Spiritual Truths from Genesis One (and thoughts about the age of the earth); and Dr. Brown Interviews Young Earth Creationist Scholar Jonathan Sarfati

[Download MP3]

Join Dr. Brown today on the Line of Fire to look at the truths in Genesis 1, and don’t miss his interview with Young Earth Creationist Scholar Jonathan Sarfati during the second  hour!

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: When we say the words, “God is God,” we are speaking the most powerful truth in the universe.  We are speaking of ultimate reality.  He is the Creator, the Ruler, the King, who brings light out of darkness and order out of chaos.  Bow down and worship Him, and be secure in who He is.

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The Word of God stands true.  We can have debates and discussions about what the Bible says about various issues, such as what it says about the dating of the earth.  But do not be intimidated by the world and those who mock God.  The Word of God will stand secure; Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.”  Bank on it!

Featured Resource:

Prophets & Prophetic Ministry [MP3 Series]

creation ministries

Creation Ministries International is a group of non-profit ministries in several countries. Though each is a legally and financially autonomous body, we have formally unified our efforts as a federation of ministries under the banner ‘CMI-Worldwide’ that helps to ensure unity, harmony, and efficiency of outreach.

Our role is to support the church in proclaiming the truth of the Bible and thus its gospel message. We provide real-world answers to the most-asked questions in the vital area of creation/evolution, where the Bible is most under attack today—Genesis.

Read More…

Other Resources:

Dr. Brown Interviews Scientist Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe); and Biblical Mistranslations and Misunderstandings

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The heavens really do declare the glory of God.  The universe really does speak of a glorious, extraordinary Creator who cares for us, and created a vast universe so there could be a planet called Earth, where there could be a people that know Him, live with Him, be with Him, and love Him.  What an awesome God!

Only Genesis with John C. Rankin [MP3 CD]:  The foundations for life and living are found in the book of Genesis, including the power to give, the power to live in the light, the power of informed choice, the power to love hard questions, the power to love enemies and the power to forgive. This class will outline the ten positive assumptions of Genesis, which follow the biblical order of creation: God’s nature, communication, human nature, human freedom, hard questions, human sexuality, science and the scientific method, verifiable history, covenantal law and unalienable rights.

Big Bang Evidence for God

VOR Article by Frank Turek

When I debated atheist Christopher Hitchens recently, one of the eight arguments I offered for God’s existence was the creation of this supremely fine-tuned universe out of nothing.  […]

Half of Britons do not believe in Evolution

VOR Article by Marc Thomas

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism Guardian – 50% of Britons do not believe in evolutionism while only a quarter say it’s definitely true. Ironically, the results of the ‘Rescuing Darwin’ survey also reveal that 25% believe evolution is only ‘probably’ true. The survey was conducted by ComRes (http://www.comres.co.uk/) whose clients include several of the biggest British banks, the BBC […]


Internet Poll Victim of Evolution/Creation Conflict

VOR Article by Marcus French

In the wake of news concerning the “missing link” fossil, an internet poll was recently released by OneNewsNow asking the question “Do you believe you evolved from an ape-like creature?”. With the site geared toward a predominantly conservative Christian audience, the results were overwhelmingly negative. PZ Myers, a biology professor frustrated with the poll, posted […]

Texas Decides to Encourage Critical Analysis of Evolution

VOR Article by Marcus French

The Texas State Board of Education approved new science standards that will encourage students in public schools to scrutinize “all sides” of scientific theories, including evolution.  According to the AP : The curriculum will require that students “in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations … including examining all sides of scientific […]


99 Comments
  1. Here is a view that combines common descent with Intelligent Design: ZYGOTE THEORY
    zygotetheory.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/zygote-theory/

    It explains why we share so many traits including even broken vit C making genes with monkeys but accepts God’s special creation of all life and the genes of all life.

  2. I tuned in today to here Dr. Sarfati. I enjoy the debate between the YECs and OECs. As a fossil collector for years, I find no evidence for a young earth. Never have dinosaur bones been found with Mastondons or Sloths. Never have trilobites been found with Saber Tooth Tigers. In a global worldwide flood, their “fast-buried” bones should be altogether. 90% of the fossil have feeding damage, yet dinosaurs never bothered to eat mastondons or Saber tooths dinos?

  3. Sarfati plays 12 games of chess at one time while blindfolded. Could Einstein do that? CS Lewis? Isaac Newton? Thomas Jefferson? John Calvin? Hugh Ross? Richard Dawkins?

    I was on the side of young earth creationism before I heard the broadcast. Actually, I was from my first reading of Genesis back in 1979. I simply could not get away from the idea that the words I was reading were perfectly true and totally amazing. And I wasn’t even a believer…yet. With a passion, I have read about this sort of thing since then. I only become more convinced…if that is possible.

