Evidence for God from Science

I usually avoid Creation Talk as much as possible but never shy away from an honest debate.

Most of you know I am an Old Earth Creationist due to my own study on the matter. To stay on top of things, I watch Young Earth Creationist (YEC) shows and see what they say. I have been watching some of Ken Hams stuff on NRB cable network and came to this conclusion while watching him and I do not even think he is aware of what he is doing.

Watching his shows, I garner several themes he uses. I will list a few of his themes and then comment on my observation and end with a few closing comments on witnessing.

Themes:

++If YEC is brought back in schools – the countries that do so will be saved…

++If Yec is taught in all churches and groups – the countries that do this will be saved…

++YEC’ism is absolutely necessary and the only proper way to read the bible and understand it correctly and all who do so will be the only ones saved…

Feel free to add a few more as the list is long of Ham’isms of only if all returned to the YEC point of view, you’ll become healthy, wealthy wise, find all life’s answers, and salvation… etc & etc

Comment:

The bible in John 3:15, 16 and Eph 2:8, 9, 10 all state our salvation (deliverance) comes thru believing in Christ alone for salvation due to what Christ Jesus did. Nowhere do I read in the bible that salvation and the answer to all life’s issues and problem comes through return to YEC’ism… I wonder if Ken Ham realizes he is doing this?

Closing Comments:

Back when I was an atheist, I used a tactic to stop people from witnessing to me by bring up YEC. Doing so would cause those Christians witnessing to me to stop and do everything in their power to convince me of YEC and thus I won. They were not preaching Christ to me anymore. See what I am saying? If there was an OEC amongst the group witnessing to me, I could rest assured I could divid the group into two factions and they’ll be in heated debate with each other and not me. I thought this was grand at the time as it let me avoid hearing the Romans Road preached to me or Christ.

I brought this up for two reasons. If you are witnessing to people – don’t fall into that trap and defend YEC or OEC – side step it and preach Christ to them and nothing else. Realize how people will use the same tactic on you and thwart it.

The last point is this, YEC produces the most militant brand of sincere Christians I know and they seem not aware of the anger, divisiveness, and self righteous religious pride that seeps from their very veins when the subject of creation comes forth. They jump on you and demand that you must believe in YEC to be saved all else be d-mned – YEC the only way or the highway to hell awaits blasphemers! That is the spirit of the attitude in how they come across to me. Is that fulfilling the qualification of a minister called to reflect Christ – able to gently instruct – sound in mind, etc?

My apologies to YEC persons as I know not all of you are like that but however there appears way to many to be a coincidence that are. Most OEC I know of, well, are proper, level headed, and teach Christ crucified as the means to salvation – not their brand of creationism as the cure for all ills.

Well, probably opened a can of worms to a boat load of fisherman who all forgot to bring bait on a hot Sunday afternoon…

Blessings!

Why do YEC’ers appear so hostile and militant?

I used to be one, cuz my family was all YEC's, yet we were never militant or even angry to anyone who thought otherwise. As a matter of fact my family shifted to OEC rather painlessly. But as you said, I have also seen a fair share of YEC's being hostile and all. I think they have just lost focus from Christ and grace. If so then how can the spirit of God produce fruits of the spirit in us. It becomes hard. I'm sure, not all YEC's are like that, like my family they are level headed people, the militant ones are of course following a different agenda. The gospel doesn't say making earth a few thousand years old will save you. You can believe that the earth is 2 minutes old and still be saved by the grace of Christ, (oh! yeah). The problem is YEC's own position is not sound enough to cater much attention and so now most of them tie it with salvation and so hope to achieve a larger audience.

I agree, B.W. Ham and his little group are one-trick ponies, no more sophisticated than single-issue pressure groups.

B. W. wrote:IBack when I was an atheist, I used a tactic to stop people from witnessing to me by bring up YEC. Doing so would cause those Christians witnessing to me to stop and do everything in their power to convince me of YEC and thus I won. They were not preaching Christ to me anymore. See what I am saying? If there was an OEC amongst the group witnessing to me, I could rest assured I could divid the group into two factions and they’ll be in heated debate with each other and not me. I thought this was grand at the time as it let me avoid hearing the Romans Road preached to me or Christ.

