What are the common arguments against Young Earth Creationism?

[Ave Maria]

Hello everyone. I am trying to figure out what I believe about the origin of the universe and the world. What are the most common arguments against Young Earth Creationism that you encounter?

 

[ab1385]

The two most common arguments are these:

1. Evolution is now accepted by (pretty much) everyone excepting YEC christians (and maybe some from other faiths, I don't know). This isn't a statement that it's true, though I happen to believe it, but the fact is that most atheists and many christians now see evolution as scientific fact, based on the evidence available to them.

2. Geology, cosmology, paleantology, genetics, and many other sciences besides seem to show that the world is in fact far older than 10,000 years. It is without doubt that the Earth has the appearance of age, the question is whether God created a mature Earth or not. Many TEs believe that this makes God deceptive, as there are histories of civilisations etc included in this 'appearance of age', and God himself says He is revealed in nature (Romans 1:19-20).

Those two are, I guess, the two main arguments used against young earth creationism. There are many others, and there are many arguments that YECs use against TE, most of which are theological.

Your best bet is to look at both sides of the argument without bias, and to critically assess what each argument is saying. I would suggest you look at both Talk Origins and Answers in Genesis to look at each side of the arguments, and compare them with each other. These are the two websites that I found the most useful when weighing up the two arguments.

The only other thing I would say is that you don't have to decide which you believe in order to love and serve God. It is quite possible to decide that commiting yourself to the debate may harm your faith, as it did mine for a period, and that you would prefer to remain undecided and to instead spend your time growing closer to God. It's up to you, but if you do decide to look at it honestly, then I would say to openly look at both sides of the arguments.

Hope this helps a little,

Peace in Christ,

Alex

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

The two most common arguments are these:

1. Evolution is now accepted by (pretty much) everyone excepting YEC christians (and maybe some from other faiths, I don't know).

Actually a large number of people DON'T believe in macro evolution. Polls time and time again have shown this.

 

[ab1385]

Actually a large number of people DON'T believe in macro evolution. Polls time and time again have shown this.

Perhaps thats an American thing... I don't know. I know of no non-christians who don't believe in macro-evolution, and it is something I have discussed witha fair few people.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Perhaps thats an American thing... I don't know. I know of no non-christians who don't believe in macro-evolution, and it is something I have discussed witha fair few people.

They are out there. There are even nonchristian scientists that have their doubts about macroevolution!

 

[Ave Maria]

They are out there. There are even nonchristian scientists that have their doubts about macroevolution!

Now that's interesting! Do you know who these scientists are?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Now that's interesting! Do you know who these scientists are?

I'd ask to see the evidence, and to see any supposedly evolution-doubting quotes in context, if I were you

 

[adam149]

I'd ask to see the evidence, and to see any supposedly evolution-doubting quotes in context, if I were you

Ah. Another lovely example of arguments against YEC. "They always quote out of context."

There have been only a few instances where creationists have genuinely misquoted anyone, and of these cases, the errors have been corrected. As opposed to asking to see any quotes in context (always check sources as a habit anyway, people! ), rather ask what examples there are of mainstream creation scientists quoting-out-of-context, then check it yourself. I've made a habit of doing this, and found that in most cases, the sceptic is bluffing or, even worse, misquoting the text himself.

Then there is the classic case where the sceptic will misrepresent the YEC. This happens in over 90% of the cases I have looked at.

THis attempt to undermine creationist credibility is merely sophomoric tomfoolery on their part.

 

[Ave Maria]

I'd ask to see the evidence, and to see any supposedly evolution-doubting quotes in context, if I were you

Well, yes of course. Context is always important. I know that there are non-Christians out there who doubt evolution. At least Atheistic Evolution. I knew someone who did.

 

[TwinCrier]

Hello everyone. I am trying to figure out what I believe about the origin of the universe and the world. What are the most common arguments against Young Earth Creationism that you encounter?

