Featured Young Earth vs. Old Earth

There are few good young earth books. Ham's points aren't awfully good IMHO. Usually the best answer was to go get something by Henry Morris. He might have a good perspective.

 

Oh, this is a can of worms.....
honestly, I can not think of too many books specifically defending a young earth account that will meet expectations.....I think Jason Lisle....has a decent body of material on this...I have not read this book myself but this may be a good one to try:
http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Back-Astronomy-Heavens-Creation/dp/0890514712

Ken Ham is a Young Earther....and a prominent one....I am only so familiar with his body of material though....I think we have to get a trained Scientist to help us out and they do exist.
I am a Young-earther.....but I will not contend that we have a check and mate on this....

Apologetically...My present policy is to defend the faith from both a Young or Old Earth perspective, I would concede that the Earth is old.....if you accept the Risen Christ as your Redeemer and the Son of God...

 

There are literally dozens of sites that support a young earth online. Some are very scientific, some are not.

I read several of Henry Morris's books years ago, I thought he made some good scientific arguments, but you will always find those who disagree.

I personally believe the scriptures show a young earth. The scriptures clearly seem to show everything was created in six 24 hour days as we know them. If God would have wanted us to understand these days were long ages he could have easily said so, and if he did I would believe him.

If you are looking for scientific arguments, this is good site, there are literally thousands of articles on many different subjects concerning creation versus evolution, but you will also see many articles concerning evidence for a young earth. You will have to do a little digging, but it is there.

http://crev.info/

 

I heard Dr. Gary Parker speak a few times and he's very good. I googled him and there is quite a bit available including youtube, vimeo, etc. I think I read a book of his, but he makes a tremendous impression in-person.

 

Although I don't agree with all of his conclusions, I believe Jonathan Sarfati does a better job than Morris on Young Earth Creationism, if no other reason than the fact of having better updated research (for instance, the now discredited canopy theory). Particularly, you might look at his Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of "Progressive Creationism"

I did a review of the first section of the book here:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/603556631/refuting-compromise-reviewed/

While the book is primarily geared toward critiquing the attempted middle-of-the-road approach of Progressive Creationists like Hugh Ross, I think you will find here that is generally helpful.

 

The author is William Dembski a mathematician associated with Intelligent Design. Don't let the "title' of this book prevent you from giving it a read. The purpose of the book is his formulation of a theodicy.

Entering the conversation, Dembski’s provocative The End of Christianity embraces the challenge to formulate a theodicy that is both faithful to Christian orthodoxy and credible to the new mental environment. He writes to make peace with three claims: (1) God by wisdom created the world out of nothing. (2) God exercises particular providence in the world. (3) All evil in the world ultimately traces back to human sin. In the process, Dembski brings the reader to a fresh understanding of what “the end (result) of Christianity” really means: the radical realignment of our thinking so that we see God’s goodness in creation despite the distorting effects of sin in our hearts and evil in the world.

 

Answers in Genesis is by far the best, in terms of putting forth good material. However, There is a little book called "Thousands, not billions" put out by ICR, that not only shows the impossibility of an Old Earth, and the circular reasoning of Old earth scientists, but also shows definitively through linguistics that "Old earth" theory is not a tenable position for anyone who holds to scriptural infallibility.

Holding to an Old Earth, AND scripture as the Infallible word of God, is an inherently contradictory position.

 

The Beginnings under Attack is excellent. Bill Sheffield

Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris

 

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/theism-origin.html

 

An excellent example of why evidential apologetics fail. You can't put on the atheists blue colored glasses, and try to argue with him that their are other colors.

God and His word are the starting point, not man and his fallible reasoning.

And FYI: You might not want to point people to someone who describes the Trinity using pagan gods...

 

Historic Creationism is a good view but not many know about it. It is the one proposed by John Sailhamer and espoused by John Piper and others. Since his book Genesis Unbound is out of print, you can read about the view here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land.

In short, the view argues that Gen. 1:1 was the creation of the universe. Gen. 1:2ff. (the 6 days) is the account of God preparing the garden (temple/kingdom) or promised land for his people to inhabit. The greatest strength of this view is that it puts Gen. 1-2 in its Exodus setting. This story has significance for the Exodus generation when they see God's plan of promised land in the beginning. It also sets a precedented theme in Scripture - that God wants to bless his people w/ his temple-presence and put his people in the land of blessing where his temple-presence will exist. This is looking forward to the tabernacle but ultimately to Jesus as the new temple and perhaps even broader as the body of Jesus as the extended new temple.

The article above gives solid exegesis to uphold this view.

 

Rant all you want, I personally will never hesitate to point someone to WLC.

 

Try Dr. McMurtry:

http://www.creationworldview.org/aboutus.asp

He has been on the Bob Dutko radio show many times and seems to be very good at defending YEC from a scientific position. Tell me what you think about his website. Please read his articles. Good stuff.

I always say when it comes to age of the universe, " If God has the power to create, and we all believe in creation, then doesn't he have the ability to do it in 6 days as His word reflects?"

