overloads the argument with so much fluff that no one cares to respond to it. If you are interested in conversation, make one or two points rather than a dozen links to old arguments. I will let the post stand intact as a monument to how not to encourage dialogue, but future posts of this nature will be deleted.
OK. I’ll remember.
The link above references the work of Halton Arp, who appears to be an atheist astronomer who was a bit of a maverick in that he was a prominent standard bearer for the steady theory of cosmology which implied that the universe is infinitely old. I would like to hear your own personal take on how you think this supports your position on a young universe.
Stop right there Earl. This is where Literal Six Day Young Earth Creationism turns toxic. The accusation that anyone who isn’t prepared to be spoon fed Ken Ham’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is “speaking with the voice of the serpent”. It is passive-aggressive, hostile, and Pharisaical.
You can’t just quote mine Genesis 3:1 like that and take the serpent’s words to Eve out of context to shut down discussion. The Bible tells us that we are to test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for examining the Scriptures carefully to check whether Paul said was true.
Of course we need to check and make sure that we heard and understood God correctly. To fail to do so is to give a free pass to all sorts of liars and deceivers. There’s no end to the number of cults and heresies that you could introduce by attempting to shut down discussion that way.
And yes, the first chapters of Genesis really are from God. But the LSDYEC cartoon caricature of them with a thick layer of science fiction slathered on top is not.
First, humans are inventive, so they well could be made-up. Second, just because people only started systematically studying and cataloging fossils a couple hundred years ago does not mean no fossils were ever found before then. Ancient peoples could and did find dinosaur fossils and wonder what they had looked like in life.
What’s the problem with Noah’s having dinosaurs on the ark? I mean, if you lean hard enough into with God, all things are possible, no one’s going to be able to dissuade you, but you have to stick a whole lot of words that aren’t from God into the story to even kind-of justify it, and it winds up flying in the face of just about everything we know about animals. And boats. And storms. And the earth. And people. And history.
But hey, keep believing what you want, I guess.
I wrote an article just for people like you.
Are you familiar at all with Adrienne Mayor? She basically started the whole branch of investigation called geomythology.
I sometimes include opposing links and place them at the end of a list for comparison and indicate what they are as in the case with the dinosaur artifact list in my last post. It was my mistake that I didn’t do the same with this link. There are of course many more opposing links. As for the battle between sides, it’s written, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, … (Ephesians 6:12)”
One thing I can at least say about Ken Ham is that he himself said that he does not judge people that don’t believe the six-day creation scenario as lost. Faith in Jesus is what saves. The same is true with Dr. Snelling. I appreciate my hominem buddies.
Should there have been another book written in the Bible called “Fossils” to serve as documented support for evolutionists’ claims? Oops! That would have contradicted too many Bible passages especially of the fall! Jesus turned water into wine instantly! No millions of years, fermentation time, nor aging was needed.
Adherence to the simplicity of God’s word eliminates the need for multitudes of words.
The “mythical” images shown in the links too well resemble the real things to be seen as folklore. Don’t people generally tend to draw or model what they actually saw? Although true that Folklore makes its additions, that does not negate the actual observed facts.
I was not familiar with Adrianne Mayor until I read your link to her.
But as for me, I prefer to rely on the concrete drawings and artifacts shown in my links as evidence for help in determining dinosaur history. The depictions are obvious with no need for interpretation or deciphering.
So…you think it’s appropriate handling of the word of truth to apply this verse to online debates and links to opposing arguments? I’m so confused.
They actually saw fossils. The fossils were observed facts.
Right. But the actual fossils that can be dated using multiple lines of evidence to 65 million years ago need lots of interpretation and deciphering to explain away what is obvious about them. Better to assume imaginative things about drawings. I see how that works.
I’m speaking of the simple fact that there’s a battle. Why is there division over revealed Biblical truth instead of unity that truth characteristically brings?
It’s something to mourn, isn’t it? Paul asked that question in I Cor 11:19; and I don’t think he was in favor of the divisions (as in, "I please with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche…"Phil 4:2) Nevertheless, there have been many schisms in the Church, with thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of denominations since the Reformation. If you are saying that we all wrestle against evil when we struggle about division, that’s very reasonable and true. I agree! It’s just easy to confuse that with saying that the Christian you disagree with is one of the “Dark Forces.”
I appreciate your saying that Ken Ham agrees that it’s not an issue of salvation!
On the other hand, maybe God didn’t make it so clear as we think it is–maybe be cause He doesn’t, as Mr Ham says, make it a salvation issue. Maybe it doesn’t matter too much in the end. Maybe He asks us to focus on His Son more–both to grow in knowledge and love of each other in imitation of him. Thanks for the thoughts and the discussion, Brother!
