Evidence for God from Science

as you throw evolution in there, suddenly he can muster up more powerful negative emotions about the topic.

And that indeed is the tactic employed so often by those in the YEC camp. They truly don't seem to be able to differentiate between Progressive Creationism and those embracing either some form of naturalism/evolution, and who also reject the Genesis accounts of being about real people and actual events. They just seem determined to link any Christian believing in an ancient universe (about 13.73 billion years old) and old earth (about 4.5 billion years old) to those embracing evolution and rejecting Scripture as being true. I can well understand and appreciate their reaction to evolution as it is much the same as mine, but it would appear that they fail to consider or accept that God could have created over long periods involving multiple extinctions followed by Him creating new species - ALL of which would have preceded His creation of Adam.

And despite the many Hebrew scholars who testify to Scripture being worded so as to fit well with very long periods (billions of years) and despite abundant astronomical and physical/geological evidence that appears to back that up, they nonetheless remain fixated upon literal 24-hour creation days - which is their perogative. But it's not the belief in the 24-hour days that riles me, it's the demonizing of other Scripturally believing Christians who think otherwise. Now, this attitude is not true of ALL YECs, but is true of a great many of them.

As for jlay, I am not attacking Ham, but any OECs who are obsessed with demonizing OECs supposedly attempting to distort Scripture's meanings or embracing macroevolution/pure naturalism. Evolutionists scoff at Progressive Creationism! They would laugh if you would ever suggest to them that OECs are in their camp. And even though believing in long periods of time, OECs are especially critical over evolutionists denial over the fact that their position doesn't have ENOUGH time (see Cambrian Explosion). If one can't discern enormous differences (often 180 degrees apart) between OECs and evolutionists or can't see that OECs also hold fast to viewing Genesis as entirely historical and factual, then they are not being honest. And to suggest somehow they are less authentic or any lessor Christians is downright disgusting.

Lastly, I believe that Theistic Evolutionists are much worse off in their Scriptural understandings (which are MUCH more important) than YECs - especially if they look at Genesis as being mostly allegorical or metaphorical (which they must do to accommodate evolution - guided by God or not). As long as they don't make it a bigger deal than it should be, I'd rather see someone wrong about the whole time thing (whether OEC or YEC) than to not believe Genesis is true and accurate as far as its implications for mankind. Truly, if Genesis isn't factual, then much of the rest of Scripture would appear problematic to correctly understanding it.

And someone please tell me, as to its theological implications, as it relates to man's fall and God's gift of Jesus - the things that are crucial to our eternal destinies - WHY DOES HOW FAST OR OVER HOW LONG A PERIOD GOD CREATED OVER really matter (theologically/spiritually/eternally)? Seems like those hung up on this are saying active/repentant belief in Jesus isn't enough.

The bible says God created in 6 "yoms". It doesn't say "6 24 hour days".


Rick, red herring. I'm not here to debate the meaning of yom.

jlay, It's not a red herring. I listed the "same old crap" that Ham was saying. Part of this "crap" was this that Ham wrote:

I’ve had many people say to me over the years that it doesn’t matter if God created over millions of years—just as long as God did it. My answer is always the same: “It is not what God said He did!”

Ham is saying that God said the universe was created in six 24 hour days, not six long days. When you and I both know that the bible doesn't say that at all. It's just Ham's interpretation.

If I said, regarding one of your post, "Same ole crap from Rick," your telling me you wouldn't take it personally?Yes or no?

Honestly, the first thing I would think if you wrote that, would be, "geez, what did I miscommunicate this time"?
So, if YOU wrote that, I probably wouldn't take it personally.

For me, I'm not nearly as confident in the age of the earth, nor as confident that the creation account, YEC or otherwise is foundational in the revelation that follows, in the sense that AIG holds. Therefore, I wouldn't say that OEC is a compromise.

