Want Some Answers ???


Hi Geoffrey,

Thanks for writing,

>>I feel that I may be thought to owe you a note on your letter to treasury, give I wrote earlier to them I actually took a series in my assembly in June and your are welcome to notes on gthese talks just give me a miling address- i am not sure if the AiG addrees quoted pobox39005 howick is you or not and there in none on the web page<<

In which Treasury is your letter? It’s unfortunate they didn’t publish my letter as written, which might have saved some confusion. I understand the editor has caused trouble by altering and changing peoples letters. I would love to read your 'notes'.

>>there are very mush in conflict with the AiG possitions on many things, so you may nt want to bother I am mused that your web page has an entry for the king james sect but not for the creationist sect...<<

I'm interested in your 'conflict' with AiG. What are the 'many things'? As a creationist, I believe God created as scripture says (and evolution is a fraud). And was 'born again' because I believed the Bible literally.

I trust you believe in God and suspect you believe God used evolution over millions of years. If so, before you reply, read a few letters on my website, explain where my theology conflicts the Bible.


Thanks for the reply Geoff,

>>Mark I had a look at your 3 web refs, no q2 doesn’t open tonight, all seem to be part of long threads I don’t know what you expect me to do with it I’ve added some comments in 14 point below<<

Because I was unaware of your understanding, I hoped you would read my comments to Dale (a ‘Progressive Creationist’). Then you could reply more exactly.

>>I am not sure what some speakers ae trying to say eg the first below My main concern to me is that you are out to pigenenhole people as evolutions or not; That is not the way forward in my view<<

You would be correct. My correspondence with Dale was too long, so I’ll address your Treasury letter below. But notice you still haven’t justified criticism of “the AiG position on many things”. What’s your complaint? Reading the ‘Answers Book’ should help you appreciate their views.

>>Dear Treasury Editor, I’d like to comment briefly on the recent correspondence of Hudson Taylor (March) and Frances Rout (Feb). I know that every one and his uncle has their own view on Genesis 1;<<

There are only 4 major views, with one to two scenarios. 3 views allow for millions of years, the other says day means “day”. In comparison, one is literal, three are ‘interpretive’. Ross’s view of the days is not universally accepted. Ultimately he alone thinks he can tell us what happened. Tell me how Ross determines which scientific ideas are facts and which are mere theories. He has a record of treating questionable theories as if they were irrefutable facts. He thinks all generations from Moses till the late 20th century have been clueless regarding the true meaning of Genesis.

>>someone told me one this week that Genesis 1 said the earth was formed before the stars; I pointed out the sun was a star, which gave him problems.<<

Indeed according to Genesis the earth was made before the sun and stars (vs.14-16). The sun, moon and stars created on the fourth day, not the first (vs.16). No problem for God to create in days. Ross holds the reverse of Genesis (As the evolutionary theory of naturalism, the dominant religion of modern society). He says the universe and sun were before the earth (which contradicts Scripture). He contradicts scripture and is deceitful.

Reptiles before birds (contradicting days 5 & 6),
Insects before birds (contradicting days 5 & 6).
Fish before birds (contradicting with day 5).
Living creatures before the first trees (contradicting days 3 & 5).
Sea mammals after land mammals (contradicting days 5 & 6).
Death before the curse, no worldwide flood. Instead of a ‘very good’ creation (Gen.1:31) Ross has a God creating a world of constant death, physical and emotional sufferings, cruelties, extinctions, catastrophes and so on - for millions of years.

>>I write in defence of God’s truth, as revealed in his book of Nature- his other book,<<

Ross thinks nature has equal authority to scripture. He calls ‘the facts of nature’ the 67th book of the Bible – yet Jesus said, ‘heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away’ (Mt.24:35 Mk.13:31).

Nature is hardly a book of God. Tribes in remote parts of the world have never come to a full understanding of God by observing nature. Nature has no audible voice and reveals no specific truths about God. Its message is general and limited, and neither written or spoken. Bible words don’t change, but nature and man’s understanding continually change. Man has an incomplete and changing understanding of the universe, so it’s foolish to equate that with God’s written Word.

Man is ‘without excuse’ in ‘what is known’ about God, the revelation of nature is limited to demonstrating God's existence and power. Nature has degenerated from its original perfection; with defects from the fall and flood, with animals devouring one another etc.

>>as Sudhu Singh said; by belief that: 1. The Bible was never meant to be a scientific textbook; it is much more interesting for a start;<<

But Jesus regarded Genesis historical and accurate. All through the Bible, people regarded Genesis the same. The Bible is scientifically accurate. 'Science' means 'knowledge' and true science and history confirms scripture, its scientism that criticize scripture, not science.

