Young Earth Creationist Ministry's Biggest Critics: Christians

In the article, it states a follower of Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) called Ken Ham a piece of crap. We can't pick our followers, now can we?

But I started listening to debates between the two back in the 90's and I must say that Ham got very personal and disrespectful towards Ross in them and that that is why I quit listening anything Ham said (but that's my personal opinion of him). Disrespect doesn't win an argument.

That is why I thought this article was "ironic"!!!

God bless,
Lisa

PS: I'm no scientist but I cannot see the earth being 6000 years old but that is just me.

Just out of curiosity how old do you think the earth is? Thousands of years, Millions, Billions, Trillions, Quadrillions, Quintillion, Sextillions, Septillions, Octillions….?

It is a sad state the Church is in when we think we need to cram what we read in science books (which changes every year) into God’s Word just to make ourselves feel smart.

Carbon dating has been proven to be so inaccurate; but let’s take what “science” has come up with and force it into the Bible; this will make us more relevant.

So let’s all agree with the atheistic scientist and say that the earth is… ummmm let’s see… this week it is a Vigintillion years old; now the scientist will see we are smart and they will now agree with us there is a creator and will repent and get saved…. Yaaaaahhh.

Let’s not stand on God’s unchanging Word and instead stand on the shifting sand of science and show the world the power of God on the Church. That should work.

iceman,

I don't know how old the earth is but I do think it's a LOT older than 6000 years old! And b/c I don't agree with a young earth, you insinuate that I don’t stand on God’s word! That's pretty presumptuous on your part.

Does the Bible speak of dinosaurs? And yet we know they existed.

Does the Bible speak of the creation of other solar systems? And yet we know they are out there and they just keep on going!

I'm trying to point out graciously, brother, that there is a LOT around us that the Bible doesn't make any mention of and how do you explain it? Or do you just explain it away?

God bless you,
Lisa

But when it comes to science do we pick and choose what is correct and not correct even if it doesn't seem to line up with the Bible? Even the flu shots that are given each year is based on Science but many people get them.

Medical stuff is based on Science and yet alot of people don't think twice about doing to the doctor, getting surgeries, being up prescription medicine and so forth.

When it comes to things such as Creation old/young Earth stuff it is like politics. When a person begins getting personally it is usually because they cannot produce evidence to support their doctrine/claim especially when an opponent and knock their platform over. Then all they have left is to get personal. It becomes human nature and agenda.

Hugh Ross seems to use what we know in the Bible and what we know about Science and puts them together from what I have seen. Does Ken go strictly by the Bible? That is could be one dimensional.

John

I don't pretend to know the age of the Earth. However, I can safely count the years from Adam. Personally, I lean to a very literal interpretation of Creation.

How do I "overlook" what scientists and my own research has often told me about the age of the planet and the universe?

It isn't that I "overlook" it at all. Rather, I trust in the unlimited, omnipotent nature of God.

Remember: Nothing is outside of God's control. God can make a single second last for trillions of years. God can speed up the speed of light. In fact, God is not confined to "time" or "space" at all.

God could have created a "mature" universe in much the same way that a painter can paint a building that is "weathered."

As for the dinosaurs: A fossil is not a record of death...but a record of catastrophe. If an elephant dies in some African field, its bones will eventually whither away by the elements. This is not true of dinosaurs. The existence of their bones represent a catastrophe that preserved the bones. The Bible offers an explanation or world-wide catastrophe through the flood.

Also, it can be argued that dinosaurs DO appear in the Bible. Not only do we read of the leviathan and behemoth, but we also read about a DRAGON.

Satan is often described as an "ancient dragon." This might allude to the time in the Garden where Eve was beguiled through a "serpent." For his punishment, the serpent was cursed to crawl upon its belly. So, what did a serpent look like BEFORE that punishment? After all, the serpent was cursed above all "beasts of the field."

