Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by backwoodsman » Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:30 pm

robbyyoung wrote:The article was critical of making false assumptions. Since every single radioisotope dating method is still based on an assumption, when not directly observed, radiometric dating will produce erroneous results. That was the point. Withholding observable facts was the critical element in the science. Now scientists, who most definitely weren't around at the beginning, make these same assumptions when dating the earth and universe--discounting the miracle of creation, which was also not withheld.
Did you not read the article I linked? There's no assumption involved; radiometric dating is based on actual observed decay rates of radioactive isotopes and other hard science. It's all explained in the article.

Let me lay out what AIG's scientist did as concisely and clearly as possible, just so it can't be missed:
  1. He collected a sample from very new volcanic rock.
  2. He then sent the sample to a lab for testing, specifying a test method that he knew would produce a wildly inaccurate result with that sample.
  3. He deliberately withheld information that would've let the lab know the result would be inaccurate and would've enabled them to suggest a test that would be accurate.
  4. He then used that wildly inaccurate result to "prove" that radiometric dating is unreliable.
Exactly why that test method yielded an inaccurate result with that rock is clearly explained in the article, and has been well known and understood for many years.
Albeit, your observations are both astute and consistent with your belief.
The relevant beliefs being that truthfulness is important; Christians should be particularly careful to be truthful; and it's particularly reprehensible when authority figures deliberately mislead to further their agenda at the expense of those less knowledgeable who trust them to be truthful.
Thus, miracles seem to be the OEC’s Achilles Heel, for miracles skew logic and knowledge of what is scientifically empirical evidence.
I have no idea how you make that logical leap, especially after Si, a theistic evolutionist, so eloquently explained how his belief fits into and enhances his belief in miracles. If you missed that, you might want to go back and read it, as it'll help you better understand what you're arguing against.
IMO, creation is a miracle on steroids!
On this we certainly agree. My experience in this regard is similar to Si's, although our beliefs are somewhat different. When I was YEC, I thought creating everything from nothing in 6 24-hour days was a pretty impressive miracle; it was hard to imagine how any Christian could believe otherwise. But that paled into insignificance when I came to understand what OEC actually believes, as opposed to the twisted misrepresentations of it I'd always heard from the YEC activists. Suddenly I understood that God's majesty, power, love and care for us, and many other attributes, are infinitely greater than I'd ever imagined. Everything from the Big Bang on -- every intricately intertwined detail of this incredibly complex universe and everything in it -- planned and executed precisely over a scale of time and space so mind-bogglingly immense that we can't even begin to imagine it. And all of it focussed on us -- all of it just to create this infinitessimally microscopic window of a few tens of thousands of years of the stability we need to live on earth. A miracle on steriods, indeed! In comparison, YEC now seems to me like a bad joke, a dim shadow of the truth not even close to being worthy of the God we serve.

THAT is what OEC's believe about miracles. The question is, will you take an OEC's word for it, and maybe do a little research to see if it's what other OEC's believe as well? Or will you stay in your comfort zone and just stick with the twisted misrepresentations of OEC that you've been fed by those who have your misplaced trust?

This was one of the things that taught me the importance, when discussing with one who believes differently, of understanding what he actually believes, and why he believes it, as opposed to some stereotyped misrepresentation of his beliefs I heard somewhere. Without a good working knowledge of what you're trying to argue against, the best you can do is beat the air. Just some food for thought that I hope you can find helpful in discussions on creation, as well as other areas.
Here’s a quote from this article of your persuasion/belief that sums up the matter quite nicely: “Only when young-earth creationists produce convincing quantitative, scientific evidence that the earth is young will they be worth listening to on this important scientific matter” (https://ncse.com/library-resource/radio ... -does-work).
I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. I'm not familiar with that organization, but from their About page it's clear they're anti-Christian and more interested in ideology than science, and definitely have nothing to do with OEC. I have no idea why you'd even associate them with me or OEC. Please be a little more careful when telling me what I believe.
YEC’s don’t need to prove a miracle, that’s impossible, so unfortunately we are marginalized by the scientific community for our first assumption. Well, I honestly don’t blame the OEC’s, after all, seeing is believing, right?
In contrast, OEC says science can and does prove miracles all the time. OEC says Psalm 19:1 is literally, absolutely, unfailingly correct when it says the heavens declare the glory of God. YEC says the heavens lie about God if you look too closely.
How would OECs have confronted the Old and New Testament miracles?
The same way you do.
I apologize up-front if my comments are too assuming, for I know OECs love the Lord as much as anyone else
Thank you, I appreciate that. I hope in the future you'll dial back the assumptions and try to learn a little more about the subject matter.

