I got a question(I must preface this by saying I do not mean to offend any body), are there any creditable young earth creationists, that have creditable evidence?The reason I ask is that I would like to look at some creditable source because some YEC have been accused or guilty of lying and falsifying evidence.I need some good solid answers and please no fighting please thanks.
I got a question(I must preface this by saying I do not mean to offend any body), are there any creditable young earth creationists, that have creditable evidence?The reason I ask is that I would like to look at some creditable source because some YEC have been accused or guilty of lying and falsifying evidence.I need some good solid answers and please no fighting please thanks.
I think misinterpretation and error could be seen on both sides of the fence.
As far as the Bible Student is concerned, examining the source, which is the Word of God, is where our focus should lie. We have seen a number of "evidences" which have been offered as "proof" against a literal 6 day creation fall to...Science itself.
What I mean by that is that Creation as given in the Genesis Account is denied based on conclusions drawn from certain scientists that have now been seen to be in error. Some traditional arguments would be that because certain animals today are obligate carnivores, which means that they have to have certain nutrition that can only be obtained through consumption of other animals, then it is ridiculous to say that man and animals were once vegetarian and herbivorous. And that is the typical approach to denying Scripture...drawing conclusions based on current conditions. What is amazing to me in this argument is that it is Creationists saying "Of course an animal's eating habits and requirements can change based upon their particular conditions," which in one sense is agreeing...animals can evolve to survive in those conditions.
And the Evolutionist will usually deny that possibility, lol. I find it amusing.
Another might be that the geographic structure would have taken millions of years to form, such as sedimentary layering, for example, when only recently has it been acknowledged, due to observation of current conditions, rapid formation can occur not just in a few years, but in fact in a matter of hours.
The problem with trying to make current conditions the baseline for conclusions is that due to the fact that this world is falling apart at the seams...we see a devolution taking place which cannot be ignored. Evolution has run on a premise that evolution has seen an improvement in man, when now scientists are presenting evidence that the brain capacity of man is has decreased from the time of their Neanderthal. Men are weaker. Lifespan is less according to the Bible, yet because of medical advancement a linger life now than 100 years ago is seen as an improvement in man in a general form. Take away medical science and see how long man lives on average, then place that in relation to those closer to Creation and see if the general principle of the effect of sin on the world is not strengthened, and evolution weakened.
Many such arguments are offered and debated, but what will always remain constant is the Word of God.
So rather than looking for arguments for a Young Earth View...study the Bible. I am confident the Lord will supply an answer to your questions, and that eventually you will not fear to enter into discussion with Evolutionists, whether they are Christians or not.
Me, I am a Young Earth Creationist. It's either that, or take the liberal views offered by those who convert the Bible into an analogy that can be interpreted any way one wants to, rather than an exegesis what God has revealed to us.
It's a fun debate, don't get me wrong, but like the man who dealt with identifying counterfeit money said when asked if he spent a lot of time in study of false currency, his response was "No, I spend a lot of time in study of genuine currency. That's how I can discern the counterfeit."
That's what we need to do: study the genuine, and we will be able to discern the counterfeit.
As far as the appeal to 3 million agreeing scientists making something true, lol, then we have o say that 3 million Muslims, or Mormons, or Judaizers make their beliefs true as well.
Right?
God bless.
I think misinterpretation and error could be seen on both sides of the fence.
As far as the Bible Student is concerned, examining the source, which is the Word of God, is where our focus should lie. We have seen a number of "evidences" which have been offered as "proof" against a literal 6 day creation fall to...Science itself.
What I mean by that is that Creation as given in the Genesis Account is denied based on conclusions drawn from certain scientists that have now been seen to be in error.
Some traditional arguments would be that because certain animals today are obligate carnivores, which means that they have to have certain nutrition that can only be obtained through consumption of other animals, then it is ridiculous to say that man and animals were once vegetarian and herbivorous. And that is the typical approach to denying Scripture...drawing conclusions based on current conditions. What is amazing to me in this argument is that it is Creationists saying "Of course an animal's eating habits and requirements can change based upon their particular conditions," which in one sense is agreeing...animals can evolve to survive in those conditions.
And the Evolutionist will usually deny that possibility, lol. I find it amusing.