The main argument against YEC is the Earth isn't young. It's billions of years old and anyone who believes otherswise is just wrong cuz evolution is fact. So there.

 

[2Timothy2]

There are others, others that have nothing whatsoever to do with evolution:

1. The phrase "there was evening, there was morning" suggests something other than a 12-24 hour period.
2. The things that happened on the sixth day seems to indicate a longer period than 24 hours.
3. The fact that the seventh day has not yet ended seems to give weight to the idea that the other six days were not 24 hours.

There are others, many others, that, like I said, have nothing to do with evolution. It is not an either/or proposition, YEC or evolution. This is a deceptive tactic some use to try to bolster their position. Remember this, the word of God never needs to be, nor ever should be supported by sloppy scholarship, absurdities, or deception.

This is a subject you will have to do your homework on. Lots of Bible study and prayer, and looking at the resources from all the various viewpoints. You were given two good representative resouces above, I'd recommend Reasons to Believe as one for the Old Earth perspective. Put everything to the test of Scripture, and hold fast to that which agrees with Scripture.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

1. The phrase "there was evening, there was morning" suggests something other than a 12-24 hour period.
2. The things that happened on the sixth day seems to indicate a longer period than 24 hours.
3. The fact that the seventh day has not yet ended seems to give weight to the idea that the other six days were not 24 hours.

This is a subject you will have to do your homework on. Lots of Bible study and prayer, and looking at the resources from all the various viewpoints. You were given two good representative resouces above, I'd recommend Reasons to Believe as one for the Old Earth perspective. Put everything to the test of Scripture, and hold fast to that which agrees with Scripture.

I'm very familar with Hugh Ross and his Reasons to Believe. I have watched the show on TV many times and heard him and others that work in his organization debate. He does a poor job in my view of Biblical interpretation.


1. Actually evening and morning with an number and the word day points to a literal 24 hour day.


2. The things done on the 6th day easily could have been done in a 24 hour day.


3. Where is your proof the 7th day never ended? In fact biblical evidence would suggest otherwise.

 

[SBG]

I would like to point out something that may go against the grain here. The Bible does not specifically speak of the age of the earth, but rather implicitly tells of it through genealogy.

I have no cares to speak or teach about how old the earth actually is. I believe it is a non issue as the Bible does not state this specifically. Also, there is the posibility that the genealogies are not complete, I doubt this, but this is a possibility.

It is the teaching that man is only a higher animal that was once an animal himself, and was not specially created that I disagree with. I also believe the Bible is quite clear on how long God decided to take on creating the universe. It is not that God couldn't have taken a nanosecond or billions of years, for He is God and whatever He chose to do is His right. But, the Bible is quite clear on the length of time He chose.

Now, I believe the only arguement that evolutionists can use and makes it rather hard to argue against is that Genesis is meant to be read allegorically and not literally. It isn't that one cannot make the arguement against this, but rather that the opposition can make it hard to pin them to anyone one thought. They have so many different beliefs that you cannot really make a stand against them because another will popup and say I don't believe that or I do believe that. There is no unity in belief from theistic evolutionists when it comes down to the smaller points such as Adam and Eve, the Garden, Satan as a serpent, Cain and his wife, the flood, etc.

I have been doing a bit of study on Genesis reading it in hebrew instead of english. I would like to point out something that goes against the thought of an allegorical reading. If one were to take this stance then one would miss something rather important that exists in hebrew. And also if only read in english one misses something rather beautiful in hebrew.

Genesis 1:1 - you can follow along by visiting blueletterbible.org and click on the c box see the hebrew - says In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. First, hebrew is read from right to left. Secondly, notice the astrik between created and the heaven. This is a hebrew word that cannot be translated into english. This word in hebrew is 'eth.

This word is highly significant. If one looks at the word written in hebrew, one will see only two letters. The first letter is Aleph which is the first letter in the hebrew alphabet. The second letter is Tav, which is the last letter in the hebrew alphabet. Sound familiar??

