Creation Wiki

[RickD]

Keep digging for gems rick.


I read articles on "creation Science" "Wikipedia" "evolution v creationism" "rich deem" and "jesus". Guess maybe I should read more eh?

Murray, I've seen so much of this, that it sticks out like a sore thumb. I could probably write a small book with all the misrepresentations I could find in the ICR website. Murray, this is all stuff I found, beginning when I considered myself a yec, and began my search into OEC. I spent a lot of time looking into this stuff. The worst part, like I mentioned before, is that they're driving people away from Christ, with their dishonesty and misrepresentations, and they don't even realize what they're doing.

[Stu]

Come now guys. I have found the Creation Wiki extremely useful in that past when researching topics; as I have ICR and Evidence for God.
Some of you old earthers need to chill a little just because a site supports the YEC view doesn't mean you should unload on the site as a whole. You do a great disservice to many people; not to mention divide and conquer and all that.

Professor **** Dawkins was on our local radio station today addressing the usual subjects; and the question of the young earth view was raised including Adam and Eve. He dismissed Adam and Eve and the Young Earthers as ignorant, and while the host never challenged him the view was nevertheless out there. This is dangerous, as there are many intelligent people who hold to a young earth view and if YEC can be dismissed because it's supporters are "ignorant" then all the other idea's they advocate can also simply be dismissed as the ramblings of mad men and fundamentalists. And I would hardly call the likes of Jonathan Wells and Jonathan Sarfati ignorant.

[Kurieuo]

as there are many intelligent people who hold to a young earth view and if YEC can be dismissed because it's supporters are "ignorant" then all the other idea's they advocate can also simply be dismissed as the ramblings of mad men and fundamentalists.

intelligent YECs? Isn't that like an oxymoron or something?

[Stu]

as there are many intelligent people who hold to a young earth view and if YEC can be dismissed because it's supporters are "ignorant" then all the other idea's they advocate can also simply be dismissed as the ramblings of mad men and fundamentalists.

intelligent YECs? Isn't that like an oxymoron or something?

Stu resists the urge

[Canuckster1127]

There are intelligent YEC'ers out there. Have them put together a Creation Wiki and I'll try to be kinder.

You're right Stu. Being an OEC supporter and having for years to have to be defensive in the face of YEC proponents on the Internet and in person in the past within the institutional church, one of the first measures of how I assess the integrity level of YEC supporters is not, of course that they agree with me or OEC, because they by definition don't. What I do find "unforgivable" and loses my respect quicker than anything is arrogance and an inability or unwillingness to accurately define what OEC is and what OEC proponents in general believe. That is not an unreasonable thing to request or expect.

It's compounded when YEC proponents assume the title of "Creationists" in such a way that excludes OEC proponents.

This site, as I demonstrated with quotes directly from it, pretty much hits on all those points.

I'm unapologetically biased on this. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that someone who condemns a movement and summarily dismisses creationists who differ with them, should at least be able to accurately define the OEC position even if they qualify and explain why they disagree with it. Add to that a lumping together of OEC with Evoliutionists and to me it sadly just speaks to the bigotry and bias of those doing it and if you look up the terms I'm using them as defined, not prejoratively.

He takes heat from time to time, but Jlay is a YEC proponent I overall respect, because he is willing to confront fellow YECers when they do this and I believe he understands the basic premises of the OEC position, even if he rejects them in favor of YEC. That's all I can ask.

[Stu]

There are intelligent YEC'ers out there. Have them put together a Creation Wiki and I'll try to be kinder.

You're right Stu.

Of course.

Being an OEC supporter and having for years to have to be defensive in the face of YEC proponents on the Internet and in person in the past within the institutional church, one of the first measures of how I assess the integrity level of YEC supporters is not, of course that they agree with me or OEC, because they by definition don't. What I do find "unforgivable" and loses my respect quicker than anything is arrogance and an inability or unwillingness to accurately define what OEC is and what OEC proponents in general believe. That is not an unreasonable thing to request or expect.

Agreed.

It's compounded when YEC proponents assume the title of "Creationists" in such a way that excludes OEC proponents.

Yeah, that's not right.

This site, as I demonstrated with quotes directly from it, pretty much hits on all those points.

I'm unapologetically biased on this. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that someone who condemns a movement and summarily dismisses creationists who differ with them, should at least be able to accurately define the OEC position even if they qualify and explain why they disagree with it. Add to that a lumping together of OEC with Evoliutionists and to me it sadly just speaks to the bigotry and bias of those doing it and if you look up the terms I'm using them as defined, not prejoratively.

He takes heat from time to time, but Jlay is a YEC proponent I overall respect, because he is willing to confront fellow YECers when they do this and I believe he understands the basic premises of the OEC position, even if he rejects them in favor of YEC. That's all I can ask.

Ok it seems there is quite a bit more going on between the OEC and YEC views than I've been aware of
Haven't really been exposed to it that much I guess.

Just remember there are some of us who are still on the fence or just aren't exposed to such intense debate, and so when fellow Christians dismiss other sites on the whole based on their OEC view it just seems odd.

I agree 100% with your other sentiments though; in that there must be respect on both sides for the others views.