Another might be that the geographic structure would have taken millions of years to form, such as sedimentary layering, for example, when only recently has it been acknowledged, due to observation of current conditions, rapid formation can occur not just in a few years, but in fact in a matter of hours.
The problem with trying to make current conditions the baseline for conclusions is that due to the fact that this world is falling apart at the seams...we see a devolution taking place which cannot be ignored.
Evolution has run on a premise that evolution has seen an improvement in man, when now scientists are presenting evidence that the brain capacity of man is has decreased from the time of their Neanderthal. Men are weaker. Lifespan is less according to the Bible, yet because of medical advancement a linger life now than 100 years ago is seen as an improvement in man in a general form.
Many such arguments are offered and debated, but what will always remain constant is the Word of God.
So rather than looking for arguments for a Young Earth View...study the Bible.
I am confident the Lord will supply an answer to your questions, and that eventually you will not fear to enter into discussion with Evolutionists, whether they are Christians or not.
Me, I am a Young Earth Creationist. It's either that, or take the liberal views offered by those who convert the Bible into an analogy that can be interpreted any way one wants to, rather than an exegesis what God has revealed to us.
It's a fun debate, don't get me wrong, but like the man who dealt with identifying counterfeit money said when asked if he spent a lot of time in study of false currency, his response was "No, I spend a lot of time in study of genuine currency. That's how I can discern the counterfeit."
As far as the appeal to 3 million agreeing scientists making something true, lol, then we have o say that 3 million Muslims, or Mormons, or Judaizers make their beliefs true as well.
Right?
If Adam isn't literal then Jesus can't be literal also, because Paul compares the two on how one man sin entered the world and one man gave everlasting life. Jesus can't give us everlasting life if Adam wasn't a literal personExactly.
Genesis 1 says nothing about "how" God created the world - only that He did. The Adam and Eve story was never about providing a literal interpretation of how the world began at all. Instead, it's an allegorical story demonstrating how sin has separated us from God.
There is nothing to suggest that God created the world and used evolution as a means to propagate life on it.
Ringo
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
I think misinterpretation and error could be seen on both sides of the fence.
Having been a research biologist specializing in evolutionary biology and now, for the past nine years, working in a Christian apologetics ministry, I have read many hundreds of studies on both sides of the fence.
Creationist ministries such as the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International routinely, knowingly, and deliberately misrepresent (I am being polite here) the truth about the Bible,
the biological and earth sciences, themselves, the 3,000,000 plus scientists who disagree with them, and the hundreds of millions of Christians who believe that the earth is billions of years old.
On the other side of the fence, except for in the medical sciences where the financial motivation for dishonesty is very great, misrepresentation of the truth is so rare as to be nearly nonexistent.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
As far as the Bible Student is concerned, examining the source, which is the Word of God, is where our focus should lie. We have seen a number of "evidences" which have been offered as "proof" against a literal 6 day creation fall to...Science itself.
The first eleven chapters of Genesis are written in a genre of literature that is unique in the body of biblical literature.
Literary analysis of this genre of literature and its use in Genesis has conclusively proven that these eleven chapters consist of a collection of extensively redacted epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends.
The biological and earth sciences do NOT prove this factthe Bible itself proves this fact.
However, because of the high quality of the todays biblical scholarship and the high quality of the todays scholarship in the biological and earth sciences, we find that these areas of scholarship give us results that are in harmony with each other.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
What I mean by that is that Creation as given in the Genesis Account is denied based on conclusions drawn from certain scientists that have now been seen to be in error.
No
the Christian faith is based upon the Bible; the theory of evolution is based upon the biological and earth sciences.
I know scientists who are devout Christians,
but I have not been able to find even one creationist who is a devout scientist.
Indeed, there is not alive today even one scientist who is familiar with the data regarding the age of the earth and who has had the education necessary to evaluate the data and who yet believes that the earth is less than one millions year old.
Indeed every single one of the about 22-25 men (no women) who have earned a Ph.D. in some field of science and who have identified themselves as young earth creationists is a peculiar kind Christian fundamentalist rather than a genuine scientist.
