tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17154648.post2413332370734556037..comments2023-10-11T04:34:56.433-07:00Comments on His Barking Dog: More on the Creationist MovementDennis E. McFaddenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07580173031351978626noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17154648.post-12195471907275687042007-07-06T17:52:00.000-07:002007-07-06T17:52:00.000-07:00Nemesis,One more point . . .Wayne Grudem helpfully...Nemesis,<BR/><BR/>One more point . . .<BR/><BR/>Wayne Grudem helpfully observes that without scientific arguments to the contrary, we would never conclude that Genesis 1-11 was meant to be taken in any other way than as straight historical narrative. And, if scientific arguments can be found to nuetralize this factor, why not believe the Bible from the first verse to the last?Dennis E. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07580173031351978626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17154648.post-45906733962966979642007-07-06T17:47:00.000-07:002007-07-06T17:47:00.000-07:00How did I deal with those seemingly insurmountable...How did I deal with those seemingly insurmountable problems?<BR/><BR/>1. On the distant starlight issue, Dr. Russ Humphreys (PhD physics) has shown by appeal to Einsteinian relativity equations that gravitational time dilation "may" allow for a recent cosmos and billions of years of light. Jason Lisle of AIG, a PhD in astrophysics, has presented at least three approaches to the distant starlight problem that takes science AND the Bible at face value.<BR/><BR/>2. On the antiquity of the earth, a variety of PhD geologists have punched enough holes in the uniformitarian theories of conventional geology to accommodate a myriad of Grand Canyons. <BR/><BR/>Don't pooh-pooh the Carbon Dating controversy too quickly. With a half life of little more than 5,700 years, C14 "should" all be depleted within 60k to 100k years. So how come we find measurable amounts of Carbon 14 in coal and diamonds supposedly gazillions of years old? <BR/><BR/>And, the work of the RATE team on radio halos and helium in zircon crystals has shown that a young earth fits far more consistently than an old earth.<BR/><BR/>3. If you consider the problem of the human genome, you have yet another reason for believing in a young earth. Mutation typically results in a loss of information, not a gain. Those evolutionary moths we all learned about in high school biology that changed from white to black did so by natural selection of those who had lost the genetic ability to be white. This is a degradation, not an improvement of the species. While all sorts of dogs could be generated from a single pair of proto-dogs, my Shihtzu lacks the ability to "evolve" into a more genetically rich proto-dog. The path only goes one direction: mutation means loss of information. <BR/><BR/>After reading some of the NEW creationist literature, I discovered that the more reputable ones (e.g., Answers in Genesis), even include lists of dubious and scientifically suspect arguments formerly popular with young earth creationists.Dennis E. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07580173031351978626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17154648.post-48879781649247314562007-07-06T17:30:00.000-07:002007-07-06T17:30:00.000-07:00Nemesis (wow, what a harsh moniker!),My story is p...Nemesis (wow, what a harsh moniker!),<BR/><BR/>My story is pretty simple. I had been a Hugh Ross - Big Bang - guy for almost all of my three decades in ministry. At Westmont and Fuller, we just snickered at the young earth crowd as virtually equivalent to "flat earth."<BR/><BR/>Reading Sproul (who had previously endorsed a Hugh Ross book) and an interview in Time with Mohler left me flabbergasted. How could such smart guys buy into this really dumb idea?<BR/><BR/>I began checking out the Answers in Genesis site. They dealt with both my hermeneutical questions and my scientific snobbishness.<BR/><BR/>On the hermeneutical side, yes "yom" does occur in Gen 2 for an indeterminate period of time. However, when attached to an ordinal, it seems like special pleading to argue that it means something other than a 24 hour day.