Posted on 02/05/2009 5:00:13 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Books claiming that science disproves ‘young-earth’ creationism are very common, and books that claim the Bible itself does not mandate a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis are not in short supply either. David Snoke’s book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth ostensibly falls in the latter group, though his main reason for rejecting biblical creation is really uniformitarian ‘science’. Books like these generally don’t pose a threat to informed creationists, and this one is no exception. In fact, Snoke could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had actually taken the time to read more creationist literature; most of the things he cites as problems for creationists have been answered years ago.
First, some clear flaws in the book must be pointed out. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance to think that someone can refute young-earth creationism in any kind of detail in a book less than 200 pages long, and with just over 4 pages of endnotes which cite only half a dozen actual creationist works. The only creationist book he cites is The Genesis Flood, which is over 45 years old. No mention of Refuting Compromise for example that refutes almost all his arguments.1 And the most up-to-date creationist article cited is from 1993. Clearly this is a man at the cutting edge!
Incompetent arrogance...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
ping!
The author’s use of the phrase “informed creationist” really made me laugh.
So let me get this straight. God spoke to a neolithic people in an extinct dialog of an ancient unwritten language and sought to fully explain scientific concepts that the afore mentioned language did not have the capability of expressing so that speakers of modern English could confront another wonderful creation go God, science?.....Rignt.
well the article is pathetic anyway...
A pathetic article by morons!! The fact that the earth is billions of years old in no way undermines the truth of the Bible and its testimony of the faith.
When and where in these past 6,000 years did Lucifer fall from heaven. Think that did not cause a catastrophic pounding upon this earth? Peter says there are three different heaven/earth ages.
Wonder why IF creationists were correct regarding a young earth, would God allow in a Christian nation, for a godless scientific methodology to be the crumbs fed to little children that they are mere animals descending from great apes?
In the beginning, God created. How long ago, it doesn’t specify.
And the earth became without form and void. How much later, it doesn’t specify. You can ask Peter, John & Jude for the details. HINT: Satan was involved.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters...THEN the Seven Days started.
The earth is old, and so is the universe.
Speaking of morons. Look what the evidence has forced the Temple of Darwin to give Darwin for his birthday. Creationists have been predicting this eventuality ever since Darwin. LOL!
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200901.htm#20090122a
It has always amazed me that good folks, believing that The Lord is Eternal (always has been), seem to think He just now got around to creating physical things (the universe). In terms of eternal time.....6000 years ago is "just now".
You are correct.....no where is scripture undermined by a universe that is billions of years old.
No, but (KJV) Perspicuous Scripture Alone theology takes a very bad hit...
I do not countenance to predictions made by creationists who ignore the literal physical evidence. Nor do I find the Darwinist shining anything more than from the dark side of the moon.
I ask you again IF creationists claims of a baby 6,000 year old earth WHY would the Heavenly Father turn His back, and allow a godless theory that life sprang forth from a hot steamy pot of primordial pond scum be what get planted into the minds of His children. Young earth predictors have as many missing links as the hot pot primordial soup preachers.
I think Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is just as half-baked as Christian New Earth Theory.
“No, but (KJV) Perspicuous Scripture Alone theology takes a very bad hit...”
As it should!!
It’s called free will.
I do not know the answer, Christ did say some were blinded for their own protection. But while they are out proclaiming a young earth, the scientific methodology got legal lawful standing in our public education.
That was one of the main reasons why I wanted to know what the Bible literally said.... I can find no incidence wherein the children were literally following the WORD, that another 'word' was allowed to replace the WORD.
Well, it least you’re part right.
the 6000 year old earth folks don’t believe God can work in mysterious ways, over billions of years, and use whatever tools he likes. the 6000 year old earth folks insult the glories of God and the wonders of His universe.
Just like the early Hebrews, Charles Darwin did not have all of modern science at his disposal. He relied upon the tools of the day and on that greatest of God's gifts, human intelligence. None the less, his "theory" of evolution forms the basis of a significant body of work that has not refuted his theory. In fact the overwhelming majority of the work fully supports his theory.
Still on the subject of morons, why do you suppose so many who lack the education in advanced physics, molecular biology, and mathematics fear it like primitive peoples feared their first exposure to firearms?
To a degree.....I agree. LOL. I'm a poet!
But......if folks just used their heads as God intended, the KJV need not take any hits at all. It is obvious to most anyone who would inquire.....that our understanding of the early languages is much better than those who were commissioned by the King......in his great endeavor. And also, some of the language (English) has changed its meaning over time. This is not the fault of the King, his translators or the work itself.