    Please do more interviews with young earthers!

    Shalom

  4. Dr. Brown,

    My oldest son has played 4 or 5 of the next best in my family at one time and beat us all…no blindfold, though. He also won the last chess tournament we hosted. He is a young earther also…then again, my whole family is…even those of us with IQ’s under 200 🙂

    Shalom

  5. Very interesting show. I have no opinion on this subject, so much evidence on both sides. One thing I do know, at some point Jesus will return to earth and set us all stright. 🙂

  6. I have found the subject of creation to be very interesting, and after listening to both sides, I must say that it takes more of a stretch to believe in an old earth theory.

    I found myself very disappointed in the reading of the reputed bible teacher Donald Barnhouse, in his book, “The Invisible War,” from which he had endorsed the “gap theory.” He said, regarding this subject between the verses of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, “Millions of years may have run their course during that first creation, and others may have elapsed in the interval between the two verses.” Nothwithstanding, Hugh Ross, on an interview, had attempted to explain that the beginning days in Genesis 1 referred to a process of time (resulting in thousands or millions of our years), as opposed to six literal days as we know them.

    It is understood that for something to be considered scientific it must be observable and repeatable, and the subject matter of the age of the earth, or the beginning, does not meet that criteria. From this understanding, it stands to reason that we find new discoveries and hear of scientific changes and updates all the time, as the matter of origins actually falls outside of science it is defined and understood. We can only draw from what we discover today, and try and draw conclusions from what had happened back then.

    I believe that the reason that we have this debate regarding OEC and YEC comes simply down to faith, and that alone. Do we believe that when G-d said he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, that He meant it? Based upon scripture, and the rendering that all of the N.T. writers (and Jesus)endorsed from Genesis, they all treated it as literal. It is only because many Christians have chosen to be influenced by science that we are even having this debate at all.

    Let us not be servants to science, no matter which way it blows (because theories are changing all the time) and stand, by faith, on the literal and plain sense of the reading of scripture, as did the apostles and our blessed Lord.

    “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of G-d, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Heb 11:3).

    Shalom,
    Brian

  7. I’m really impressed with the good ANE comparative work done by the likes of John Walton, I dont follow him through on his view of evolution though, but i do see Gen 1 in light of ANE cosmology, but i see it more as polemics in view of the polytheistic backdrop the Writer of Genesis 1 to me is screaming out to his audience at the time saying “no you idiots ! it’s not this god and that god that makes the sun or the moon shine ! It’s Yahweh ! and He is true and living God. It’s like the Shema in Genesis 1.

    This view gives me the get out of jail free card because most antagonistic like to pull out the science card so i can say in response… “So what” ! Genesis does not make any scientific statements ! Genesis is Theologised History set in the backdrop of ANE cosmology. As soon as we accept the terms of their argument we have lost, this view highlights that Science v Religion argument is a false dichotomy, after all whats science got to do with Theology ?

    I lean toward a YEC but i simply do not have enough knowledge or information to make that view credible in a argument so i keep away from it in dealing with people now. imo we will never know the age of the Earth as the data it seems is so equivocal and can be read and interpreted in different ways but thats cool with me. You cant get any absolute truth answers from science as it’s based on inductive logic and that never produces any absolute truths. I dont mind saying “i dont know” at times, and thats what i say about the age of the Earth but Gen 1 can be defended with ease, with the ANE Theologised History view.

  8. Dr. Brown

    In Jeremiah 4:23-26, some think tanks have speculated that this is a vision of the chaos before Adam (fall of Lucifer) and that there were cities or civilizations prior to the 6 days of creation that were destroyed by God because of the aforementioned fall – and thus may support old earth. What is your take on these verses? Does not God also say to Adam to “replenish” the earth or is this just a translation interpretation?

  9. Richard, a quick note: Jer 4:23-26 is more likely a vision of coming judgment, an undoing of creation because of sin. As for “replenish” — wrong word! The Hebrew is simply “fill,” and there is no question about that. It’s possible, however, that in the old English of the KJV, “replenish” also meant “fill” (as opposed to refill), as some have argued, but either way, there’s no ambiguity in the Hebrew, which simply says “fill.”

  10. To many people it may seem to be so clear that only one God created all that is.

    To others it might not be so simple as that.

    To some, an understanding comes that God created all things by his Word which is Christ, and through the revelation of what God wanted, Christ created by the power of God through the spoken Word that was given to him by God the Father.

    Now when I say that Christ created by the spoken Word of God that was given to him, I’m not necessarily saying that God spoke anything by speaking as you and I speak.