In Revelation, we read of Satan being considered the "dragon." In fact, in Revelation 12:9, we see a connection between a dragon and a serpent:

And the great DRAGON was cast out, THAT OLD SERPENT, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. - Revelation 12:9

Now, there are many the theories about this world presented by both scientists and theologians. My faith in God causes me to give up my doubt to him. I KNOW that God exists -- and I have more faith in God than even what I think that I know of science.

Like I said, God is omnipotent and omniscient. He can stretch time so that a second lasts for millions, billions or even trillions of years. Eternity is just that -- ETERNAL. God is present in Eternity. He allowed John to be "caught up" so that he saw things that would not take place for thousands of years. How? John likely had a glimpse from the scope of eternity.

There is an old saying that we used to have on a refrigerator magnet growing up: "DON'T WORRY ABOUT TOMORROW -- GOD IS ALREADY THERE." The same is true of yesterday, today and forever. God is there. His mind cannot be understood by the wisest of wise men. Therefore, I endeavor to trust Him even when what I learn might tell me something entirely different.

I hope that this makes some sense. We can rest assured that God created this world and all that is in it. How did he do it? I have no idea.

Chris wrote:

"He can stretch time so that a second lasts for millions, billions or even trillions of years."

Yes, but then it is no longer a second, is it? And why would He do such a thing? Its sort of like saying a dog has 5 legs if you call a tail a leg. But a tail is NOT a leg, regardless what you call it. If you are suggesting that the 6 days of creation may have really been eons long because God made the "seconds" last longer back then, then I believe you are really saying that it took eons to create the universe.

I am an old earther, but I really could care less one way or the other. I don't think any major and vital doctrine REALLY hinges on this, like Ken Ham does.

The "God created the universe with an appearance of age" argument has always bugged me-- even when I first heard it long ago. Sure, God could have done this(He can do what He wants, after all), but WHY would He have done so? Seems a tad deceptive. And since I don't believe that God is ever deceptive, I don't believe He would create a universe with an appearance of great age (when it was really brand new) knowing that mankind would one day have science to study the creation.

TMK wrote:

"He can stretch time so that a second lasts for millions, billions or even trillions of years."

Yes, but then it is no longer a second, is it? And why would He do such a thing? Its sort of like saying a dog has 5 legs if you call a tail a leg. But a tail is NOT a leg, regardless what you call it. If you are suggesting that the 6 days of creation may have really been eons long because God made the "seconds" last longer back then, then I believe you are really saying that it took eons to create the universe.

______________________________________

Hi TMK,

This may just be Chris musing about the possibilities; however, it is very possible according to theoretical physics. A second is still a second even if it takes a billion years. The reason is a matter of perspective. A second of time may pass on the earth while a billion years has passed in different parts of the universe, but from the perspective of the earth it was only a second.

Hi Lysa,
One of my main problems with millions of years or even more than the time laid out specifically from Adam to present is the subject of "death".
If before Adam "death "is on the earth then their is no need of a Saviour,
Their are other issues though but its the one that jumps out,
Yours Staff

Hi Deadn,
I listen to Grady McMurtry who uses the bible literally but also explains the science behind it which is also important of this subject.
http://www.creationworldview.org

He explains about fossils,ways of aging the earth,circular reasoning etc and I find him very good.

He says this
If anyone believes in an old creation they are saying that the death of a nephesh organism (an organism possessing a soul) occurred prior to human sin; that death is common, that death is not special, and that human sin is not the causative agent of death coming into the universe. They would believe that life and death have been going on for millions and billions of supposed years; that sin is not especially important to God. It would mean that the death of Christ on the Cross is meaningless! Such a position would mean that God is not absolutely righteous, but only relatively righteous.
“For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:21

Yours Staff

A second is a measurement that, according to Relativity, is dependent upon relative placement in "space-time." God is not bound to space, time or space-time.

My statement was simply a musing about the unlimited power and authority of God. Moreover, I wasn't suggesting that God "stretches" a second. I am simply saying that God can make more things happen within a second.

For instance, a man typically ages for one second during one second. However, it is possible for God to "speed up" that aging process to where he ages 70 years in a mere second. Now, God probably doesn't go around doing such things often, but it is not outside of the scope of His power and authority. However, during Creation, he could have made what we would assume to be TRILLIONS OF YEARS worth of acts in six days.