>>2. The Earth and the Universe are old – hundreds of millions of years. The evidence for this is now compelling and overwhelming.<<

No the evidence isn’t ‘
compelling and overwhelming’. No scientific method can positively prove the earth is very old (or very young). No age estimation method is foolproof. Estimations are often discarded upon the discovery of new evidence or new ways of looking at old questions. Science cannot directly deal with the past. We can’t time-travel, for a hands-on examination of events of long ago. We are limited to testing and observing things as they exist now - in the present. Beliefs about ancient origins are different; they involve hypothesis, assumption and guesswork. Scientists “extrapolate just as wildly as any cosmologist”. But there are qualified scientists who insist on a young earth.

You know the reason ‘millions of years’ are emphasized in evolutionary theory. It’s to allow the theory to transpire (by itself without outside intervention). The idea is that if we have enough time, then small changes might accumulate over time and life develop.

When Christians accept the billions-of-years of secular rationalism they travel a path of increasing uncertainty in how to interpret Scripture. The damage ends in almost total abandonment of the Christian faith. One small step, followed by another, eventually, the rest of Bible is questioned. And just because men won’t stick with the testimony of the only eyewitness to those ancient events, God.

>>3. There was a Big Bang as modern cosmology teaches- and I have taught it in some detail for years. Once again the evidence for this is now compelling and overwhelming;<<

Yes Ross thinks it’s beyond doubt too. But evidence is NOT 'compelling and overwhelming', it’s in a state of flux and there is criticism. Ie., What explosion or accident creates anything that looks like order? In the universe distances are so huge even at light speed, matter couldn’t travel the distances required. Where did the cosmic egg come from? It's simply assumed it was there, no one knows how long it sat there. Why did it explode? No one knows why, and it all varies according to whose telling the story.

Its not the first story used to explain the cosmos and won’t be the last. All the theories, in their day, were called the consensus of ‘modern science’. If we allow the current scientific opinion to interpret the Bible for us, we will later need to reinterpret it many times over through coming decades and centuries. In the end we make a mockery out of the Bible.

>>Christians sometimes object to 2&3 as sounding like evolution; such Christians decry all efforts to see mechanism in God’s creation; and reject the scientific method entirely as human speculation.<<

That’s because 2&3 are speculations originating from naturalism. Naturalism assumes things made themselves – no divide intervention. It assumes that every law and force operating in the universe is natural rather than moral, spiritual or supernatural. Naturalism is inherently anti-theistic rejecting the very concept of a personal God. Religion is the best word to describe naturalism.

>>Such people should logically avoid many fruits of modern science ;X-rays, digital watches, TV Remotes microwaves and others.<<

Not so, the founding fathers of modern science were not progressive creationists or evolutionists but Bible-believing Christians. They expanded our scientific knowledge. To name a few, Charles Babbage (Computer science). Robert Boyle (Chemistry). Wernher Von Braun (Rocket scientist). George Washington Carver (chemistry) Georges Cuvier (paleontology) Leonhard Euler (Mathematics, Physics) Michael Faraday, John A. Fleming (Electronics). James Joule (Thermodynamics) Johannes Kepler (Astronomy) Carl Linnaeus (biology) Sir Joseph Lister (surgery) Matthew Maury (Oceanography) James Maxwell (Electromagnetics) Gregory Mendel (Genetics). Samuel Morse. Isaac Newton. Louis Pasteur (Bacteriology). Lord Kelvin (thermodynamics). Lamb Glacial (geology) Francis Bacon. David Brewster (mineralogy). Leonardo da Vinci. John Dalton (Atomic theory) Humphry Davy (Thermo kinetics). Henri Fabre (Entomology). Arthur E. Compton (Physics) Joseph Henry (Electric) John Herschel (Astronomer) William Herschel. William Huggins (astronomy). Richard Kirwan (Mineralogy). Louis Agassiz (Biology) Blaise Pascal (hydrostatics). William Prout (chemistry). William Ramsay (chemistry). John Ray (Biology). Bernhard Riemann (geometry). James Young Simpson (gynecology). Nicolaus Steno (Stratigraphy). George Stokes (Fluid mechanics). Lord Rayleigh (Inert gases). Percy Tait (Vector analysis). Rudolph Virchow (Pathology). John Woodward (Paleontology).

Today qualified scientists still reject big bang and millions of years, Dr. Werner Gitt
(Physics, Information Technology). Dr. W. Frair (Biochemical Taxonomy, Biology, Zoology). Dr. D.T. Gish. (Biochemistry) Dr.J.D Sarfati (geology, physics, chemistry, nuclear physics). Dr George Javor (biochemistry). Dr. A. Mcintosh (Mathematics). Dr.G. Parker (biology, geology) Dr Arthur Wilder-Smith (chemistry, pharmacological science) Dr R Jones (one of Australia's top scientists). Dr I. Macreadie (Microbiologist). Dr J. Baungardner (electrical engineering, geophysics & space physics). E. Boudroux (physical chemistry). M. Giertych (Ph.D Head of Genetic Institute of Dendrology Polish) J. Bergman (biology, chemistry, psychology). T.Wood (biochemistry). J. Woodmorappe (geology). M.J.Oard (atmospheric science). D.Down (archaeologist) Dr R. Humphreys (Nuclear physics, geophysics). Dr B. Stone (engineering).Dr R. Porter (Orthopedic Surgery). And for the Big Bang see www.cosmologystatement.org

