Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Young Earth or Old Earth?
Shlama RunGold,

Boy, just in passing here I feel bad for not having gotten back to some other folks yet, as life is not kind, but ....

For you, since you're in class, I want to take at least a spinning moment to finally post something on this forum again, hopefully to help a fellow believer be readily equipped for the defense of his Faith through a defense of truth in general. So here I go. Dave is absolutely right, as he should be with his credentials. Mr. Ross seems to have some loose screws indeed, and don't even get me started on Dawkins. Ross' view has only profited me in particular to consider the Hebrew "bara" in Gen. 1:1 in its fuller meaning, which does include 're'-creating. This would make sense considering that our God is a God of order and not chaos, meaning, why on earth would He have started out with a 'formless and void' "soup" to initiate Divine kinetic transformation with, rather than simply keeping things "cut-n-dry" ex nihilo? What if there was pre-Adamic colonization upon a pre-Adamic earth, upon which a grievous travesty of cosmic proportions once took place, wherein a part of another membership of YHWH's Family (Divine Council) warranted Divine retribution for their Rebellion?

Thus another perspective dawns upon us, which may or may not give scientific credence to an old-earth or even old-universe dating. However, what dating methods are employed, and are they reliable? The shortest answer for this is NO, they are not reliable. Carbon dating alone appears to have an extremely narrow window for retracting time, and though this point has been contentious even between leading Creationist ministries, it was easily obfuscated in the dating of the Shroud of Turin, and altogether humiliated by the eruption of Mount St. Helen in the early 1980's, whereupon one year later the hardened lava rock was "carbon-dated" to well over a million years old! (guess all that carbon threw off the "carbon-date"?) Besides, whether "In the Beginning" refers strictly to the beginning of ALL outside of YHWH, or more specifically to the beginning of OUR and OUR WORLD's existence (through 're'-creation, as in 're'demption, of our planet's mass), it really bears nothing upon our own personal existence which is blaringly clear right there in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Then it's all a matter of historical chronology really, and I don't suppose that Elohim had any 'intelligent design' in mind with all His 'boring' genealogies, now do you? Besides, the Bible is truly the story of God's relationship with mankind, and thus begins from the start, appropriately finishing with the prophesied end.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... gory_id/62</a><!-- m -->

One thing which Dave could be hinting at, when saying that evolutionists do not present the evidence, might be something like fossilized trans-stratum debris, particularly when rigs are drilling for oil on the ocean???s floor. Gotta remember that chaotic Flood! Of course, we have to be careful when we declare something so that we don???t fall flat on our faces like Darwin, when for instance certain second-hand ???knowledge??? has been disseminated through eager evangelistic ears only in the end to be proven wrong by even more discriminatingly scientific purveyors of truth.

(see <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->)

While perhaps a single example of a not-quite-so ???vertical??? baleen whale NOT penetrating every sedimentary layer an evolutionist would otherwise try and have us to believe takes millions of years to accrue, as we thought it did, this does not leave us without ammunition in the slightest. The evolutionist would have us feel so ashamed of ourselves that we???d forget not only about examples of this very occurrence elsewhere, but also the evidence within the selfsame situation staring them in the face requiring the protocol of interval in relation to preservation of the subject. Or again Mount St. Helen, carving a new canyon in a single day! I suppose this also puts a permanent dingy in Darwin???s original though embarrassingly retracted sketch of bears swimming into their occupation as whales, since their own refined protocols disallow transient metamorphosis within a supernatural and illogically conducive environment, which merely exudes the complete lack of transient fossil record!

(see again <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> for their proud and mighty quote from that spiritualist Bacon, ???Argumentation cannot suffice for the discovery of new work, since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the subtlety of argument.???)

Huh? Something that???s not arguable for willfully godless kin? Why don???t they try fossilized dinosaur tracks in good 'ol TEXAS U.S.A. with fossilized HUMANOID footprints right next to them, on for size?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Yes, it is all documented. Sad to see though, considering the webpage I chose to post, rather than a nice and fuzzy Creationist???s vantage point. Guess who runs this society? YHWH???s integral people? Hah! That???s like accusing Dawkins of being the reincarnation of C.S. Lewis. But I posted it on purpose because the ???rest??? of the ???discovery of new work??? also exists and even made a ???mistaken??? one-time appearance on NBC. If I???ve raised some eyebrows, and anyone likes that guy who portrayed Moses in that famous movie that one time ???.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... 528&sr=8-1</a><!-- m -->

The mind-control element behind it all is the breakdown of the human conscience into its primitive mammalian mode of malleability. Need I peak a fresher look into a Public School classroom? You know what happens in this state? Fear. Then, submission.

So anyway, my point in cutting in here quickly (ugh) was specifically to try and cipher through the LOADS of information, books, vid's, etc. out there and get you the "quick-n-dirty" that's available. We could choose from thousands upon thousands of resources, but here's the magna carta, I believe, to hold in your hands:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... roduct=275</a><!-- m -->

It's bloated, it's culled, it's distilled, it's deadly. But of course, my mishpacha, it's cheaper than dirt!