Paul says there are some predestined from before the foundation of the world, so some do not have 'free will'. But you are correct that young earth creationists do have the free will to believe, as do the darwinists... Looks like the Heavenly Father stepped out of the picture and is allowing the free willers to do their thing.
> The author’s use of the phrase “informed creationist” really made me laugh.
Why is that? The [Judo/Christian/Islamic] creation-myth {in that it is an explanatory story, not in that it is untrue} doesn’t suffer from the three things that evolution fails to adequately explain. (And, so far, nobody has replicated.)
1: That life should arise from non-life. Yes, there are structured inorganic compounds, but these are at least several orders of magnitude simpler than what is required for even the simplest of life.
2: The arising of multi-celled organisms. There is no [intuitive] reason why life should need more than one cell. In fact, organs are particularly difficult to find any good explanation for.
3: This is a more specialized sub-problem of the second case, but sexual reproduction itself is something of a challenge. Think about it, if you have an organism which can satisfy the reproduction singularly, why would you want to add the extra complexity of sex? Not only that, but “half evolved” sexual organs are worthless, it’s really an all-or-nothing approach. (Yes, there are some hermaphroditic spices, but that’s an exception not the rule among sexual reproduction.) And, as an added inconvenience from the continuation-of-the-species goal of life, by going with a sexual reproduction you do not only limit yourself to two organisms, but two organisms of the differing sexes!
(IE, it’s the question of reaching into a pot of red and white marbles and pulling out one of each color rather than two of one color.)
==Still on the subject of morons, why do you suppose so many who lack the education in advanced physics, molecular biology, and mathematics fear it like primitive peoples feared their first exposure to firearms?
Because Darwinists fear the truth.
im a very happy YEC, college educated with a b.s. in communications.
im a pc helpdesk analyst for a major healthcare provider....
im well read and dont happen to believe the propaganda of OEC, or, secular humanism, the official religion of the church of darwin, sorry, the bible says six days.....nothing limiting to God at all by a normal reading and straightforward meaning of the text....
During the seventeenth century, Archbishop James Ussher of the Church of Ireland determined that the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM—and I assume that was Pacific Daylight Time.
Old-Earth theories are based on evidence that is not related to or reliant on the thoery of evolution.
No, I am 100% right and you should seek counseling.
Einstein' papers of 1905, announcing special relativity and the photoelectric effect (quantum physics) were only a few pages long. Watson and Crick announced the structure of DNA in one page.
A page or two of Potassium-argon data are sufficient to establish a minimum age for the earth.
“A page or two of Potassium-argon data WITH UNPROVABLE STARTING ASSUMPTIONS THAT GUARANTEE OLD AGES, are sufficient to establish a minimum age for the earth.”
that’s better...
A casual reading of scripture leads one to believe that Satan and his angels lived before the 6 day creation. I wonder why they don't consider that as a prior age?
>>the three things that evolution fails to adequately explain
>
>Old-Earth theories are based on evidence that is not related to or reliant on the thoery of evolution.
Ah, I see your distinction. I haven’t thought that the age of the Earth / Universe was that big a deal. As some have pointed out, God starts off by creating, and yet how many of the ‘days’ that are laid out in the creation story occur BEFORE the creation of the sun? {Problematic, linguistically speaking, because a ‘day’ is one revolution of the Earth in respect to the sun... unless the word was translated from a generalized “time period” as in the phrase “back in my day”.}
Then it appears to be a case of provable data with unprovable starting assumptions, vs unprovable data with unprovable starting assumptions.
Earth age theory seems to be the topic of the article, so I assumed that would be on topic.
In practical terms the science behind Earth age estimates seems to have more of a potential to have public policy considerations. For instance, that nuclear waste storage facility we're building at Yucca mountain was put there based on estimates that that site has been geologically stable for millions of years.
>For instance, that nuclear waste storage facility we’re building at Yucca mountain was put there based on estimates that that site has been geologically stable for millions of years.
I see. Though the past is not necessarily an indication of the future, all it would take is one [unexpected] catastrophic event as in Mt St Helen’s.