    It also seems to me that Christ may very well have created all by speaking the Word which he received of God, even though the way in which he received it may have been a bit different than the manner in which Christ spoke it, that is, if it is indeed true that the Bible often explains itself at some point later on.

    Now it seems to me that we may certainly call Christ, God, for when we compare him with the Father, there is nothing of eternal value lacking is there?

    Didn’t John make a comparison between Jesus and God when he made mention of the Word in the first few verses of his gospel?

    I see no need to be swayed by so much of the world as to the earth being billions of years old as they say.

    It seems that I so often hear that way of estimating time by those who do not make mention of God at all though they speak of the created things which God has made for his glory, our physical blessing, and our education in spiritual matters.

    I always tend to think of the wine Jesus made from water at the wedding.

    It wasn’t sitting in underground cellars in wooden barrels was it? Yet it’s reputation held with the best of wines.

    When I was in about the third grade in a public school, I remember how the teacher had a glass canning jar with water in it and also different layers of soil, having both subtle color changes and granulations.

    It was quite pretty actually and we wondered how she made it. Then she asked a student to give the jar a shake, and we didn’t think it would ever look like we first had seen it, but a few minutes later, it all came back to be as we had first seen it.

    I just don’t see any reason for billions of years, but then I don’t know that much about wine making.

    I know that when I used to home brew, I could have beer ready to drink in a few weeks, but that it would taste much better in a few months as it would take some time for all the flavors to come in as they ought to.

    I believe God had a pattern he used for things in the creation and that the light he made did the work that sunlight does before the sun was made.

    I see no reasons for evenings and mornings being long periods of time.

    Maybe God gave the whole world a spin before the sun was made.

  11. I’d like to tell you about a rock I found that was near a campfire pit.

    It was of a roundish irregular jagged shape about the size of a baseball, if it would have all been round.

    But it wasn’t round throughout. It had two perfectly flat sides, as if it had been cut.

    I looked at it wondering if it had been cut with a saw or something. I don’t believe that it was.

    On the surface of it’s flat sides, could be seen the texture of Cheddar cheese after it was cut with a wire cheese slicer, even though this rock was as hard as rocks usually are.

    Not only, but I could also see scratches as if certain small, hard round pieces of rock or some other substance had been dragged across it’s surfaces at a time when it’s surfaces used to be soft, and these scratches were running parallel to each other in a slight arch, much as can happen to a concrete surface when troweling.

    I’m glad I’m not a scientist. I can’t tell you how this rock was made, and I do believe it to have been a real natural rock.

    I began to wonder if this rock was thrown out a volcano in a molten state, and right through a tightly tensioned guy wires, which cut it in pieces, and then some how it must have cooled and hardened enough to land somewhere in a soft place so as it wasn’t smashed, and it’s flat surfaces must have been pushed through very hard flat surfaces which had a few grains of hard sand on it, while the rock was still somewhat pliable.

    I learned something that day and that was that I can’t tell how a natural thing was made by looking at it. I just don’t know about those things.

  12. I believe in a young earth and that it was made in six 24hr. days.Ken Hamm would be a good one to have on your program,Dr.Brown.He is very good at explaining what he believes that is easy to understand.He also knows what he is speaking about after years of studing and researching the subject.

    When people hear of these other so called creatures “such as neanderthal man” it puts doubt in there minds that the bible is accurate.

    Lucy,the creature they said proved mankind came from apes was later determined to be a chimppanze.
    Nebraska man whom they made a complete man like creature [model]from single tooth was later determined to be a pigs tooth.

    Neanderthal man came from a skull that was found that was later determined to be that of an old man with arthritous.

    There is no real evidence of any man like creatures before Adam and that is because it is not true.This is done by people to try to plant doubt in peoples mind about the word of God {the Bible}.Many christians fall for these false stories because they do not want to look foolish to the secular world.

  13. Dr. Brown,

    Your expertise and opinion would be very helpful to my following question.

    Does the word “day” as used in Genesis 1 refer specifically to 24 hour duration time periods?

    Hugh Ross, on an interview, said that the Hebrew as used in Genesis 1 allows for various interpretations and does not have to speak to a literal 24 hour time period; hence, he has used this point to support his thousand and million year periods – as we would know them – within each day in pointing to processes of time.

    In contrast, Raymond F. Surburg noted that, “Most reputable dictionaries do not recognize or allow the interpretation of yom as ‘a period of time’ that is to be understood as lasting millions of years. The Hebrew dictionaries of Buhl, BDB, and Koeig do not record the interpretation of yom in the hexaemeron as a long period of time

    He also noted that, when the Torah uses ‘yom’ as associated with a definite numeral, solar days are meant (Gen. 7:11; 8:18; 17:12, Ex:6).

