"Six Thousand Years with Ken Ham"

1. I wonder how our baptist believer brother views all of this stuff?
   

 

I remember hearing a comment from an Old Line Baptist preacher I never forgot... He said those who believe in the theory of Evolution forget one thing... Living things do not evolve, they do not evolve from a lower species to a higher... Death was passed upon ALL creation... Creation has never evolved, it has devolved... From the time Adam and Eve sinned all things die... If Dinosaurs perished a million years ago what killed them?... Brother Glen

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

 

There is nothing in evolution that would account for the Dna changes required for a species change!

 

From Jesus Christ to me... Eternity!... Brother Glen

 

I'm not impressed at all.

He provides no evidence except for HIS interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 and HIS interpretation of the genealogies. He also spends most of his time assigning anti-religious motivations to those who did serious scientific work to discover that the earth is much older than assumed by persons like Ken Ham. This means nothing in terms of whether he is right or wrong, but I find it strange that he calls God an "eyewitness" to creation instead of the Creator. Of course, he's probably doing that to set up the false dilemma, who to believe God (as interpreted by Ken Ham) or man (as maligned by Ken Ham).

As a Christian who believed (and still believes) God, I became persuaded that the earth was extremely old by childhood visits to canyons (seeing all the layers of strata) and by a geology class in college (a Christian college, FWIW), where we examined fossils found in road cuts and on/in fossilized coral reefs. Later, on long drives through West Texas and New Mexico, I knew what fossilized reefs look like and could pick out enormous reefs throughout the region, like the Guadalupe Reef Complex.

A worldwide flood 4,000 years ago simply does not explain nor give enough time for the formation of those reefs, nor their petrification and erosion. Moreover, a worldwide flood would not kill animals, in order from the simplest creatures to most complex, through many varying layers of sediment that turned to rock.

Of course, that doesn't include all of the other evidence for an old earth including the witness of radioactive elements and their half-lives, the nature of an expanding universe, and the isolation of many species of land animals far away from where the ark landed in the Noah story -- for instance, how did all of those animals get to Australia.

One can claim that God worked it all out and every sign of great age is due to "apparent age," in ways that were necessary (Adam and Eve not being infants at their creation) and not necessary (for instance, the layers of sediment, fossilized reefs, etc.). Therefore, according to this theory, God has given us false natural witnesses in the very nature of the earth to undermine what He has told us. But that is not the character of God revealed in scripture.

Beyond all of that, scripture does NOT demand that we interpret Genesis 1-3 the way Ken Ham interprets it. In fact, there is ample evidence IN THE TEXT that it is not to be taken literally.

 

I really didn’t want to join this conversation, the idea of a 6000 year old earth wasn’t even acceptable to Morris and Whitcomb in their early book the Genesis Flood. There were just too many simple evidences against it.

Your simplistic dismissals of scientific theory and basic science make an educated conversation about this topic impossible.

You’ve mentioned the “Enlightenment”... what you really have a problem with is basic education. You’ve bought hook line and sinker into flood geology, a late19th century explanation of the geologic record that was picked up again in the mid 20th century.

I have no problem with people interpreting the Bible as saying the eatrth is 6000 years old.
BUT I DO HAVE A PROB LEM WITH THOSE THAT TRY TO PROVE IT SCIENTIFICALY.

It’s preaching a false science that only convinces the willingly ignorant.

Rob

 

My mistake. No matter who said it, it is a false dilemma.

No, I didn't mean that, the idea of using the genealogies goes back a long way. So do ideas like infant baptism. Just because they have been around a long time doesn't mean they are right and appropriate.

I have not heard of these "many scientific problems" from credible sources. Our understanding of radioactivity seems rather solid, and we make reliable predictions from our understanding of radioactivity all the time.

That makes no sense if you actually look at the fossil record. There are too many layers of strata for that to explain much of anything. If the largest and more complex animals were clustered in what would appear to be a high spot, that would be evidence for your theory, but that's not the case.

I'll grant you the premise -- if the "Genesis Flood" and Ice Age you describe actually happened when you described them. Land bridges could have been uncovered through that part of the world.

