Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

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 16, 2018 1:03 pm

Just read Hank Hanegraaff's article on the genealogies. I consider him my brother in Christ, but I find his interpretation of some discrepancies in the genealogies to be incredible. For example, when he says that Matthew "skillfully organized the genealogy of Jesus into 3 groups of fourteen", because that is the numerical equivalent of the Hebrew letters in King David's name, all I can say is "What?" Hank's interpretation is "off the wall", and no disrespect is meant toward Hank, but he is assuming that he knows that Matthew was writing in some kind of code. Not only that, but Hank also assumes that he knows what that code is!! Sorry, but unless Hank got a revelation from God, which he does not claim, there's no way he could know those things.

Hank also suggests that Moses deliberately left out one name in the genealogy of Genesis 11, so that there would be two symmetrical groups, ten generations before the flood (Genesis 5), and ten after the flood (Genesis 11). Again, incredible. So, according to Hank, symmetry was more important to Matthew and Moses than truth. Didn't Moses receive the 10 commandments from God, one of which was, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"? Yet here, Hank wants us to believe that Moses deliberately bore false witness to all of his readers and deliberately left out one name in the genealogy, in order for the two genealogies to be symmetrical!?? I cannot accept that.

Can I explain the discrepancies in the genealogies? No, I can't. But I'm not going to make up an "off the wall" interpretation, as Hank did, to explain them.

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 16, 2018 1:53 pm

Just read the article on the radioisotope dating method used at Mt. St. Helen. Thanks, Robby Young. Evolutionists and OEC's don't like this article, I'm sure, because it thoroughly debunks this so-called dating method. In fact, they probably wish Mt. St. Helen would just go away, but God put it there and had it erupt in 1980 for a reason. Thank you Lord for such a gift to help us sort out what is fact and what is fiction.

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 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:48 pm

dwight92070 wrote:Just read the article on the radioisotope dating method used at Mt. St. Helen. Thanks, Robby Young. Evolutionists and OEC's don't like this article, I'm sure, because it thoroughly debunks this so-called dating method. In fact, they probably wish Mt. St. Helen would just go away, but God put it there and had it erupt in 1980 for a reason. Thank you Lord for such a gift to help us sort out what is fact and what is fiction.
Actually, we don't mind articles like that at all (I'm OEC, not evolutionist). That is, if you don't count the discomfort of watching young-earth creationists embarrass themselves because such things are so easy to shoot down with just a bit of reading, which they really should've done before publishing an article.

The geologist in AIG's article specifically requested the sample be tested by the potassium-argon method. If he's competent to do this sort of work, then he surely knew that would produce an inaccurate result, yet he made no mention of the well-understood weakness of the method he specified for the test sample he sent. This article explains exactly why:
http://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays ... -of-dating

There are many different radiometric dating methods, each appropriate for some things and inappropriate for others, and there are many well-understood factors that need to be accounted for in order to get an accurate result. YEC's like to present cases where a wildly inaccurate result was produced; but in every case I've looked into, and others I've read about, the inaccuracy resulted from using an inappropriate method, or ignoring the well-understood possible failure points of the method, or some other well-known factor, in a way that pretty much guarantees a wildly inaccurate result, and then presenting that as proof that radiometric dating is useless. Does that seem to you like a good way to find the truth, or like something a Christian should be doing or endorsing? When done by those knowledgeable in science and the scientific method, it seems pretty dishonest to me; to borrow a term you used in a recent post, one might even call it bearing false witness. (Of course, those with less scientific knowledge shouldn't be judged too harshly for simply believing those they thought were trustworthy.)

Dwight, you seem to unquestioningly accept things you agree with, without even trying to verify whether they're actually correct (like the AIG article); but reject out of hand anything that disagrees with you, even when it comes with clear explanations that you could verify just by opening your Bible and checking them (like Hanegraaff's article on genealogies). Do you really think that's the best way to find the truth of a matter?

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by robbyyoung » Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:41 pm

backwoodsman wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:Just read the article on the radioisotope dating method used at Mt. St. Helen. Thanks, Robby Young. Evolutionists and OEC's don't like this article, I'm sure, because it thoroughly debunks this so-called dating method. In fact, they probably wish Mt. St. Helen would just go away, but God put it there and had it erupt in 1980 for a reason. Thank you Lord for such a gift to help us sort out what is fact and what is fiction.
Actually, we don't mind articles like that at all (I'm OEC, not evolutionist). That is, if you don't count the discomfort of watching young-earth creationists embarrass themselves because such things are so easy to shoot down with just a bit of reading, which they really should've done before publishing an article.