Remember: The laws of nature did not exist when God created this world. He is the Author of such things rather than a follower. God designed the laws of nature (observed through "science") as "guidelines" for the universe subsequent to Creation...yet He is not bound to them.

All that I am trying to say is that we can't approach God through the scope of human understanding of "science." Science is all about "observation" and we cannot "observe" just how He created the universe. As was true with Job, God did not consult us when He created the world and the universe. Yet, men feel free to speculate about it all of the time.

hi staff--

is there not physical death and spiritual death?

The lions and tigers eating the plants in the garden were killing plant cells when they were eating them, weren't they?

We know that creatures ate prior to the fall. Why did they have to eat?

Hi TMK,

The Bible differentiates between plants and animals and even between land animals and fish.

Theologically, eating a plant is not death.

Hi Tmk,
I think that whether Christian or non the reason to add more than the literal 7 day creation and adding millions of years is to accomodate the view that evolution is possible.What is peculiar to Christians who believe in millions of years is that they choose to believe atheist secular scientists over Christian Scientists.I can see why Christians who believe in a literal 7days young earth creation get stirred up by the issue;because they see it as an assault on the role of Jesus as a saviour but the reason Christians who believe in millions of years gets stirred up is because they want to acomodate world science view and try to make the gospel more plausible/acceptable to the world.

It is clear that the death that entered through Adam was Physical death and Spiritual death in the sense that
perfection was lost.Death entered humans through Adam;Their was no death-life-death-life death cycle regarding humans before Adam and thus Adam was not the result of evolution.
Adam is clearly the first person created and is a real person because it gives us his age and the length of his days,his children and is also referenced in the new testament as existing and his importance.
Regarding plants and animals-
What happened the plant cells in our present world may have been different to what happened at the beginning?Maybe the cell didnt die when eaten before the fall.
When Jesus ate the fish on the shore after he was risen and perfected what happen the fish in his stomach,we dont know how it was processed when a perfected body was in question.
We know the perfected body did not need nourishment for sure and whether with a perfected body digestion is nessacary I dont know except with Jesus it wasnt.Perhaps before the fall eating was for a different purpose,
Yours Staff

Hi All,
Just a few points:
For evolution even if it were possible which I am convinced it is not their would have to be a series of children been born over millions of years which couldnt happen as Childbirth came in after Adam n Eve.We dont even know would their have been childbirth if Sin had not occurred;in heaven their is no husband and wife.When we go to heaven or are raptured we will get an incoruptable body.

Did Adam have an incorruptable body,if he did then is digesting a corruption?

Also the bible says that "all the days of Adam were 930 years"
not some but all which means that included day 6 and 7 of creation til his death.If 6 and 7 are literal days their is no reason to doubt days 1 through 5 as been literal either.

It is easier to go with a literal interpretation of the bible than not.I dont buy the arguement that why we dont agree with a literal interpretation is that it has to do with the noble search for truth,it is to accommodate the world view of millions of years in an attempt to make the gospel more acceptable,
Thanks for considering my views Staff

Who are we going to listen to, God or man? If we can well trace the geneologies of the Bible why would we deny them? It seems they give us a well defined range of the earths age. Definately portrays a young earth model.

What God made was good. Then because of man's rebellion sin and death entered the world. Does anyone think that death and decay are good? Would God describe it as good? Denying the biblical truth that death entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned is an attack on the Gospel of Christ.

The Lord does give knowledge and reason, to His enemies, so this doesn't mean that scientist don't have any giftings or smarts. However it does mean that unbelieving scientist will in many things will perceive and teach facts wrongly.

It seems to me that the closer one gets toward evolutionism the greater the decay of their Gospel preaching.

Isa 8:19 And when they say to you, "Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter," should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living?
Isa 8:20 To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

For the record, I would like to say I believe the WORD when it says that God made the world, the universe in the 'evening and the morning were the ____ day' time frame.

