Young Earth Creation evangilism.

[jlmagee]

I affirm the Nicene Creed. I fully acknowledge that God is the eternal, necessary cause for all of creation. God has been intimately involved with His creation from, "In the beginning, God...." (Gen.1:1), through "In the fullness of time God sent His son" (Gal. 4:4), through when He gives us drink from the spring of the water of life without cost (Rev.21:6), and into eternity. I hold to the inerrancy of the scripture in the original autographs. If I left something out, I am sure I will be called on it.

I agree with the scientific dating of the Earth and universe. I accept evolution as a mechanism that God used AND HIS INVOLVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS. I do not completely rule out some sort of progressive creation at various points of time. Now to my point.

When I was a YEC, I did not delve into the creation so much. I even was involved in jail ministry and was not challenged by the prisoners who did not believe. (They did challenge other positions.)

Over the last 10 years or so, perhaps because of the new anti-theism/New Atheist movement, I have noticed non-believers and former believers immediately try to challenge the Gospel with scientific evidence, the Flood, etc. For me, that is not an issue. I can tell them there is no conflict. Their objection to the YEC position actually leads me into the thread of prophecy from Gen. 3:15, Daniel, into Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. This approach has been effective for me. This has happened to me often, therefore it is not a hypothetical scenario.

My question is, given the importance placed on the YEC position, how does the conversation playout for you? Do you stress the literal translation of Genesis?

 

[mark kennedy]

I affirm the Nicene Creed. I fully acknowledge that God is the eternal, necessary cause for all of creation. God has been intimately involved with His creation from, "In the beginning, God...." (Gen.1:1), through "In the fullness of time God sent His son" (Gal. 4:4), through when He gives us drink from the spring of the water of life without cost (Rev.21:6), and into eternity. I hold to the inerrancy of the scripture in the original autographs. If I left something out, I am sure I will be called on it.

I agree with the scientific dating of the Earth and universe. I accept evolution as a mechanism that God used AND HIS INVOLVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS. I do not completely rule out some sort of progressive creation at various points of time. Now to my point.

When I was a YEC, I did not delve into the creation so much. I even was involved in jail ministry and was not challenged by the prisoners who did not believe. (They did challenge other positions.)

Over the last 10 years or so, perhaps because of the new anti-theism/New Atheist movement, I have noticed non-believers and former believers immediately try to challenge the Gospel with scientific evidence, the Flood, etc. For me, that is not an issue. I can tell them there is no conflict. Their objection to the YEC position actually leads me into the thread of prophecy from Gen. 3:15, Daniel, into Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. This approach has been effective for me. This has happened to me often, therefore it is not a hypothetical scenario.

My question is, given the importance placed on the YEC position, how does the conversation playout for you? Do you stress the literal translation of Genesis?

First of all, the age of the earth is not an issue. Genesis 1 is the creation of the heavens and the earth. There is no reference to the time frame and the universe could very well be billions of years old, creation week doesn't start until verse 2.

By now I expect your well aware that Creationism is essential doctrine. Now perhaps you would consider a question of profound theological significance:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (Romans 3:23,24)​

Romans is one of Paul's most elaborate expositions of justification by faith. All Christians realize that salvation is through Christ, that's what makes them Christians. What is not as easily explained is how it is that we are all sinners in need of a Savior.

I'm not asking you to explain why you think we are all sinners. According to Paul, how is it that 'all have sinned'?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Chandell85]

I'm going to apologize right now for not being a brainiac. I only know a little, but it has only strengthened my faith.

When I was taking geology and historical geology (I absolutely loved both courses by the way) I found a lot of accepted contradictions. (This is my humble, unprofessional opinion). Since most people make "old earth" claims based on geological findings or whatever, this is where I'll start.

First, geology uses (please correct me if I'm wrong) the principal of uniformitarianism. Meaning, we can observe what is happening now , so since its happening now, it must have happened like that in the past. I'm not knocking this. This is how we learn most of what we know. If I scratch a banana and leave it on the counter overnight, the scratch turns brown by morning. I can then conclude that if a banana was scratched 500 years ago in a similar environment, then it the scratch would be brown the next morning. I just think the geological community relies too much on this for dating purposes. If it is taking the Grand Canyon this much time to erode this much soil, then all of the soil that was eroded must have taken forever!!! (I'm using the Grand Canyon as an example, I don't know if other people do... Just to show the way of thinking)

Secondly, geology gives room for catastrophic events. This is good. We don't know how something happens until it does at least once. The problem I have with this is that some geologists won't consider the initial creation as being a catastrophic event. Or even the flood (Noah's flood, not the Ice Age/Missoula floods... We know the limited extent of their reach)

My third beef with geological science is that everyone has so much faith in radioactive isotopes. I won't say carbon dating because everyone knows how unreliable it is. Other isotopes.., (sorry, I need to study more on a lot of things and this is definitely one area). The way it works is to compare the ratio of daughter material to parent material to the known rate of the parent half life as to get a date of creation, right? Well, who's to say that God created all the rocks equally and with just the parent material? It seems to me that the things we find in the ground to test with isotope dating could have been formed with both parent and daughter and granddaughter material. This would make the sample being tested appear to be much older than it is.

I'm still in college. I don't think I know it all. I would love to take a couple more geology classes, a couple theory of logical thought, maybe some physics and an apologetics course. I'm not done learning, but I'm open to conversation about this. What do you think?

 

[miamited]

Hi jlmagee,

Well, I'll disagree strongly with the first reply given to you. God did give us a very clear timeline of the age of this realm. The word 'realm' I am using here includes all of the universe in which we live. From the farthest star in the farthest galaxy to the smallest 'piece' of any matter upon the earth. He has told us plainly that by His power, wisdom and ability, He created all that is in this realm in the span of six days. Each of which consisted of an evening and a morning and that at the end of that six days, His final creative piece of this realm was man to live in it.

