Confessions of a Young Earth Creationist

[vossler]

Thanks for the timely response.

I included the chimp/human cross story as possible (and I stress I doubt it too) evidence (too strong a word perhaps) that humans can interbreed with other primates.

1) Because the 'Word of God' was written by men and what made it into the Canon was decided by council of men centuries later. Remember, many concepts we take for granted would have been unrecognised by 2nd century Christians. (Virgin birth, Trinity etc). Also the myriad translations and a gap of several hundred years with no Bible certainly lends doubt to it's complete authenticity. The innumerable factual discrepancies between the Gospels as well as old Testament genealogies again speaks against literal interpretation.

Don't you think if God is who He says He is this wouldn't have been a problem for Him?

2) No

So then what exactly is the bible to you? What is your faith based upon?

3) Because their mission statement is a lie. I honestly believe many of them, especially their founder Ken Ham and his top 'generals' are money grubbers, period.

Is this based on anything other than conjecture?

4) I have seen many of these debates (go to Kent Hovinds website) and these debates are shams. I have never seen a Creationist win one IMO. They fool the clueless audience (an audience by the way that the local churches are seen to bus people in to fill the crowd) who know little science.

The standard Creationist tactic in these debates is to throw the 'you know what around' as much as possible hoping some will stick.

Why do these Creationists never agree to the offers of written debate?

They deliberately raise 100 issues knowing that to refute each one would take hours no matter how stupid the assertions - and so the audience is left with the impression that science has no answers for the assertions. That isn't debate it is a circus especially when the local Baptist church bused in 70% of the audience.

And check this out, it is a known fact that before Kent Hovind does his 'debates' he canvasses the local churches for them to provide supporters for the audience lest the 'secularists' outnumber the zealots.

I haven't seen but one debate "The Great Debate" and it was anything but a circus. It met all standard debate formats with a moderator, rebuttals, time limits etc. There was no cheering or any other type of participation from the audience.

If you are willing to watch it I will send you a copy to keep. The only stipulation I have is that I want you to tell me what you thought about it. How can you go wrong with an offer like that? Send me you address and I'll put it in the mail.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I find that funny too how the creationist wins in the debate against an evolutionist. If there is so much 'evidence' for evolution and against creation, how come the evolutionist doesnt EASILY win? As there isnt sufficient evidence, from what I have seen so far, I cant see how I would look to a theory that man made up over what is written in God's word.

Anyone can throw out 100 silly assertions that no one can refute in a two hour debate.

Thats not winning it's a farce. I have never heard of anyone with a decent science understanding falling for this nonsense. It's only the folks (like unfortunatlely 70%+ of the public) who don't know scientific methodology or terminology who fall for that technique.

So if these guys have the truth on their side why are they not running the universities, government research agencies?

Why do oil companies look for oil using regular geologists and not lunatic ones?

Why does say George Bush, a born again Christian, not fire the national science advisor and the NSF and replace it with Creationists?

I'll tell you why - because you go with the people who can not those who cannot even do the basics.

 

[Ron21647]

I find that funny too how the creationist wins in the debate against an evolutionist. If there is so much 'evidence' for evolution and against creation, how come the evolutionist doesnt EASILY win? As there isnt sufficient evidence, from what I have seen so far, I cant see how I would look to a theory that man made up over what is written in God's word.

I have the set of video tapes from one of these turkeys. I couldn't write fast enough to take notes on all the errors he was making. He would put up a picture of a lamprey, and say something like, "Here is what the evolutionists say your daddy looked like. Isn't that ridiculous. Ha Ha Ha." Then he would put a picture of a bearded dragon (lizard from Australia), and say, "Evolutionists say the dinosaurs died millions of years ago. Well, here is one right here, they just got smaller. Ha Ha Ha". And so on, there are 4 two hour tapes. I went to one of his talks at a local church when he came to town, he was the same in person as he was on the tape. He wasn't debating anyone, which was just as well, no one could have gotten a word in edgewise.

The list these people use (ICR, AIG, and so on), is known as the PRATT list around here. it stands for "probably refuted a thousand times".

Ron


Ron

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Anyone who bases their faith on the Bible is not a Christian IMO but an idolator.

And no - I don't buy into the divine guidance of the councils or the 'editors' of the KJV. Thats just modern fundamentalist revisionism to explain the Canon. Any Catholics here? Are there extra books valid or invalid?