God bless.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:02 pm

backwoodsman wrote:I hope in the future you'll dial back the assumptions and try to learn a little more about the subject matter.

God bless.
Hi backwoodsman,

Of course, (excluding any evolution theories) which OEC belief system are you associated with, and what online resource best describes your personal position, if any? Thanks.

Blessings.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Jason » Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:34 pm

I find it a matter of interest that Moses, whose work we're discussing, was told by God to write down the dimensions of the tabernacle and set up an entire system of worship that represented "heavenly" things. The God of the bible seems very interested in having people write down things which represent or correspond to other things. Do all Christians not agree that animal sacrifice corresponds to Christ's atonement? Or the Passover ritual representing our deliverance from judgement?

I honestly don't know whether we're supposed to take the early chapters of Genesis as a symbolic pattern, but it does seem like God to do something like that since He does it elsewhere. Even speaking through the same author. So I remain agnostic on the issue for the sake of humility.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:21 am

[quote="Jason"]I find it a matter of interest that Moses, whose work we're discussing, was told by God to write down the dimensions of the tabernacle and set up an entire system of worship that represented "heavenly" things. The God of the bible seems very interested in having people write down things which represent or correspond to other things.

Dwight: Not always. In fact, Paul (and the writer of Hebrews, if not Paul) clearly tells us those things you mentioned were meant to correspond to heavenly things. So if Genesis was not to be taken literally, Paul certainly forgot to tell us that.
He certainly had every opportunity to tell us that, if it was true. He spoke of the content of Genesis on several occasions. Also, every reference that Paul makes to Genesis seems to assume the literalness of the Genesis narrative.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Singalphile » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:44 am

dwight92070 wrote:
Jason wrote:I find it a matter of interest that Moses, whose work we're discussing, was told by God to write down the dimensions of the tabernacle and set up an entire system of worship that represented "heavenly" things. The God of the bible seems very interested in having people write down things which represent or correspond to other things.
Dwight: Not always. In fact, Paul (and the writer of Hebrews, if not Paul) clearly tells us those things you mentioned were meant to correspond to heavenly things. So if Genesis was not to be taken literally, Paul certainly forgot to tell us that. He certainly had every opportunity to tell us that, if it was true. He spoke of the content of Genesis on several occasions. Also, every reference that Paul makes to Genesis seems to assume the literalness of the Genesis narrative.
Regarding your last sentence, Dwight, I do not think we can know that. Just because a person references a name or event in a story does not tell us whether the person takes the story as metaphor/symbolism or literally. I haven't looked at all the references, but, for example, in 1 Tim 2:11-15, Paul says he does not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man because, "Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." Does that mean he takes everything (or anything) in the account literally? We don't know. He seems to be saying that there's a theological message or instruction related to those details of the story, which the story itself does not say anything about. That is what some of us here have been saying; the theological message is what is important, not the literalness, and the the theological points are valid whether or not the story is entirely literal. (For my part, I guess it's probably a mixture of literal and "mythical"/literary.)

I have two main disagreements with this discussion:
1. I disagree that if Genesis 1-3 is not entirely literal, it's not true or it's deceptive.
2. I disagree that if the universe/earth is young, then God was/is deceptive.