He then lists for us the sons of fathers and their ages, until we get to Abram. He then lists for us the sons of fathers until we find Joseph and his brothers in Egypt. Now, it is quite a simple mathematical calculation to determine, within certianly a few years, where we are today in that 'life of the universe'.

So, I will just say, that, no, I don't find that God has been ambiguous in how long this realm in which we live has existed.

The first 'truth' that I believe a born again believer comes to understand about the creation is that God created all things in this realm for us. He began to build this realm because He had in mind before He spoke the first, "Let there be...", that He was building a realm in which man could live. With that understanding I find it hard to come to terms with the idea that it took Him millions or billions of years to do it. He can create things out of nothing just by speaking them into existence. He just says, "This shall exist, and it does!" We, of course, have a very hard time understanding that He really has this awesome power that can just turn a vast expanse of emptiness into a melody of zillions of heavenly bodies that a moment ago did not exist and now is. This inability to understand and accept the account of God just as it claims, leads us to gaining knowledge that provides another, more palatable explanation.

I don't know how knowledgeable you are in the Scriptures, but God, through the power of His Holy Spirit has laid on my heart that the things that are written to us of the number '666' is this bent that we have to believe the knowledge and 'truth' of man over the knowledge and 'truth' of God. We are told that the number 666 is the number of man. We are told that this number will be a mark on the forehead or hand. The 'forehead' being a reference to our mind and thoughts and the hand being a refence to our work. So, the ultimate understanding of the number 666 as explained in the Scriptures is that all those whose minds and thoughts are set on the knowledge and 'truth' of man over the knowledge and 'truth' of God; and all those who work to teach and instruct in the knowledge and 'truth' of man over the knowledge and truth of God, are marked as '666' to God. They have believed man over God. The more I pray and study this instruction of the Scriptures, the easier it becomes to see and understand that this is very possibly the true understanding of what God intends His children to understand of this '666'.

Many have bought into the idea that this number will be some visible identifier on the forehead or hand of the lost, but I'm not convinced that that is true.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[jlmagee]

First of all, the age of the earth is not an issue. Genesis 1 is the creation of the heavens and the earth. There is no reference to the time frame and the universe could very well be billions of years old, creation week doesn't start until verse 2.

By now I expect your well aware that Creationism is essential doctrine. Now perhaps you would consider a question of profound theological significance:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (Romans 3:23,24)
​

Romans is one of Paul's most elaborate expositions of justification by faith. All Christians realize that salvation is through Christ, that's what makes them Christians. What is not as easily explained is how it is that we are all sinners in need of a Savior.

I'm not asking you to explain why you think we are all sinners. According to Paul, how is it that 'all have sinned'?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi Mark,

When Adam fell, sin entered the world. God gave Him one law, and Adam broke it. Later, God gave the Law of Moses. Perhaps more important, He wrote a moral law in each of us (Rom. 2:12-16). The Law of Moses shows us our sin. However, we are made imago dei. As such, we have a finite amount of each of God's infinite attributes. We choose to transgress God's moral law, His likeness (even His righteousness) in us. Therefore, we are left without excuse. We knowingly transgress even possessing the very attributes of God, Himself.

I think that is what you are asking for.

 

[Smidlee]

First, geology uses (please correct me if I'm wrong) the principal of uniformitarianism. Meaning, we can observe what is happening now , so since its happening now, it must have happened like that in the past. I'm not knocking this. This is how we learn most of what we know. If I scratch a banana and leave it on the counter overnight, the scratch turns brown by morning. I can then conclude that if a banana was scratched 500 years ago in a similar environment, then it the scratch would be brown the next morning. I just think the geological community relies too much on this for dating purposes. If it is taking the Grand Canyon this much time to erode this much soil, then all of the soil that was eroded must have taken forever!!! (I'm using the Grand Canyon as an example, I don't know if other people do... Just to show the way of thinking)

Actually if you use "the present is the key of the past "uniformitarianism today's erosion rate are way too high. If you don't include uplifting the whole America continent will be eroded away into the ocean within 10 millions years. Thus when it comes to erosion rates evolutionist has to dump uniformitarianism assumption and claim erosion rates was much slower in the past. This is spite of all the evidence that points that erosion rates were higher in the past. (the top of the mountain erosion rate are extremely high yet most mountains still have buried sea fossil in them)
Thus they only agree with "the present is the key to the past" if it agrees with their assumptions and quickly drop the key if it doesn't fit.

Here is an article from Pitman addressing this problem: http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html
"North America is being denuded at a rate that could level it in a mere 10 million years, or, to put it another way, at the same rate, ten North Americas could have been eroded since middle Cretaceous time 100 m.y. ago." 62

 

[Chandell85]

Actually if you use "the present is the key of the past "uniformitarianism today's erosion rate are way too high. If you don't include uplifting the whole America continent will be eroded away into the ocean within 10 millions years. Thus when it comes to erosion rates evolutionist has to dump uniformitarianism assumption and claim erosion rates was much slower in the past. This is spite of all the evidence that points that erosion rates were higher in the past. (the top of the mountain erosion rate are extremely high yet most mountains still have buried sea fossil in them)
Thus they only agree with "the present is the key to the past" if it agrees with their assumptions and quickly drop the key if it doesn't fit.
Here is an article from Pitman addressing this problem: http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html

Thanks so much!

 

[jlmagee]

I'm going to apologize right now for not being a brainiac. I only know a little, but it has only strengthened my faith.

When I was taking geology and historical geology (I absolutely loved both courses by the way) I found a lot of accepted contradictions. (This is my humble, unprofessional opinion). Since most people make "old earth" claims based on geological findings or whatever, this is where I'll start.

You have no need to apologize. It does look like you pay attention in your classes. Are you attending a Christian or secular university? Does it approach geology with a YEC or OEC bias?

I would be one of those "most people". Archaeology, anthropology, and paleontology as well. Most of what I have read came from a YEC perspective. I have been trying to read more material from an old earth perspective. I have no educationa background in any f these fields. My college work has been in behavioral science and biblical studies.