[Kurieuo]

Don't you know though, that all OEC Day-Agers are anti-Scriptural and have no real faith in God to do what He says in Scripture He did? If you don't accept that a day in Genesis is a literal 24 hour day as it says it is, then you don't have any faith in God, Christ or Scripture. So which is it: do you have faith in God and His Word? Anyone who self-professes to be a Bible believing Christian with faith in Christ must believe in a literal day not a long period of time.

[RickD]

Don't you know though, that all OEC Day-Agers are anti-Scriptural and have no real faith in God to do what He says in Scripture He did? If you don't accept that a day in Genesis is a literal 24 hour day as it says it is, then you don't have any faith in God, Christ or Scripture. So which is it: do you have faith in God and His Word? Anyone who self-professes to be a Bible believing Christian with faith in Christ must believe in a literal day not a long period of time.

[Murray]

[Kurieuo]

Bring it on you "Rossist"¹ heretics!

¹ http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-creation

[RickD]

Bring it on you "Rossist"¹ heretics!

¹ http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-creation

Why, Kurieuo, why? You had to stir the pot! Kurieuo, since you're the instigator, answer this. How can the most well known YEC site get away with that garbage? Mr. Ham should be ashamed of himself. He knows better. He's going to have to answer to God one day, for bearing a false witness against his Christian brother, Hugh Ross. That is just despicable, and I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Someone here once said that when one knows he's losing an argument, he starts to resort to ad hominem attacks. I guess Mr. Ham is getting desperate.

**for all those who use the argument that the article was posted 13 years ago, and Mr. Ham could have changed his stance, he also had time to put up an apology, or remove the article completely.

[Kurieuo]

Bring it on you "Rossist"¹ heretics!

¹ http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-creation

Why, Kurieuo, why? You had to stir the pot! Kurieuo, since you're the instigator, answer this. How can the most well known YEC site get away with that garbage? Mr. Ham should be ashamed of himself. He knows better. He's going to have to answer to God one day, for bearing a false witness against his Christian brother, Hugh Ross. That is just despicable, and I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Someone here once said that when one knows he's losing an argument, he starts to resort to ad hominem attacks. I guess Mr. Ham is getting desperate.

**for all those who use the argument that the article was posted 13 years ago, and Mr. Ham could have changed his stance, he also had time to put up an apology, or remove the article completely.

Garbage? Ross "argues that science alone can drive men to the correct understanding of our origin and hence see the necessity of a Creator."¹ Why should we accept that fallible men using a man-made and fallible methodology such as science can come to the truth about God?¹ (Please ignore Scripture like Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:20)

Beware of false teachers! "God’s people need to repent of compromise and return to the foundation of the inerrant Word of God instead of building on the foundation of fallible sinful man."² (please ignore 1 Corinthians 3:11 that says Christ should actually be the foundation) In particular, AiG's interpretation of God's inerrant Word of God is foundational. Not Ross' or any other interpretation other than a YEC interpretation of Scripture because such interpretations are from fallible men using their own man-made methodologies to interpret Scripture.

¹ http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /hugh-ross
² http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... day-today/

[Canuckster1127]

Bring it on you "Rossist"¹ heretics!

¹ http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-creation

Why, Kurieuo, why? You had to stir the pot! Kurieuo, since you're the instigator, answer this. How can the most well known YEC site get away with that garbage? Mr. Ham should be ashamed of himself. He knows better. He's going to have to answer to God one day, for bearing a false witness against his Christian brother, Hugh Ross. That is just despicable, and I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Someone here once said that when one knows he's losing an argument, he starts to resort to ad hominem attacks. I guess Mr. Ham is getting desperate.

**for all those who use the argument that the article was posted 13 years ago, and Mr. Ham could have changed his stance, he also had time to put up an apology, or remove the article completely.

Garbage? Ross "argues that science alone can drive men to the correct understanding of our origin and hence see the necessity of a Creator."¹ Why should we accept that fallible men using a man-made and fallible methodology such as science can come to the truth about God?¹ (Please ignore Scripture like Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:20)

Beware of false teachers! "God’s people need to repent of compromise and return to the foundation of the inerrant Word of God instead of building on the foundation of fallible sinful man."² (please ignore 1 Corinthians 3:11 that says Christ should actually be the foundation) In particular, AiG's interpretation of God's inerrant Word of God is foundational. Not Ross' or any other interpretation other than a YEC interpretation of Scripture because such interpretations are from fallible men using their own man-made methodologies to interpret Scripture.

¹ http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /hugh-ross
² http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... day-today/

Makes perfect sense to me. After all if you can't trust Ken Ham's interpretation of Scripture to be inerrant and replace Christ, who can you trust?

[RickD]

From Answersingenesis.org:http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... inerrancy/

It's only 1 1/2 minutes, but telling. Give it a listen.

[RickD]

Another little "gem", from AIG:http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... tastrophe/

Notice the bible says "very good" creation,Ken Ham changes to say "perfect-no death, no suffering, no disease". Talk about adding to scripture, to make scripture fit into his Young Earth worldview. He's doing the very thing he accuses Old earth Creationists of doing. He says old Earth Creationists interpret scripture to fit the evolutionary age of the earth. Ken, thanks for the lesson on hypocrisy.