Skip to comments.Creation Conversion: The Turning Point
Posted on 05/01/2014 8:21:05 AM PDT by fishtank
Creation Conversion: The Turning Point
Many people believe that creationists are brainwashed from birth and adhere to a recent biblical creation simply because it has been drilled into their heads since they were toddlersa form of partisan indoctrination. But there are scientists who became creationists only after careful study and serious deliberation. They believed in a billions-of-years-old universe for many years before coming to a crossroads in their lives.
When these scientists reached a turning pointfrom belief in countless years of evolution to belief in a recent creation that took place just thousands of years agotheir lives completely changed course. This creation conversion couldnt be more radical. Its a complete revision in worldview that forever alters an individuals understanding of the age and origin of the reality around him.
Numerous Christians whove diligently studied both Scripture and the scientific case for recent creation have experienced this convergence of life, education, and discovery as they journey toward Godthis pivotal moment. Others are traveling down a similar road but still want more answers. Perhaps looking at the creation conversion of a scientist who has been on that same path can shed some light. Here is Frank Sherwins story:
...more at link
Frank Sherwin - ICR zoologist
Ah, so the God of YEC is a trickster Who tweaks the carbon decay cycle and alters ... naw, too strange.
He’s far from alone:
I’m an avowed creationist ... I believe God Created Space and time a few billion years ago by my reckoning; by His reckoning it may only be a few days ago. Since I believe He created what we sense and are, that makes me a Creationist ... I just think it is silly to argue over temporal span we cannot fathom, because we cannot see the entire Universe from His perspective.
Thanks for that link!
I’m going to submit my name for inclusion.
Engineering degreed, “science” trained, evolutionary assumptive “educated”...
then I heard, basically for the first time, the defense of biblical creationism and the problems and inconsistencies of the evolutionary assumptive viewpoint.
That was, indeed, my “turning point” in my faith.
Although I have to admit I always thought the 'macro-evolutionary' model (goo to you) had the smell of malarkey about it - but it was all I was taught or exposed to for nearly 40 years.
I remember stumbling upon the ICR website years ago and reading some of the material and saying to myself - 'you are actually supposed to believe this ****?!' [**** being the Bible]... I read some more, weighed the evidence, and considered... And then concluded, Engineering degrees notwithstanding, I'd been pretty much an idiot the first 40 years of my life.
Mine/ours was after the first day of an AIG conference.
We went back to our hotel that night and looked at each other with the question - “what do we do with this?” “this” encompassing the entire argument of secular evolutionism vs the veracity of the exact biblical account.
There is no compatibility between the evolutionary assumption of history and the biblical account of history: creation, the fall, the need for a Savior, the providing of the Savior, and the remaking of the world.
“I became hooked on reading and studying biology from a creation science perspective.”
You usually find what you are looking for. This is a declaration of faith. That’s fine but it’s devoid of scientific proof other than the unsupported assertion that evolution doesn’t work. It does perpetuate the straw man argument about the lack of inter species transitions. A finch cannot become a horse and no one ever said they could. A series of finches can evolve into a finch like separate species however. And that is the point of evolution.
As to the young earth bit, that is patently absurd unless you want to propose that the laws of physics are here only to trick us, having been designed to give the appearance of, say, radioactive decay. I guess we are to believe in a trickster supernatural being.
Nicely - and intelligently - put!!!
How old was Adam when he was created?
Now how old was the Earth when it was created?
The “strawman” is saying that God is a “trickster” for creating mature things in His creation.
There is no “macro evolution” theory like the one you express. It’s all micro evolution over long periods of time. Even the so called Cambrian explosion took millions of years to fill what was then a newly friendly to life environment with a bunch of related creatures. No one ever thought a fish suddenly becomes a lizard. There are innumerable intermediate creatures between the two. Each creature in this line is quite similar to its immediate predecessor.
Well, was Adam created a mature man? More confusingly, was the earth created in such a manner as to give the appearance scientifically of an ancient world with physical processes that go back billions of years?
I don’t think God is a trickster but I also don’t think the earth was created six thousand years ago.
And Scripture supports this belief: "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." 2 Peter 3:8
Scripture says a day is not necessarily 24 hours, so all the calculus of the 'young earth' belivers is specious. Time and Space is a created thing. God is outside of Time and Space.
But a wee item derived from a book by Hubert Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology, (Cambridge Univ. Press. 1992), has impressed me. The following is not a direct quote from the book, but a citation from another circular referencing Yockeys book: Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion.
Ten billion vigintillion is one (the numeral 1) followed by 75 zeroes.
(This info was published in an ICR circular titled “Impact,” #317, Nov. 1999)
Then the vast majority of the fossil record should consist of these 'intermediate creatures'. Not a few, not a simple majority, but the vast majority. That is not the case.
“The strawman is saying that God is a trickster for creating mature things in His creation.” God is NOT a trickster, and that’s why we cannot dismiss the evidence of very old fossils, because it would make God a trickster fabricating contradictions for fooling us.