My judgement about Ham and cohorts is based upon personal observation of Ham, Safarti and ICR's Gish and Kent Hovind. I believe, no I know, they are liars, period. I have seen Ham and Safarti lie in video and Hovind and Gish have done it to me personally.

So if they are lying then you can bet money is involved - and it sure is. Check out Ken Hovinds latest bout of tax evasion.

 

[Andy D]

1) Because the 'Word of God' was written by men and what made it into the Canon was decided by council of men centuries later. Remember, many concepts we take for granted would have been unrecognised by 2nd century Christians. (Virgin birth, Trinity etc). Also the myriad translations and a gap of several hundred years with no Bible certainly lends doubt to it's complete authenticity. The innumerable factual discrepancies between the Gospels as well as old Testament genealogies again speaks against literal interpretation.

As a Christian, I believe that God preserved His word and it was inspired fully by Him and He wouldnt allow men to write something that was NOT His word or truth as it says in John that His word is truth. There may be many versions of the manuscripts around but the books that ended up in the Bible were what God desired to be in there as He CAN preserve His word. (The debate on manuscripts is better left to another thread however). God always keeps a remnant of those who remain faithful to HIM and HIS word. From my studies, I have not had a problem with discrepancies in the Bible...other than translation errors, etc.

2) No

Well there you go, if you dont believe the Bible to be the Word of God, then you will hold the authority of man over that of the Bible. It wont make sense to you because you do not study it as it being God's Word. How do you expect the Holy Spirit to lead you in studying it then?

3) Because their mission statement is a lie. I honestly believe many of them, especially their founder Ken Ham and his top 'generals' are money grubbers, period.

I better not comment on this or it might be taken as a personal attack and I prefer to keep this civil. I believe they are spreading truth and as far as them not being known by many scientists, generally people do try to shut up truth. It may be put simply (cartoon style) because they recognise that the readers are NOT scientists and seek to present the truth so Christians can understand it, and they also link the truth directly with the Bible wherever possible (which I have not seen with evolutionist arguments). It seems that by making the so called evidence so complicated, evolutionists are able to present it as proving evolution to be FACT or TRUTH.

4) I have seen many of these debates (go to Kent Hovinds website) and these debates are shams. I have never seen a Creationist win one IMO. They fool the clueless audience (an audience by the way that the local churches are seen to bus people in to fill the crowd) who know little science.

The standard Creationist tactic in these debates is to throw the 'you know what around' as much as possible hoping some will stick.

Why do these Creationists never agree to the offers of written debate?

They deliberately raise 100 issues knowing that to refute each one would take hours no matter how stupid the assertions - and so the audience is left with the impression that science has no answers for the assertions. That isn't debate it is a circus especially when the local Baptist church bused in 70% of the audience.

And check this out, it is a known fact that before Kent Hovind does his 'debates' he canvasses the local churches for them to provide supporters for the audience lest the 'secularists' outnumber the zealots.

If the evolution evidence is so convincing then why wouldnt even Christians who attend, be convinced? The 100 issues raised that cant be answered, cant the evolutionists go away and gain evidence to refute them? Obvioulsy it goes down to what you believe, evolution or creation? As creation is mentioned in the Bible clearly, I prefer to believe it and let the evolutionists prove me wrong. Why cant the evolutionist come up with 100 issues that the creationist cannot refute thenm?

 

[Andy D]

But the Universe is not simple and no number of homespun folklore and Farmer's Almanac witicisms is going to change that.

When I hear Creationist scientiific arguments I hear the simplistic ramblings of people who barely comprehend high school science. They formulate arguments not on the science but on the reaction they hope to elicit from their few fervent followers who shall cough up some more funds for their 'research' and pockets.

If you think the Bible is just a bunch of folklore and farmer's almanac witicisms then that is fine. Each individual must answer to God in the end. To believe that the Bible is just folklore in some parts, would take away meaning from other parts. I am sorry but this luke warm Christian attitude that tries to take away meaning from God, His word, His birth, death and ressurection, His commands, and His love for us will come to an end one day. Proverbs tells us to FEAR GOD and rightly so. When I look at just His creation alone, it tells me He is to be feared. Maybe by believing in evolution, the devil is able to make people believe that we were not created by God, each one of us, as it written in Psalms 139.