>>But even the Bible and the Gospel teaches that mechanism operates in God’s world: Romans 6:23, 7:13,8:2, James 1:15: sin brings its inevitable fruit; People who believe in an late creation date for the Earth because of Bible genealogies are extrapolating just as wildly as any cosmologist; Bernard Ramm gives the story of how Archbishop Lightfoot dating of creation by making it in third week of October 24 4004 BC with Adam created on Oct 23 at 9:00am forty fifth meridian time[is that why we all get to work at 9 a.m.?] and caps it with Brewster’s sarcastic comment, “Closer than this as a cautious scholar the Vice-chancellor of Cambridge University did not venture to commit himself”<<

It’s doubtful any modern young-earth creation scientist fully accepts Ussher’s (or Lightfoot’s) exact chronology. How can a creation time be insisted for the beginning of time? Man was created six days later, no specific hour can be insisted. Even so, the Biblical chronologies are far more tangible than your “extrapolating wildly cosmologist”.

>>My own views on some of these issues, in the context of a scriptural expositions from Psalm 19 are available at www.vision-nz.co.nz/lbc/Orthodox.html; I had no space there to outline the ‘age of earth arguments’ but I would recommend as reliable Bernard Ramm Christian view of Science and Scripture (Paternoster) and Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe; http://reasons.org/index.shtml

Bernard Ramm’s best study is in ecclesial history, not science. But he does say, “Evangelicals must never bend their interpretations simply to concur with the latest science” (p.139 The Evangelical Heritage Word Books 1973).

Hugh Ross has a version of history that rejects the connection Scripture establishes between sin, death and Christ’s atonement. He enthusiastically accepts as fact the pronouncements of scientists and reinterprets the Bible in light of these "facts" (Science's understanding of what is a "fact" has changed constantly). He denies death entered the world through Adam's sin (contrary to Gen.2:17, 3:19; Rom.5:12, 6:23 I Cor.15:20-23). He claims everyone can know the gospel through the revelation in the heavens. Ross said this about Jn.3:16 -

Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you’ll permit—“For God so loved the human race that He went to the expense of building a hundred billion trillion stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.”’ (said at Dallas Theological Seminary)

So how could you recommend him? He’s commitment to preaching the "good news" of Big Bang and billions of years, not the gospel of God’s love.

>>i am happy to make people think, and I know that that confuses a lot of people; there are a lot of backroom experts out there who think they can reject years of patient work; I have no patience whatever with their arrogance conceit<<

It’s a strange view indeed that those who believe God created the earth in six days (as Scripture says) are called a ‘creationist sect’. If I believe God created in six days and not millions of years is that ‘arrogant or conceited’?

>>If you mean do I believe in a creator, of course; if you mean this term to define someone who supports Morris and co of IcS, No, I am satisfied that they are wrong<<

You say ‘they are wrong' but don’t explain why. Hugh Ross and co are wrong because they think God set-up a cruel and ugly process of death and suffering, pain and disease and ruled over by Christ, for millions of years till man’s creation. Incompatible with God's character & love. One who sees even the sparrow fall and said "Blessed are the meek" - not blessed are the strongest and most aggressive!! How do you understand the goodness of God if He used death and suffering, a ‘nature red in tooth and claw’, to ‘create’ everything? At least Morris and Co are consistent with Scripture.

>>my notes with give you a start on that; I avoided for the most part the question of believing evolution- I am a physicist that is not my territory; however i did include a pro-evolution essay from Graeme Finlay whom you may know; personally I am not concerned whether this applies to mankind or not, but I acknowledge the immense power of an analysis of mechanism in science for many centuries and in material not included in the notes I did touch on the controversies in my last talk- for each of which buy the way I had very little time because of the use of guess speakers- because i had a serious stroke 2 years ago- the same reason explains one arithmetic error in the booklet as noted<<

Prof, Lipson [Physics] said, “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it. It remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science and utterly destitute of proof"” (A Physicist looks at evolution’ Physics Bulletin vol.31 1980 pg.138).

>>I know several excellent Christians in assembly fellowship of whom Graeme is one who see no problem at all in accepting that God used evolution as a mechanism in creation of course we herd an excellent lecture from Bryan Sykes on DNA analysis of human micocondrial (sp?) history and I am personally convinced that he is on the right track<<

The problem with that is evolution is a scientific religion. Real science can only deal with things that can be observed or measured. It depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Evolution at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer. While its easy to construct stories of how one form gave rise to another, such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

Hope this is food for thought.