I brought this up for two reasons. If you are witnessing to people – don’t fall into that trap and defend YEC or OEC – side step it and preach Christ to them and nothing else. Realize how people will use the same tactic on you and thwart it.

Great point, B.W. I saw a prime example of this recently. Rick found himself drawn into an ‘in-house’ squabble by two atheists who were debating two presuppositional apologists. It almost took the entire focus away from the incoherent atheists.

Excellent point.

B. W. wrote:Why do YEC’ers appear so hostile and militant?

Because those who are hostile & militant give power to their fleshly nature. Ditto for supercillious OEC's and KJV-Onlyists and British-Israelists and ___________________. In other words, they are spiritually weak. A close study of Romans 14 would do us all good.

A YEC asked me a question that I couldn't answer: ''If plants were created on day 3 and the sun was created on day 4, how did plants survive without sunlight during the eons each 'day' is supposed to have lasted.''

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

B. W. wrote:Why do YEC’ers appear so hostile and militant?

Because those who are hostile & militant give power to their fleshly nature. Ditto for supercillious OEC's and KJV-Onlyists and British-Israelists and ___________________. In other words, they are spiritually weak. A close study of Romans 14 would do us all good.

A YEC asked me a question that I couldn't answer: ''If plants were created on day 3 and the sun was created on day 4, how did plants survive without sunlight during the eons each 'day' is supposed to have lasted.''

FL

Did you ask him how there could have been darkness and light, separated, if the heavenly bodies were only created on day 4? As for his question, there are two possible answers.

The first is that the creation sequence is written as Hebrew parallel poetry, which also takes care of any apparent contradictions as asked above..

The other is the one that I currently like as the most correct explanation, which is that the 6 days do not describe the ex-nihilo creation deed, but the arrangement of creation into God's cosmic temple, which is the way ancient cosmology was structured, and was how people of the time period would have understood it. It can be seen if we separate Gen 1:1-2, from what follows in Gen 1:3 and onwards. This was proposed by Prof John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College. Please note that I do not buy into all that he says, as his stretches his analysis to mean that somehow theistic evolution was the mechanism for creation prior to the 6 days during which God organized creation into His temple, an unprovable assumption.

Ken Ham is persistently going down that path that his assumptions give rise too. Over the years, he's become more shrill. He's alienanated many people including his own parent organization from Australia which disassociated from him. He was recently banned from a homeschooling conference series because he attacked a fellow presenter.

Time goes on. Ham becomes more strident and more antagonistic toward those who disagree with him and he continues to elevate his rheteric to where he ties his YEC position and hermeneutic to his soteriology meaning he strongly implies that any who disagree with him are in danger of hell because in his view you can't find Biblical salvation without viewing the Bible his way which demands an YEC position.

I don't have much time frankly for his point of view. I find him a thoroughly unpleasant and unprofitable person to spend much time and effort on, as far as his teaching goes.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

B. W. wrote:Why do YEC’ers appear so hostile and militant?

Because those who are hostile & militant give power to their fleshly nature. Ditto for supercillious OEC's and KJV-Onlyists and British-Israelists and ___________________. In other words, they are spiritually weak. A close study of Romans 14 would do us all good.

A YEC asked me a question that I couldn't answer: ''If plants were created on day 3 and the sun was created on day 4, how did plants survive without sunlight during the eons each 'day' is supposed to have lasted.''

FL

Did you tell him that the bible doesn't say that the sun was created on day 4? That the sun was created "in the beginning", and only became visible from the earth's surface on day 4?

August wrote:
Did you ask him how there could have been darkness and light, separated, if the heavenly bodies were only created on day 4? As for his question, there are two possible answers.

The first is that the creation sequence is written as Hebrew parallel poetry, which also takes care of any apparent contradictions as asked above.

I didn't ask him anything. I just didn't know what to answer!

As for parallelism in Hebrew poetry, it doesn't strike me as a credible explanation because the creation sequence is clearly established: day 1, light/darkness; day 2, sky/water; day 3, water/land & plants; day 4, sun/moon/stars to mark the seasons...and so on.