Ah, but has come into time and space in the person of The Christ.
And the most simple (stupendously complex) cell requires dozens of such proteins.
Mathemeticians declare that any event with odds over 1 in 10 to the 50th power are impossible, even given the supposed billions of years of the age of the universe.
True, but that is a non sequitur. God is outside of time. A day is a thousand years in God's eye, and a thousand years in the Bible is a very long time.
Funny how you are literal about your understanding of the word 'day' even when the Scripture directly states a day is not 24 hours, but you do not accept the literal definition of the word 'is' even though there is nothing in Scripture that says 'is' means anything other than 'is'
So easy when you can make up definitions to support your made up beliefs!
The probability of something happening - if it is greater than zero - is not at all related to when that event might happen.
Think about it. Who is doing the ‘brainwashing from birth’ and is it slightly possible you are mis-reading these signs?
Evolution is classical cognitive dissonance if you consider all the hurdles for life in th millions and billions of years - all the resources and Earth’s should be entirely spent.
Geologic origins were based upon uniformitarianism yet now many are shifting to catastrophism. Darwin said his theory completely falls apart w/o thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils. Fossils show that they were laid down quickly and buried not gradual processes.
Your authority for stating “very old” is what?
And the authority referenced by people saying young is what?
First, many species have no direct “successor” but rather have branching some of which carries on, others that lead nowhere. The surviving fossils are only a part of the story. The nature of fossil formation and our discovery makes it kind of like reading a book from which most pages are missing. That said, many interesting fossils survive and are found so that we can look at numerous reptiles with “mammal” like adaptations. There are fossils of amphibians developing reptile like characteristics and of course, there are lung fish with lungs and gills and fins very much like legs. The horse is kind of interesting as we can follow its development from a dog sized herbivore to what they look like today.
My main interest is geology. In the last 200 years most of the current knowledge has been discovered or different interpretations have better explained old questions. We aren’t any smarter now as opposed to 200 years ago but we have a world more observations. Geophysics, structural geology and plate tectonics can now explain things that were only guessed at sixty years ago. We have satellite photographs and a good mapping of the ocean floor. We have worldwide systems to measure earthquakes and land movements. This gives us a limited ability to look underground and “ see” plate structures, magma chambers, fault systems not visible at the surface, and predict where we’ll find ore bodies, oil, gas, and see potential trouble spots.
Modern geology began with James Hutton in the 18th century. His observations lead him to believe the earth was very old and that change was gradual. Later, specific rock structures suggested occasional catastrophic events that left their marks and occurred suddenly. One does not contradict the other and I know of no one outside of some creationists that propose catastrophism as the “answer”.
Any geologist will bring up certain events in our past that drastically changed things for evolution and structure of the earth. The Siberian Traps, snowball earth, asteroid collisions and super volcanos have all been proposed as events that changed everything. However, the effects of plate tectonics overwhelm all the sudden catastrophes. The Permian extinction was followed by an explosion of surviving life forms, the Snowball earths were melted in part by plate movements and volcanic activities. Even Toba Super Volcano had transient effects. The collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates, forming the Himalayas vastly influenced world climates but it’s been a slow process. In fact most of the changes which have changed the world have been slow processes. The building of the Andes, joining North and South America, etc. have all been accomplished at 2” a year.
I’ve worked where the understanding of contemporary geology provided the definition and extent of ore bodies as well as an understanding of how they were formed. That is hands on, not brainwashing.
Is that a generic 'you'? If I have somehow lead you to believe that is what I believe then I need to 'edit' the conversation further.
I would expect you to object to that assertion of a week ago, and with good reason, but not with proof irrefutable. You see it is the same problem regarding painting God as a Trickster, which He is not, not even in the minutest aspect. The laws of the Universe He has created are not immutable to God The Creator. However, we have good reason to believe that The God Whose name is I AM is the origin of the very laws of Physics and Chemistry we utilize. Until you can show me an irrefutable proof that the same laws we use have changed in the last 6000 years, I will continue to make the broad assumption that they do not change so easily and are 'universal' across spacetime.
If we want to debate the Darwinist theory of evolution of species then I would immediately go to the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion. I have yet to hear any Darwinist explain how that occurred in the reference frame of Darwin's theory. The closest anyone has come is the notion of punctuated equilibrium. I'm not on this thread to poke holes in Darwinism. I'm posting in order to abjure the notion that God, my God, is a Trickster. YEC, to my reasoning, makes God out to be a trickster when all is filtered out. I will not agree to that, even on an oblique Internet chat thread.
I apologize for any assumption I may have made.
I assumed you believe in a 6,000 year old earth.
I assume you believe "This is my body" means "This represents my body"
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I re-read your posts. You are not a young earth creationist. I am a creationist, but not a young earth believer. Sorry
I too am a creationist, but not a YEC. Blessings to you and yours.