You're not nearly as confident as Ham, in the age of the earth? Or, you're not nearly as DOGMATIC as Ham, about the age of the earth? You are reasonable enough to admit that OEC isn't a compromise of scripture, even though you disagree with OEC in general. But, Ham's entire life is based on YEC being the only valid interpretation. His whole "ministry" is built upon YEC first, not on the gospel of Christ, first. And, he believes OEC compromises the gospel of Christ. While I disagree with YEC, I don't believe YEC itself compromises the gospel of Christ.(Although I believe a dogmatic belief in YEC, or a dogmatic belief in ANY creation belief, can compromise the gospel.)

So, let me ask you Rick. Do you think TE compromises the Bible in any form or fashion? Seem to recall a post today on the very issue.

I honestly don't know enough to say for sure, because there seems to be such a broad scope of beliefs within TE. I certainly see some things that bother me, but I don't feel confident that all TEs believe those things. Without going into huge details, I believe Hugh Ross has explained how mankind was a special creation. Ross went into the Hebrew to explain it. So, I do have some concern biblically, when someone believes God chose a preexisting hominid, and endowed him with a spirit, and called him Man. But, not enough concern yet, to call it a compromise.

Jlay, don't you believe in micro evolution?


I don't recall Ham saying this. But, it's a moot point. I'm not here to argue what Yom means, or any such issues. The issue is people getting in a tiff because Ham says that their position (OEC) is a compromise.
BTW, I think you are reading into this, (micro evolution) and drawing that conclusion. He is using the term "evolution" in the sense of Darwinism. Where does he say he rejects what we call microevolution?

He doesn't say he rejects micro evolution. Ham said :

Now, we all need to understand that there are three main types of evolutionary ideas: biological, geological, and cosmological. Stand to Reason blatantly accepts geological and cosmological evolutionary ideas, but tries to reject and modify parts of the biological ideas of evolution to fit God in as Creator—but really it is just another form of theistic evolution.

and:

So this organization certainly believes in cosmological and geological evolution, but they claim they reject theistic evolution. But do they really? What they seem to mean is that some ideas of evolution are okay, as long as God remains necessary to the process.

So, Ham seems to be saying all kids of evolution are wrong, or at the very least, Ham is equating belief in any kind of evolution with belief in Theistic Evolution. I certainly don't believe modern man evolved from some life form in the distant past, and I don't believe in TE. But, I have no problem believing in stellar evolution, which is simply the changes a star goes through in its lifetime.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

As Genesis reveals that Adam was made in (God's) "Our image" and AFTER all of the animals (that were each made "after their kind)"; And as Adam was formed independently, from "dust from the ground," and as his body was already formed when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man (previously only a lifeless body) became a living creature"; And as Adam was then put into a "deep sleep," a rib removed, from which God created Eve; These all collectively slam the Scriptural door on Theistic evolution, and certainly of Adam being the end result of some long evolutionary chain. Theistic evolutionists are apparently bothered by any "shortcuts" God might have made to create man that are separate from an evolutionary process. Whatever the case, they do not accept the details of Adam and Eve's creation, especially as they both were created separately/miraculously from the creation of all the animals and as Eve was created instantly/separately/miraculously from Adam's rib.

So God can create a universe, but then He can ONLY do miraculous things via long and intricate processes? So His power has limitations? That's not what we see in much of Scripture. And so instead of giving us a straight-forward rendering of the Creation events, God instead gives us this wild story about a naked couple being tricked by a snake to eat some exotic fruit, which is the spiritual and physical downfall of humanity? Hmmm? And remember, this story is foundational to the rest of Scripture, as well as being embraced by the very sober, meticulous chroniclers in the NT. This makes very little sense!

Rick, im already well versed on the issues. This isnt new to me. So, are u going to answer the two questions?

*sigh* All the vitriol . . .