    Finally, I understand the hermeneutical principle of logic – that the writer means what he says – and that one should adhere to the literal meaning of a word or phrase, unless there are compelling reasons for adopting a figurative or derived interpretation.

    Your thoughts, please.

    Shalom,
    Brian

  14. I believe one of the most important things to recognize in this intermural debate between young earth creations and old earth creationist is that IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO IS RIGHT. What matters is to show that there is no contradiction between the Bible and science. The bottom line is that Neither the Old earth or the young earth views result in contradiction.; and it is contradiction that is the source of the problem between science and the Bible.

    What is a problem is when YECs make their view a test for orthodoxy. According to Norman Geisler, there are something like 11 ways to interpret Genesis such that no contradiction emerges. So to claim dogmatically that one view is true with certainty, and that anyone who does not believe in that view is not a true Christian is ridiculous. It is also harmful. I have been told that those students raised in a ridged YEC environment, are much more likely to lose their faith in college than those that do not hold this view as being absolute. The MOST STRAIGHT FORWARD INTERPRETATION of the evidence as presented in college seems to oppose this view. Further there have been scores of famous people who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and are quite fundamental in their beliefs, that do not hold to the YEC point of view. The point is that there is no need to make dogmatic claims that result in adversarial positions with what students will be taught in school.

    I read Sarfati’s book a few years ago. What immediately struck me is that he is clearly a pre-suppositionalist. He starts by assuming with ABSOLUTE CONVICTION that the Bible is true, and ends at the same place. He does not look at the EVIDENCE AS A WAY TO ADJUDICATE between world views and then see which world view MOST NATURALLY emerges, but rather assumes his world view is correct and proposes unsubstantiated assumptions to make his point. For example, while he is critical of the assumption that most scientists embrace, that being the constancy of radioactive decay, this in fact is what is observed today. The principle of uniformity would suggest that the present is the key to the past; the cause of an effect in the past will be similar to the cause of the same kind of effect in the present. This is the basis for all forensic science. Since we only see radioactivity in the present being constant, we assume this is the case in the past. Similarly, YECs must assume the speed of light is also not constant to make their worldview work. If the speed of light is constant, then the light traveling to us comes from millions of light years away, and in a 6000 year old universe it never should have reached us. Humphrey’s (another YEC of notoriety) believes he has solved this problem with “time dilation”. When after a lecture I asked him if he had ever published this theory in a peer reviewed journal, he responded that it had not been published in such a journal. If the theory is sound, should it not stand the test of peer review?

    While I respect the YEC point of view and all their work, and would be delighted if they could prove their case, it seems both the bulk of straight forward cosmology theory and geological findings resist their interpretation. Once again, it DOESN’T MATTER who is right as long as neither contradicts the Bible.

  15. One of the issues I have with Old Earth Theory is that it is trying to accommodate (and impose) the current scientific understanding of cosmology with and onto the Biblical Text.

    I do not believe that a Hebrew reader in the time of Moses would have understood Yom to mean Billions of Years despite what Dr. H. Ross suggests. If folks have trouble with the inerrancy of the Scripture, then what gives them any confidence in any part of the Bible that is non-empirical or non-testable? If the Bible is wrong in one, it will be altogether wrong in everything – including its teaching on Salvation through the Messiah.

    Ultimately, it should be recognized that this is a realm of faith. The Bible is not a textbook on Science or Mathematics. I believe wherever it makes reference to Science or History etc, it stands correct. If not, then we must throw everything out, not pick and choose.

  16. Dr. Brown,

    In your understanding of the reading of Genesis and Sodom and Gomorrah, which is the same as mine, you discuss the Son as staying and speaking with Abraham while the two angels go on. I’ve read Joel Natan’s book, “The Jewish Trinity” and I think he tries to show a reading of the trinity in verses where it does not apply. And it seems that his idea of the trinity is quite different than mine, in that he says that God, the Father, was literally seen of men–not just the Son. Now, I’m not the language scholar that you are, but, this is what Natan says of those verses in Genesis on pages 84-85, with the Shema coming later in chapter 4. He picks up his discourse on the “presenses” of God as expressed in the plural use of various words which I couldn’t begin to understand the ancient Hebrew meaning of, so I have no way of checking what he claims. This is what he says:

    “Some Encounters with Elyon’s Presenses”

    “Abraham and the Trinity”

    “Gen 18–19 comprise the longest Trinitarian proof text in the Bible. Gen 19 mentions Yshveh’s Presences (Gen 19:13, 27). Yahveh appeared as three men to Abraham (Gen 18:01-02). Moses, the narrator of Genesis, wrote:

    “Yahveh, [the Son] said…”I will go down now, and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry about it that has come to me [the Son]. If not, I will know.” The men [the Son and the Spirit] turned and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before Yahveh [the Father]. Gen 18:20-22).”

