|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/16/2010 : 10:01:26
|
I haven't done one of these in a long time due to loss of interest, but this one is just too pitiable to pass up.
| In 35 years of ministry, I’ve discovered that the issue of the age of the earth and the universe is an extremely emotional topic for secularists. (That’s even true for some church leaders who believe in millions of years and vehemently attack our Bible-affirming ministry as well.) For biblical creationists, the age of the earth is an issue that should lead Christians to a different kind of strong emotion: a real zeal for the authority and accuracy of the Word of God. |
I suppose there's some secular folks who soil their underwear over the "young earth," biblical yarn but they are not all that common. I see more outright hysteria from YECs. To me, as a skeptic having studied the topic from both ends, the Bible, composed by human beings who didn't know the natural world beyond where the best fishing is, the YEC version comes up wanting . It's as simple as that.
| This all hit home to me as I watched a startling video clip of famed atheist Richard Dawkins who appeared on the TV program Q & A in my homeland of Australia. Prof. Dawkins, perhaps surprisingly at first, came across as quite tolerant of religious people who believe in evolution. But when it came to the topic of the age of the earth, Dawkins changed his tone dramatically. On the program, he openly mocked those who believe in a young universe and earth (i.e., just over 6,000 years old). Now, he could somehow manage to tolerate religious people as long as they also accepted evolution. But with the age of the earth, that’s different. He scoffs and mocks. |
Dr. Dawkins does not suffer fools gladly. Nor do I.
| I’ve also observed that when the secular media visit our Creation Museum and interview me or other staff, they usually concentrate on asking us questions about the age of the earth—including why we believe dinosaurs lived alongside people. The reporters often act as if it’s ridiculous not to accept the supposed billions of years. |
There is exactly zero evidence in the fossil record that H. sapiens lived beside the dinosaurs. We've been down this road before and I'm perfectly willing to travel it again. And it is ridiculous not to accept the conclusions that virtually all of the evidence suggests.
Increasingly, I’ve noticed that when the media write reports about us, they often don’t mention the scientific points we present in our rebuttal of evolution, but instead state something like this (these words appeared in our local newspaper):
The Creation Museum employs scientists of its own but has been criticized by the larger scientific community for positions it takes that conflict with mainstream scientific belief. For example, the museum contends the Earth is 6,000 years old, rather than about 4.5 billion. It also shows humans living at the same time as dinosaurs, which most scientists say never happened.1 |
Seems like a perfectly reasonable and accurate paragraph. What's the problem with it?
| Why is the age of the earth such a big issue with secular scientists and the media? And why is it that after biblical creationists have written so many books and scientific peer-reviewed papers that contradict the supposed billions of years for the age of the earth/universe, and expose the fallible dating methods devised by man, secularists still scoff? |
Peer-reviewed where and by whom -- Liberty University?  And dating methods are not fallable just because you say so.
| Well, here’s the bottom line: |
Oh goody! Maybe this whine & snivvle session is almost at an end!
| For secularists to even postulate the idea of evolution, they have to also postulate an incomprehensible amount of time (billions and billions of years) so that the universe and life might have enough time to evolve. Even with billions of years, though, evolution is impossible. Mathematically and scientifically. But secularists aggressively promote billions of years to make evolution a plausible idea. |
I have a question: To what end might these hundreds of thousands, and more, secular scientists and laymen be spreading so much misinformation for the last century and a half? Money? Fame? Young, white jailbait? What?
Please demonstrate how evolution is "impossible" the best way you can. Thus far, you haven't shown us much.
The late famed evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr said the following:
[The Darwinian] revolution began when it became obvious that the earth was very ancient rather than having been created only 6000 years ago. This finding was the snowball that started the whole avalanche.2 |
Exactly right.
| For such scientists, it doesn’t matter how good the creationist research is about the age issue. They have already rejected it before considering it. |
Exactly wrong. Come up with something supported by other than unsupported scripture and you will be listened to intently.
| Frankly, they have to, because even allowing the possibility that the earth is only a few thousand years old is tantamount to admitting that evolution is totally wrong. And the alternative? Creation? No, they can’t allow it at all! |
Prove it and it will not only be allowed, but embraced. Talk's cheap.
| Why are biblical creationists so adamant that the earth is young? It’s because we’re zealous for the Bible, and God’s Word clearly indicates that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old. The only reliable dating method for the age of the earth/universe would come from someone who knew everything, who had always been there, who knows when it started—and then revealed it to us! |
And there it is, the rut the Young Earth Creationist 4X4 is stuck in. The Bible never changes, unlike science which is constantly modified as new information comes in. The Bible cannot change with the evidence and therefore becomes less scientifically relevant with each passing day.
| Of course there is such a ONE—the God of the Bible! The Bible is the only trustworthy dating source. It presents a detailed history from the beginning, about 6,000 years ago. |
Preach it, brother!
| On the AiG website, there are hundreds of articles that reveal that there is nothing in observational science that contradicts a young earth. In fact, observational science overwhelmingly contradicts an old age. |
I've read a fair number of said articles and from a scientific point of view, they are mostly hand-waving and lack any empirical support.
But one can't help but notice that you've used the modifier "observational." If you are running true to form, this is meant to imply that no one today has ever eyeball-seen events from millions/billions of years ago; therefore the original authors of the Bible are correct. What logical fallacy is that again?
| Let God be true but every man a liar (Romans 3:4). |
Hmm, yes.....
I've included some links from the original article in the quotes. they all reference AiG's Get Answers series, so for more of the same, do open them.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
Edited by - filthy on 11/16/2010 10:06:33
|
|
Ham's "emotional issue"