All things are to give glory to God and I know my belief in creation gives Him the glory, not man.

 

[Andy D]

When I hear Creationist scientiific arguments I hear the simplistic ramblings of people who barely comprehend high school science. They formulate arguments not on the science but on the reaction they hope to elicit from their few fervent followers who shall cough up some more funds for their 'research' and pockets.

I would like to advise you that I have actually nearly completed a university degree and many other qualifications and have obtained many High Distinctions. I also know my level of understanding is in the top 10% based on my IQ level. I dont mean to brag, but I know there are MANY people who believe in creation and are very intelligent. Thankfully, you dont have to be very smart to understand it how God gives it to us. Most people understand 6 days and that it was good.

My arguments are based upon logic as much as yours are. They are valid questions, such as are listed in that first link I pasted from AIG. I figure that if I am arguing with Christians, they SHOULD be able to answer the questions that refer to the Bible.

I dont actually support creation science financially, I am lead to support other Christian organisations. Of course I would support them in their spreading of the truth of God's word if God lead me to.

 

[Andy D]

Anyone can throw out 100 silly assertions that no one can refute in a two hour debate.

Thats not winning it's a farce. I have never heard of anyone with a decent science understanding falling for this nonsense. It's only the folks (like unfortunatlely 70%+ of the public) who don't know scientific methodology or terminology who fall for that technique.

So if these guys have the truth on their side why are they not running the universities, government research agencies?

Why do oil companies look for oil using regular geologists and not lunatic ones?

Why does say George Bush, a born again Christian, not fire the national science advisor and the NSF and replace it with Creationists?

I'll tell you why - because you go with the people who can not those who cannot even do the basics.

Does Satan want creationists in power? No. Many Christian scientists work with Christian organisations and universities because what non-Christian organisation wants to employ someone who believes in creation? Creation means there MUST be a God and most people do not want that to be true...at least not the Christian God of Justice and Order and Love. Other geologists who are used for research and oil companies, etc have studied geology, so obviously they CAN do their job still, but when it comes to research on events that happened a long time ago, it is hard to prove when something happened and how when you dont necessarily have all the facts.

As far as George Bush being a born again Christian, that is debateable as we shall know them by their fruit, not by them saying they are Christian just to get votes. I have noted a few things George Bush has done and been involved in that lead me to think otherwise. However, I will leave that to God to judge.

 

[Andy D]

Anyone who bases their faith on the Bible is not a Christian IMO but an idolator.

And no - I don't buy into the divine guidance of the councils or the 'editors' of the KJV. Thats just modern fundamentalist revisionism to explain the Canon. Any Catholics here? Are there extra books valid or invalid?

My judgement about Ham and cohorts is based upon personal observation of Ham, Safarti and ICR's Gish and Kent Hovind. I believe, no I know, they are liars, period. I have seen Ham and Safarti lie in video and Hovind and Gish have done it to me personally.

So if they are lying then you can bet money is involved - and it sure is. Check out Ken Hovinds latest bout of tax evasion.

I would love to know the lies they told....please give me solid evidence or how can you expect me to believe you? A scientist would require solid evidence would they not? Also I need solid evidence on the tax evasion and the motivation for it....oh...cant prove a motivation? It is speculative and assumptions. No man is perfect, no, not Billy Graham, nor any great man of God before us. Only Jesus was perfect because He was God. God come to earth as man, God/man.

Other than that, I would believe Ken and others will suffer from the same temptations and trials all of us do and knowing my own life, I fail most of the time. Of course, I wont judge their hearts because Satan can even disguise himself as a sheep or angel of light and even appear to bear good fruit, but evetually they will be exposed.

 

[Andy D]

By the way, I am not suprised that a 'Christian' who doesnt believe the Bible to be God's word, believes in evolution instead. They follow the path of man.

 

[vossler]

Anyone who bases their faith on the Bible is not a Christian IMO but an idolator.

So I say again what is your faith based upon? Is Jesus the Son of God and did He die for our sins?

My judgement about Ham and cohorts is based upon personal observation of Ham, Safarti and ICR's Gish and Kent Hovind. I believe, no I know, they are liars, period. I have seen Ham and Safarti lie in video and Hovind and Gish have done it to me personally.

So if they are lying then you can bet money is involved - and it sure is. Check out Ken Hovinds latest bout of tax evasion.