So Ham's arguments are called "crap." "Those in the YEC camp" are accused of not being "able to differentiate between Progressive Creationism and those embracing either some form of naturalism/evolution." "A great many" YECs apparently "demonize" other Christians. All the while, they're understanding of Scripture is derided as "just [their] interpretation" (as if OECs have something more). Moreover, given that interpretation,the honest concerns that come out of it are misrepresented and then called "disgusting." And if all that isn't enough, when Ham is quoted directly as saying that YEC isn't a matter of salvation, that there are genuine Christians who are OEC--when he points out that their theology is, on his understanding of Scripture, compromised and leading people away from the faith--given all that, people still here just call him a liar and says he REALLY thinks that OECs are false brothers.

And despite this kind of language, somehow it's the YECs who are accused of being divisive. That kind of rhetoric sounds a lot like demonization to me. Why can't you OECs recognize that YECs (including Ham) have come to a certain understanding of Scripture, and since they believe that Scripture tells the Truth, they have come to certain theological conclusions they believe are true. And if they believe they are true, they are necessarily and logically required to assert that those who disagree are WRONG.

You don't have to agree with YECs or Ham (obviously). You do, however, have to be charitable, and there is very little of that going on here. Look, I was in someone's kitchen a few weeks ago discussing the doctrine of salvation. We fundamentally disagreed on what Scripture teaches. We were able to look each other in the eye and say, "You know, if you are right, then I am wrong; and if I am right, you are wrong; that means that one of us is teaching a false Gospel. And it's very possible that one of us is going to Hell. I believe that you, my friend, are in danger of eternal condemnation." And you know what? We both said the same thing to each other with complete conviction, and neither of us were offended or felt the need to mock or deride the other. We were simply being honest in our theological evaluations.

You all may vehemently disagree with Ham. But all he is doing is giving his honest theological evaluation. If he is right about his interpretation in Genesis, then OEC is a compromise. If he's wrong, then guess what--he's just wrong. But that's no reason to spend page after page in personal insults as I first referenced.

Frankly, it's just rude. Forget the fact that you wouldn't want him talking about you like you talk about him. Forget the Golden Rule. It just distresses me greatly that this kind of hatred is allowed to be spewed on this board. You're all asking Ham to change his tone if not his tune. Maybe you all should start.

Why does either YEC or OEC have to be a "COMPROMISE?" Why cannot it simply be how one personally understands it? The world "compromise" seems especially loaded in this conversation - as if someone is refusing to accept an obvious or crucial truth. I don't believe that about YECs. Why should I?

Again, no one has answered my previous question:

"And someone please tell me, as to its theological implications, as it relates to man's fall and God's gift of Jesus - the things that are crucial to our eternal destinies - WHY DOES HOW FAST OR OVER HOW LONG A PERIOD GOD CREATED OVER really matter (theologically/spiritually/eternally)? Seems like those hung up on this are saying active/repentant belief in Jesus isn't enough."

jlay wrote:Rick, im already well versed on the issues. This isnt new to me. So, are u going to answer the two questions?

Jlay, I'm sorry. I thought I answered your 2 questions in my post above. Were there 2 other questions?
And I know you know the issues. I was explaining what the crap was that I was talking about. I was disagreeing with what Ham said. I was trying to show you that it wasn't a personal attack against Ham.

Because, Philip, if YEC is right, then there is no death before the fall. OEC compromises with the secularist worldview by denying that truth.

To use an analogy, I believe that people who think you can lose your salvation have COMPROMISED the faith. Why? Because they are DENYING the biblical doctrine of salvation by including works--the compromise is with the carnal worldview that says I can do SOMETHING to save myself.

So ON YEC TERMS, OEC is a compromise(d) position. That doesn't make OEC wrong. But if YEC is right, then OEC is wrong by definition, and one of the DANGERS of OEC is that it compromises the truth of Scripture.

Rick, if i said "same ole crap from rick," would u take it personally.

Next i asked if u thought TE compromised the bible in any form or fashion.

jlay wrote:Rick, if i said "same ole crap from rick," would u take it personally.

Next i asked if u thought TE compromised the bible in any form or fashion.

I answered both about 8 posts back.

