"Six Thousand Years with Ken Ham"

[just-want-peace]

Very good video & info. Parts I don't buy, but others have me wondering. Need to listen again w/bible in hand. Thanks!!

 

[church mouse guy]

Very good video & info. Parts I don't buy, but others have me wondering. Need to listen again w/bible in hand. Thanks!!

A year ago when I had about four hours in the Creation Museum, I heard a free lunchtime lecture with Dr. Mortenson on the deists and atheists who started deep time during the Enlightenment (although it was part of Greek thinking and before them part of Hinduism).

At the end of his lecture, he said something like that some of us looked tired and that we should get some rest.

The history of geology is so complicated and outlandish that my little year of mining school geology is of little help. I decided to rest in YEC because I believe that God destroyed all life except Noah and seven others and two of each kind of the animals 4300 years ago. And so there I am resting. The Greens who own Hobby Lobby and who built the museum of the Bible in DC have given much to Answers in Genesis in Kentucky. Forty thousand families donated to begin the Ark construction, which cost over one hundred million. The Ark is as big as an ocean liner. Attendance has been about a million each year, maybe more.

 

[37818]

What appears to be the flood geology of a global flood with a common fossil recorded on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, is being dated to have separated over a span of time of about 300 million years.

 

[church mouse guy]

What appears to be the flood geology of a global flood with a common fossil recorded on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, is being dated to have separated over a span of time of about 300 million years.

The dating methods are not scientific because there is no proof of radioactive rates in the past among other problems for deep time.

 

[37818]

The dating methods are not scientific because there is no proof of radioactive rates in the past among other problems for deep time.

Identify the specific dating method in question. Do you understand the dating method for the alleged age of the universe? Do you know evidence of uranium uniquely trapped in the zircon crystal not being free of lead when trapped? Can you explain the graduated dating from the Atlantic trench spanning years to some 300 million years at the coasts?

 

[church mouse guy]

Identify the specific dating method in question. Do you understand the dating method for the alleged age of the universe? Do you know evidence of uranium uniquely trapped in the zircon crystal not being free of lead when trapped? Can you explain the graduated dating from the Atlantic trench spanning years to some 300 million years at the coasts?

The problem is that no one can prove that the rate of decay is uniform.

As for the oceans, I thought everyone agreed that the paucity of sediments at the bottom suggested recent upheavel?

 

[Rippon]

Six thousand years with Ken Ham? Alone or in a group?

 

[37818]

The problem is that no one can prove that the rate of decay is uniform.

Oh? Then what is the basis of the belief that it is uniform?

As for the oceans, I thought everyone agreed that the paucity of sediments at the bottom suggested recent upheavel?

What is dated are the igneous rocks which cooled in sequence over 300 million years. Near the trench young rocks and at the coasts dated at about 300 million years old. The dating of the rocks are graduated from the trench to the coasts.

 

[church mouse guy]

Six thousand years with Ken Ham? Alone or in a group?

People have been asking that question for millions and millions of tears.

 

[church mouse guy]

Oh? Then what is the basis of the belief that it is uniform?
What is dated are the igneous rocks which cooled in sequence over 300 million years. Near the trench young rocks and at the coasts dated at about 300 million years old. The dating of the rocks are graduated from the trench to the coasts.

What is the basis for the idea that radioactivity decay rate is uniform? I don't think that it is. Evolutionists who believe in uniformitarianism have come up with that idea. There is no chain of custody of rocks from Adam's time six thousand years ago. Samples from Mt. St. Helens that were only days old showed up on the labs as millions of years old.

The entire earth suffered an upheavel during Noah's Flood. This alone contradicts uniformitarianism. The floors of the current oceans are new. Yet the sediments at the bottom of the oceans are consistent with a global flood of 4300 years ago. Before the global flood, the earth was mostly one continent. Now there are seven if you count Antarctica.

 

[Covenanter]

Our preacher this morning was Simon Turpin from AIG.

He spoke on the Seven Cs that are basic to the Gospel -
Creation
Corruption
Catastrophe
Confusion
Christ
Cross
Consummation

 

[Covenanter]

When I was newly converted in 1957, and starting a science degree I needed to deal with the question of science versus scripture.

I was shown the approach of considering the evidence by two models - creation or evolution. No scientific proof is available for either. By faith we understand...

 

[37818]

When I was newly converted in 1957, and starting a science degree I needed to deal with the question of science versus scripture.

I was shown the approach of considering the evidence by two models - creation or evolution. No scientific proof is available for either. By faith we understand...

Actually, we do not know anything unless that "thing" is believed. And believing a "thing" does not make it true. Presumably one believes on the basis what is believed is true. If what is believed is not true then we are believing a lie and not knowing it.

 

[church mouse guy]

Our preacher this morning was Simon Turpin from AIG.

He spoke on the Seven Cs that are basic to the Gospel -
Creation
Corruption
Catastrophe
Confusion
Christ
Cross
Consummation

I have seen some video of Simon Turpin, who works for AiG in the UK. The Seven Cs are explained in both the Creation Museum and Noah's Ark, if memory serves.

Here is a video from AiG of the subject:

7 C’s of History

 

[church mouse guy]

When I was newly converted in 1957, and starting a science degree I needed to deal with the question of science versus scripture.

I was shown the approach of considering the evidence by two models - creation or evolution. No scientific proof is available for either. By faith we understand...

Not exactly true. The preponderance of evidence supports YEC. Whatever areas of concern that you have, there are lots of articles online. Search not only AiG but also Creation.com and http://www.icr.org/homepage/

 

[church mouse guy]

Here is a discussion by Dr. Steve Austin, a field research geologist with a Ph.D. from Penn State University in sedimentary geology. He is “Senior Research Scientist” with Institute for Creation Research in Dallas, Texas. The video is in two parts:

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth

Also, he has a recent article about helium "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay"

Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

The literal view of Genesis was pretty much the standard view of the Christian church until the time of Darwinism creeping into the Church thru theistic evolution!

 

[Baptist Believer]

The literal view of Genesis was pretty much the standard view of the Christian church until the time of Darwinism creeping into the Church thru theistic evolution!

Infant baptism was pretty much the standard view of the Christian church until the time where early Baptist thinking crept into the church and began the practice of believer's baptism.

Therefore, arguments appealing to popular historical opinion aren't worth much.

 

[church mouse guy]

Infant baptism was pretty much the standard view of the Christian church until the time where early Baptist thinking crept into the church and began the practice of believer's baptism.

Therefore, arguments appealing to popular historical opinion aren't worth much.

That analogy does not compute. The YEC trace back to 150 AD and Sextus Julius Africanus and prevailed until the Enlightenment which prevailed only until Whitcomb and Morris in 1961. It has nothing to do with ritual.

 

[Yeshua1]

Infant baptism was pretty much the standard view of the Christian church until the time where early Baptist thinking crept into the church and began the practice of believer's baptism.

Therefore, arguments appealing to popular historical opinion aren't worth much.

Interesting though that only when bogus evolution theory creept into the church that we started to see this different viewpoint regarding Genisis and origins!