    Natan then goes on to say that Yahweh (the Son and the Spirit) carried out the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, not angels. I’ve never, ever heard that interpretation of it before. The more I study his book, the less enclined I am to agree with his other interpretations of Scriptures, but as I said, I don’t know the proper rendering of the plurality or singularity of verbs and nouns and such in the ancient Hebrew language. There are just to many interpretations that don’t ring true in my understanding of things. I think he tries to force the trinity in verses where it just doesn’t belong.

    Once you read the book you’ll see what I’m having trouble with and why it takes a scholar to disect it.

  17. I put my response under the wrong heading. I meant to post it under Thursdays discussion. I’ll move it over there.

    My apologies for any confussion.

  18. “If not, then we must throw everything out, not pick and choose.” – James

    Why is that? I wouldn’t treat any book, person, animal, or anything like that. One flaw and it all must go. People use their discernment about everything if they have the time (and ability). Almost everyone has their own individual understanding of the Bible. That is to say, almost everyone’s understanding of the Bible differs in at least one way – or when looking at each other there is at least one “flaw” in your brother’s understanding of the Bible. If we apply what you suggest, what are the implications? Every man for himself? No one can interact with or learn from anyone else because everyone else has at least one flaw? Fellow, this is not a good idea in any sense. The correct way to handle things is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater – if there is a flaw, eliminate it (or solve e.g. the apparent contradition) not everything, and move on… The same discernment that got you started can carry you on through.

    “If not, then we must throw everything out, not pick and choose.” – James

    The Nicene council picked and chose. Why do they get more liberty than you or I?

    “One of the issues I have with Old Earth Theory is that it is trying to accommodate (and impose) the current scientific understanding of cosmology with and onto the Biblical Text.” – James

    I’m not one to worship modern science. None of them understand how the present world works, much less how the past unfolded. The bandwagoneers of modern science, in terms of the beginning/creation in particular, need to exercise more careful judgement, I think anyway. I don’t know why they’d get into an argument about it, but people have their pets don’t they? Too much knowledge (fabricated or not), too little understanding.

  19. @ Juan G – I think you may have not understood my point at all. My point is that God has not made us the Judge of what is right and what is wrong in the Bible. If the Bible makes errors on its truth claims in one place, then what confidence do we have that it is making an accurate statement in another place? Either we take the entire canon of the Scripture as a whole as true or we do not.

    Personally, I do not apologize for any portion of the Holy Scripture, whether it speaks on Science or Soteriology. Someone made a statement against Dr. Sarfati’s initial premise that he starts out claiming the Bible to be absolutely true; suggesting, perhaps, that he should have started out with a skeptical or agnostic viewpoint and then be convinced from Science how the Universe was created.

    This creates an inherent problem in my mind – one which elevates Science over Scripture. It is very fanciful to think that anyone starts out with a tabula rasa; everyone, including the skeptical scientist starts out with an agenda. How much better that a Christian Scientist starts out with absolute tenacity that the Bible is the Word of God and He can be taken at His Word.

  20. “My point is that God has not made us the Judge of what is right and what is wrong in the Bible.” – James

    You are a judge of what is right and wrong, you’re here telling us what is right and wrong. (The Bible never even clearly affirms itself in its entirety.) Because you are a judge, that’s why you have a unique interpretation of the Bible, that’s why you read the Bible at all. People want to be right and to win and to live, and they are judging things all the time. Jesus cautioned us to make righteous judgements.
    Real truth always wins over falsehood, false ways lead to trouble.

    “Either we take the entire canon of the Scripture as a whole as true or we do not.” – James

    No, I accept what truth I can from it, just like anything else. I learned that stealing is wrong, because I would not want to be stolen from, so I avoid stealing. If I could accept that tassels are what God wants then I would wear them.
    Many people say they take “the entire canon of the Scripture as a whole as true” and they live very differently. People pick and choose whether they discourage picking and choosing in others or not. I firmly believe you do pick and choose while you say others should not. You say “do it my way or don’t even try”.
    Now I’m wondering, since you say you accept the whole Bible, do you eat pork or wear tassels? Maybe you should get in a discussion with Bo. You may find that other people don’t think you accept the whole Bible.