First, geology uses (please correct me if I'm wrong) the principal of uniformitarianism. Meaning, we can observe what is happening now , so since its happening now, it must have happened like that in the past. I'm not knocking this. This is how we learn most of what we know. If I scratch a banana and leave it on the counter overnight, the scratch turns brown by morning. I can then conclude that if a banana was scratched 500 years ago in a similar environment, then it the scratch would be brown the next morning. I just think the geological community relies too much on this for dating purposes. If it is taking the Grand Canyon this much time to erode this much soil, then all of the soil that was eroded must have taken forever!!! (I'm using the Grand Canyon as an example, I don't know if other people do... Just to show the way of thinking)

Pardon my ignorance, does uniformatarianism include other events like mountain forming (folds, upheavals), or more just erosion and sediment?

Secondly, geology gives room for catastrophic events. This is good. We don't know how something happens until it does at least once. The problem I have with this is that some geologists won't consider the initial creation as being a catastrophic event. Or even the flood (Noah's flood, not the Ice Age/Missoula floods... We know the limited extent of their reach)

I think I read that most use an integrated approach now. That would be consistent with what other fields are doing now. A geologist was explaining Loch Ness. He was discussing a lava formation and explaining how from watchin lave from a recent eruption in Hawaii or Japan, they could tell that the water level was higher by the lava shaped when it was cooled. He demonstrated uniformitarianism within a catastrophic event.

My third beef with geological science is that everyone has so much faith in radioactive isotopes. I won't say carbon dating because everyone knows how unreliable it is. Other isotopes.., (sorry, I need to study more on a lot of things and this is definitely one area). The way it works is to compare the ratio of daughter material to parent material to the known rate of the parent half life as to get a date of creation, right? Well, who's to say that God created all the rocks equally and with just the parent material? It seems to me that the things we find in the ground to test with isotope dating could have been formed with both parent and daughter and granddaughter material. This would make the sample being tested appear to be much older than it is.

Accuracy of the methods is the issue in all the fields. Do they have different calibration methods for each type of dating method or are most just calibrated to tree rings? You seem to be saying that isotope dating is accurate but assumptions about the material could be in error? Do I understand that correctly? This is very interesting.

I'm still in college. I don't think I know it all. I would love to take a couple more geology classes, a couple theory of logical thought, maybe some physics and an apologetics course. I'm not done learning, but I'm open to conversation about this. What do you think?

It sounds like you have a good grasp on where you are going with your education. Are you planning on doing field work as well? Do you feel this is a ministry you are going into (you mentioned the logical thought/apologetics)? How are your ideas received when you talk to peple who do not necessarily believe in a young earth?

 

[jlmagee]

Hi jlmagee,

Well, I'll disagree strongly with the first reply given to you. God did give us a very clear timeline of the age of this realm. The word 'realm' I am using here includes all of the universe in which we live. From the farthest star in the farthest galaxy to the smallest 'piece' of any matter upon the earth. He has told us plainly that by His power, wisdom and ability, He created all that is in this realm in the span of six days. Each of which consisted of an evening and a morning and that at the end of that six days, His final creative piece of this realm was man to live in it.

He then lists for us the sons of fathers and their ages, until we get to Abram. He then lists for us the sons of fathers until we find Joseph and his brothers in Egypt. Now, it is quite a simple mathematical calculation to determine, within certianly a few years, where we are today in that 'life of the universe'.

So, I will just say, that, no, I don't find that God has been ambiguous in how long this realm in which we live has existed.

We have differences here, but I agree that on a very literal reading this is the only conclusion. I am not looking to start a fight on the genealogies. I am just asking an honest question. How do you address the differences in the ages between the Septuagint, the ECF's and the text that is used now?

The first 'truth' that I believe a born again believer comes to understand about the creation is that God created all things in this realm for us. He began to build this realm because He had in mind before He spoke the first, "Let there be...", that He was building a realm in which man could live. With that understanding I find it hard to come to terms with the idea that it took Him millions or billions of years to do it. He can create things out of nothing just by speaking them into existence. He just says, "This shall exist, and it does!" We, of course, have a very hard time understanding that He really has this awesome power that can just turn a vast expanse of emptiness into a melody of zillions of heavenly bodies that a moment ago did not exist and now is.

I agree to here. It did not have to take Him six days. He could have done it in 6 seconds.

This inability to understand and accept the account of God just as it claims, leads us to gaining knowledge that provides another, more palatable explanation.

This is one statement that Ham, Hovind, and other YEC's make. At this point, even if I believed in a 6 day creation and a 6,000 year old universe, I would still hold that the first chapter is a literary framework and to dispute it compromises all conservative scholarship.

I don't know how knowledgeable you are in the Scriptures, but God, through the power of His Holy Spirit has laid on my heart that the things that are written to us of the number '666' is this bent that we have to believe the knowledge and 'truth' of man over the knowledge and 'truth' of God. We are told that the number 666 is the number of man. We are told that this number will be a mark on the forehead or hand. The 'forehead' being a reference to our mind and thoughts and the hand being a refence to our work. So, the ultimate understanding of the number 666 as explained in the Scriptures is that all those whose minds and thoughts are set on the knowledge and 'truth' of man over the knowledge and 'truth' of God; and all those who work to teach and instruct in the knowledge and 'truth' of man over the knowledge and truth of God, are marked as '666' to God. They have believed man over God. The more I pray and study this instruction of the Scriptures, the easier it becomes to see and understand that this is very possibly the true understanding of what God intends His children to understand of this '666'.

I respect your understanding and agree with it on some level.

Many have bought into the idea that this number will be some visible identifier on the forehead or hand of the lost, but I'm not convinced that that is true.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

I would agree that it is not a visible "mark".

Ted, I respect the grace and dignity you write into the responses when you agree or disagree with the OP. You are a model of how responses should be written. I strive to maintain a similar respect when I post to another Christian brother so as to give glory to our savior.

