Creationists Only

[mark kennedy]

I am interested in exchanging ideas and information with creationists who are interested in teaching and learning creationism with other creationists. What I am most interested in is source material and how you evaluate the findings of natural science in light of Scripture. I am not going to judge you if you are not particularly well read on the subject, I really just want you to share you own thoughts on the subject.

Please don't tell me what you don't like about evolution or evolutionists, I have a list of things I don't like to. Just explain in as many or as few words as you like why you are a creationist what sort of resourses you are aware of that other creationists might be interested in looking at.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Underdog77]

(we'll see how long we can keep this a creationist only thread!)

One of the main reasons I believe in creationism is because the Bible says so. I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Thus, because it cleary depicts a 6 literal day creation period, I believe it.

But I also believe that science does largely support it. Much of the info used in evolution is twisted to support evolution, but when the data is looked at with a clear mind it supports creationism.

I try not to use any one resource as a source for scientific evidence. ICR and Answers in Genesis are a couple of good ones I believe. Kent Hovind (although there is much controversy about him, he does have some good stuff), Ken Ham, and Henry Morris are some big ones that I read into. Also, Lee Strobel and John Sarfati (spelling?) have good stuff.

In short, I take the word of the Creator over the fallible practices of men. But even these fallible practices mostly support the Bible.

 

[mark kennedy]

I read Lee Strobel's book and it was one of the best apologetical works I have ever seen. I sometimes like to browse the True Origin Archive pages but like you my real standard is the Scriptures themselves. I much prefer a living wittness as proof over a bunch of old bones and dirt. The Bible expresses things in tangible, real world terms, and tells us the real truth about what is the most vital need in our existance. The love of God shed abroad in our hearts.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Underdog77]

Which book(s) have you read? I've only read the Case for Christ, the Case for Faith, and parts of the Case for Creation. But yeah, they are really good books.

 

[mark kennedy]

I read The Fossils Say No by Dr. Gish but strangly I get most of my creationist information from evolutionists. The Smithsonian has a site for the human family tree, there is no substitute for actually looking at the evidence like the fossils for yourself. Other then that mostly I have read a number of Christian Apologetics books by Van Till, Sproul, and a couple of the guy Lee Strobel interviewed in his book. Thats why I liked it so much, these guys are like my heros. Therefore Stand by Wilbur Smith is a classic book on Christian Apologetics and evolution is discussed at length. There are a number of others I really liked but I have to go guard stuff for the Army now.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[TwinCrier]

One thing that stuck in my memory from science class is that an experiment must have a control and be repeatable. I don't get that from evolution. Not that I get it from creation either, but creation is something that can be accepted by faith, that I do have.

 

[firecracker]

Agree. Faith is the whole point. If you cannot accept by faith the start of the book, how can you accept any of the other myriad of accounts in the bible for events that are not naturally or humanly possible. Faith, the final frontier. YEC believer. (You won't see me in here again! )

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

So much I could say on the topic. Personally, I have more problems with evolution than I have evidence for young earth creation.

The problem is, as TwinCrier states, that evolution is not a testable, repeatable theory. Evolution is a word that means multiple things.
The strict, scientific definition of evolution is "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time". That is testable, and repeatable. I would consider it scientific. However, that falls under the banner of creationism too - we believe things change over time.

The thing we have a problem with is the claim that "living things that share common cellular characteristics also share a common ancestor". That simply cannot be tested, repeated, observed, or falsified. It is a philosophical statement, defended with philosophical arguments.
That, I believe, is the realm that creationism falls under also. Philosophical arguments are not meaningless - science is not the only method for obtaining truth. In fact, philosophy is the tool by which we define what science is.

Anyway, I have many numerous problems with evolution.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Walking along a beach a man finds a a stone that has a sharp edge and a watch. The stone can be accounted for by any number of explanations but there is only one that makes sense about the watch. The ocean did not produce this.

So that's what happened to my husband's watch! (He dropped it when surfing 20 years ago.)

I became a Christian as an adult, and was amazed to find that all these sane and intelligent people around me believed the Bible.

I had to get to the bottom of this, so I went on a creation seminar, and emerged thinking they were at least as likely to be right as were the evolutionists, with the added bonus that they agreed with God!