So your premise is that the entire earth was covered by volcanic activity after mature life (including human life) developed? It's weird we don't hear about that in Genesis where volcanos were exploding constantly and releasing enormous quantities of ash and lava throughout the earth, choking out life.

Moreover, the biggest problem with your Mt. St. Helens explanation is that the vast majority of the layers are sedimentary layers, not layers of volcanic material. And I don't recall Mt. St. Helens creating ANY canyons. In 1995, I toured Mt. St. Helens and the surrounding region (about 15 years after the major eruption of 1980) and didn't see anything that resembled a canyon. Please enlighten me as to how Mt. St. Helens "showed how...canyons formed."

I have personally examined Mt. St. Helens, fossilized coral reefs in West Texas and New Mexico, explored road cuts and located fossils, and have examined strata in at least five major canyons in the American West. I am well aware of the Enlightenment (and critique it rather harshly in some areas), but it does not change the obvious evidence that the earth is extremely old.

Salt water lakes and ponds would not explain the reefs. Moreover, we have the example of the Great Salt Lake in Utah, which I have also visited. It does not have coral reefs or reefs that resemble the prehistoric reefs in Texas and New Mexico. However it does have algae that creates deposits, but nothing like the enormously tall structures I am referring to.

So in short, you really don't have any evidence or explanation that disproves my reasonable interpretation of the evidence for an extremely old earth.

 

I have sat upon Floyd Jones' teaching in person a fair amount in the mid 1980s, and knew the man casually. He was quite insightful about some things, but had huge blind spots in others (KJVOism among them). I have read most of his writings and listened to hundreds of hours of his teaching (in person and on cassette tapes that he used to distribute). I have heard many of his teachings promoting YEC and have lived long enough to see many of his assertions proven wrong. He even had to go back and edit the masters of his teaching tapes to change his denials that there were no other planets in existence other than in our solar system, etc. I don't think that Jones presents a compelling argument that the genealogies between Abraham and Adam are historical. He has also proven many times that he speaks well beyond the evidence, claiming his opinions are truth backed up by science and the word of God. Except among his most devoted disciples, he has blown his credibility in these matters.

All Snelling is doing is trying to cast doubt on what is testable. Sure, we can't know FOR CERTAIN that it is true, but it harmonizes nicely with all of the other evidence that God has given.

That does not explain the multiple stratified layers of great depth, nor the layers with no fossils.

Easy. Huge shallow seas that covered much of Texas (for instance) that created much of the hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) that are extracted today.

If that's true, why doesn't the Bible mention it. And if, as you have said in another place, why did God put dinosaurs on the ark only to kill them off shortly afterward through volcanic activity and climate change? That seems quite strange.

The layers are primarily volcanic ash, which is quite different than what I'm talking about. Also the "canyons" you refer to were carved by the Toutle River originally, and then filled by loose ash and soils. That's completely unlike the Grand Canyon, Santa Elena Canyon, Brice Canyon, Palo Duro Canyon, etc. More here.

The biggest problem with these arguments you present is that I'm actually, hands-on, familiar with much of the evidence, except for the radiation.

 

I have friends who work in science-based industries and also hold to a young earth.
It perplexes me, I don't know how they do it.
I value their friendship too much to challenge them deeply on the topic
I know their beliefs/they know mine (it was a topic with a lot of contentious potential that I brought up during a church examination for a position of leadership).
Most of those I know who believe in a YE choose not to confront the contradictions rather they separate their religious beliefs from their scientific knowledge (non-overlapping magisterium [cf. S.J Gould]) .

IMO, some of the major snake oil salesmen of Young Earth (those who merchandise the belief) are master con artists - perhaps deluded or auto brain-washed by years of salesmanship.

Just my opinion...

Rob

 

The Flood was world wide per Scriptures, fits the geological record best, and ken Ham also ties His views on genesis onto how Jesus and the scriptures viewed it!

 

Dr Morris was excellent in this area, as is Ken Ham now, and would suggest that the big problem would be that both Creationists and theistic evolutionists would see and be using the same data, but that one world view is to see the scriptures as being the foundation truth standrad, and the others accepted scientifi facts!