Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
>>Dear Mark I saw a note in "Treasury" inviting us to purchase an AiG book by Ham, Sarfati et al, and also to correspond with you. Unfortunately, I have found that AiG have not the slightest interest in correcting simple errors in their publications.<<
If you buy a copy of ‘The Answers book', you will find a number of places where AiG have made corrections and included them for the reader. Ham, Dr Sarfati, Dr Wieland, and Dr Batten have been extremely careful that their work is truthful and correct. Unlike those who propagate evolution, who have intentionally misled and kept quiet about hoaxes for years. At times, never confessing their deception. So in classrooms today, there are still textbooks with deceptive claims promoting atheistic evolution. AiG have proven themselves open for examination and correction. I'll answer your email so you know I'm interested in 'correcting simple errors'.
>>Secondly, my brother Geoff has posted me a copy of what appears to be a 'chatroom' debate with you on the standard AiG position and I see Geoff objects to the standard HMorris system of pigeonholing the opponent before attacking. However I did like the tone of your replies in that you didn't rant at people (except the arch-nemesis Hugh Ross). You will appreciate that Geoff became quite disabled physically and in reading, vision problems I think, but God has been good in restoring most of his sharp mind except in maths and music playing.<<
I like Geoff. Please thank him for his booklet, arrived a day ago.
>>Now here is what I am asking:- I would be keen to respond in like manner to some matters in your 'chatroom' to Geoff. But I won't do this unless you want me to. If you are interested, please let me know and I'll get some papers together. As the items are not on computer, it would be easier for me to post than to e-mail, in which case I would need your mailing address. It could take two weeks to assemble and send. Some parts have to be written. It would be about 2 pages A4.<<
Email is more convenient. But if you wish to post, okay. What makes a good scientist is someone relentless in search of the truth. NOT someone refusing without patience to consider the views of others. Geoff had me worried - “I have no patience whatever with their arrogance conceit”. At universities, students are suppose to THINK and question, not have a Professor silence alternative views regarding the ‘theory of evolution’. Yet this happens everyday.
Also, ask the Lord for guidance, He will help. If you know Christ as Saviour and ‘born again’ you will. Paul says we should be more like Christ (Rom6:4 1 Cor.2:16), so we should believe scripture as He did. Ask the Lord Jesus how He understood the book of Genesis. Then, look it up in the Gospels (Mt19:4). Note Paul (Rom.15:2 1 Cor.10:6, 11. 9:10) and Peter (2 Pe.3:5) they all regarded it as history.
>>The items I would take up would be mainly Biblical and Science: 1 Date of creation (i.e is there a "Biblical age" for the earth?) (adding human opinion to the Bible)<<
What about the problem of Progressive Creationism? It doesn’t distinguish scientific fact from scientific theory ("adding human opinion to the Bible"). It embraces scientific theories believing they give us a better understanding the origins of the universe. And so, theories become necessary to interpret the Bibles true meaning. The Genesis 6-day week is rejected. In the end, Ross tells us which theories are accepted, and which aren’t. Yet there’s nothing in the immediate context of Gen.1-2 suggesting its interpreted figuratively.
>>2 Animal death from Adam's sin (AiG and Ken Ham's blatant misreading of half of Rom 5.12 and Biblical and scientific implications thereof.)<<
Yes show me. Many theologians and bible scholars read Rom.5:12 to mean, as the Living Bible says - “When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. His sin spread death throughout the world, so everything began to grow old and die, for all sinned”. The Greek literally reads, “Sin entered into the world and death through sin”. Death is not natural or rooted in the nature of the universe. All life on earth is affected by God's curse in Genesis 3. Thorns did not occur until after the curse (Ge.3:18), yet they are found in the fossil record proving it could not be millions of years old.
>>3 AiG argument about "nephesh death" - pseudo-Hebrew and pseudo-Biblical.<<
The hero of evolution is death, or there will be no progress. So evolutionists think death, suffering and struggle are good and help evolution along. They believe its an undisputed essential factor in evolution. Biologist H.Mohr states, "If there were no death, then no life would have existed. There is no other way around this axiom of evolutionary theory" [Human Evolution Heren Text 1983 pg12].
So murder, hate and aggression are the eggshells of evolution without which men would not have developed. The means whereby one species develops into another [Hitler had the idea]. Evolution is not wonderful, it's gruesome. The way of "development" entailed an appalling measure of pain and sorrow. The Biblical testimony about God's nature is distorted when death and ghastliness are presumed to be creative principles.