I've since read various things, including some Ken Ham, and Henry Morris's "Boblical Creationism." I also attended a second seminar this year by Ken Ham. I must admit I found his attitude a bit grating though. Maybe he's battle-scarred, but I do feel Christians need to be gracious about pointing out their differences.

The "Answers In Genesis" website is very useful to explore too.

My own science education is limited to GCE O'Level, plus some medical background and a general, life-long interest in nature of all kinds. so I'm hoping that some of you more highly educated creationists can explain things without going over my head!

Erwin has just agreed to give us a sub-forum for discussing Creation between ourselves without being derailed by debates from those of opposing views. Not sure when it will happen, obviously things take time to set up, but it looks promising.

God bless, Susana

 

[Underdog77]

To kinda edit my last post in this thread (#4), I did not meant to say that the only books I've read are the ones that I listed. I meant to say that the books by Strobel that I've read are the Case for Christ, etc...

After I read my post this morning I realized that some might have thought that I was not well read in this subject, so that's my little edit today.

 

[mark kennedy]

So that's what happened to my husband's watch! (He dropped it when surfing 20 years ago.)

I imagine the salt water is breaking it down and its not keeping very good time right now. I doubt seriously that he would want it back. Without getting to technical there is a law in science called the 2nd law of thermodynamics, basiclly it says that everything is going from a high degree of order and progressivly breaking down. Creationists often compare this to Scriptures that describe the heavens and earth being worn out like a garmet. I belief the actual reference is found in the 2nd chapter of Hebrews.

By the way, the watch and the stone analogy is from a famous creationist named Palley (sp?), his work is mentioned in Darwin's book Origin of Species. The watch is actually a comparison to the inticate and meticulas way nature works. Notice the caveman is checking out a butterfly? When I was thinking of making this my avatar I thought he was turning over a stone and I thought it fit the analogy. At any rate thats the story behind the signiture.

I became a Christian as an adult, and was amazed to find that all these sane and intelligent people around me believed the Bible.

I had to get to the bottom of this, so I went on a creation seminar, and emerged thinking they were at least as likely to be right as were the evolutionists, with the added bonus that they agreed with God!

I actually started out reading Christian Apologetics. Simon Greenleaf wrote something they call a trestise on the rules of evidence that was used in every court and law library in the U.S. for decades. He also wrote a book on the Gospels and applied the rules of evidence to the historical accounts. Guess what he say as the most convincing evidence in the entire NT? Basiclly he said that they had no earthly reason to lie especially facing the terrible persecution they suffered. This really peaked my interest since I had been impressed by that as well, particularly the conversion of Paul.

I've since read various things, including some Ken Ham, and Henry Morris's "Boblical Creationism." I also attended a second seminar this year by Ken Ham. I must admit I found his attitude a bit grating though. Maybe he's battle-scarred, but I do feel Christians need to be gracious about pointing out their differences.

I read the Morris book and frankly I was not overly enthusiastic about his theology. It is remarkable the great scientific minds don't have near level of skills and abilities in the realm of theology. That is one of the biggest problems facing creationism IMHO, the ones that a good at the NT theology are less capable of handleing the scientific stuff and vice versa.

For the average person both areas of study, theology and natural science, are far too complicated to be of much use. I feel like the average person on the other hand is perfectly capable of understanding both well enough to form an intelligent opinion.

The "Answers In Genesis" website is very useful to explore too.

My own science education is limited to GCE O'Level, plus some medical background and a general, life-long interest in nature of all kinds. so I'm hoping that some of you more highly educated creationists can explain things without going over my head!

I noticed in the formal debate forum there was a very popular debate on which is better, cats or dogs. It was interesting because it drew more attention then the creation/evolution thing I was doing. Remember when God was talking about creating Adam it says that he had not caused it to rain because there was no man to tend to the garden. I still think that is what we were put on the earth to do, take care of God's creation. I also think its interesting that Adam was made from the dust of the earth, I think there is a principle here. Adam was made from the earth for the earth, in fact I don't really think that we are going to heaven, at least not permanantly. I think heaven is coming here and we will be exploring and tending to God's creation, right here, forever. At least that is one persons thoughts on the subject.

Erwin has just agreed to give us a sub-forum for discussing Creation between ourselves without being derailed by debates from those of opposing views. Not sure when it will happen, obviously things take time to set up, but it looks promising.