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, the compromises evangelicals have made with the idea of billions of years (since Thomas Chalmers and the Gap theory in the 1810s, closely followed by the Day-Age theory and the local flood by mid century) vitiates much of the force of our arguments regarding homosexuality and other hermeneutical problems. <BR/><BR/>I had been taught to teach that the Bible REALLY doesn't mean what it says for reasons x, y, z. Why not argue the Paul's view of homosexuality can be similarly discounted? <BR/><BR/>The AIG crowd, especially Dr. Terry Mortenson, dealt with my hermeneutical qualms, convincing me that redemption's story in the New Testament hinges on taking Gen 1-11 as historical narrative, which it purports to be.<BR/><BR/>On the scientific front, I had read very little. My profs had thrown the distant starlight problem at me (how could light arrive from billions of light years away in 6,000 to 15,000 years. <BR/><BR/>And, the evident antiquity of the earth seemed to require a more "nuanced" hermeneutic. Afterall, even inerrantist Charles Hodge argued that if there are two views and one confilicts with science and one does not, you must believe the one that is in concordance.Dennis E. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07580173031351978626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17154648.post-57409528499431326412007-07-06T17:02:00.000-07:002007-07-06T17:02:00.000-07:00Hi Dennis, I want to know if you were persuaded he...Hi Dennis, <BR/>I want to know if you were persuaded hermeneutically or scientifically to believe in a young earth. I personally find that both areas are in favor of an old earth, and was very much compelled by Ross' book "A Matter of Days." To be honest, everything I've heard from the young-earth side is this:<BR/> "The Bible says clearly that the world was created in six days, so they must be regular days."<BR/> or my favorite...<BR/> "Carbon-dating has been shown to date a one week-old piece of paper 25000 years old. So it mus be false. (This is an example, but I think you get what I'm saying)"<BR/> I want to know your take, because I know for a fact that Sproul ain't no dummy, so for him to believe the earth is young gives a little bit of merit to the argument. Let me know where to find a good resource.nemesishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13625364022420165922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17154648.post-1454687582753093392007-05-31T13:01:00.000-07:002007-05-31T13:01:00.000-07:00Thomas,Actually, I was thinking more of the ID fol...Thomas,<BR/><BR/>Actually, I was thinking more of the ID folks. My sentence has been modified to reflect that. Most ID thinkers find young earth creationism to be an embarrassment to the cause. They generally want to get them off the stage as fast as they can. <BR/><BR/>I did not see the Ankerberg debate with Kent Hovind (not my favoritie person due to his heavy use of scientifically discredited arguments (even after being enlightened about them). I did, however view all of the ten episodes of the debate involving Hugh Ross, Walter Kaiser, Jason Lisle, and Ken Ham. That one seemed cordial enough, albeit perhaps a bit unfair to Ham and Lisle since Ankerberg did not disguise his identification with Ross and Kaiser.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I was a contented Ross-ite until hearing that Mohler and Sproul had adopted a young earth perspective. That caused me to begin researching for myself. Surprise, surprise, surprise, I actually came out finding more to the YEC view than my profs had led me to believe was there. Never having had a YEC teacher, we just snickered at the imbecility of the view without considering the arguments. And, those arguments have become greatly strengthened since my college and seminary days.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line: I am a creationist and make common cause with other creationists, regardless of their view of the antiquity of the universe.Dennis E. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07580173031351978626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17154648.post-40410284967977781782007-05-31T10:59:00.000-07:002007-05-31T10:59:00.000-07:00"They disdain the ICR and Answers in Genesis crowd..."They disdain the ICR and Answers in Genesis crowd almost as much as the Darwinists do."<BR/><BR/>Hi Dennis!<BR/>I think you've got this part a little backwards. In my experience the disdain and outright anger has come mostly from the "young earth" side toward Dr. Ross and other 'heretics'(check out the Ankerberg debates with Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, etc.) What I've seen from Hugh Ross has been a loving, consistent push to say, "isn't there room in Evangelicalism for both an old earth and a young earth cosmology?" What thinkest thou?Da Babahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13709500927400887315noreply@blogger.com