Featured Scholar Explains Why So Many Reject Genesis

Correct. He is a brilliant scholar but an errant theologian. Theistic evolution is a dangerous view on multiple levels. It reshapes the Genesis narrative into a sort of mythology. That is the error Peter Enns fell into which resulted in his being rightly booted out of Westminster Philadelphia.

 

No assumption about it. Nothing but the facts.

 

Are we talking "this little pig went to market ... " or ... uhmmm ... er ... #1??

 

I hope you find the following interesting and informative. (Not assuming your agreement)

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/evid.anc.earth.pdf

 

So Rev was Adam created as an infant or a "full grown" man?

HankD

P.S. I'm not desperate, naive to believe a 6 sidereal day creation maybe but not desperate.

HankD

 

I understand the definition, but do not understand your use of "sidereal" here. Can you help the learner in me?

 

Sure:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sidereal+day


HankD

 

Thanks for clearing me on that.

 

I never could link to the full paper. Some opposing views are found here:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module...t=any&f_context_any=any&f_context_without=any

and here:

http://creation.com/search?q=Radiometric+dating

 

Well said Aaron!

 

I think it is fair to say the world looks old to me because of conditioning, but would it not follow then that if the world looks young to others, it is because of conditioning.

A good deal of what we are reflects what we accepted as true.

 

Interesting and thought provoking observation. My bet is that any who are "hard determinist" would disagree.

I can honestly see that we are all influenced (conditions) by the parameters and variables which surround us from the earliest of days.

 

The same evidence is available to all; the only difference is your predetermined approach to that evidence, as stated earlier.
In a nutshell, the differing views of "creation" come to you based on where you place your FAITH!
Personally, mine is totally in His word, not what some scientist or atheist, or whoever decides God "REALLY" meant. Others have faith, yes FAITH, in what secularists declare as fact rather than His word.
Bottom line ------ some believe what they do because they trust the scientific community first; I believe what I do because I trust the word of God first. Either way it's faith, just differently focused.:godisgood:

 

I posted the following passage of Scripture either on this thread or another. However given the context in which it is written, one of the Ten Commandmants, I believe that it confirms a six, 24 hr. day creation.

Exodus 20:1-11
8. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and res.ted the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Sadly a lot of "Christians" accept what science says without thought. Science is basically the mind of man trying to explain what the mind of God has done, whether they are believers or not.

It is important to remember that science is an ever changing body of thought. It is not "truth"! Hopefully it is a such for truth. At one time science said that the four basic elements were earth, air, fire, and water; and that the earth was the center of the universe. When I was in college the basic elements, now atomic particles, were the neutron, proton, electron, and neutrino. Now dozens are postulated. {I should mention that there is some thought currently that the earth is the center of the universe because all bodies seem to be moving away from the earth in all directions. I believe Aaron mentioned this earlier.}

When I was in college it was argued that the geologic history of the earth was uniformitarian; now it is commonly accepted that the geologic history of the earth was catastrophic.

One of the extremes of "scientific thought?" is demonstrated by the following:

The first Mars rover roamed about Mars for awhile giving basically a dogs eye view of the terrain and it was claimed that this view indicated a universal flood. Yet "scientists?" look at the terrain of this planet and deny a world wide flood, I believe because the Bible tells us so.

So much for the objectivity of science!

 

This thread has been a very interesting read, but there is one very important aspect of the argument missing from this debate. Evolution is not a product of science, but is an attempt by anti-Christian humanistic atheists to unseat God as the personal Creator of the universe.

BTW, I recently read an article on "dark matter", where scientists are spending billions of our tax dollars looking for an invisible force which holds the universe together. According to what we can observe, every atom is being held together by some unseen force. They are constructed in a manner that should cause them to violently explode. Also, evolution between species is scientifically impossible. Look up & study "irreducible complexity" & the observable movement of the moon, for starters. The rate of the moon's orbital decay makes it impossible for the earth to be millions of years old. Evolutionists counter this fact with blind faith & assumption. They assume that the moon's orbit MUST have been different in the past in order for it to fit their disproven theory.

OECism is nothing more than a ludicrous attempt to merge the truth with the impossible, wisdom with foolishness, & science with God-hating ideology.

 

The concept of "dark matter" is an indication of the ever changing body of thought called science. There are claims that "dark matter" comprises as much as 80% of the matter in the universe? What will they think of next!:laugh::laugh:

 

Uh, I think it was first called "Invisible matter" but presumably that caused a litte too much mocking from creationists and it was quietly changed.

In fact if you try to type in "invisible matter" in Google it only gives you information related to "dark matter".

HankD

 

I know very little about the physicists concept of "dark matter". Don't be too quick to "poo poo" the concept though. There was a time that the concept of the atom was intellectually ridiculous, simply because we could not see it. It was theorized long before we had the technological ability to see it first hand.