I realize we all had these neat charts in our Biology classrooms showing the progression of the horse evolution from some small 'dog sized' critter to the 'Man O' War' horse of today -- but you realize that evolutionary chart was all wrong, right? Based on the 'fossil record', all of those critters apparently overlapped in their existence.
The 'fossil record' has been embedded with a lot of history of sleight of hand in an attempt to prove the 'macro evolution' model. A couple of key witnesses at the Scopes trial in the 1920s were the Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man. Just about 10-15 years ago National Geographic was trumpeting on its front pate some bird/reptile missing link that was found out in China. Around a year later, not on their front cover, they admitted they had been hoodwinked by some forgery.
Evolution across animal kinds is not going to happen. A winged bird is not going to 'evolve' from a land animal. Many of the requirements (hollow bones, feathers, two fully functioning wings, etc) would be an absolute detriment to the creature if it only occurred in small phases. A nonfunctional wing (or a single wing) would be a burden to the animal and set it up to be wiped out by predators.
There are many processes that cannot be reduced to single piecemeal partitions. Michael Behe's book, 'Darwin's Black Box', provides many examples from the 'simple process' of forming a blood clot, and the existence of the complex eye. All of these require multiple processes to occur at once. A single link in the chain would cause failure or death to the organism. The entire chain (or process) must be intact for the animal to survive. These processes cannot be explained by the evolutionary goo to you model.
I saw that in several of your posts you stated that 'God would have to be a trickster' [for the earth to be less than billions of years old].
An alternative explanation is that one could have been 'tricked' by believing unproven presuppositions. E.g., why would one expect the radioactive decay rates to have remained constant? Particularly given that most processes we observe in nature are exponential.
Also, how do we know the radioactive heavy elements always existed on earth? E.g., God tells us that there was a catastrophic event that occurred thousands of years ago where the earth was ripped up (all the fountains of the deep were opened up), and the entire surface was covered with water for nearly a year. What if one of the outcomes of the shear forces from this event created the radioactive elements (a theory from Walter Brown)?
Why treat the radioactive decay rates as something sacrosanct (and not being subject to change), but at the same time ignore other evidence that point to a younger than billions of year old earth: the existence of comets (dirty snowballs that orbit the Sun); the salinity of the ocean (given the rates of salt that flows into the ocean minus that which is removed); the position of the moon (given that it recedes from the Earth every year); the existence of the Earth Magnetic field (even though we know it is declining); the existence of helium in the atmosphere (given the escape and generation rates); etc.
I understand that the existence of comets are waved away by the claim that there is a mythological Oort Cloud that kicks comets into the Sun's orbit every so often. And the Earth Magnetic field exists because there is a perpetual motion dynamo machine in the core of the Earth which -- when the field declines enough - it will just reverse at full strength, and start all over again...
God is not tricking us, we trick ourselves.
Nice try, really. I agree, God is not a trickster. And the Physics explaining many of the systems we observe is not tricking us. There are a few items we do not yet have a good handle on ... the true nature of time being one.
I don't either...I believe it was re-created six thousand years ago...
Doesn't say that at all...We know from reading Genesis that a day is approx. a 24 hour period...
We also know that a day at times is equal to 1000 years...And not 2000 years or thousands of years or billions of years...
A thousand years in the bible is, a thousand years...
Biblical history tells us that Adam was created approx. 6000 years ago...A thousand year day lines up exactly with history and prophecy...
I was going to address your post, but then I read your tagline and decided not to.
Do The math
One day is a 1,000 years in God time.
Adam lived 800 years.
800 x 365= 292,000 days times 1,000 is 292,000,000 days. Divided by 365 is 800,000
So Adam lived 800,000 years in God time.
Of course they overlapped. We have dogs but wolves haven’t gone extinct. That is one of thousands of examples. We still have horseshoe crabs but their first cousins, trilobites are extinct. Macro evolution is a straw man. The history of evolution is not linear. Just because an amphibian evolved from a fish doesn’t mean there are no more fish. The ancient dog like horse has lead to horses, burros, and zebras.
No, we don't know this at all. Scripture actually says "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." 'Like' is not the same as 'equal.' The writer was saying God is outside of time as we mortals understand it.
A day could indeed be a thousand, a million or a billion years to God. We just don't know, and you are just making things up.
I don't know what version of the bible you are quoting, but you should always refer back the KJV version and the manuscripts to see if any changes of God's word is warranted. You posted a bad translation.
You are so wrong, and simply make up things to support your man-made beliefs.
Show me ANY translation that says a day IS a thousand years. Not like. Not as.
The only IS that is in Scripture is the one you reject - "This IS my body"
And where is that in Scripture? You are just making things up.
Are you a Catholic?
" you should always refer back the KJV version and the manuscripts"
No you are making things up from out of nowhere. Maybe God should have consulted you first before he said this.
" But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
So tell me with certainty what "and a thousand years as one day" really means. As a day is not anything certain, You are so wrong in what you believe true