Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Canuckster, that debate is fairly old, so maybe Ham has since changed his mind about Ross being a sincere Christian. Or maybe since the debate, Ham actually listened to what Ross believes about the doctrine of salvation. I think a lot of the problem came from the belief of Ross that death of animals and plants before Adam's fall didn't change the doctrine of salvation. Ham believed(not sure if he still believes) that any death before Adam's sin would change the doctrine of salvation.

Canuckster1127 wrote:It was actually a little painful watching Ham attempting to argue OT with Walt Kaiser. Kaiser has quite literally probably forgotten more than Ham will ever know with regard to OT language and cultural studies. I don't say that as a personal swipe at Ham, but Ham is trained in science. His basis for authority and personal knowledge is clearly based in his predetermining his position and then going looking for books and others who already support that position and then repeating his position over and over and I did not see very much evidence in the context of that conversation that there was any openess on his part to actually listen to what Kaiser was telling him.

RickD wrote:That is a good point about Ham having a predetermined position, and looking for things that line up with that position. Instead of praying, studying, and searching with an openness to the truth. It just seems to me that there is some sort of agenda with Ham. I don't know what it is, but his lack of openness to discuss the issues, leads me to think that.

RickD wrote:DannyM , Ross' views about animal suffering and death are biblical, and Ham's views don't seem to have any biblical justification. You're right about Ham's views on animal suffering before Adam's sin. It seems Ham's views are just to justify his yec views. It is interesting to me how in one of Ross' books he talked about how Adam wasn't the first sinner, and how that pertains to God's plan.

jlay wrote:Ham doubted his salvation. I haven't heard this before. Can you share a link? Thx.

AIG wrote:FEAR #3

Old-Earth Creationism = Distortion of Doctrine of Salvation

What is vital to the Christian doctrine is to know who created and perhaps something about how He created, but not when He created.

This is a bold assertion without Biblical warrant. Where do the Scriptures state that the when of creation is not vital? The how of creation has great bearing on the when. If God created supernaturally and in the order He says He created in Genesis 1, then the days must have been literal 24-hour periods.

This ranking is reflected in the structure of Genesis One. The text clearly identifies the who and some of the how of creation, but it says little about the when, other than to indicate what came after what.

This is patently false, as any reader in any country regardless of his academic training would conclude. The timing of the creation events is just as clearly stated in Genesis 1 (vv. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31) as is the order (both of which contradict the evolutionary order of events, which is why in Ross's harmonizing of Genesis 1 with the 'big bang' he has to change the order of events and make overlapping days as well as to make the days symbolic of long ages). That God created in six normal days is the obvious meaning of the text. And in-depth exegesis in Hebrew confirms the obvious meaning, as do all the other relevant Scriptures, such as Exodus 20:11. For a technical defense of the literal days see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp. For a popular-level discussion read http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1316.asp.

Some young-earth creationists express concern that if God took billions of years to create, He must be less than all-powerful.

No, we say that He must be quite incompetent and cruel to make things in the way that evolutionists imagine the universe and Earth to have evolved and in the way that they imagine that most of the living creatures that ever existed died cruel deaths and that extinction before man came on the scene. It is not the power of God that is called into question by old-Earth views, but rather His wisdom and goodness are denigrated. And His truthfulness is attacked, since if He really created over the course of billions of years then He has misled most believers for 4,000 years into believing that He did it in six days.

But the logic of this supposition does not hold. If a four-minute miler chooses to walk along a garden path, his speed (or lack of it) in no way reflects limitations on his capability.

This example is absurd and irrelevant. In the first place, if the four-minute miler told us clearly that he traveled down the mile-long path in four minutes, then we know he ran. But if he told us that it took an hour, then we know the travel process was something other than running at race speed. Furthermore, the issue is not that God is somehow opposed to big quantities of time. The problem is what the old-Earthers say happened in those billions of years. The wise, good, gracious God of Scripture could not have created and destroyed things, in the order and way that they imagine, before man sinned. Death and violence and extinction, along with earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, asteroid impacts, etc., were not part of God's 'very good' Creation Week but came into the creation after man sinned and God cursed the whole creation (Gen. 3:17—19; Gen. 5:29; Rom. 8:18—23). If God never told us about how and how long He created, then we could be free to speculate. But God clearly told us in Genesis that He did it in six literal days. And the rest of Scripture is consistent with that, e.g., Jesus' saying that people were present from the beginning of the creation (Mark 10:6). So it is not a matter of what God is capable of doing, but of what God said that He actually did."

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... s_full.asp

DannyM wrote:Gman,

Good work. All this is a distortion of is Ham's and the AIG preconceived, unscriptural worldview. These guys claim authority while lacking *any* authority for their skewed position.

August wrote:Amazing that Ham would insist on a "literal" reading except that it is not.

Gman wrote:From the horses mouth I guess....

Notice that they say God's truthfulness is attacked.. In other words their truthfulness.

Gman wrote:Exactly.. It all falls apart in the Hebrew.