As for John Walton's explanation, I didn't look into it because RickD posted this:

RickD wrote: Did you tell him that the bible doesn't say that the sun was created on day 4? That the sun was created "in the beginning", and only became visible from the earth's surface on day 4?

I consulted my various Bibles* and none state that the sun was created on day 4, or even ''in the beginning'' so these must be understood as deductions. However, Ge 1:16 sounds as if it is describing the sun and the moon but Ge 1:3 only describes light. I do like RickD's explanation ''[the sun] only became visible from the earth's surface from day 4'' ...but who was around to witness this?

I'll use RickD's explanation for now but I don't think it would convince a YEC militant. For me, the YEC/OEC positions are irrelevant to one's salvation and of only incidental interest.

FL

*different translations in different languages

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

August wrote:
Did you ask him how there could have been darkness and light, separated, if the heavenly bodies were only created on day 4? As for his question, there are two possible answers.

The first is that the creation sequence is written as Hebrew parallel poetry, which also takes care of any apparent contradictions as asked above.

I didn't ask him anything. I just didn't know what to answer!

As for parallelism in Hebrew poetry, it doesn't strike me as a credible explanation because the creation sequence is clearly established: day 1, light/darkness; day 2, sky/water; day 3, water/land & plants; day 4, sun/moon/stars to mark the seasons...and so on.

As for John Walton's explanation, I didn't look into it because RickD posted this:

RickD wrote: Did you tell him that the bible doesn't say that the sun was created on day 4? That the sun was created "in the beginning", and only became visible from the earth's surface on day 4?

I consulted my various Bibles* and none state that the sun was created on day 4, or even ''in the beginning'' so these must be understood as deductions. However, Ge 1:16 sounds as if it is describing the sun and the moon but Ge 1:3 only describes light. I do like RickD's explanation ''[the sun] only became visible from the earth's surface from day 4'' ...but who was around to witness this?

I'll use RickD's explanation for now but I don't think it would convince a YEC militant. For me, the YEC/OEC positions are irrelevant to one's salvation and of only incidental interest.

FL





*different translations in different languages

I would agree with Rick here. The sun was there from the beginning when God said let there be light. However the atmosphere on the earth was thick and not transparent. It was only through eons of photosynthesis and stabalisation of the atmosphere by the plant life that gradually the atmosphere cleared enough to view the sky and therefore see the sun and the moon.

FL wrote:

I'll use RickD's explanation for now but I don't think it would convince a YEC militant. For me, the YEC/OEC positions are irrelevant to one's salvation and of only incidental interest.

This is the explanation that Hugh Ross uses. And I agree, that it probably wouldn't convince a YEC militant. And, I also agree that YEC/OEC positions are irrelevant to one who is already a Christian, as far as salvation. But I believe it has relevance, when witnessing to unbelievers, who question the young earth view, as being the only valid biblical interpretation, as some YECs proclaim.

RickD wrote:I believe it has relevance, when witnessing to unbelievers, who question the young earth view, as being the only valid biblical interpretation, as some YECs proclaim.

Yes...this makes sense.

FL

BW,

I think AIGs focus is that Genesis is a foundational book. Obviously they see YEC as best supporting that foundation.

Many have dismissed it as symbolic. No literal Adam. And therefore no 'literal' fall, no literal sin problem, and eventually no literal Jesus. There is no question that OEC is more in line with evolution and atheistic worldviews. I'm not saying that makes it wrong. Nor does that make YEC right. I've watched a lot of AIG stuff over the years, and I can't say I am sold on your evaluation.

++If YEC is brought back in schools – the countries that do so will be saved…

++If Yec is taught in all churches and groups – the countries that do this will be saved…

++YEC’ism is absolutely necessary and the only proper way to read the bible and understand it correctly and all who do so will be the only ones saved…

I can't add to the list, because you haven't provided a list. You've provided what you think Ham has said. No actual quotes from him or AIG

jlay wrote:BW,

I think AIGs focus is that Genesis is a foundational book. Obviously they see YEC as best supporting that foundation.