    “How much better that a Christian Scientist starts out with absolute tenacity that the Bible is the Word of God and He can be taken at His Word.” – James

    The Bible is presented to us just like many other books. We are not born with one in hand. It does not fly down to us from the heavens. It doesn’t get a ‘get out of jail free’ card. All books are to be weighed equally, all compilations of books, books and ideas should be approached with some awareness. If you think turning your brain off is any solution, then I think you’re mistaken. That’s as bad as getting drunk.
    Treating the Bible as if it could contain error and studying it is the honest way. Treating it like it flew down from heaven is dishonest. Coming to the level where you could say “I believe the Bible is perfect” would take an enormous amount of studying, yet people often say it who have hardly studied it at all – they say it because someone else told them to… And discouraging others to approach the Scripture with caution, as you have here, is dishonest and, I think, could lead people to misunderstand the Scripture. A person who doesn’t think they have to fully study the Scripture (because it “must be perfect”) like any other book will be more much more prone to error.

  21. I am really sorry that you said “the Bible is presented to us just like many other books”.

    I will be praying for you.

  22. One more comment: Some find the old earth view problematic because death would have entered the world prior to the fall. Dembski in his new book addresses this problem. In a nutshell He says just as God can proactively plan for other future events, He proactively planned for the fall. Demski points out that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, which implies there was something different going on inside the garden then outside of it. So perhaps outside of the garden death and mayhem already existed in anticipation that man would fall and eventually end up there. So the argument from death is not a slam dunk against the old earth view.

    As I said above, it really DOESN’T MATTER if the old earth view or young earth view is correct as both result in harmonizing Scripture with science and thus avoid contradiction. The only problem I have with YECs is when they make this belief a test for orthodoxy.

  23. James-you wrote.”How much better a christian scientist starts out with absolute tenacity that the Bible is the word of God and He can be taken at His word”

    I say amen to that! How else can a christian take God but at His word.

  24. S.Johnson,

    You said, ” The only problem I have with YECs is when they make this belief a test for orthodoxy.”

    On the grounds that you have just attempted to advocate Dembski’s interpretation, or more accurately his eisegesis, regarding death occuring on earth “before” Adam and Eve would violate the teaching of Scripture itself. Paul thus declared in his letter to the Romans, 5:12-21, that death entered the world through Adam, not some other beings outside of the garden, yet already on the earth.

    It appears that many OEC must make a far stretch with the Scriptures in order to reconcile their beliefs. It is important to note that Paul, Peter and Jesus all spoke of the accounts in Genesis as literal, and within the plain sense of their rendering. It is the OEC that want to continue to add twist to their interpretation of Scripture that falls “outside” of orthodoxy and violates the hermeneutical rule of logic, in that a passage means what it says.

    Shalom,
    Brian

  25. S.Johnson gets a few things wrong. In my book, I clearly differentiate the ministerial and magisterial uses of science. I explained recently in http://creation.com/high-view-of-scripture:

    “In short, we reject re-interpretation of Scripture, which would be making science the master (Latin magister) over Scripture; this is what theistic evolutionist do. Rather, we realize that while Scripture is totally true, it does not contain the totality of truth. Thus where there are neither explicit statements nor logical deductions from Scripture, it is perfectly reasonable to propose models to try to elucidate Scripture. But these models must neither contradict Scripture nor be placed on a par with it.”

    “Peer review” is a common dodge for those who can’t answer the objections, but ignores the way that it can protect the existing paradigm and exclude challenges. See http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review.

  26. One thing I listen for is words that honor God.

    Maybe that’s why the first thing in our Bibles is
    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

  27. The first thing that the Enemy (of GOD and man) attempted, was to put doubt about GOD’s Words into Eve’s mind, and he has been so successful with this approach, that he never had to try another one ever since ?

  28. In our ‘scientific’ age we are too sophisticated for silly things like a Satan the devil, and his host, those seem to belong to the dark ages, right ?
    Yet we’ll never get the right results, if we leave Satan (and his host) out of our (smart-looking) equasions !

  29. Brian,

    I gave a thumb nail sketch of Demski’s book. Dembski is obviously aware of your objection. To get a complete understanding of his argument, I suggest you read the book.

    Each view has suppositions that cannot be proven with certainty. The best each view can do is to prove they are credible and do not result in contradiction. My point is that since there are 11 possible intrepretations of this part of Genesis, none of which contradict Scripture, then we cannot have indupitable certainty of any view. Therefore, no view should be used as a measure of who is a “true Christian”. This results in intermural devisiveness which fragments the church. Each side can respectfully disagree without calling the other heretical. As I have said, I would be pleased if the YECs could be shown to be right but if the OECs position emerges as most consistent, the inerrancy of the Bible remains intact.

    Perhaps Dr. Brown would consider having both Sarfati and Ross on the show for dialogue.