I posted this because I am currently concerned about my recent experiences with young adults and a belligerence when raising the gospel. I get responses of not wanting to talk about a book that says everything is 6000 years old and evolution is accepted fact. When you witness, do you get those responses? Do you stess the need to subscribe to a young earth? I am not looking for a fight. I hope no one chimes in to look for one. I am asking specifically at that point.

Grace and Peace,
Jerry

 

[Smidlee]

It is possible to accept both the "earth" as we know is only 6,000 years old (created in 6 days) and that the universe and "planet Earth" is much older.
In Revelation the Bible mentions the earth will be judged by fire and there will be a new earth and heaven. Does this mean God will destroy the whole planet altogether (every single atom) or only the surface of the planet. To us it wouldn't make any difference so either could be true as it's written in scripture.
P.S Note also in scripture it's mention all former things will be forgotten. Did this happen before man?

 

[miamited]

Hi Jerry,

You asked: We have differences here, but I agree that on a very literal reading this is the only conclusion. I am not looking to start a fight on the genealogies. I am just asking an honest question. How do you address the differences in the ages between the Septuagint, the ECF's and the text that is used now?

I have posted for everyone to compare the online english translation of the Septuagint here:

1:1 In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. 2 But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water. 3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. 4 And God saw the light that it was good, and God divided between the light and the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night, and there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it be a division between water and water, and it was so. 7 And God made the firmament, and God divided between the water which was under the firmament and the water which was above the firmament. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven, and God saw that it was good, and there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9 And God said, Let the water which is under the heaven be collected into one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so. And the water which was under the heaven was collected into its places, and the dry land appeared. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gatherings of the waters he called Seas, and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, to divide between day and night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years. 15 And let them be for light in the firmament of the heaven, so as to shine upon the earth, and it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light for regulating the day and the lesser light for regulating the night, the stars also. 17 And God placed them in the firmament of the heaven, so as to shine upon the earth, 18 and to regulate day and night, and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth reptiles having life, and winged creatures flying above the earth in the firmament of heaven, and it was so. 21 And God made great whales, and every living reptile, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds, and every creature that flies with wings according to its kind, and God saw that they were good. 22 And God blessed them saying, Increase and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let the creatures that fly be multiplied on the earth. 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind, quadrupeds and reptiles and wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and it was so. 25 And God made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and cattle according to their kind, and all the reptiles of the earth according to their kind, and God saw that they were good.
26 And God said, Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth. 27 And God made man, according to the image of God he made him, male and female he made them. 28 And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the seas and flying creatures of heaven, and all the cattle and all the earth, and all the reptiles that creep on the earth. 29 And God said, Behold I have given to you every seed-bearing herb sowing seed which is upon all the earth, and every tree which has in itself the fruit of seed that is sown, to you it shall be for food. 30 And to all the wild beasts of the earth, and to all the flying creatures of heaven, and to every reptile creeping on the earth, which has in itself the breath of life, even every green plant for food; and it was so. 31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and, behold, they were very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

I'm not sure that I understand what you might be referring to as the 'differences', so I would ask that you be more specific about the 'differences' that you see.

As far as the 'ECF', you'll also have to be more specific as to the meaning of that abbreviation and I'd appreciate your posting the 'differences' you find in whatever that is.

Further, in this 'determination' of the age of things one cannot discount the geneologies. While that may not be your issue, it does absolutely play into the knowledge which God has revealed to us to understand the existence of our realm and how long that realm has existed.

Then you posted: I agree to here. It did not have to take Him six days. He could have done it in 6 seconds.

Yes, He could have done it all instantly, but He revealed to us through the authorship of the Holy Spirit that He did it in six days, not six seconds.

You then wrote: This is one statement that Ham, Hovind, and other YEC's make. At this point, even if I believed in a 6 day creation and a 6,000 year old universe, I would still hold that the first chapter is a literary framework and to dispute it compromises all conservative scholarship.

You'll have to gather up for me some of what you call 'conservative scholarship'. The only scholarship that I trust to be the truth is that of Paul, Peter, John and those who wrote to us in the new covenant writings. And, I'm fairly certain that if you even go back to the first two or three generations of believers after our Lord ascended into heaven, you will find that nearly all 'conservative scholarship' believed in a 6 day literal understanding of the creation. So, let me advise you early on that when one speaks of 'conservative scholarship' today, I find that all highly suspect.

Yes, and this is why I brought up the understanding that the Holy Spirit has given me of '666'. You believe that because the new age thinking of man has sold that now for the last few generations. It is much more palatable and able to then be arranged within the framework of man's instructions about the ages of the earth and the universe, but that is man's wisdom, thus '666'.

Jesus asked a rhetorical question of his disciples: "When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith upon the earth?" I believe his intended meaning in that question is that as we move further and further away from his life and the truth that he knew, towards the final days before the day of the wrath of God and Jesus' return just previous to God's wrath, that there will be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very few godly men of faith living upon the earth. This can all be seen in what some today would refer to as current 'conservative scholarship'.

Paul warns us of the day coming when men will not put up with sound doctrine, but rather will gather around them a crowd of those who would fill their itching ears with myths and untruths. I believe that day is now! What some would call 'conservative scholarship' today, are those who Paul and Peter, et.al, would rebuke in a moment for their having fallen away from the truth. Again, if you want to refer to some 'conservative scholarship, then you will have to go back to at least the first century and to those that we know were born again, before I would even consider any teaching as having come from such scholarship.


God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[jlmagee]

Hi Jerry,

You asked: We have differences here, but I agree that on a very literal reading this is the only conclusion. I am not looking to start a fight on the genealogies. I am just asking an honest question. How do you address the differences in the ages between the Septuagint, the ECF's and the text that is used now?