Well to start, because AiG and other YEC organizations aggressively promote wild assertions which are neither Biblical, or scientifically defensible.
Speeded up light is not in the Bible. Accelerated radioactive decay is not in the Bible. Dinosaurs on the ark is not in the Bible. Juvenile forms on the ark is not in the Bible. Lions, leopards, and house cats all being the same kind is not in the Bible. The moon and mercury being pelted with meteorites during the flood is not in the Bible. Rapid magnetic reversals is not in the Bible. A shrinking sun is not in the Bible. On and on. None of these assertions are from exegesis of revealed scripture or hermeneutics, nor are they to be found in church history or any creed. If [your interpretation of] the Bible says it and that settles it, then fine; blessing be upon you. But let’s not make up extra-Biblical stuff that is not there. If assertions are made in the domain of science, have your data and math in order, and be prepared to be challenged.
How many images from ancient folklore did the proponents of these websites sift through to find giant lizards that reasonably resembled dinosaurs? And what about these pictures are accurate beyond what we could expect from ancient people (who cut up all their own meat and therefore were reasonably grounded in animal anatomy) finding fossils and extrapolating?
He speaks out of both sides of his mouth on that one, Earl. He tries to get as close to saying “non-YECs are not Christians” as he possibly can without actually saying it. And he certainly uses some pretty vitriolic language to describe us old-earthers. Terms such as “compromisers” or “speaking with the voice of the serpent.” As I said, it’s passive-aggressive and hostile, and if I see any of it coming from you I shall start flagging your posts, so be warned.
The basic message of salvation may be simple enough that a child can understand it, Earl, but the whole Bible isn’t. The Bible itself admits that it contains some things that are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16) and it also tells us that we need to move on from a simple child-like faith into one that is mature and responsible (e.g. in Hebrews 6:1-3).
There’s a joke that physicists tell of the bloke who tried to bet on the Grand National by writing a computer program to simulate horse racing, but ended up over-simplifying it to the point that his horses were spherical and racing in a vacuum. Ascribing to the Bible a “simplicity” that it does not possess is a bit like that. It reduces it to absurdities. Regardless of how you interpret the Bible, it isn’t spherical, and it wasn’t intended to be read in a vacuum.
Very often it is the naive assumption that what one already believes is correct. So when people who look to the same book as you for the truth disagree humility is called for. Being able to re-examine ones own assumptions is tough when faith is understood to call for the steadfast defense of ones own interpretation.
Another reason for discord is that people start with different assumptions. Assuming the Bible was written in order to maximize coherence for English speakers in the 21st century has got to be a lot more convenient, but it is hard to imagine why our current time rates that kind of priority. More likely is the assumption that the Bible contains a message intended for people living a long time ago. You always have to keep in mind audience and intent when deciphering the written word.
One could follow up that by saying that if well meaning people disagree on a particular “truth” then perhaps the truth is not that evident. After all, look how difficult it was to agree on what was said in the relatively short and simple Nicene creed.
The creation issue is a salvation issue in the sense that it covers the beginning and gives us vital knowledge of the fall without which it would be difficult for us to grasp knowledge of our need for salvation.
Ken Ham’s primary effort is to keep us aware of who is in authority by holding on to the view that points to God as sole authority versus the other view that gives an impression that God needs needs a little “help” from human “experts” for us to know how we came about while not judging those of the other view.
I will be back with more shortly.
Perhaps I was taught a bit differently, but while the fall was mentioned off and on in church, my need for salvation was always explained as having been made necessary by my personal sin, and not based on what someone else (Adam) did. Adam may have been the first, the archetype, but I alone bear responsibility for my sin.
Explain, if you will, how your knowledge of your need for salvation is based on a literal rather than an illustration of sin by Adam.
I agree with Phil, above. Further, all sin is against God. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin. Apart from God’s word, it is abundantly clear that one has sinned even if one has never read about the source of original sin. The point of Adam’s story is that a man, walking in communion with God, on a daily basis in paradise, with only one rule to follow will sin. If he will sin, so will EVERYONE else.
As Phil also says, I’m responsible for my sin and obtaining forgiveness. Not Adam.
Ever noticed that the story of Adam and Eve is a case study in passing the buck?
- Young earth creationists: “It was original sin.” Blame Adam and Eve.
- Adam: “It was that wife that you gave me.” Blame the wife, and blame God.
- Eve: “It was the serpent.” Blame the demon. “I need deliverance ministry.”
- And of course, the serpent didn’t have a leg to stand on …