I don't have time now. Others have explained why those ideas are not valid, and I agree.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Jason » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:20 am

Dwight: Not always. In fact, Paul (and the writer of Hebrews, if not Paul) clearly tells us those things you mentioned were meant to correspond to heavenly things. So if Genesis was not to be taken literally, Paul certainly forgot to tell us that.
He certainly had every opportunity to tell us that, if it was true. He spoke of the content of Genesis on several occasions. Also, every reference that Paul makes to Genesis seems to assume the literalness of the Genesis narrative.
Paul taught that Adam was the first man and also the progenitor of sin. But when it comes to the age of the earth and the order of creation, things get a little more murky. The main argument I'd give is literary in nature. The main feature of Hebrew poetry is repetition (especially of the same idea/phrase). Genesis chapter 1 is written is repetitive stanza, but the rest of the book isn't written that way. You don't find this style of writing in the narrative sections of the bible. It might be that Moses wrote down this section in poetic, rather than scientific, form.

If one insists on taking Genesis 1 literally, I'd think an explanation must be given as to why it's set in the form of Hebrew poetry, unlike the other chapters. Especially if Moses is the author of the entire book, as I believe he is. An OEC view doesn't disagree with Paul. We know that human flourishing only began a few thousand years ago (in terms of building cities, written language, technology, etc) but this has more to do with the age of humanity than the age of the planetary bodies.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:41 am

It is my understanding that the early church and the church down through the ages has always accepted Genesis 1-3 as being literal. It has only been in the last 200 years with Darwinian evolution and so-called modern science (that also gives us the global warming hoax) coming on the scene that people are now questioning that. God created Adam and Eve with intelligience. The "Fathers" of humanity, and Moses and Abraham, etc. were not stupid. They knew the difference between literal and symbolic. We still do. The only difference now is that some humans think they are smarter than the word of God.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Jason » Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:43 pm

dwight92070 wrote:It is my understanding that the early church and the church down through the ages has always accepted Genesis 1-3 as being literal. It has only been in the last 200 years with Darwinian evolution and so-called modern science (that also gives us the global warming hoax) coming on the scene that people are now questioning that.
Dwight, this isn't the case. I believe Augustine, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Cyprian all contended that the days of Genesis are figurative. They all lived and died well before there was any mention of Darwinian evolution or modern cosmology. They drew this from reasoning with the text.

Again, I'm not saying these men were correct. But they predate Darwin by a good bit.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:27 am

Jason wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:It is my understanding that the early church and the church down through the ages has always accepted Genesis 1-3 as being literal. It has only been in the last 200 years with Darwinian evolution and so-called modern science (that also gives us the global warming hoax) coming on the scene that people are now questioning that.
Dwight, this isn't the case. I believe Augustine, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Cyprian all contended that the days of Genesis are figurative. They all lived and died well before there was any mention of Darwinian evolution or modern cosmology. They drew this from reasoning with the text.

Dwight: Actually it is the case. You are correct that there were a few exceptions, but the majority of the church fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. Pretty much all of them, including Augustine, believed the earth was less than 6,000 years old, so they took the genealogies literally. Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in a literal interpretation. The Westminster Confession (1647) espoused a literal creation week of six 24-hour days. Tertullian 150-225, Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274, Theophilus 115-168, Justin Martyr and Augustine all believed in a world-wide flood. Eastern Orthodoxy held to a young earth. The late 1600's, and the 1700 and 1800's saw the European enlightenment and the questioning of the literal interpretation of God's word. So, with a few exceptions, my original statement was true. So many in the church took Genesis literally down through the centuries, that it is accurate to say that, since it's inception, the church has always stood for a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Si
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:03 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Si » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:25 pm

Infant baptism was the norm for the majority of Church fathers and throughout Church history and for most protestant reformers. Doesn't mean it's right, and an appeal to the masses is considered a logical fallacy in formal debate.

As for Martin Luther, he took issue with the leading science of his day. In regards to Copernicus, Martin Luther said:
There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth [Josh. 10:12].

Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol 54. Table Talk, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 358–9.
So, it turns out that it is not without precedent that good faithful Christians can be a little hesitant to accept science that goes against traditional understandings.

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”