Ken Hovind is not a part of AIG and as for the rest of the people you cited I have nothing but praise for them (except for Gish don't know him).

You still haven't answered my offer to send you "The Great Debate"

How about it???

 

[Dark_Adonis]

Does Satan want creationists in power? No.

I don't know creationists make the faith look pretty silly and some creationists are often accused of dishonest behavior. I would seem to me that a creature whose purpose is to make people disbelieve would tie something that goes against observation with a that thing they are trying to make these people believe in...

Many Christian scientists work with Christian organisations and universities because what non-Christian organisation wants to employ someone who believes in creation?

Not exactly. There isn't some conspiracy at universities to make people disbelieve in christianity, they don't give a hoot. And even if creationism were something that was true the non-christian university could simply say that we have deism rather than a theism...

Creation means there MUST be a God and most people do not want that to be true...at least not the Christian God of Justice and Order and Love.

From my experiences I have noticed that most people don't care about whether God exists or not.They don't want God to not exist, they simply don't think that he does.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I know Hovind is not part of AIG - in fact they basically call him a liar.

Ham and Safarti I have no respect for - especially Safarti who is a smug misrepresenter of facts.

How can you not have heard of Gish - he is the founder of ICR which I am sure is the largest Creation society in the world. I'll even accept he has a great education though he hasn't published a biochemistry paper in prob. 40 years.

His propensity for lying though is well documented. Any man who is caught in a lie and promises he wont make the mistake again but then at his next speaking engagement repeats the lie is dishonest in my book.

I'll check the debate out though I may have already seen it.

 

[Andy D]

I don't know creationists make the faith look pretty silly and some creationists are often accused of dishonest behavior. I would seem to me that a creature whose purpose is to make people disbelieve would tie something that goes against observation with a that thing they are trying to make these people believe in...

Not exactly. There isn't some conspiracy at universities to make people disbelieve in christianity, they don't give a hoot. And even if creationism were something that was true the non-christian university could simply say that we have deism rather than a theism...
From my experiences I have noticed that most people don't care about whether God exists or not.They don't want God to not exist, they simply don't think that he does.

Umm.....but if majority of the world are following a certain belief...one that is contrary to God's Word, wouldnt it make sense that the Christian belief would appear silly to non-Christians?

No conspiracy to make people disbelieve in Christianity???? Who ever is not for God is against God! I believe very strongly that these scientists are being used by Satan to spread lies, after all, Satan is the father of lies.

From my experiences, the testimony of those who are Christians speak, they never cared if God existed because it scared them that if the Christian message was correct, they would be going to hell. Of course, I cant speak for all people but I believe everyone deep down, knows there is a God, but most will never accept it or follow Him.

Many of Jesus's teachings were not popular with the people of the day but the truth hurt. Many tried to shut Him up because He exposed their sin.

I pray that God opens your eyes.

 

[Andy D]

Ham and Safarti I have no respect for - especially Safarti who is a smug misrepresenter of facts.

I believe you are probably meaning that he interprets the facts from a different perspective to you so therefore he is wrong. If this isnt what you mean, please give me an example of him misrepresenting the facts.

 

[Dark_Adonis]

.

 

[vossler]

I'll check the debate out though I may have already seen it.

Good I hope you do! Do you have access to it? If not just say so and I'll send it to you.

What about my question that you keep evading?

You said:

Anyone who bases their faith on the Bible is not a Christian IMO but an idolator.


So I say again what is your faith based upon? Is Jesus the Son of God and did He die for our sins?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The Word of God is the Logos, Christ our Savior, not the Bible. The Bible is not dictated word for word like Muslims believe the Koran to be. It is a record of people's experiences with God.

 

[vossler]

The Word of God is the Logos, Christ our Savior, not the Bible. The Bible is not dictated word for word like Muslims believe the Koran to be. It is a record of people's experiences with God.

Well since you wish to jump in and add your views why don't you answer the question.

What is your faith based upon? Is Jesus the Son of God and did He die for our sins?

You said "Christ our Savior" What exactly does that mean to you?

 

[Orthodox Andrew]

Well since you wish to jump in and add your views why don't you answer the question.

What is your faith based upon? Is Jesus the Son of God and did He die for our sins?

You said "Christ our Savior" What exactly does that mean to you?

Allow me to speak for him. I believe he bases his faith on Christ.