If God exists, evolution is nonsense. Why? Because God is perfect "in Him is no sin" [1 Jn.3:4]. When a God with that character creates something, it can only be perfect [Gen.18:14 Deut.32:4 Jer.32:27] and very good [Gen.1:31]. So death is a punishment [Gen. 2:17, 3:19] an intrusion into the world, not the means by which God creates.
>>4 Morris and Co unscriptural, even unable to quote the Bible accurately, on his 'cursed earth' theories.<<
It was God who ‘cursed the ground for man’s sake’ (Gen.3:17-19). Is that a 'theory'? Interesting, God takes a rib from Adams side and creates Eve (Gen.2:21-22) is that another theory? How does Progressive Creation explain that?
>>5 Morris and Co clashes with simple science, on his interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics.<<
I look forward to that.
>>6 Morris and Co interpretation that Theology is greater than Science. (I see you are interested in Theology).<<
The Bible should be regarded as the ultimate authority. True ‘science’ confirms scripture, false science doesn’t. I don't interpret scripture according to the ‘theory of evolution’, the theories of scientists, or conspiracy theories from fanciful imaginations. Yes allow God’s Word to speak for itself.
>>7 Flood geology and its basis (totally opinion, nothing Biblical at all, not even one half verse). 8 Pigeon-holing (incorrect use of terms 'uniformitarianism', 'evolutionary').<<
Is Gen.8-9 & 2 Pe.3:5-7 ‘total opinion’ and ‘nothing Biblical at all’? They describe a massive flood with many verses. I agree with Morris about the Geologic Column. It’s a “hypothetical column of fossils, with ancient ones on the bottom, more recent ones on top” (Young Earth). The Polystrate tree trunks, bent, missing columns, fossil graveyards, coal, oil, rock formations, ancient records of the flood and Mt St Helens, all support flood geology and deny 'millions of years'. But it’s understandable how in some places the flood would have buried smaller creature’s first then larger creatures on top.
>>9 Finally, your very restricted views of what nature reveals of God could be extended considerably by sending you a draft paper I have already written (an additional 5? pages A4) of what nature does show about God. One example: sacrifice is built-in to nature. I write the above to restrict the topics and so you can sense what you could be in for. If you are interested, please let me know. I do not want a long banter, but would be happy to talk again (briefly) if asked<<
Yes reveal my errors. Just posting a booklet, article covering the issue requires no thinking and doesn’t answer questions. Ross’s views about nature violate the goodness of God. The Bible says ‘God is good’ and in Gen.1:31 God described His just-finished creation as ‘very good’. How do you understand the goodness of God if He used evolution, ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ to ‘create’ everything? I know what you believe, but are you interested in giving an explanation? Take your time.
>>Who am I? I am 65, still teach scripture and science as I have all my working life, am a strict creationist who laments the errors of creationists. I am a literalist in interpretation like my confreres.<<
Hugh Ross claims the same, but doesn’t believe in a literal meaning of Genesis 1-11 and inspiration of the whole Bible. If the Genesis account of 6 days, the fall, origin of the nations, flood, Babel (ch.1-11) are not historical (though written in historical narrative), what other parts of the Bible do you discard? According to Ross the biblical order of creation is wrong. Why didn’t God inspire an account more in keeping with evolutionary order as you or Ross believe?
>>But I am not a JW who insists that Eccl 9.5a (the dead know not anything) is literal, or a RC who insists Luke 22.19 (This is my body) is literal. I feel the days of Genesis 1 are literal, but I leave open the length of those days because the Bible doesn't tell us their length. I am still a learner with many unresolved problems to find answers for, but I have strict limits as to the answers<<
I’m confident the days in Gen.1 are each 24hrs. Moses used the Hebrew word yōm for 'day', and combined that with numbers 'first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc and the words 'evening and morning'. This is the first time he used the word so he carefully defined the meaning of yōm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Gen1:5). So throughout the Bible, yōm used in this way always refers to a normal 24–hour day (Theological Dictionary of the OT, M. Saebo, Ref. 1, p. 72). So whenever God’s Word uses the word yōm in this way, God intends it to convey the idea that the days of creation were 24 hours long. There are other Hebrew words which could be used which refer to a long period of time – qedem, olam, dor, tamid, orek, shanah, netsach or moed.