In Greek, Christ is called the Alpha and the Omega. Alpha being the first letter in the greek alphabet and omega being the last letter in the greek alphabet. This also means the first and the last.

Aleph-Tav or 'eth, is signify the first and the last. Jesus Christ is the first and the last. John 1:1 says in the beginning was the Word. And Genesis 1:1 confirms this with signify the first and the last, Jesus Christ. In the beginning God created [through Jesus Christ] the heaven and the earth, would be how this would look if one added 'eth into Genesis 1:1.

Now tell me, would you like to read this as allegorical or literally historical?

 

[2Timothy2]

I'm very familar with Hugh Ross and his Reasons to Believe. I have watched the show on TV many times and heard him and others that work in his organization debate. He does a poor job in my view of Biblical interpretation.

Here we disagree again. And, to be clear, I like Dr. Ross because his interpretation gels with what I was doing before I came across his material.

1. Actually evening and morning with an number and the word day points to a literal 24 hour day.

No, it doesn't. The phrase in Hebrew isn't evening and morning, the phrase is "there was evening, there was morning," then the day. This is an odd way of phrasing the passing of time. That is why I say it suggests something other than a 24 hr. period. And as far as ordinal numbers always refering to a 24 hr. period, that simply isn't true. (Hosea 6:1-2) In this passage, it is generally agreed upon that the days mentioned are extended periods of time. Everywhere else in the OT where the ordinal numbers are used and where they do refer to a 24 hr. period, they are describing man's activity. But here in Hosea and in Genesis 1 we have God's activity. I believe this should be taken into account.

2. The things done on the 6th day easily could have been done in a 24 hour day.

God created land animals, cattle, creeping things, and beast of the earth, then created man. Now, God created the male, Adam, first. Then the events of chapter two occur. This is where God place Adam in the Garden and charged Adam with his duties. Also telling him of the provision God had so graciously made for man. Then Adam had to name the animals, wherein no "help fit" was found for him. Then God put Adam to sleep and formed the woman. The sixth day could not have ended until Eve was created, because, on the sixth day, it says God created male and female. This is a lot of stuff to occur in one 24 hour period and it is only the things of which we are told. The is simply no evidence whatsoever that Adam had some super intelect to name the animals fast, and at any rate, that wouldn't help reduce the time needed for such a task, since the animals had to come to him. Once again, the indication is that the sixth day was a longer period than 24 hours.

3. Where is your proof the 7th day never ended? In fact biblical evidence would suggest otherwise.

First there is no mention of an 8th day. Then we have Hebrews 4, which YEC make a valiant attempt to refute, but I believe they have read their bias into the text. And finally, we need to look at what is meant by God resting. Was He tired? Of course not. What does it mean? He ceased from His creating (this is just one reason I reject the absurd notion of evolution). His creation was complete, although, the processes He set in motion were to, and do continue, nothing genuinely new has come about since. The Sabboth is a beautiful symbol of this one in seven example, as is the sabboth of Sabboths, and the sabboths for the land. The last two indicating six periods of longer duration than 24 hours. He still is not creating, and will not until the New Creation of the New Heaven and New Earth.

These are just some problems with YEC. There are others, and I am no scholar in this area. I am convinced the Earth is billions of years old, from Scripture and from nature, both Special and General revelation. God does not lie. The OP asked for some examples, I provided some. I'm not here to refute YEC. And trust me, you won't convert me to YEC with arguements from sources like ICR or AIG. I've seen their "scholarship" and tactics. I will only say, I was sorely disappointed.

Regardless, we are discussing different interpretations, not the validity of God's word. On that last part, we agree, I assume. It is a shame there is so much animosity on this subject. Some tactics used in these debates, that I have observed, are simply appalling and unbecoming of those who name the name of Christ. I pray that will change.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

First there is no mention of an 8th day. Then we have Hebrews 4, which YEC make a valiant attempt to refute, but I believe they have read their bias into the text. And finally, we need to look at what is meant by God resting. Was He tired? Of course not. What does it mean? He ceased from His creating (this is just one reason I reject the absurd notion of evolution). His creation was complete, although, the processes He set in motion were to, and do continue, nothing genuinely new has come about since. The Sabboth is a beautiful symbol of this one in seven example, as is the sabboth of Sabboths, and the sabboths for the land. The last two indicating six periods of longer duration than 24 hours. He still is not creating, and will not until the New Creation of the New Heaven and New Earth.