WAS there death before the fall? A Biblical Analysis: http://www.reasons.org/articles/animal- ... -bible-say

And why, Philip, is that any less "just your interpretation" than you all accuse Ham of when he says the Bible teaches that the word yom means 24 hours? If you expect him to concede that that's just his interpretation, then I expect you to concede that those arguments are just your interpretation. I happen to think that they are wrong and have discussed the issue in detail here.

Anyway, you're moving the goal posts. You asked a question, I answered it. If the YEC interpretation of verses like Rom 5:12 and Gen 1:30-31 are correct, then there was no death before the fall, and OEC is a compromise(d) position. Obviously, you disagree with the YEC view of those verses. But that's not the question. You asked how YECs could say OECs are compromising. There's your answer. As they read Scripture, you are compromising the faith.

Cool it, Jac! I'm not attacking Ham - really could care less about him. I'm not here to attack YECs either - only to admonish those YECs (and not all of them do this) who distort their views or question the Christianity of OECs. Also, I do not wish to debate this issue, but only to offer counter viewpoints to consider. And I DO understand your contention about compromise. I simply posted an examination that would give others a look at the issue of death before the fall. But you are not just in opposition to OECs, but also theologians and Hebrew scholars that say the Genesis texts can reasonably be interpreted as do OECs. So do you think that these inerrancy believing, Godly scholars (people like Gleason Archer) are attempting to compromise the Bible? These are people who have spent their professional lives studying Scripture, who know more about the original languages that almost everyone, who also believe that this is God's inerrant Word to mankind.

Anyway, you're moving the goal posts. You asked a question, I answered it.

No, Jac, the things I have brought up are parts of the larger conversation. I merely asked the question about compromise as it is merely part of the larger issue and dialog.

Again, yours appears to be a Jesus-plus position. God never demanded that anyone do more than follow and teach Scripture to the best of their ability, understanding and accurate conveyance of what it says. But He never promised ANYONE would ever perfectly understand all Scripture - which apparently is what you are insinuating YECs are able to do. As only God has such a perfect understanding, if ANYONE else doesn't have a totally perfect take on Scripture, then by your definition, they are compromising the Gospel. I would NEVER say that about YECs - as all I would say is that I believe they are wrong about the time issue. Do YOU have a perfect understanding of all Scripture? No? Think you might have interpreted any parts of it wrongly? If so, then you are just as guilty of what you are accusing OECs of. Some things are currently/mortally unknowable - and most certainly not perfectly understandable.

Geez, look what I stirred up.

Ok, let's take a step back: this is really about Ken Ham -- not YEC/OEC.

A lot of Christians (OEC/YECs alike) are put off and/or distrust Ham. I love YECs. A little naive perhaps, just as I might be a little misguided, but we can still get along.

Ham however has set his own reputation that follows him like a bad smell. This is no one's fault but his own. If people don't like you, it is generally because you've left a bad taste in their mouth.

Understandably some who share the same view of creation as Ham may feel attacked -- but this really seems to be about Ham and not beliefs on creation.

In any case, I don't like Ham. My reasons stem from hearing and reading him. Sadly for YEC, Ham is also a popular stage figure. But, jlay and Jac I have no issues with you guys -- definitely more intelligent than Ham.

Hmmm .... Here we are on an OEC board having a discussion with OECs and YECs.

AIG offers no such interaction. There is one point of view and only one point of view communicated.

If Ken Ham is wrong he's only wrong? Kan Ham has raised and received millions of dollars that he's spent promoting his point of view. He's built a museum promoting that postion. He's called into question the integrity of those who disagree with him. He's been removed from Christian Organizations that agree with his position but have had to address his personal attacks and vitriole on fellow speakers at conferences and in writing.

I'm quite comfortable with calling Ken Ham to account. He's a pubic figure and teacher and it's no different and in fact, to my observation much less vitriolic than what he himself does.

Invite him to address the issues. He's welcome to communicate here. That's more than he offers on his own site.