Want Some Answers ???

Evolutionism
Index
Home



Greg your website - www.oldearth.org

You need to ask the Lord in prayer if you really are doing His work. You are pointing people in the WRONG direction, encouraging them NOT to believe the bible and criticizing it.

Jesus regarded the OT as GOD's WORD inspired by the Holy Spirit (Mt.19:4,5, 22:31 23,43 Mk.12:26 Lk.20:37) There's no room for any part to be deficient. He believed the Genesis account as written; Paul, Peter, James and John also, so should you. Is Jesus your Lord? Then submit to His Lordship take your lead from Him. Both the OT and NT take Genesis as history, so should you.

>>With all due respect, when you are counseling people who fall away from the faith, the reason is not because of websites like mine. It is because they have been taught that the Bible teaches a young earth, and when they get older, they learn otherwise. They feel as if they have been lied to. If they had been told in their youth that the earth was old, you would not have this problem.<<

How can you "counsel people" to accept a contradiction? You disconnect the bible from the real world and make it irrelevant. 'Billions of years' don't fit into the bible. But if it's inspired by God, He reveals the truth about creation - not the theories of men. People are not dumb, they see the difference between billions and thousands. Templeton, etc., indicated it was the reason they rejected the bible. The very opposite happens to what you suggest.

Tell kids "
the earth is old" gives a reason to reject the bible and regard it untrustworthy. If the bible isn't true in Genesis, then how do you know its true elsewhere? Where does truth begin? At universities they face this 'problem'. Rather than blindly accepting long-ages, they need information that answers the evolutionary hype. Not compromising stuff off your website correcting the bible. You counsel them to embrace what undermines the whole biblical message right at the start. One that leads to heresy and apostasy, it wreaks them! And that's a proven fact. And this is happening right now, with dozens of examples.

The 'billions of years' come from evolutionary philosophy, not scripture or empirical science. It's vital for evolution, not the bible. Godless men have told you how to interpret the bible. You have replaced God's authority, for man's authority.

>>Therefore the problem is not with old earth websites, but with what I call the "young earth culture." The young earth culture sets people up for this failure. They have an either/or choice...either the earth is young, and the BIble is right...or the earth is old, and the Bible is wrong. I give them a choice to say the earth is old, AND the Bible is right.<<

But if you are right, there's practically nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that is 'right'. You have a different picture of what it says than a plain literal reading. You make it into fairy tales. Are you Gnostic? It sounds like it. As if the bible is not enough, we must read your website to properly understand it.

People don't GIVE UP the faith after reading young "
earth websites". They're strengthened. Your website, promotes the atheistic website of "Talk Origins". You hand young Christians onto atheists so they can "council" and explain the bible. You are destroying their faith by your sick pastime. You are making enemies of the faith. How do I know? Because I pick-up the pieces. God regards our "faith more precious than gold" (1 Pe.1:7) but Greg couldn't care less!

>>For your list of evidences below, all have been shown to be faulty science. Most of them have rebuttals on my website. The books you list have several that I have already provided rebuttals to.<<

Then why not discuss them? I have the books, to keep you honest. You haven't shown the 'evidences' as 'faulty science' either. Your weak arguments have nothing convincing. Every point you make is easily answered. You rely on Hugh Ross and evolutionists. Nothing you say survives investigation; your 'rebuttals' only numb your mind. You say, "YECs refuse to read things that might disagree with them" you are clearly fooled by your own propaganda.

>>The young earth approach to science is not science at all. Science is 1) looking at the evidence, and 2) reaching a conclusion about the evidence...in that order. Young earth science has already reached the conclusion (that the earth is young), before they look at the evidence. They then twist the evidence to make it fit their conclusion. That is why it is so easy to see through their poor science. However, if you are caught up in this culture, you are blinded to this fact.<<

Evolutionists are biased far more. Your comments are misdirected. They insist evolution is a fact, so "already reached the conclusion about the evidence". If you believe the world is very old (before you know how old), you will come up with data that supports your assumptions before you have the answer.

All dating methods disagree among themselves. They aren't reliable for things of a known age. And the data gives a ratio! A ratio is NOT a date. The data is interpreted, but the end result is accepted or rejected by evolutionary assumptions. No contrary evidence against this framework is allowed. Evolution stands, old-earth ideas stand, regardless of the true evidence. Dates are only accepted if they agree with what evolutionists "
already" believe. The fossils date the rocks, and the fossils are already dated by evolution. That's the way it's done. An interpretation scheme already accepted as true.

We all have the same facts and fossils. All interpret the evidence from our world view. We all have a bias. Question is; which bias is the best bias to be bias with? One that starts from God's Word or one that starts from the assumptions of materialism?

>>Have you taken the time to read the Morton's Demon article I suggested? ("www.answersincreation.org/mortond.htm") It perfectly describes your approach to the evidence. Greg<<

Yes I did read. You are claiming "young earth creationists" are demon possessed. That indicates how blind you are to the truth. The devil has you right where he wants, doing his work. No where does the bible suggest that believing the bible (or Genesis as written) is demon possession or devilish. Besides, evidence I gave you suggest the opposite. It's the long-age belief that destroys faith in the bible. Is that not evil to you?

Thanks to "YEC" there's a wealth of good scientific research today that supports the bible. But you regard that as evil. Those who examined their research and evidence are built up in the faith and encouraged in their walk with the Lord. But you regard that as evil.