I have posted for everyone to compare the online english translation of the Septuagint here:

1:1 In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. 2 But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water. 3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. 4 And God saw the light that it was good, and God divided between the light and the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night, and there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it be a division between water and water, and it was so. 7 And God made the firmament, and God divided between the water which was under the firmament and the water which was above the firmament. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven, and God saw that it was good, and there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9 And God said, Let the water which is under the heaven be collected into one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so. And the water which was under the heaven was collected into its places, and the dry land appeared. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gatherings of the waters he called Seas, and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, to divide between day and night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years. 15 And let them be for light in the firmament of the heaven, so as to shine upon the earth, and it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light for regulating the day and the lesser light for regulating the night, the stars also. 17 And God placed them in the firmament of the heaven, so as to shine upon the earth, 18 and to regulate day and night, and to divide between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth reptiles having life, and winged creatures flying above the earth in the firmament of heaven, and it was so. 21 And God made great whales, and every living reptile, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds, and every creature that flies with wings according to its kind, and God saw that they were good. 22 And God blessed them saying, Increase and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let the creatures that fly be multiplied on the earth. 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind, quadrupeds and reptiles and wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and it was so. 25 And God made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and cattle according to their kind, and all the reptiles of the earth according to their kind, and God saw that they were good.
26 And God said, Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth. 27 And God made man, according to the image of God he made him, male and female he made them. 28 And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the seas and flying creatures of heaven, and all the cattle and all the earth, and all the reptiles that creep on the earth. 29 And God said, Behold I have given to you every seed-bearing herb sowing seed which is upon all the earth, and every tree which has in itself the fruit of seed that is sown, to you it shall be for food. 30 And to all the wild beasts of the earth, and to all the flying creatures of heaven, and to every reptile creeping on the earth, which has in itself the breath of life, even every green plant for food; and it was so. 31 And God saw all the things that he had made, and, behold, they were very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

I'm not sure that I understand what you might be referring to as the 'differences', so I would ask that you be more specific about the 'differences' that you see.

The text conveys the same interpretation. I did mention the geneaologies in my response to your post. I am specifically referring to the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11. In the Masoretic text, from which we get our standard English translations, it works out to right at 2000 years from Adam to Abraham. That works out to the 6000 years that we are familiar with. In the Septuagint, which the early church quoted, it is 3400-3500 years. This number would actually be what the Early Church Fathers were taking their dating from. (I added it together after our last post. The fathers, Theophilus, Clement of A., Ireneaus, Hippolytus, state that from Creation to the birth of Jesus is 5500 years which agrees with the Septuagint.) The endings of the numbers are all the same from Adam to Noah. This does not cast doubt on the inerrancy of the scripture in any way, shape, or form. It does raise an issue, however. The early Christians quoted from the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. I give you that a literal reading is still in a YEC model, but there is a significant, 1500 year, difference.

As far as the 'ECF', you'll also have to be more specific as to the meaning of that abbreviation and I'd appreciate your posting the 'differences' you find in whatever that is.

Further, in this 'determination' of the age of things one cannot discount the geneologies. While that may not be your issue, it does absolutely play into the knowledge which God has revealed to us to understand the existence of our realm and how long that realm has existed.

You are correct the geneologies are very important in the handling of the creation account. No part of God's word is trivial.

I calculated it out since my last post and the Early Church Fathers are consistent with the Septuagint.

Then you posted: I agree to here. It did not have to take Him six days. He could have done it in 6 seconds.

Yes, He could have done it all instantly, but He revealed to us through the authorship of the Holy Spirit that He did it in six days, not six seconds.

You then wrote: This is one statement that Ham, Hovind, and other YEC's make. At this point, even if I believed in a 6 day creation and a 6,000 year old universe, I would still hold that the first chapter is a literary framework and to dispute it compromises all conservative scholarship.

You'll have to gather up for me some of what you call 'conservative scholarship'. The only scholarship that I trust to be the truth is that of Paul, Peter, John and those who wrote to us in the new covenant writings. And, I'm fairly certain that if you even go back to the first two or three generations of believers after our Lord ascended into heaven, you will find that nearly all 'conservative scholarship' believed in a 6 day literal understanding of the creation. So, let me advise you early on that when one speaks of 'conservative scholarship' today, I find that all highly suspect.

Essentially, there are two thoughts on when the Pentateuch was written. Prior to Moses' death. (This would be what conservative scholarship that I am talking about states. I would not think you have a problem with this.) The other thought is the Pentateuch was compiled after the return from the Babylonian exile by Ezra and others. (This is the liberal view and, I am sure that we agree, is very problematic.)

Yes, and this is why I brought up the understanding that the Holy Spirit has given me of '666'. You believe that because the new age thinking of man has sold that now for the last few generations. It is much more palatable and able to then be arranged within the framework of man's instructions about the ages of the earth and the universe, but that is man's wisdom, thus '666'.

I respect your understanding of this. I can see how the Holy Spirit used the 666 to eveal this to you. I agree with it for the most part although I do not agee that this is an issue that is addressed by "new agethinking". Much as the geneleaogies, I put the numbers in their historical context.

Jesus asked a rhetorical question of his disciples: "When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith upon the earth?" I believe his intended meaning in that question is that as we move further and further away from his life and the truth that he knew, towards the final days before the day of the wrath of God and Jesus' return just previous to God's wrath, that there will be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very few godly men of faith living upon the earth. This can all be seen in what some today would refer to as current 'conservative scholarship'.

Paul warns us of the day coming when men will not put up with sound doctrine, but rather will gather around them a crowd of those who would fill their itching ears with myths and untruths. I believe that day is now! What some would call 'conservative scholarship' today, are those who Paul and Peter, et.al, would rebuke in a moment for their having fallen away from the truth. Again, if you want to refer to some 'conservative scholarship, then you will have to go back to at least the first century and to those that we know were born again, before I would even consider any teaching as having come from such scholarship.

The conservative scholarship that I am referring to agrees with the first century Christians that Moses wrote the Torah. That should not be controversial. My take on the literary framework is something that I am not going into. It is complex and would be counter-productive.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I will make one quick statement. I respect your scholarship. I do find it somewhat disheartening when YEC's feel that I do not value Bible study or just throw it out for something more palatable. I cannot speak for everyone, but it is certainly not my view.