These are just some problems with YEC. There are others, and I am no scholar in this area. I am convinced the Earth is billions of years old, from Scripture and from nature, both Special and General revelation. God does not lie. The OP asked for some examples, I provided some. I'm not here to refute YEC. And trust me, you won't convert me to YEC with arguements from sources like ICR or AIG. I've seen their "scholarship" and tactics. I will only say, I was sorely disappointed.

Regardless, we are discussing different interpretations, not the validity of God's word. On that last part, we agree, I assume. It is a shame there is so much animosity on this subject. Some tactics used in these debates, that I have observed, are simply appalling and unbecoming of those who name the name of Christ. I pray that will change.

Why does it need to mention an 8th day? Then you would say it doesn't mention a 9th and so on and so on. The work week was based off a literal 7 day creation. Verses like Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." support a 7 - 24 day week of creation.

You say you use general revelation, which if your like Hugh Ross you mean dating methods and etc. These are fallible methods that require assumptions. That's far from being a general revelation from God.

I would agree with you that some of the tatics in the debating of this topic are very appalling. Also i wish some of these Christian shows out there that claim to be unbias on the YEC/OEC view would actually prove it by having people from ICR or AIG on instead of just Hugh Ross and people that work in his organization. I have written them but with no success. It's nice to see though there was a debate recently between Hugh Ross and Lisle from AIG on one radio show.

 

[2Timothy2]

SBG, you are correct in that the Bible does not specifically state the age of the Earth. But the genealogies most definitely do have gaps. The extent of those gaps is only speculation on our part though. My point is that nature, God's general revelation, does not contradict His special revelation, the Bible. So, if the Earth tells us it's old, then Genesis 1 needs to be understood a certain way, if the Earth tells us it's young, another way.

Why does it need to mention an 8th day? Then you would say it doesn't mention a 9th and so on and so on.

Yes, there should be an 8th, 9th, 10th...and so on, if the 7th had ended. But it hasn't ended. God is not creating anymore, He is still resting from His works, i.e. no more creation, and we may enter into His rest, by faith in Christ. If He is no longer resting, there is no more rest in which we may enter into, but praise God, we do have His rest into which we may go. This is a precious thing. The Creation Week was a process of God, and we are now in His 7th day. His adopted children, by virtue of faith in Christ, take part in His rest. This is the word of Scripture.

The work week was based off a literal 7 day creation.

Absolutely, we are in agreement here, although we differ as to the exact meaning of the word day, and apparently the meaning of literal. You, and YEC in general, if I may say this, seem to demand "literal" to be a woodenly literal interpretation. This is something you rightfully stand against in other areas in Scripture, I assume. Literal means we take the words of Scripture to mean what they were intended to mean. Here, "yom"/"day" can mean several things. Context must determine the meaning. I agree, it could mean a 24 hour period, but I disagree that this is the best meaning/interpretation. As to why, that would take to long for the purposes of this thread, but I've given some indications as to why already and below.

Verses like Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." support a 7 - 24 day week of creation.

Could support a 7-24hr-day week of creation, but not necessarily. The Sabbath was modeled on a 1 in 7 example, the creation "week". As God worked in creating during 6 and rested the 7th, so the week for man was broken into 6 of work and 1 of rest(Ex 20:8-11). As God worked in creating during 6 and rested the 7th, so the week for the land was broken into 6 of work and 1 of rest(Ex 23:10-11; Lev 25:1-6). And then we have the Year of Jubilee (Lev 25:8-24). There is a pattern here, and it is not one of simply 24 hour periods(Ex 31:12-17; Ex34:21; Ex 35:1-3; Dt 5:12-14; 2 Chr 36:21; Neh 10:31; Ez 20:12). We must not pick and choose what in the Bible we want to believe because it supports our preconceived ideas. Now, that said, we are all guilty of doing just that from time to time, myself included. I'm not aiming that as a barb at you or YEC's in general. It is meant as a reminder to you and to me to use caution and come to God's infallible, inerrant, holy word with a humble and prayerful attitude.