God bless, Susana

I think its an excellent idea and I really hope it turns into place where Christians can go and learn about nature from a Biblical perspective. Books tapes, seminars and things like that are great resourses but there is no substitute for Christian fellowship.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[KleinerApfel]

Remember when God was talking about creating Adam it says that he had not caused it to rain because there was no man to tend to the garden. I still think that is what we were put on the earth to do, take care of God's creation. I also think its interesting that Adam was made from the dust of the earth, I think there is a principle here. Adam was made from the earth for the earth, in fact I don't really think that we are going to heaven, at least not permanantly. I think heaven is coming here and we will be exploring and tending to God's creation, right here, forever. At least that is one persons thoughts on the subject.

I recently read "Heaven: it's not the end of the world" by David Lawrence, who says the same thing. I'm fascinated. Can't decide if he's right or not!

(Sorry if that's off-topic!)

Blessings, Susana

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Remember when God was talking about creating Adam it says that he had not caused it to rain because there was no man to tend to the garden. I still think that is what we were put on the earth to do, take care of God's creation. I also think its interesting that Adam was made from the dust of the earth, I think there is a principle here. Adam was made from the earth for the earth, in fact I don't really think that we are going to heaven, at least not permanantly. I think heaven is coming here and we will be exploring and tending to God's creation, right here, forever. At least that is one persons thoughts on the subject.

This seems very reasonable. The average Christian will say that they will live in heaven - and that is a gift for those who are saved. However, the Scriptures teach that we will live in the New Jerusalem on the new Earth. We may be in heaven temporarily, we may or may not be able to freely visit heaven, but it won't be our home. Earth will.

 

[mhess13]

I am YEC because "long ages" or theistic evolution places death before sin. Death before sin is heresy IMHO

A am on the final chapter of "The Long War Against God" by Henry Morris. WOW, this book has made me even more committed to sharing the truth of creation at whatever cost. Morris traces evolutionary thought back through time to it's satanic origin. If I could recommend only one book for creationists, this would be it.

I also highly recommend Creation Science Evangelism's college level creation courses.

 

[PotLuck]

Ever notice the desire for people to create a garden of flowering plants, maybe some water flowing somewhere and paths weaving through it all? There's something in the soul that seems to call us back. As the father does the son will do also. There was peace in His creation and I believe the desire for that peace is still in us. It's like going home.
Maybe we're all a bunch of homesick kids. It'll be good to go home.

 

[PotLuck]

Going back to the garden. Interesting thought though.
If you read the very first three chapters and the very last two chapters of the bible you can pretty much get an idea of the basic theme of the entire book. We see Adam with God, walking with him, talking with him. Then the fall. Through one man's sin all are condemned. It's our nature.
Then in the last chapters there's the reconciliation with God. We again "enter into His rest". But here there's a major difference, there's a multitude of those in fellowship with God. What wisdom! All throughout the bible it's not man's pursuit of God but God's pursuit of man.
God loved us first. He created us that we may love Him back, willingly.

 

[mark kennedy]

Potluck,

That was very nice, I think you have expressed a very important consideration that us debaters sometimes forget. The central emphasis should be on God.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Micaiah]

I'll second that.

 

[Ave Maria]

I am a Creationist because I take God at His word. I believe that when He said He created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th, He meant just that. Not that he created the universe in billions of years.

 

[lucaspa]

One thing that stuck in my memory from science class is that an experiment must have a control and be repeatable. I don't get that from evolution.

A comment on science.

1. When designing an experiment, the reason for the control is to hold all other variables except the one you are testing. You can do that with events from the past by picking something not affected by the event. For instance, your 'control' for testing hypotheses about meteor crator is the nearby desert where there isn't a big depression in the ground. You can compare the shape and contents of meteor crator with that stretch of desert to see what is different and test hypotheses about what happened there in the past.

2. What science requires is objective evidence in the present that can be viewed by everyone. If you have something like a fossil skull, for example. Everyone can look at that skull, measure it any of dozens of ways, and compare those measurements to other skulls both fossil and of living animals. In this case, the "controls" are the other skulls. Very similar to the example for Meteor Crator. In doing that, you can test hypotheses, because everyone can look at the skull, do the measurements, and see if the measurements support or refute the hypothesis.

3. Notice that creationist scientists do the same procedure when testing hypotheses about the Flood. They will look at Grand Canyon, say, and do measurements to test the hypothesis that it was formed quickly by running water. The "control" are other canyons in the Southwest.