I have addressed your concerns to my stances. My purpose in this thread is legitimate. When you are witnessing to a non-believer or former church attendee, do they express their disbelief in the early accounts in Genesis? If they do, do you feel compelled to address those concern or try to move on to the thread of prophecy that leads to Jesus?

Grace and Peace,
Jerry

 

[miamited]

Hi Jerry,

I have addressed your concerns to my stances. My purpose in this thread is legitimate. When you are witnessing to a non-believer or former church attendee, do they express their disbelief in the early accounts in Genesis? If they do, do you feel compelled to address those concern or try to move on to the thread of prophecy that leads to Jesus?

Well, let me start at the bottom and work up. I hope you can appreciate the change you have now made in all of your claims so far as to the reason that you have begun this thread. Now, you are asking whether or not when sharing with the lost the hope of salvation in my Lord, Jesus, would I start with making sure that they understand all the account of Genesis?

Well, no! Neither was I given all knowledge of everything in the Scriptures when I gave my life over to my Lord. But that's an entirely different issue than the claim of your posting your position in your OP. Nothing was ever mentioned or asked about how one's understanding of the account of Genesis had any bearing on one's witnessing. When I witness to the lost my intent is nothing more than to help them to understand who Jesus is and his purpose in coming to us and how they can have eternal life.

The text conveys the same interpretation. I did mention the geneaologies in my response to your post.

Yes, and you immediately made clear that the geneologies was not your reason for this discussion and so I understood your posting about the differences in the other writings as referring to your reason for posting. I don't think that anyone reading your response would have made the connection that you were not, in referring to the Septuagint and the ECF's, still speaking about the Genesis account of the creation that is the main issue of your OP, and had instead jumped to the differences in the geneologies.

I am specifically referring to the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11. In the Masoretic text, from which we get our standard English translations, it works out to right at 2000 years from Adam to Abraham. That works out to the 6000 years that we are familiar with. In the Septuagint, which the early church quoted, it is 3400-3500 years. This number would actually be what the Early Church Fathers were taking their dating from. (I added it together after our last post. The fathers, Theophilus, Clement of A., Ireneaus, Hippolytus, state that from Creation to the birth of Jesus is 5500 years which agrees with the Septuagint.) The endings of the numbers are all the same from Adam to Noah. This does not cast doubt on the inerrancy of the scripture in any way, shape, or form. It does raise an issue, however. The early Christians quoted from the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. I give you that a literal reading is still in a YEC model, but there is a significant, 1500 year, difference.

Yes, and I am familiar with those differences and it is why you will find many of the ECF's mathematical calculations working out differently as to the beginning of this realm. However, let's be real here. 1500 years of difference does not in any way equate to millions or billions of years and all of those figures that we read about as the mathematical formulations for the geneologies are claimed to be the beginning of this realm.

Hippolytus of Rome (170-236) calculated 5,500 years from the creation to the Christ.
Clement of Alexandria (150-215) calculated 6,148 years from the creation to the death of the Roman Emporer Commodus in A.D. 192.
Origen (185-253), while not stating any specific number, reckoned that the creation was less than 10,000 years.
Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339) reckoned the creation year to be 5,228 B.C. and further reckoned that from Adam to the flood was 2,242 years.

So, yes, there are slightly different numbers that men have come up with as the age of the creation, but let's not lose sight of the fact that everyone of them stated that it was the measure of years of the creation and none of them come anywhere close to the millions and billions of years that we hear today.

Now, many will say that that is just because of their ignorance of now known scientific 'facts'. But if one is trusting in the ECF's as their 'conservative scholars', which seems to be one of your sources that you are trusting in, then they still have to throw out those great numbers that we have today.

I have no problem that my calculations may be off by 1,000 or 2,000 or even 3,000 years, although I don't really think so, but it still disputes any claim that the creation is as old as the wisdom of modern man would have us believe.

You are correct the geneologies are very important in the handling of the creation account. No part of God's word is trivial.

I calculated it out since my last post and the Early Church Fathers are consistent with the Septuagint.

As I said, I have no problem with anyone who would make the claim to me that I might not have correctly calculated the 'exact' year of creation. As a matter of fact, when asked, I often include in my response that there may well be a few 100 years error in such calculations. But again, I must repeat, it doesn't give any reason to think that the Septuagint or the ECF's ever read the first chapter of Genesis with an understanding that it was just some literary prose and not meant to convey the truth of the beginning of this realm.

Essentially, there are two thoughts on when the Pentateuch was written. Prior to Moses' death. (This would be what conservative scholarship that I am talking about states. I would not think you have a problem with this.) The other thought is the Pentateuch was compiled after the return from the Babylonian exile by Ezra and others. (This is the liberal view and, I am sure that we agree, is very problematic.)

No, problem at all. As a matter of fact, I know that Moses wrote it! It therefore must have been written before his death.

I respect your understanding of this. I can see how the Holy Spirit used the 666 to eveal this to you. I agree with it for the most part although I do not agee that this is an issue that is addressed by "new agethinking". Much as the geneleaogies, I put the numbers in their historical context.

The conservative scholarship that I am referring to agrees with the first century Christians that Moses wrote the Torah. That should not be controversial. My take on the literary framework is something that I am not going into. It is complex and would be counter-productive.

I will make one quick statement. I respect your scholarship. I do find it somewhat disheartening when YEC's feel that I do not value Bible study or just throw it out for something more palatable. I cannot speak for everyone, but it is certainly not my view.

Quite the contrary, I hope that you do value the study of the Scriptures. It is encouraged and exampled for us throughout the Scriptures. However, I think it is useless without the indwelling Spirit of God because Jesus told us that it is he who will deliver to us all truth. Without our seeking and calling on the Holy Spirit through much prayer each time we sit down to really dive into the deeper things of God and His word, we are climbing a very slippery slope and catching on to the foundational footholds is impossible.