  30. Bob T – you are seriously misinformed about ‘Lucy’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12425576. She was no ‘chimpanzee’.

    S Johnson makes sound points in his second and third paragraphs (comment 16).

    Michael Brown – if you are an OEC you will know that the science is MUCH more on your side than it is on the side of YEC-ism. The only evidence for a 6,000 year old is the Bible (which is not scientific evidence).

    I didn’t listen to the Sarfati interview but I have reviewed his 2010 book in detail at Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com.

  31. S. Johnson,

    My studies have been more focused on creationism vs. evolution as opposed to young earth vs. old earth viewpoints. However, when I do look at in regards to YEC and OEC, I am not attempting to draw my conclusions based upon science. I’d refer you to my previous posting (#8, paragraph 3), of which I noted that the study of origins falls outside of the scope of scientific rendering; hence, I do not advocate becoming slaves to science, but yield ourselves as servants to Scripture as our standard for truth.

    For me, it is not so much as going so far as labeling anyone who disagrees as a heretic, because that could possibly be going too far if it does not involve any of the major fundamental essentials to the faith. I have not heard all of the argumentation for the said dialogue, but it does appear that the old earth position makes a stretch to justify the “millions of years” timeframe, such as discounting a literal six -24 hour day time frame as we would know it. Again, I see no Scriptural reason to believe otherwise, and I would oppose any interpretation that would attempt to infer a position that would violate basic hermeneutical principles; thus, forcing me to “read into” the meaning of this Genesis passage – whether it be the “gap theory” or the prolonged days concept.

    Shalom

  32. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr),

    <blockquote"You Wrote: The only evidence for a 6,000 year old is the Bible (which is not scientific evidence)."/blockquote"

    Quite an interesting statement. I do believe that you haven't listened to or read much in the way or YEC arguments…or you haven't paid close attention if you have. Reviewing a book on Amazon is not exactly what I would call research. Did you listen to the interview with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati? Have you read anything by Ken Ham, Henry Morris, Steve Austin, Duane Gish, Russell Humphreys, etc?

    You might want to investigate a little more. Try some of these:

    http://www.icr.org/article/seven-years-starlight-time/

    http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUraR6rRwBM

    Shalom

  33. LOF,

    I have tried many things, but my post with links does not show up. If you can figure it out…you only need to post the first one, since all the others are basically the same.

    Shalom

  34. Interesting Show.

    The problem with modern science is its lack of interdisciplinary involvement. For example, linguistics has posed challenges to evolution, such as a property of language called “recursiveness.” There are infinite aspects to language formation that cannot be explained on evolutionary or deterministic premises.

    Also, many philosophers have pointed out that the theory of evolution is really nothing more than a revival of pre-Socratic forms of Greek philosophy. Also, Christian theologians have been arguing against Darwinian evolution practically since it came out.

    These challenges from other disciplines have given rise to what is popularly called “scientism,” that is, the idea that the only field of inquiry we can consider is science. While there are philosophers and linguists who hold to Darwinian theories, it is just one theory amongst many in these disciplines. It is only by restricting yourself to science, and thus accepting “scientism” that you can really be dogmatic about the theory of evolution.

    In fact, I would argue that it is this “scientism” that is causing the difficulties that Americans are having in our science test scores in schools. When you don’t allow interdisciplinary inquiry between the fields of science, philosophy, linguistics, and theology, it is going to greatly weaken how well you understand how science fits into the whole picture, and thus, it will weaken your understanding of science.

    God Bless,
    Adam

  35. Bo (message 34)

    I’ve ready PLENTY of YEC material over the last couple of years, thank you. I expect to read plenty more.

    If you don’t believe me, I suggest you email Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis and ask them whether they have heard from me. I also post at this community forum: http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/ (where I have reproduced my messages sent, especially to AiG, in the ‘Brainwashing’ thread).

  36. Ashley Haworth-Roberts is the one “seriously misinformed” about ‘Lucy’. ‘Lucy’ was simply an extinct ape and not a human ancestor.

    Concerning young earth evidence, there is actually much more evidence supporting a young earth than there is supporting an old earth. See here for examples:
    http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

  37. Ashley Haworth-Roberts,

    Well my friend, Why would you make a comment like, “The only evidence for a 6,000 year old is the Bible…” if you have read “PLENTY of YEC material”? There are certainly some credible Phds that would disagree with your summary. And if you are a follower of Messiah, why would you not believe the Bible above man’s fallible science in the first place?

    Did you check out the 4 links that I provided?

    Shalom

  38. I noticed that when Dr Ross was on the show he nominated dark energy/dark matter as demonstrating the anthropic principle, but Dr Sarfati said dark enery/dark matter is just one of a number of ‘fudge factors’ invented to prop-up the failing big-bang theory.

