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.
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.