So, am I now to understand that because of the Septuagint and the ECF's you believe the creation of this realm to be less than 10,000 years?

Grace and Peace,
Jerry

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

I affirm the Nicene Creed. I fully acknowledge that God is the eternal, necessary cause for all of creation. God has been intimately involved with His creation from, "In the beginning, God...." (Gen.1:1), through "In the fullness of time God sent His son" (Gal. 4:4), through when He gives us drink from the spring of the water of life without cost (Rev.21:6), and into eternity. I hold to the inerrancy of the scripture in the original autographs. If I left something out, I am sure I will be called on it.

I agree with the scientific dating of the Earth and universe. I accept evolution as a mechanism that God used AND HIS INVOLVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS. I do not completely rule out some sort of progressive creation at various points of time. Now to my point.

When I was a YEC, I did not delve into the creation so much. I even was involved in jail ministry and was not challenged by the prisoners who did not believe. (They did challenge other positions.)

Over the last 10 years or so, perhaps because of the new anti-theism/New Atheist movement, I have noticed non-believers and former believers immediately try to challenge the Gospel with scientific evidence, the Flood, etc. For me, that is not an issue. I can tell them there is no conflict. Their objection to the YEC position actually leads me into the thread of prophecy from Gen. 3:15, Daniel, into Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. This approach has been effective for me. This has happened to me often, therefore it is not a hypothetical scenario.

My question is, given the importance placed on the YEC position, how does the conversation playout for you? Do you stress the literal translation of Genesis?

So, if I may, let's revisit your OP.

I agree with the scientific dating of the Earth and universe. I accept evolution as a mechanism that God used AND HIS INVOLVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS. I do not completely rule out some sort of progressive creation at various points of time. Now to my point.

If, this is your understanding and belief about the creation, then, why are you now trying to 'prove' that the Septuagint and the ECF's seem to be pretty much in agreement that our current scientific dating of the earth and the universe is completely off the chart.

Am I missing something here?

However, as to your question about it coming into play in one's preaching the truth of the gospel, there are times that it must, but that all depends on how deep one must go in proving who Jesus is.

When you get into the questions of, "Well, how do I know that Jesus is this Messiah that came to pay my penalty for sin?" One has to lay out some of the old covenant prophecies that explain this. Then the response is often, "Well, yea but I know that all that stuff was written after the fact." Then one is reduced to showing the careful writing and copying of the old covenant scriptures and how important it was to the Jews that every copy be exactly the same. Finally, the question might arise, "So, what makes anything that a bunch of folks called Jews wrote about?" At this point one has to go further into history and recount God's call to Abram and how the nation of Israel got it's beginning and the purpose of God's calling Abram and this usually all leads back to sin and how it got started and why we need salvation anyway.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I affirm the Nicene Creed. I fully acknowledge that God is the eternal, necessary cause for all of creation. God has been intimately involved with His creation from, "In the beginning, God...." (Gen.1:1), through "In the fullness of time God sent His son" (Gal. 4:4), through when He gives us drink from the spring of the water of life without cost (Rev.21:6), and into eternity. I hold to the inerrancy of the scripture in the original autographs. If I left something out, I am sure I will be called on it.

I agree with the scientific dating of the Earth and universe. I accept evolution as a mechanism that God used AND HIS INVOLVEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS. I do not completely rule out some sort of progressive creation at various points of time. Now to my point.

When I was a YEC, I did not delve into the creation so much. I even was involved in jail ministry and was not challenged by the prisoners who did not believe. (They did challenge other positions.)

Over the last 10 years or so, perhaps because of the new anti-theism/New Atheist movement, I have noticed non-believers and former believers immediately try to challenge the Gospel with scientific evidence, the Flood, etc. For me, that is not an issue. I can tell them there is no conflict. Their objection to the YEC position actually leads me into the thread of prophecy from Gen. 3:15, Daniel, into Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. This approach has been effective for me. This has happened to me often, therefore it is not a hypothetical scenario.

My question is, given the importance placed on the YEC position, how does the conversation playout for you? Do you stress the literal translation of Genesis?

Without believing Genesis 1 as it is written, there is no Gospel message to give anyone.
It is written in facts that God has given us about His order.
Six evenings and and mornings. Light brought forth on day 1, after the evening.

No heavens stretched out from earth until day 2 of creation week.

Heaven stretched out from earth on day 2, between the divided waters of creation, with half below the heavens and half above the heavens.

Heavens/sha-mayim are "two waters", in Hebrew, with the Mayim -waters, being preceded with the "shin" represented in first Hebrew writing as two front teeth. The waters/mayim, were divided/shin, so we have sha-mayim/heavens stretched out and named on day 2 of the six evenings and mornings.

Why is it so hard to believe what is written and does not change, by God, instead of taking the word of men who were not there and do not know and whose so called 'science' is always changing?

There was no sun set in the stretched out heavens until day 4 of creation week. The light of day 1 is not the sun. The sun is a created "Menorrah" for governing that light of day 1, which it collects and refracts back out to the entire heavens.

When Light was brought forth on day 1 of creation week in the heavens of earth which were not yet stretched out, that light was the power of electromagnetic force which the universe runs on the power of.

It is an electric universe, according to Genesis.
The sun is set in the heavens which revolve around the globe/tebel/world once a day =in an evening and a morning as we number them from day 1.
The sun also runs its own path in the heavens around the earth, once, daily

Why is it so hard to believe what is written by God instead of taking the word of silly men who deny God and who were never there and who cannot prove anything they make up?

The entire heavens are the stretched out from earth "firmament" made between the divided and stretched out waters of Genesis 1, and in them are set the stars, sun, and moon, which are God's calendar to measure time and seasons for earth.

The stars are also named angels, of creation, and the Word is specific about that, and in the end, a third of the stars will be cast down to the earth below, right from where the heavens were first stretched out from.

Why is it so hard to believe we are a supernatural creation in a supernaturally created universe upheld supernaturally by the Word of God, from the beginning to all eternity?