Consequently, they are unable to secure employment in the scientific community and thus have no access to laboratories and laboratory equipment, and very little access to current scientific research.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Some traditional arguments would be that because certain animals today are obligate carnivores, which means that they have to have certain nutrition that can only be obtained through consumption of other animals, then it is ridiculous to say that man and animals were once vegetarian and herbivorous. And that is the typical approach to denying Scripture...drawing conclusions based on current conditions. What is amazing to me in this argument is that it is Creationists saying "Of course an animal's eating habits and requirements can change based upon their particular conditions," which in one sense is agreeing...animals can evolve to survive in those conditions.
And the Evolutionist will usually deny that possibility, lol. I find it amusing.
No one is denying Scripture by “drawing conclusions based on current conditions”
or by drawing conclusions based upon the high quality of the today’s biblical scholarship.
What is being denied are not the Scriptures; what is being denied are old, outdated interpretations of Genesis 1-11 that have been incontrovertibly proven by biblical scholars to be severely incorrect.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Another might be that the geographic structure would have taken millions of years to form, such as sedimentary layering, for example, when only recently has it been acknowledged, due to observation of current conditions, rapid formation can occur not just in a few years, but in fact in a matter of hours.
The length of time it took for a particular layering to occur is measured by a multitude of factors that give us VERY accurate and incontrovertible information.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
The problem with trying to make current conditions the baseline for conclusions is that due to the fact that this world is falling apart at the seams...we see a devolution taking place which cannot be ignored.
Scientists do not work from a “baseline,” they work from, in the case of the age of the earth, billions of pieces of data.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Evolution has run on a premise that evolution has seen an improvement in man, when now scientists are presenting evidence that the brain capacity of man is has decreased from the time of their Neanderthal. Men are weaker. Lifespan is less according to the Bible, yet because of medical advancement a linger life now than 100 years ago is seen as an improvement in man in a general form.
None of this is true.
Evolution has NEVER run on a premise that evolution has seen an improvement in man.
The cranial capacity of a skull gives us the size of the whole brain rather than the individual parts of it—such as the part responsible for cognitive thinking.
The very recent increase in man’s lifespan in modern, industrialized countries is NOT taught by evolutionists to be due to evolution, but due to the furtherance of medical knowledge.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Many such arguments are offered and debated, but what will always remain constant is the Word of God.
Such arguments are offered and debated on Christian message boards, but they certainly are not offered by evolutionists.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
So rather than looking for arguments for a Young Earth View...study the Bible.
Hundreds of millions of us have studied the Bible, and we KNOW that it does NOT teach that the earth is young.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
I am confident the Lord will supply an answer to your questions, and that eventually you will not fear to enter into discussion with Evolutionists, whether they are Christians or not.
Christians should discuss things that they have studied, and study things that they know nothing about.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Me, I am a Young Earth Creationist. It's either that, or take the liberal views offered by those who convert the Bible into an analogy that can be interpreted any way one wants to, rather than an exegesis what God has revealed to us.
I am a conservative, evangelical Christian
whom God has blessed with an excellent education in the biological sciences, biblical exegesis, and translation theory.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
It's a fun debate, don't get me wrong, but like the man who dealt with identifying counterfeit money said when asked if he spent a lot of time in study of false currency, his response was "No, I spend a lot of time in study of genuine currency. That's how I can discern the counterfeit."
The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Translations give us only an approximation to the genuine thing.
But that genuine thing, read out of the context of its time, culture, and literature can be, and almost always is, terribly misunderstood.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
As far as the appeal to 3 million agreeing scientists making something true, lol, then we have o say that 3 million Muslims, or Mormons, or Judaizers make their beliefs true as well.
Right?
No, of course not!
A fundamental argument of young earth creationists is that there are scientists who have earned a Ph.D. in a field of science and who believe in and teach young earth creationism.
They know, of course, that there are only 22-25 of them,
and that none of them did their doctoral studies on a topic related to the age of the earth or to evolution—but their Ph.D. in a field of science is VERY important!
If that is true, how about the 3,000,000 plus scientists around the world who have earned a Ph.D. in a field of science and who believe that the earth is billions of years old?
How about the hundreds of thousands of these men and women who did their doctoral studies on a topic related to the age of the earth or to evolution and who believe that the earth is billions of years old?
More important, however, is the fate of the hundreds of thousands of people who, every year, reject as nonsense the gospel because it is far too often commingled with young earth creationism—
a doctrine that the Bible does not teach
and a doctrine that the hearers of the gospel know is not true.