Your comments often read like a Skeptic website. You both attack the same people, have the same arguments, reject the same verses, believe the same ideas. You can't see that the billions of years are the first stepping stone to accepting atheistic evolution. To prove I read your website at length, I'll comment on a few points.

No where does the bible say death existed before the Fall. You reply,

>>"…then why did God plant a Garden, and place man in it? The Scriptures are clear that the Garden was separate and distinct from the rest of the world. We have no reason to suspect that there was no death outside of the Garden.<<

It doesn't mean the rest of the world was on fire or anything awful. To think death/hell existed "
outside the Garden" is reading into scripture something not there. Besides such a 'Garden' could not exist, as Adam would be created on a graveyard of decaying or fossilized animals. Interesting you accept the Garden as literal and real, but not the rest of Genesis. Why?

We cannot imagine the world of Adam – a perfect creation. We live in a corrupt creation because of sin - a world of bloodshed and death, not Adam's world. The finished creation was called "very good" (Gen.1:29). Do we call God a liar? Don't imagine that perfect world was just like this world of disease, death, killing, floods, earthquakes, wars and graveyards. Today the whole of creation is cursed, death applies to all. "The whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. Not only the WORLD but we ourselves…" (Rom.8:22).

Genesis is necessary to explain death and suffering. But because you believe they existed before the Fall; you disconnect them from the bible. Death in evolution is vital, it's good - more death and suffering the better, from death comes life, 'Evolution and death' go together, 'The fittest survive'. The bible is the opposite, 'sin and death' go together, from life comes life, the 'meek shall inherit the earth'.

The truth of the gospel (restored to fellowship with the Creator) depends on the truth of the bad news about creation how Adam's sin broke harmony between God and man [1 Cor.15:21-22]. If death and bloodshed existed before Adam, it's contrary to the Gospel. The Gospel requires physical death to have come through sin (Gen.3:19) and all die because of Adam's sin. So if no Fall into sin and death resulting, the gospel is foolishness. Christ didn't need to die. So the gospel requires physical death as a penalty of sin, shown by the death of the sacrificial animals (in the OT). This penalty was also verified by Adam's physical death, the animal killed in the Garden and Christ's sacrifice.

Otherwise you end-up blaming God for this ugly world, and man's sin escapes punishment. God's to blame, not man's sin. He created a world of death, sufferings, cruelties, extinctions, and catastrophes. So He isn't good, loving, or all-powerful. Why would a 'perfect God' do that? So people reject Him. In your article, "Creation Science Issues - Death Before the Fall of Man" you say,

>>Venom has no purpose but to kill. According to the young-earth model, the "perfect" animal created by God would not need venom. Yet venom exists. Young earth creationism cannot explain this.<<

Simply not true, creationists CAN 'explain this'. Who's to say the secretion was always poisonous? It would have had a different function pre-fall. Perhaps a pre-digestive that broke down seeds inside shells. And since snakes turned carnivore, their body chemistry altered the output to match. Fangs make sense if used to penetrate dry outer layers.

Venomous snakes are often used by sceptics to attack Genesis. Templeton referred to this, just as you. They argue snakes have "
no purpose but to kill", but Genesis states all animals originally ate plants in a good world. And many snake venoms are similar to digestive enzymes - proteins used to help break down food. A snake swallows food whole, having a system that injects digestive enzymes helps break it down and absorbed quickly. When the world degenerated after the Fall and Noah's flood, snakes started eating other animals. Now the enzymes in their saliva not only helped digest their prey, but helped kill it as well. So it's likely when many creatures were made they were equipped to survive in a hostile world after the Fall. God's foreknowledge knew the result of sin.

So you throw a problem in the road of a young believer so they fall away. Are you mad?

>>God’s design is flawed, because He intended the lion to eat plants, but equipped it for killing. However, nowhere does the Bible say that animals "cannot" eat meat. There was no general prohibition against meat.<<

What Genesis DOES say is that animals were originally created NOT to eat meat Gen.1:30. This is contrary to evolution, so you reinterpret the bible. Contrary to your view, God doesn't take pleasure in animals killing each other. If you think He created wolves to rip apart baby lambs, you don't know the God of the bible. The creatures have become wild, the world has changed in every aspect.

Before the Fall, many attack/defense structures could have been used in a vegetarian lifestyle. Eg, today, some baby spiders use their webs to trap pollen for food and there was the case of the lion that wouldn’t eat meat. Even many poisons actually have beneficial purposes in small amounts. As you say - 'God is perfect and his creatures in the Garden would have been created perfectly to fit into the ecosystem'.

But in foreknowledge He programmed creatures with the information for design features for attack and defense needed in a cursed world. Information ‘switched on’ at the Fall. If not, far far more wouldn't exist today. All creatures were created vegetarians (Gen.1:29-30). Predation did not develop until later in history. Eventually that will be abolished in the New Creation (Isa. 11, 35, 65). Wolves and lions will once again eat plants exclusively. That world is closer to the original creation. The New Earth is not just like this one. It's without the 'curse', and death. (Rev.22:3)

Since the Fall, all creatures degenerated. This process is still happening. Many have died out. And some require meat to gain enough nutrients. Our Kea parrot in New Zealand has only become a carnivore in the last century. Its natural food of plants were destroyed so it took to attacking lambs on sheep farms.

You deny Noah's flood was global. So you reject the what the bible says and undermine eschatology. If God's judgment is not believed why should we believe the bible about judgment to come?

Regards
Mark


Reply
Index
Home