You say you use general revelation, which if your like Hugh Ross you mean dating methods and etc. These are fallible methods that require assumptions. That's far from being a general revelation from God.

General revelation is a valid method of seeing God and His truth (Ps 19:1-6; Ps 104; Pr 8:23-31; Job 12:7-9; Job 38-39; Rom 1:18-20). It is not enough, we must use Special revelation, God's word, also. The Bible gives us a clearer understanding, but, General and Special revelation will never, never, never, contradict each other. Any supposed contradiction is on us. It is on our understanding of science, on our understanding of Scripture, or both. God's word is infallible and inerrent. God's creation, in what it says of Him is the same. This can not be said of our interpretations of either. I don't wish to put words in your mouth, but from what you have said, it almost seems as if you think your interpretation of Scripture rises to the level of infallibility. I doubt you believe this, but it is how your posts come across. Yes, dating methods are fallible and require assumptions. I think they are quite valid assumptions and provide fairly accurate dates (there are error bars there for a reason). Also, remember that various dating methods are used for different time ranges (i.e. one does not use 14C dating to get the date of ancient rocks, it just doesn't apply). You also use dating methods, fallible dating methods that require assumptions. If you didn't, you would not say anything about the age of the Earth. So, that pretty much makes you comment of no value. I realize you have an ardent zeal for your position, based on your desire to defend God's word. I share that desire to defend God's word.

I would agree with you that some of the tatics in the debating of this topic are very appalling. Also i wish some of these Christian shows out there that claim to be unbias on the YEC/OEC view would actually prove it by having people from ICR or AIG on instead of just Hugh Ross and people that work in his organization. I have written them but with no success. It's nice to see though there was a debate recently between Hugh Ross and Lisle from AIG on one radio show.

I saw Ross and Hovind debate on the John Ankerburg *sp* show. I don't like debates. They turn into a personality contest, or a one-up-manship thing of one liners. This does nothing for the issue. In fact, on this one, Mr. Hovind showed himself to be of quite a mean spirit. He constantly used ad hominem attacks on Ross and misrepresented Ross's position repeatedly. I also noticed that Mr. Hovind never once raised the fact the he believes Genesis was written by several different authors, a point he made on Carl Baugh's *sp* show "Creation in the 21st Century". I find that position appalling and unbiblical. Rather than debates, we need panel discussions. Something where learned opinions can be brought together, papers written and critiqued openly. It is a shame that AIG and ICR do not have their "scientific papers" peer reviewed. I know they say they do, but this is a misdirection on their part.

As for Dr. Hugh Ross, I do like him, and his ministry, along with those there that I have read or heard. But they do not tell me what to believe. I came to Reasons to Believe already an "OEC". Actually, it happened much like what happened with my listening to Rush Limbaugh. I found someone saying something I already believed, that was very nice, since before that, I had not found much of this. Now there are several resources out there (both OEC and conservative republican, LOL). I don't take marching orders from anyone. There are things Ross says that I disagree with, and I can actually say that about everyone I've ever heard or read. I know that only Scripture is perfect and only it is to be followed completely, not what others say about it.

I would caution you on one more thing though, specifically regarding AIG and ICR. While there are some OEC types that do this, these two YEC groups are very bad in this regard. They seem bent on division and strife. Look at the way they speak of those who disagree with their interpretations of Scripture and science. I would say to them, "Look and remember these verses: 2 Tim 2: 24-25; James 3:14-16; Gal 5:19-21; Phil 2:3; 1 Cor 3:3; Rom 13:10-14; Pr 3:30; Pr 17:14-15; 25:8". Don't get caught up in their folly.