We all benefit from scientific studies, great advances have been made in our lifetimes with new discoveries being made all the time. However, what is stated as fact, promoted as fact, marketed as fact is often modified, changed or discarded with the passing of time. So, how reliable is 'scientific studies'?

In my lifetime so many studies have been made that told us this and that is unhealthy, should not eat it because it will cause 'whatever' and hasten your march to an early grave only to be debunked a few years later. In fact the thing that was told to be eschewed is now being promoted as being healthy! This has happened so many times I no longer listen to the experts and eat what I want - scientific studies be hanged! Actually, most of the time there is money involved - degrade an old reliable but replace it with a new product we just made that will enhance your existence!

Since this is the case with things I live with, what is there to make me believe this mindset does not permeate other disciplines?

The ONLY POSSIBLE explanation for everything appearing older than 6,000-10,000 years is that God created a "mature" universe. Whether carbon dating is inaccurate or not is irrelevant...it would take much longer for the light from the stars in the sky to reach us than a million years let alone 10,000. Here is the problem however, we have absolutely no evidence in the bible that God did create a mature universe...you could argue that he did, based on the fact that light from the stars and sun seem to be present on earth at the point of their creation.

But there are many other factors pointing towards the universe being MUCH older than that...do a simple search on Google for "evidence against a young earth theory" and see what you come up with. I just read an article on cosmogenic nuclide dating, which is a form of dating totally separate from carbon dating that also demonstrates that the earth is much older than thousands of years... Don't worry, the bad science wont get on you ;)

I have absolutely NO problem with anyone believing the earth is young, because frankly, it is completely possible an omnipotent God could create the universe in its current state. But you have to ask yourself...why would he? Is he TRYING to trick us poor humans? Is he TRYING to make himself look less credible in the eyes of the secular world? Is he TRYING to steer people away from himself? I doubt it, considering Romans tells us he uses the beauty of his creation to display and direct people to himself, so much so that it should be obvious to even the heathen.

The question many of us have to ask ourselves is not "how old is the earth?", it's "what would happen to my beliefs if I am wrong?" Is our faith so weak that we can't accept that these very probable scientific explanations for the universe do not and can not remove one iota of God's greatness? Is our faith based on the fact that evolution is false and the earth is young, or is it based on Christ? If they found out alien life existed on mars tomorrow, or came up with some inexplicable, undeniable proof that evolution is right and we are wrong, or that the earth is billions of years old, what would that matter to us? Our faith is based on Christ, not the creation story, and especially not some foolish and blind battle against science.

Is the creation story literal? Maybe. But evidence SEEMS to point in a less literal beginning for mankind...but so what? I don't care much how the earth was formed or how we came to be, because I believe God was the artist behind it all either way, and my faith is based on Christ and him alone. Not on science or our gimmicky christian ways to try and explain the "boogy man" of science away. Every argument we could possible come up with in either direction of this questions has been brought up before and explained away by both sides. There is nothing new under the sun, people much wiser and smarter than us have pondered these questions, the fact remains...we don't know.

Hi Lotis,

There are many creation models in existence that show the plausibility of a 6,000yr old creation time frame.

What's not talked about are the equally daunting problems that "old earthers" have with the universe.

The universe has been recently measured at 150 billion light years across. That's a major problem for a 15 billion year old universe. The measurements would be 75 billion light years in either direction. If light and time are constants and the universe is only 15 billion years old then we should only be about to measure 30 billion light years across or 15 billion light years in either direction.

You are free to believe what you like and I won't try to convince you otherwise. But there are "young earth" creation models that make sense of the evidence we find in the earth and in the universe.

Edit:
Here is a link to several articles on astrophysics:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/astrophysics

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

To poscess OmniSCIENCE is to have ALL knowledge.

I am not Omniscient ( I do not have ALL knowledge). Only God is Omniscient. I trust God above any other source of (lesser) knowledge.
If God says it, I trust Him because only He KNOWS.

How He does it, I don't know. I don't need to know how, but just that He does and did. Maybe I'm too simple, but hey...I'm happy!