Young-earth creationism is impossible. We have evidence from Egypt of continual cultural development from 7,000 B.C. to the present. If there were a flood c.2400 B.C. there would be a break in the archaeological record with one older predominant culture, a deep layer of sediment, and then a totally different culture over the sediment layer. Moses was totally aware of this when he wrote the book of Genesis, so he had another reason for including the 7-day creation account in scripture. That purpose was to show the Israelites that YHWH-Elohim was Creator and that neither the earth, heavenly bodies, waters, nor the briny deep were divine.
Yes, it would. Yucca Mountain was formed by a supervolcano. According to the (old Earth theory) scientists, that volcano has been extinct for, I believe, about 12 million years. If the YEC theories are correct, that volcano would have been active within the last 6 thousand years.
> The earth is old, and so is the universe.
Sincere question for you. Before the curse, there was no death, and I’d conclude also no physical decay of any kind. The creation was perfect. So, how do you see behind that event? I’d posit that there was no decay of any kind before sin and the consequent curse on all creation. Creation went from perfection without decay, to something ridden with entropy, decay and death.
After reading the Bible, it is the last place I would look for understanding the natural sciences. And speaking or arrogance, how is it the Creationists hold their view as true over other creation myths.
==No, I am 100% right and you should seek counseling.
LOL...Looks like the inmates have taken over the asylum :o)
Personally I’m going for the Young Mirth Theory based upon the Possum Organ Test as opposed to the Bold Mirth Theory based up TeaTonics since there are no old and bold Mirths.
Also, before the Seven Day Creation, we had a different “aeon”—Age; Peter's “First Earth Age” and "First Heaven Age", which KJV just translates "First Earth" and "First Heaven".
It was different in many respects from this, the “Second Earth Age” and "Second Heaven Age"; and the details of the differences do not particularly concern us, as far as God is concerned. If it did, He would have explicitly told us more about it.
What we do see is that that Age was ended by Satan's Rebellion and Overthrow, so we have enough to tell us why, though not when.
It is enough to put us on track in this Age, to help make the choice for God or Satan, before the coming of the Third Aeon—the Restored Earth & "Third Heaven Age"... without the presence of Satan & those who choose badly.
It is a bit of a shame that KJV translators used ‘earth’ and ‘Heaven’ as the translation of ‘aeon’, but they did...just like in ONE spot (Acts 12:4) they translated ‘Pascha’ as ‘Easter’ instead of ‘Passover’, like all the other places it occurred.
“LOL...Looks like the inmates have taken over the asylum :o)”
Not so it is called good solid wisdom and my belief in Christ and the Bible is strong. It is the “ultimate reality”. I have problems with goofy doctrines and those who purport them. St. Paul warned the Ch-urch about these things in his letter to Titus Chapter 3:8-9
8The saying is sure.I desire that you insist on these things, so that those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works; these things are excellent and profitable to everyone. 9But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
Let us know when this reviewer graduates from high school, and try again — with another YEC editorial posing as “news”...
Right back at ya d:op
(Excuse the double post. GGG whines if I ping him and DallasMike with the same keystroke...)
You still don’t know when you’re going to graduate from high school. Suddenly all your replies make sense :o)
Actually my point is that people thought Mt St Helen’s was safe too... much like they think that the volcano that Mexico City is on is safe.
Are they? Only hindsight gives us an immutable answer, the rest is probabilities and educated guesses.
==After reading the Bible, it is the last place I would look for understanding the natural sciences. And speaking or arrogance, how is it the Creationists hold their view as true over other creation myths.
Hey, if the Lord doesn’t convict you, then you haven’t been chosen (yet). It’s that simple. The Temple of Darwin (read: materialist evolution) is for those who still hide their face from God.
~~~~~
Actually, it was Ussher who claimed to have identified the date. The culprit who claimed,
"this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning."
was John Lightfoot:
John Lightfoot (1602-1675), Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University was a contemporary of Ussher. Lightfoot published his calculations in 1644, before Ussher's were completed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Both were sadly deluded -- if not demented -- as are those who worship at their feet...
Nobody can forsee the future or guarantee that all of the underlying assumptions are correct.
Current scientific theory on Earth age is based on assumptions that radioactive decay rates have remained relatively constant. Their observations tend to support this, as they have never been observed to be substantially variable.
The only YEC theories I have seen that attempt to account for the observed data on uranium decay posit that by some yet unexplained process what appears to be 4.5 billion years worth of uranium decay happened within the space of about a year during the Noachian flood, and happened without the ususal heat that would be associated with the decay. Otherwise the amount of heat that would be generated by that amount of decay in that time frame would have vaporized the Earth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.