That is the problem from the beginning isn't it, When Adam was tempted to doubt the Word of God and to make up his own rules and so got cast out of Eden's Paradise/Garden -in the third stretched out story of heaven [according to Scripture]- and back down to the earth below, from which dust of, he was formed?

 

[ChetSinger]

My question is, given the importance placed on the YEC position, how does the conversation playout for you? Do you stress the literal translation of Genesis?

I'm mostly a YEC, so I'll take a shot at this.

In my evangelism experiences, questions regarding creation come up on a regular basis. They're more common from people with an axe to grind rather than seekers. But seekers bring it up, too.

I'm willing to engage regarding subjects I'm comfortable talking about (abiogenesis, biology, the cosmos), and refer them to places like creation.com regarding subjects I'm not (geology, paleontology, radiometric decay).

I think it's darn near impossible to be well-read on all the facets of creation evangelism unless one devotes many hours to it, as the people at creation and aig do.

And that's not me. So I pick my battles, referring people to others when I'm not up to the job.

 

[Chandell85]

You have no need to apologize. It does look like you pay attention in your classes. Are you attending a Christian or secular university? Does it approach geology with a YEC or OEC bias?

I would be one of those "most people". Archaeology, anthropology, and paleontology as well. Most of what I have read came from a YEC perspective. I have been trying to read more material from an old earth perspective. I have no educationa background in any f these fields. My college work has been in behavioral science and biblical studies.

Pardon my ignorance, does uniformatarianism include other events like mountain forming (folds, upheavals), or more just erosion and sediment?

I think I read that most use an integrated approach now. That would be consistent with what other fields are doing now. A geologist was explaining Loch Ness. He was discussing a lava formation and explaining how from watchin lave from a recent eruption in Hawaii or Japan, they could tell that the water level was higher by the lava shaped when it was cooled. He demonstrated uniformitarianism within a catastrophic event.

Accuracy of the methods is the issue in all the fields. Do they have different calibration methods for each type of dating method or are most just calibrated to tree rings? You seem to be saying that isotope dating is accurate but assumptions about the material could be in error? Do I understand that correctly? This is very interesting.

It sounds like you have a good grasp on where you are going with your education. Are you planning on doing field work as well? Do you feel this is a ministry you are going into (you mentioned the logical thought/apologetics)? How are your ideas received when you talk to peple who do not necessarily believe in a young earth?

I'm currently at a Christian university but I'm majoring in Spanish. I took the geology classes at a community college while going for my AA and the instructor was very evolution minded, so Old Earth but I wouldn't say OEC.

Like you, I'm interested in very many things that have nothing to do with the classes I'm studying. Lol if I could study more geology and use it as a scientific basis for apologetics I would, I'm just unsure if that's doable or even what God wants me to do at this point.

As far as I know, uniformitarianism applies to everything observable. If we see mountains growing now, they must've grown at a similar rate back then...

I don't know much about Loch Ness. But a catastrophic event in Geology is not equal to what we would call a catastrophe. A catastrophic event is, if I remember right, sort of unprecedented and/or has a huge environmental impact. The explosion of ancient Mt. Mozama (I could be spelling this wrong... And can't check because I'm doing this on my cell phone.) is an example of a catastrophic event. It left behind what is now Crater Lake in Oregon and was a huge explosion of a rhyolite dome. There hasn't been a similar explosion since but geologists are looking at Yellowstone to produce something similar in the future.

As for isotope dating, I honestly don't know enough about it to answer your questions about tree rings. You are right that I was talking about assumptions made about newly formed material.

I don't see myself as a field geologist, though I really did enjoy making a stratigraphy graph once on a freshly made scarp face. to be honest, this is one of the first times I've talked to anyone about what I believe concerning YEC, other than a couple of my science minded friends who share the same beliefs and helped to shape some of what I've shared. (Mostly about isotopes, I REALLY need to study more about that! Lol) If the Lord calls me into some sort of apologetics ministry, I pray He gives me the courage to stand strong when confronted with people who are much more learned than I am.

And thank you for starting this thread. I'm enjoying this.

 

[Smidlee]

Jones Dec. article is about Geologic layer names. Geologic Layer Names
Carboniferous
These thick black layers are where the Grand Canyon coal mines are.
What? You never noticed the massive coal mines that spoil the beauty of the Grand Canyon? The environmentalists must have done a very good job of keeping them hidden from you!

Seriously, there are no Carboniferous layers in the Grand Canyon. Is that because Arizona fell through some sort of time warp and didn’t exist 300 million years ago? Or was it because the trees in the vast tropical rainforest of the Arizona desert never existed, and therefore weren’t turned into coal.

 

[Chandell85]

Jones Dec. article is about Geologic layer names. Geologic Layer Names
Carboniferous
These thick black layers are where the Grand Canyon coal mines are.
What? You never noticed the massive coal mines that spoil the beauty of the Grand Canyon? The environmentalists must have done a very good job of keeping them hidden from you!
Seriously, there are no Carboniferous layers in the Grand Canyon. Is that because Arizona fell through some sort of time warp and didn't exist 300 million years ago? Or was it because the trees in the vast tropical rainforest of the Arizona desert never existed, and therefore weren't turned into coal.

Since I'm not a professional... I'm going to be nice.

There are several logical errors in this article. It contradicts itself in several areas. I agree, for the most part, with what it's trying to say, but the author shows a lack of knowledge in the area that makes YEC apologists seem unlearned and unable to use proper science.

The comment about the states becoming states has absolutely nothing to do with the deposition of a Carboniferous layer in that area and further contradicts the authors point about layers being named by geographical area. The author then went on to misquote a passage and cause the reader to think it was about something else.

Please please please!!! I beg you!! If you're going to debate and support YEC do your research from both perspectives!! Not just from a conservative website. Continue to be the beacon but be wise and study.

Thank you for sharing your article.

 

[Chandell85]

Maybe I should go into apologetics!!

Then again, I myself still have so much learning to do!!