When I go to meet Jesus, if He says the Old Earthers were right after all, I don't really think I will care. lol

 

Yep, cause who wouldn't like a guy who encourages the worship of Cerberus?

:tonofbricks:

 

Hey brother, you are either uncharacteristically uninformed or incredibly biased regarding this subject and have over-stated the facts.

Norm Geisler, known as a prominent conservative expert concerning biblical inerrancy, writes, "Since the Bible does not say exactly how old the universe is, the age of the earth should not be a test for orthodoxy. In fact, many orthodox scholars have held the universe to be millions of years old or more (such as Augustine, B.B. Warfield, C.I. Schfield, John Walvoord, Frances Schaffer, Gleason Archer, Hugh Ross, and most of the leaders of the movement that produced the famous "Chicago Statement" (LINK) [1978] on the inerrancy of the Bible
Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology, Bethany House, 2003. Vol 2, p. 650.

Rob

 

Again, like so many other debates on this board, we, as flawed humans, have brought it upon ourselves to form a debate with two positions of our own making, young earth and old earth. Why are these the only two choices? What if, at the point of Creation, there was no "time" as we know it, time had not be created yet, or the Creation was done outside of time, then the argument would become a mute point?

Why it is, on issue after issue, like the Calvin-free will circus, do we come up with two positions of our making that we just know that one of the two has to be the ultimate Godly answer?

The bottom line is that God created everything, and to tell the truth, that is about all you or I know about the matter.

I have no doubt someone in this forum thinks the earth is the center of the universe, is flat, and that we are the only life in the universe. No doubt if we did not have a Constitution to govern this nation, they would probably have those who disagreed burned at the stake.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

William Lane Craig is a respected and extremely prolific Christian philosopher. I’d give you his c.v., but it might bring the internet to a standstill. He’s sometimes a bit pugnacious in print, but is very amiable in person. And he’s extremely sharp. His trinitarian co-theorizer, J.P. Moreland, is also influential and inhumanly prolific, and is one of the clearest, best organized writers around. He’s been called a “scrappy” arguer, which is apt, and he’s also a swell guy (I took classes from him at Biola in the early 90s, and I’m grateful for how he influenced me). A Willardite, he also writes books about Christian spirituality, such as this good one. Both Craig and Moreland are well known for their many forays into the popular area, in the form of books on apologetics, public debates and such.



Nice doggie… nice doggie… What’s Cerberus here got to do with the Trinity? Keep reading.

In a big, unique book of theirs Moreland and Craig offer a theory of the Trinity, in a chapter on that subject. They call it “Trinity Monotheism”. I’d call it a theory that sort of straddles the social/Latin divide. That is, it doesn’t fit to well with the medieval Latin tradition – but being conservative, Bible-oriented evangelicals, they’re more concerned to concoct a view consonant with the Bible and reason, than they are to come up with one that fits the medieval traditions.

So what is the theory? The best summary of it is given by Bill Craig in a piece in Philosophia Christi (8:1, 2006) which responds to a long and ruthless critique by Daniel Howard-Snyder in a previous issue. I’ll quote Craig’s summary below, but immediately before that passage Craig makes a very important point:

The strength of our proposal lies in the fact that it does not rest content with a merely formulaic understanding of the Trinity. Rather, we try to offer a model that actually shows how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be three persons in one substance. (101, my emphasis)

This kind of courage needs to be applauded, and more importantly, emulated. What they’re saying is that they’re not resting content with inconsistent analogies, or affirming various traditionally required sentences about the Trinity. They’re actually trying to come up with a (literal) model. Put another way, they’re trying to present an intelligible doctrine, that is, one that can be understood. One such that one can’t say – “I don’t know what it means, but whatever it means, I sure hope it’s true!” No – you’ll know what it means (if you pay close attention), whether you agree with it or not. In doing this, they’re declining to hide behind hand-waving appeals to mystery, or to perversely turn the tables by claiming that unintelligibility is a virtue of their theory. By being so clear, they open themselves up to be refuted; they don’t have the easy out of simply accepting apparently inconsistent claims when it is convenient. No, of course they don’t think they completely understand God, or understand everything about him. It’s just that when it comes to the Trinity, they can tell you what they understand that doctrine to mean. This, ladies and gentlemen, is intellectual virtue on display: courage, honesty, and clarity. All the more so given that they’re aware of a certain type of shark who prowls the waters of conservative evangelicalism: the self-appointed heresy hunter. Should Trinity theories ever be widely discussed (currently they are not, beyond a few philosophers and theologians), these sharks will smell blood in the water – simply because of the fact that they’re offering a model at all.

Here is Craig’s summary (which immediately follows the above quote):

Here is the model: God is an immaterial substance or soul endowed with three sets of cognitive faculties each of which is sufficient for personhood, so that God has three centers of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will. … the persons are [each] divine… since the model describes a God who is tri-personal. The persons are the minds of God. (101)

… just as [the mythological three-headed dog] Cerberus is a single dog with three consciousnesses, so God is a single spiritual substance or soul with three self-consciousnesses. (104)

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/92