I have a feeling we will have many more conversations, I mean, e-conversations. I'll leave them to other threads, as I don't want to over abuse this one.

May God richly bless you and yours, and may you grow in His grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour.

2T2

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Yes, there should be an 8th, 9th, 10th...and so on, if the 7th had ended. But it hasn't ended. God is not creating anymore, He is still resting from His works, i.e. no more creation, and we may enter into His rest, by faith in Christ. If He is no longer resting, there is no more rest in which we may enter into, but praise God, we do have His rest into which we may go. This is a precious thing. The Creation Week was a process of God, and we are now in His 7th day. His adopted children, by virtue of faith in Christ, take part in His rest. This is the word of Scripture.

I'm not sure if you got my point. My point was there is no evidence that we are still in the 7th day. In fact evidence would say otherwise.

Absolutely, we are in agreement here, although we differ as to the exact meaning of the word day, and apparently the meaning of literal. You, and YEC in general, if I may say this, seem to demand "literal" to be a woodenly literal interpretation. This is something you rightfully stand against in other areas in Scripture, I assume. Literal means we take the words of Scripture to mean what they were intended to mean. Here, "yom"/"day" can mean several things. Context must determine the meaning. I agree, it could mean a 24 hour period, but I disagree that this is the best meaning/interpretation. As to why, that would take to long for the purposes of this thread, but I've given some indications as to why already and below.

This is why knowing Biblical hermeneutics is so important. Of course yom has serveral meanings. That's why we need to look at the verses. What do we have? We have number, day, evening and morning. This all points to a literal day. This is no reason to say it's not literal. The only reason most people say it's not literal is because they believe in some people's dating methods of the earth. Those are in question though so we need to rely on the Bible here to find the truth.

Could support a 7-24hr-day week of creation, but not necessarily. The Sabbath was modeled on a 1 in 7 example, the creation "week". As God worked in creating during 6 and rested the 7th, so the week for man was broken into 6 of work and 1 of rest(Ex 20:8-11). As God worked in creating during 6 and rested the 7th, so the week for the land was broken into 6 of work and 1 of rest(Ex 23:10-11; Lev 25:1-6). And then we have the Year of Jubilee (Lev 25:8-24). There is a pattern here, and it is not one of simply 24 hour periods(Ex 31:12-17; Ex34:21; Ex 35:1-3; Dt 5:12-14; 2 Chr 36:21; Neh 10:31; Ez 20:12). We must not pick and choose what in the Bible we want to believe because it supports our preconceived ideas. Now, that said, we are all guilty of doing just that from time to time, myself included. I'm not aiming that as a barb at you or YEC's in general. It is meant as a reminder to you and to me to use caution and come to God's infallible, inerrant, holy word with a humble and prayerful attitude.

I would agree we should be humble towards God's word. I agree we should not pick and choose what we want. The question is, who's doing the picking and choosing? I certainly have nothing to gain by being a YEC, in fact I get called names all the time and mocked by even other Christians for what I believe. It would be much easier to believe in millions of years and even easier yet to just believe in flow blown evolution.

General revelation is a valid method of seeing God and His truth (Ps 19:1-6; Ps 104; Pr 8:23-31; Job 12:7-9; Job 38-39; Rom 1:18-20). It is not enough, we must use Special revelation, God's word, also. The Bible gives us a clearer understanding, but, General and Special revelation will never, never, never, contradict each other. Any supposed contradiction is on us. It is on our understanding of science, on our understanding of Scripture, or both. God's word is infallible and inerrent. God's creation, in what it says of Him is the same. This can not be said of our interpretations of either. I don't wish to put words in your mouth, but from what you have said, it almost seems as if you think your interpretation of Scripture rises to the level of infallibility. I doubt you believe this, but it is how your posts come across. Yes, dating methods are fallible and require assumptions. I think they are quite valid assumptions and provide fairly accurate dates (there are error bars there for a reason). Also, remember that various dating methods are used for different time ranges (i.e. one does not use 14C dating to get the date of ancient rocks, it just doesn't apply). You also use dating methods, fallible dating methods that require assumptions. If you didn't, you would not say anything about the age of the Earth. So, that pretty much makes you comment of no value. I realize you have an ardent zeal for your position, based on your desire to defend God's word. I share that desire to defend God's word.