Many have dismissed it as symbolic. No literal Adam. And therefore no 'literal' fall, no literal sin problem, and eventually no literal Jesus. There is no question that OEC is more in line with evolution and atheistic worldviews. I'm not saying that makes it wrong. Nor does that make YEC right. I've watched a lot of AIG stuff over the years, and I can't say I am sold on your evaluation.

++If YEC is brought back in schools – the countries that do so will be saved…

++If Yec is taught in all churches and groups – the countries that do this will be saved…

++YEC’ism is absolutely necessary and the only proper way to read the bible and understand it correctly and all who do so will be the only ones saved…

I can't add to the list, because you haven't provided a list. You've provided what you think Ham has said. No actual quotes from him or AIG.

No problem Jlay,

My view of OEC is built on my best understanding of the bible I currently have and the best educated guess I can muster. Is it perfect - no. I am not convinced of YEC based on my own opinions on the matter. I watched Answers in Genesis (AIG) for awhile. Like Bart mentioned, I do noticed Ken becoming more shrill as time goes onThat is a cause of concern for me.

Point is - the enemy comes to divide and conquer. This subject does just that, uses human religious pride from either side of the debate. Eph 2:8-10 and John 3:15-21, 31 tells us what our salvation is to be based on. It is Jesus Christ, not creationism. What I have been hearing from Ham is that the unpardonable sin now consist of not believing in his idea of YEC and by returning to it, all will be well, all will be fixed that is wrong in the world. That is an oversimplification of what I hear him saying on air, and I use that oversimplification to condense his main themes pushed lately on AIG so people can understand it better.

So what is the unpardonable sin according to the bible and does the bible teach that creationism as central to one’s deliverance and salvation? That is what we should be talking about.

My opinion is ‘NO’ either side of creationism is not the ‘ONE’ doctrine to believe in that brings salvation to the all humankind. Such that make it out to be should examine their doctrine again.

Jesus did not say, “…whosoever believes in creationism will have eternal life…”

He said something rather different …

Many have dismissed it as symbolic. No literal Adam. And therefore no 'literal' fall, no literal sin problem, and eventually no literal Jesus. There is no question that OEC is more in line with evolution and atheistic worldviews.

I think jlay makes some good points here. Some people, in different OEC worldviews, don't believe in a literal Adam, and that leads to a questioning of literal sin, and even possibly a literal Jesus. I think that may be why certain YECs are so dogmatic about YEC. Most YEC biblical interpretations, definitely hold to a literal Adam, and a literal Jesus. If that were the main reason for holding to YEC, then that is commendable, IMO. But, I now know, that I can also believe in OEC, while holding to a literal Adam, and a literal Jesus.

++If YEC is brought back in schools – the countries that do so will be saved…

++If Yec is taught in all churches and groups – the countries that do this will be saved…

++YEC’ism is absolutely necessary and the only proper way to read the bible and understand it correctly and all who do so will be the only ones saved…

Bryan, I know you said these were themes that you have noticed on Ham's cable shows. But, from what I have heard in Ham's own words, I didn't hear anything that went that far. I think that's over the top, even for Ham.
But, if you have any links to his shows, I'd love to look at them.

The last point is this, YEC produces the most militant brand of sincere Christians I know and they seem not aware of the anger, divisiveness, and self righteous religious pride that seeps from their very veins when the subject of creation comes forth. They jump on you and demand that you must believe in YEC to be saved all else be d-mned – YEC the only way or the highway to hell awaits blasphemers!

I think you are saying that, possibly because the most militant of YECs, are also the most vocal. Ham, Hovind, et al. I'm sure, and this is just my opinion, that most Christians that hold to YEC, don't believe it's an essential for salvation.
As far as Ham, Hovind, Lisle, et al goes, I think I've certainly given my opinion enough about their tactics.

For the record, my concerns about Ham do not apply to all YEC proponents. I'm fine with talking through and working through these elements. My concerns about Ham have to do with his attitudes towards those who disagree with him and his willingness to project motives and positions upon his detractors that they do not express on their own.

He's loud and he's vocal and he draws a lot of attention so sadly, he's hard to separate from the YEC position as a whole.