If Adam isn't literal then Jesus can't be literal also, because Paul compares the two on how one man sin entered the world and one man gave everlasting life. Jesus can't give us everlasting life if Adam wasn't a literal person
Yet you cannot divorce the two, and trying to, when you are such an adamant advocate of Theistic Evolution seems rather absurd.
While I will not engage in link pong, I would recommend R.C. Sproul as a true Biblical Scholar, who has historically rejected a six day Creation, but has...changed his mind.
You want to match your scholarship in either Biblical matters or Scientific to say you should be considered more of an authority than he?
Will you deny that Science has caused Evolutionary fact to be discredited?
On the contrary...every word is true.
Unless you want to say that man evolving from an ape into a man...is not an improvement.
The fact is that Scripture states man, in his original creation, to live considerably longer than man lives today. As we see that lessening of life we correlate that to the curse of sin.
Evolution takes the opposite approach, and instead of seeing man in a state of digression from his original condition...you see man as being made better.
I see nothing "conservative" in those that deny Scripture. Those who allegorize the very statements of the Word of God.
That is liberal theology, in my view.
As I said, we can test your exegesis in the thread about Hebrews.
How about 3 million Catholics that believe men are born again by being baptized?
How about 3 million Muslims that believe that Jesus is simply a human prophet?
How about 3 million eastern mystics who believe they can alter reality that is not after all reality to begin with?
Your appeal to scholarship is a slippery slope, my friend, because all sides can appeal to it, and it appeals to those who have similar beliefs. But Scripture is the Authority on the matter, and it is Scripture we must examine.
What utter nonsense. You are going to credit a Young Earth view as a destructive doctrine which causes people to reject the Gospel?
Religion is religion; science is science. I am an advocate for teaching an academically defensible interpretation of the Scriptures that glorifies the Creator while manifesting to man his need for salvation from his sins through his personal faith in Christ Jesus.Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Yet you cannot divorce the two, and trying to, when you are such an adamant advocate of Theistic Evolution seems rather absurd.
I am NOT an advocate of Theistic Evolution!
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
While I will not engage in link pong, I would recommend R.C. Sproul as a true Biblical Scholar, who has historically rejected a six day Creation, but has...changed his mind.
You want to match your scholarship in either Biblical matters or Scientific to say you should be considered more of an authority than he?
Absolutely! There is no question about it!
Absolutely!Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Will you deny that Science has caused Evolutionary fact to be discredited?
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
On the contrary...every word is true.
Unless you want to say that man evolving from an ape into a man...is not an improvement.
The theory of evolution is NOT about anything evolving to an improved state.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
The fact is that Scripture states man, in his original creation, to live considerably longer than man lives today. As we see that lessening of life we correlate that to the curse of sin.
The life spans given of men in the Hextateuch are symbolical and theological rather than historical.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Evolution takes the opposite approach, and instead of seeing man in a state of digression from his original condition...you see man as being made better.
Not true!
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
I see nothing "conservative" in those that deny Scripture. Those who allegorize the very statements of the Word of God.
That is liberal theology, in my view.
Believing in and defending an academically defensible interpretation of Scripture does not constitute denying Scripture!
Believing in and defending an academically defensible interpretation of Scripture from a Bible-believing conservative point of view does not constitute liberalism!
Moreover, let us not confuse sagas, myths, and legends with allegories. Even many of the most radical fundamentalist Christians find the very same allegories in a literal interpretation of Genesis as do many contemporary scholars of Genesis.
This was even true of the Apostle Paul (Gal. 4:24-25).
My exegesis of Hebrews is supported by the very finest New Testament scholarship in all of the mainline Christian denominations,Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
As I said, we can test your exegesis in the thread about Hebrews.
and even by the most capable Baptist scholars.
Less capable men like Sproulwho lacks an in-depth knowledge of that epistle disagrees
(as he does regarding mainstream Baptist soteriology).
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
How about 3 million Catholics that believe men are born again by being baptized?
The Roman Catholic Church does NOT teach that anyone is saved by being baptized,
and that salvation is conferred upon the believer in water baptism.
but rather that we are justified by faith alone
and that salvation is conferred upon the believer in water baptism.
Moreover, this belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree!
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
How about 3 million Muslims that believe that Jesus is simply a human prophet?
This belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree!
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
How about 3 million eastern mystics who believe they can alter reality that is not after all reality to begin with?
This belief is offset by over four billion people who disagree!
The three million scientists referred to in my post are offset by 22-25 scientists who cannot even get a job in the scientific community!
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
Your appeal to scholarship is a slippery slope, my friend, because all sides can appeal to it, and it appeals to those who have similar beliefs. But Scripture is the Authority on the matter, and it is Scripture we must examine.
Believers in young earth creationism appeal to 22-25 scientists who cannot even get a job in the scientific community,
and to horribly outdated teachings by men who were too afraid to question an archaic interpretation of Genesis in an age when doing so brought the wrath of men upon those who dared to study the Bible as literature.
Originally Posted by P1LGR1M View Post
What utter nonsense. You are going to credit a Young Earth view as a destructive doctrine which causes people to reject the Gospel?
Absolutely and incontrovertibly!
Those of us who are currently involved in the ministry of Christian apologetics find that the primary reason today for not believing the Bible is the belief that the Bible teaches young earth creationism
a doctrine that those being ministered to know to be untrue.
I cannot begin to express what a heart-wrenching experience it is to actually see those being ministered to refusing to believe the gospel because they believe that the Bible teaches young earth creationism.
I think that the Bible is credible enough for me. It says that GOD created everything in 6 literal days and rested on the seventh.
Only to the limited mind would someone believe that the earth was flat. There is a North, South, East and West. Are they corners? There are more than 4 winds upon the Earth. They are talking about the 4 winds of the Earth that GOD has made significant. Why couldn't Jesus see all the kingdoms of the World. Satan is supernatural. He could cause a vision of all the kingdoms to appear to our Lord. I find your response nonsensical and not very well thought out.
There are today about 22-25 men (no women) who have earned a Ph.D. in some field of science and who have identified themselves as young earth creationists. They are all extreme fundamentalist Christians who have allowed their religious beliefs to blind them to such a severe extent that they dismiss the views of over 3,000,000 scientists who have earned a Ph.D. or some other doctoral degree in some field of science. Moreover, they hold to an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that is viewed as severely incorrect by nearly all Old Testament scholars who are currently publishing research in peer-reviewed biblical journals. None of the 22-25 men have a background in evolutionary biology, and they either lie about the basic principles of the mechanics of evolution, or they make fools of themselves by exposing an ignorance for which there is no excuse in the 21st century.
Genesis 1-11 is one of the most studied and researched portions of the Bible. For more than a century, the predominant interpretation, based upon the internal and external linguistic and literary evidence, has been that Genesis 1-11 is a series of epic tales, sagas, myths, and/or legends that, over a period of many years, were edited and woven together giving us their present form. Theologically conservative Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the God had a major role in the process. Theologically liberal Jewish and Christian scholars believe that the God had little, if anything, to do with the process.
The evidence that the earth is extremely old is not only massive, it is conclusive. No one who is familiar with the evidence believes that the earth is young. Everyone who disagrees is unfamiliar with the evidence. None of the people posting to the contrary on this message board are scientists or scholars of the Old Testament who are currently publishing research in peer-reviewed biblical journals.
Furthermore, when young earth creationism is commingled with the gospel, every non-Christian who has even a basic knowledge of science knows for certain that they are being fed a lie, and they reject as false the gospel along with the young earth creationism. In the last several decades, this has had a devastating impact on the Christian faith with millions upon millions of people rejecting the gospel. Indeed, this past Saturday, I was witnessing to a group of atheists who rejected the gospel for that very reason!
Young earth creationism ignores both scientific and biblical research and substitutes a baloney sandwich.
Thank You for saying what needs to be said! I am a former YEC, who left the position once I learned that YEC science failed as a theoretical model across several areas of science to the point I could not ignore it, or lie to myself any longer. Right now I reside in the Old Earth camp. I agree with Ken Ham that there is indeed one creation and universe, yet Mr. Ham and other YEC's fail to account for why their science fails constantly when applied as a theoretical model in the real world and universe that our Creator brought forth, when the rubber meets the road of actual unbiased scientific research. I'm still very much a believer in our Lord Jesus Christ, and I have not negotiated away one single non-negotiable doctrine of the faith!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?