>>I insist on distinguishing between human opinion and Bible teaching. That is my chief pigeon-hole if you like. Though I resist the idea that human opinion can be mixed with the Bible and (as HMorris does) call this "honouring the Bible" when it is actually honouring and sanctifying his human opinion, I hold that Christians can differ on matters which the Bible is silent on. I have goodwill towards you who may disagee with me.<<
The problem I have with Progressive creationism is it interprets the Bible in the light of human or scientific assumptions; it presents “man's opinion as Gospel fact”. How does Ross determine which scientific ideas are facts and which are mere theories? He treats questionable theories as if they were irrefutable facts. He enthusiastically accepts as fact the pronouncements of scientists and reinterprets the Bible in light of these "facts". And in the end, 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).
There’s no proof Darwin’s evolution has or could happen. It’s still a theory, with assumptions. The fossil record indicates all life forms appear in the record as completely formed. There are no half cat-dogs, bird-reptiles or man-apes, no transitional fossils in the fossil record. This indicates evolution didn’t occur. Life forms have their internal parts, and external functions designed perfectly to start with. Or they could not live. There’s no updating ‘mechanism’ of adding new information as life goes on. Evolution has no good explanation, but says it must have taken millions of years of trial and error. And that is another assumption. God used 24 hour days, not millions of years. Evolution is a theory in crisis, it’s built on unproven assumptions and 'human opinion'.
>>But I have lost any goodwill to an arrogant insistence that any other opinion or interpretation is invalid or even unChristian, or presenting a man's opinion as Gospel fact, or failure to correct errors and continuing to sell them.<<
I would agree that evangelicals don’t agree on every doctrine. So we must, ‘In the essentials have unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in all things charity’. But surely, ‘if something is true it can stand to be questioned, if it is not true it needs to be questioned’. Truth is by definition very narrow. The real test of ‘goodwill’ is to ‘speak the truth in love’.
>>I bought 'The Genesis Flood' 1962 printing and accepted many of its tenets, but 37 years later in 1999 I found out that the Paluxy footprints were a hoax that the authors knew of before (1961) it was even printed. I turned against a creationism that prints known errors and continues to market them today, even the same hoax that they have publicly admitted is wrong (1985). I believe a creationist should first stand for TRUTH, even if it means he has to change his ideas as I did.<<
I believe (as AiG) we should not use doubtful arguments. The Creation magazine (vol.24 No.2 March-May 02 pg.20-24) clearly indicate some arguments creationists should avoid (the AiG website also).
But regarding “publicly admitting to be wrong”, it’s evolutionists who have consistently avoided new evidence and their past frauds. In time, science changes, new discoveries, old ideas updated with new information. Yet many have ignored truth and remained silent. It’s amazing you know nothing of many hoaxes of evolution, or don’t care. A quote about these prints -
“In the limestone bed of the Paluxy River near the little town of Glen Rose, Texas, there are some dinosaur foot tracks. Running parallel to and between are what appears to be human foot tracks - five toes, ball and heel, spaced apart – left foot, right foot. These were described by Roland Bird (palaeontologist) of the American Museum of Natural History, NY in 1939.
.....In 1940, the American museums removed large sections of the dinosaur tracks from river bank, which have since been on display at the Smithsonian other museums, but no mention is ever made of the human-like tracks, which were carefully excluded. In the May 1954 issue of National Geographic magazine, Bird had a full-length article on the dinosaur tracks at the Paluxy River, but, again, no mention was made human-like tracks. Some then claimed that these tracks were carved, by the local inhabitants, which is possible, since good money was being paid for curios. However, in 1969 a documentary film was produced in which fresh tracks were exposed by damming the river. With earth-moving equipment, part of the limestone bank was removed to follow existing tracks. Good quality prints were exposed and a number of geologists invited for their opinion. Their recorded reactions were interesting, but in the end, they defended the theory and rejected the evidence. True science is supposed to apply inductive reasoning; if the evidence does not fit the theory, the evidence is verified, and, if found to be valid, the theory is then questioned.
... Recently, more human-like tracks have been found in the limestone strata of the Paluxy River, together with dinosaur tracks. In June 1982 the news media, TV, school teachers witnessed while tons of rock was removed from the Paluxy River bed following a trail of existing dinosaur tracks. The excavation revealed 36 dinosaur prints together with human-like footprints and a handprint. Any possibility of fraud under these conditions was completely ruled out” (p.108,449 ‘In the Minds of Men’ Ian Taylor TFE Publ. 1991).
If you “believe a creationist should first stand for TRUTH, even if it means he has to change his ideas”, then what about this information? Will you now publicly admit you were wrong and change your ideas?