    In addition to the scientific problems with the big-bang theory that were nominated by Dr Sarfati, there is also the fact that the BB theory has as a foundational presupposition an anti-biblical assumption. This is that although observations are consistent with the idea that the earth could be close to the centre of the universe, this must be rejected because of its compatibility with the biblical creation account and replaced with an idea that is more consistent with a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe – i.e that the place of the earth in the universe is nowhere special. Hence the insistence by BB cosmology that the universe has no centre and no edge and is homogeneous – i.e. it all looks the same regardless of one’s location in the universe.

  39. Ewan

    Two questions (I’ve not read the 101 Evidences just the introductory text):
    – do any of the 101 point to Earth being as young as just 6,000 years’ old, the age implied in the Bible?
    – are any of the evidences supported by mainstream, peer-reviewed, science papers?

    Bo
    I’ve just looked at your links. I’ve also read and reviewed ‘The Greatest Hoax on Earth’ by YEC Jonathan Sarfati – http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Earth-Refuting-Dawkins-Evolution/product-reviews/1921643064/ref=pr_all_summary_cm_cr_acr_txt/189-0314921-2353414?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 – and also criticised a number of simplistic articles about the age of the Earth on the Answers in Genesis website (notably a ludicrous article by Bodie Hodge posted on 15 August): http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2645&start=150.

  40. On Lucy, why am I being called ‘misinformed’ when I merely posted a BBC link and stated that Lucy was not a chimpanzee (I didn’t say she was a ‘missing link’ or human ancestor – though she could have been the former)?

    I’ve now listened to the interview of Sarfati by Brown (beginning 50 minutes’ in).

    He spoke of genetics and mitochondrial DNA – and claimed that Christian geneticist Francis Collins is wrong. He appeared to have in mind this article, which I skimmed: http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics

    Sarfati also spoke of carbon 14 traces in diamonds (see also ‘evidence’ 54 in the link provided earlier in this thread) which he doubts come from machine contamination. See also: http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend (article mentioned during the interview). But – as this Christian points out under ‘Back to the Evidence’ at http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com/2010/11/radiocarbon-evidence-for-antiquity-of.html – “in case one is still convinced that these diamonds did contain intrinsic 14C, however, I must pose this question: why should natural diamonds contain any 14C, ever? Diamonds are formed deep in the mantle, far removed from the atmosphere where 14C is actually produced. To suggest that radioactive diamonds are evidence for a young Earth requires an intentional ignorance, or downright dishonesty on the part of AiG”. A pity the thorough Michael Brown didn’t have the scientific expertise to ask chemist Sarfati this question.

  41. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr),

    What “biblical basis” do you use or point to, to support, substantiate, or infer the earth being hundreds of millions of years old? Thank you.

    Shalom

  42. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr),

    I think that diamonds are made of carbon…no? Where did that carbon come from? Coal maybe. Coal which came from plant material, possibly…that was once in the atmosphere, growing and thus absorbing 14C. And if there is some in those diamonds, how could we think that they are millions of years old? And could there be a subjective or false claim of contamination among scientists that assume an old age of the earth? Or are they totally objective? The results are the results. There was 14C detected. It is interpretation from an old age of the earth/evolution indoctrinated scientist that declares the contamination…not the science.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

    Shalom

  43. In answer to Brian: none.

    In answer to Bo: diamonds are formed within Earth’s mantle, around 100 miles down, under conditions of intense heat and pressure. Coal is formed at comparatively shallow layers within Earth’s crust – and thus can be mined. on the song, Ken Ham uses these words to indoctrinate young US kids about the Genesis Flood really happening and just 4,500 years’ ago.

    Ke

  44. Ashley Haworth-Roberts (Mr),

    In school kids are indoctrinated in evolutionary science. The song is quite nicely done and teaches children the truth of YHWH’s word. Yes the flood did happen on or about 2351 BC, and buried billions of animals and plants that are now fossils.

    Sorry, I left out coal to graphite. Nevertheless 14C was in the diamonds. This would be evidence that it does not take millions of years to produce a diamond.

    What do you make of things like polystrate fossils and human artifacts found in coal beds and such?

    http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm

    http://yecheadquarters.org/shame.44.html

    http://s8int.com/page8.html

    Shalom

  45. Bo

    You said”The song is quite nicely done and teaches childern the truth of YHWH’s word”.I agree it is the truth.

    You said ” In school kids are indoctrinated in evolutionary science”.It is one of the great lies taught in our schools.They will not teach creation and let are the kids decide for themselfs.What are they afraid of?But of course we know what they’re afraid of.

    lf

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*