I noticed while just at their site, since it's been a while, that they now carry a 2-DVD set as well ("From Evolutionist to Creationist"). Since I haven't seen it, I can't recommend it specifically, but I'm willing to bet it'd be a keeper! Also if you plan on browsing the site, note that the former title to the above handbook was "The Evolution Cruncher" but now is "The Evolution Handbook". This is no different from the hardcover, except that this punier paperback is even cheaper still (especially in bulk)! Actually, I think the paperback I have must've been revised, because now it has the same amount of pages as the hardcover. Whatever. Other than that, you're in Seventh Day Adventist territory ??? took me a while to figure that out.

Otherwise, the cream of the crop must surely be young-earth Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino)???s Creation Seminar, and university Debate series. Many videos, one workbook, endless jaw-dropping. Here it is you can see dino/man tracks, highlighted lies within evolution textbooks, and from every angle on collective science. Granted ??? due to a recent hiatus over this "Dr. Dino's" financial onus, Dave's commendation toward Kenneth Ham's material might be more politically correct in the onlooking eyes of your professors, though personally, Kent's humor alone is worth the price.

Besides, I've seen this exact type of Internal Rapacious Satanism fleece the public dignity of other well-established and credible believers, with one particularly in mind who's been released recently, all [fabricated] charges dropped, and without compensation for damages lost. Though it shouldn't surprise believers when this does happen, considering the agenda that truly was and still is behind Evolution. Really we're not struggling against flesh and blood arguments here, but rather spiritual strongholds thelemically cast upon our collective societal eyes by those who DO know what they are doing.

Otherwise, ever since the Scopes Monkey 'trial', evolution should not be an issue at all ??? only to a society infected not with intellectual freedom but with spiritual competition. If one is to effectively cast down the arguments of mind, then true and effective Authority must be engaged when in this arena of battle. To this end, no information on Creationism is useful, other than for personal edification and truly having those rebuttals on hand to engage our opponents' logical appeal ??? which is entirely dependent upon them.

So if everyone???s mind IS open, then these are a great launching pad into the overall, and a great foundation for building up. Then from there, perhaps one can even plainly see when Oxford brats are intentionally breaking intellectual breeze!

Shlama w'burkate,


P.S. In the tradition of Nikola Tesla, whose voice had been quashed from 20th century ears by his greatest bigot Thomas Alva Edison, yet mentored answers effortlessly to his oft stupefied colleague genius Albert Einstein, I???d suggest that we listen, if we can, to the growing numbers of Eminents in their fields (and especially the crossovers) such as Drs. Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzalez, William Dembski, John Polkinghorne, Paul Davies, Lewis Thomas, Keith Ward, Stan Deyo, Donald Mackay. If I remember correctly, even the founder of the Human Genome Project now believes, which does not surprise me considering even Stephen Hawking???s First-Cause[r] (shhhh!) -tilt recently. Since your teacher is already Christian, I???m sure you???ll have to plumb much deeper into the philosophy of science in order to determine just which sides of the coins you choose to find yourself on in your scientific philosophy. I???m personally fond of ???Pascal???s Fire??? by Keith Ward, myself. I???ll note something for you that I feel comes from a hypocrite???s mouth, but pretty darned interesting nonetheless: ???Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.???~ Albert Einstein

P.P.S. I suppose in light of that statement, I cannot help but to recalcitrate with ???I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.??? ~ Albert Einstein, again

Rather, a more honest and dignified approach:
???When any astronomer writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters. However, I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy ??? partly because of their religious implications and partly because of the peculiar reactions of my colleagues.???
???Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind ??? supposedly a very objective mind ??? when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.???
And finally, that timeless breath of fresh air ???.
???For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.??? God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton 1978, pp.11, 16, 116
~ Robert Jastrow, founder and director of NASA???s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; internationally preeminent professor on astronomy, geology, and earth sciences; and many other kudos that make him for a great reference to our classroom teachers!

Messages In This Thread
Young Earth or Old Earth? - by rungold315 - 03-19-2008, 04:56 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by *Albion* - 03-19-2008, 05:31 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 03-19-2008, 05:40 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by rungold315 - 03-20-2008, 12:02 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 03-20-2008, 05:31 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 03-20-2008, 05:47 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Amatsyah - 03-20-2008, 12:09 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 03-20-2008, 06:09 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 03-21-2008, 06:02 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 03-21-2008, 06:29 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 03-21-2008, 11:46 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 03-22-2008, 01:39 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 03-22-2008, 06:57 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 03-23-2008, 02:57 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 03-23-2008, 03:31 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by SP Silver - 03-23-2008, 09:22 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 03-23-2008, 03:42 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 03-27-2008, 07:44 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 03-28-2008, 03:15 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 03-29-2008, 12:30 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 03-29-2008, 04:12 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 03-29-2008, 03:10 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 03-29-2008, 08:09 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 03-31-2008, 04:45 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 04-01-2008, 02:27 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 04-01-2008, 07:02 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 04-02-2008, 12:56 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 04-02-2008, 11:29 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 04-03-2008, 01:46 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 04-03-2008, 03:16 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by Thirdwoe - 04-03-2008, 05:18 AM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by rungold315 - 04-03-2008, 04:51 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 04-05-2008, 06:11 PM
Re: Young Earth or Old Earth? - by gbausc - 04-05-2008, 07:06 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)