What do you mean when you say I also use dating methods? You seem to put words in my mouth and then declare my arguments void because of the words you just put in my mouth. That's a very poor way of making an argument. Let me continue though. Since dating methods assume things that can easily be false but using proper biblical hermeneutics we see that the bible is in conflict with how many people are using the dating methods we need to err on the side of the bible as you say.

I saw Ross and Hovind debate on the John Ankerburg *sp* show. I don't like debates. They turn into a personality contest, or a one-up-manship thing of one liners. This does nothing for the issue. In fact, on this one, Mr. Hovind showed himself to be of quite a mean spirit. He constantly used ad hominem attacks on Ross and misrepresented Ross's position repeatedly. I also noticed that Mr. Hovind never once raised the fact the he believes Genesis was written by several different authors, a point he made on Carl Baugh's *sp* show "Creation in the 21st Century". I find that position appalling and unbiblical. Rather than debates, we need panel discussions. Something where learned opinions can be brought together, papers written and critiqued openly. It is a shame that AIG and ICR do not have their "scientific papers" peer reviewed. I know they say they do, but this is a misdirection on their part.

As for Dr. Hugh Ross, I do like him, and his ministry, along with those there that I have read or heard. But they do not tell me what to believe. I came to Reasons to Believe already an "OEC". Actually, it happened much like what happened with my listening to Rush Limbaugh. I found someone saying something I already believed, that was very nice, since before that, I had not found much of this. Now there are several resources out there (both OEC and conservative republican, LOL). I don't take marching orders from anyone. There are things Ross says that I disagree with, and I can actually say that about everyone I've ever heard or read. I know that only Scripture is perfect and only it is to be followed completely, not what others say about it.

I would caution you on one more thing though, specifically regarding AIG and ICR. While there are some OEC types that do this, these two YEC groups are very bad in this regard. They seem bent on division and strife. Look at the way they speak of those who disagree with their interpretations of Scripture and science. I would say to them, "Look and remember these verses: 2 Tim 2: 24-25; James 3:14-16; Gal 5:19-21; Phil 2:3; 1 Cor 3:3; Rom 13:10-14; Pr 3:30; Pr 17:14-15; 25:8". Don't get caught up in their folly.

I have a feeling we will have many more conversations, I mean, e-conversations. I'll leave them to other threads, as I don't want to over abuse this one.

May God richly bless you and yours, and may you grow in His grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour.

AIG has papers reviewed by other scientists. You need to read TJ. There is a lot of backlash though when papers are published in secular science venues. I read a lot of secular science material and all the time I see pot shots taken at people that believe in a young earth. They set up strawmen and knock them down over and over instead of actually representing what YEC believe and having a good discussion about the topic.

I agree Hovind can sometimes be a little harsh.You should check out the discussion with Ross and Lisle. I don't like how Hugh Ross shoots out numbers and information though in his debates that end up being far from truth. Debates though are good for the most part. It allows 2 sides to be given and arguments and answers for both.

By the way don't think Reasons to Believe is less divisive. They can be extermly so when it comes to dealing with people that question their beliefs. Don't forget, Jesus was one of the most divisive people ever on this earth. Some other divisive people would be apostles like Paul and reformers like Luther and Calvin.

If you use instant messengers feel free to also talk to me that way. I find it much easier then many long, drawn out postings.

 

[2Timothy2]

I'm going to respond, but I'll start a new thread. I can't tonight, very busy. Talk to you later.