The geologist in AIG's article specifically requested the sample be tested by the potassium-argon method. If he's competent to do this sort of work, then he surely knew that would produce an inaccurate result, yet he made no mention of the well-understood weakness of the method he specified for the test sample he sent. This article explains exactly why:
http://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays ... -of-dating

There are many different radiometric dating methods, each appropriate for some things and inappropriate for others, and there are many well-understood factors that need to be accounted for in order to get an accurate result. YEC's like to present cases where a wildly inaccurate result was produced; but in every case I've looked into, and others I've read about, the inaccuracy resulted from using an inappropriate method, or ignoring the well-understood possible failure points of the method, or some other well-known factor, in a way that pretty much guarantees a wildly inaccurate result, and then presenting that as proof that radiometric dating is useless. Does that seem to you like a good way to find the truth, or like something a Christian should be doing or endorsing? When done by those knowledgeable in science and the scientific method, it seems pretty dishonest to me; to borrow a term you used in a recent post, one might even call it bearing false witness. (Of course, those with less scientific knowledge shouldn't be judged too harshly for simply believing those they thought were trustworthy.)

Dwight, you seem to unquestioningly accept things you agree with, without even trying to verify whether they're actually correct (like the AIG article); but reject out of hand anything that disagrees with you, even when it comes with clear explanations that you could verify just by opening your Bible and checking them (like Hanegraaff's article on genealogies). Do you really think that's the best way to find the truth of a matter?
Hi Backwoodsman,

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.

Albeit, your observations are both astute and consistent with your belief. Thus, miracles seem to be the OEC’s Achilles Heel, for miracles skew logic and knowledge of what is scientifically empirical evidence. IMO, creation is a miracle on steroids! Miracles were acting in the first position. So, it doesn’t matter how learned someone becomes to understand what exactly they are looking at; if it is a by-product of a miracle, the data is also representative of illogical facts. Adam was created as a grown man, “if you were there”, the data of his age would represent a miracle—his instant creation of 1, 2, or 3 seconds/minutes would represent an illogical reality of existing for many years, but nonetheless, the truth is, he was seconds or minutes old!

After reading a very elaborate and scientific article, it is clear that the author could care less about miracles, he can only trust in what he can see and touch. 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). Well, consequently, miracles are the inherent dilemma, being the causation of creation, not the science that gives us a meager understanding. I am quickly reminded of Luke 16:31 when it comes to simply believing God’s testimony. 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?

How would OECs have confronted the Old and New Testament miracles? Would they have sided with all the logical scientific methods of the era to discount the claims? Or would they have surrendered their perceived knowledge as limited and by faith accept the miracles, especially by word of mouth, regardless of the scientific facts in front of them, such as Jesus instantly creating scores of freshly baked bread and mature fish? I ask because where would you personally draw the line? God isn’t fooling anyone, especially when He told us how He created the universe. Maybe the test is after we examine the evidence, will we take into account His testimony or trust in our own wisdom on exactly what happened.

I apologize up-front if my comments are too assuming, for I know OECs love the Lord as much as anyone else, I’m just making conversation regarding the miracle of creation that I believe is overlooked too much in the quest for truth. I think these discussions will always be a matter of "assumptions". Thank God He doesn't hold us accountable for exploring and appreciating creation's grandeur.

Blessings.
Last edited by robbyyoung on Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 17, 2018 12:08 am

backwoodsman wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:Just read the article on the radioisotope dating method used at Mt. St. Helen. Thanks, Robby Young. Evolutionists and OEC's don't like this article, I'm sure, because it thoroughly debunks this so-called dating method. In fact, they probably wish Mt. St. Helen would just go away, but God put it there and had it erupt in 1980 for a reason. Thank you Lord for such a gift to help us sort out what is fact and what is fiction.
Actually, we don't mind articles like that at all (I'm OEC, not evolutionist). That is, if you don't count the discomfort of watching young-earth creationists embarrass themselves because such things are so easy to shoot down with just a bit of reading, which they really should've done before publishing an article.

Dwight: So if it's so easy to shoot down, why didn't you do it? All you said was the geologist in the AIG article was either incompetent or actually lying (or both) to get the desired result. So where's your proof, your evidence, or are we with just supposed to take your word for it? Which radiometric dating method should he have used, since you seem to know?

The geologist in AIG's article specifically requested the sample be tested by the potassium-argon method. If he's competent to do this sort of work, then he surely knew that would produce an inaccurate result, yet he made no mention of the well-understood weakness of the method he specified for the test sample he sent. This article explains exactly why:
http://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays ... -of-dating

There are many different radiometric dating methods, each appropriate for some things and inappropriate for others, and there are many well-understood factors that need to be accounted for in order to get an accurate result. YEC's like to present cases where a wildly inaccurate result was produced; but in every case I've looked into, and others I've read about, the inaccuracy resulted from using an inappropriate method, or ignoring the well-understood possible failure points of the method, or some other well-known factor, in a way that pretty much guarantees a wildly inaccurate result, and then presenting that as proof that radiometric dating is useless.

Dwight: Again, show us the evidence of YEC's deception. You can accuse them of wrong-doing, but you're not proving anything without specific evidence.

Does that seem to you like a good way to find the truth, or like something a Christian should be doing or endorsing? When done by those knowledgeable in science and the scientific method, it seems pretty dishonest to me; to borrow a term you used in a recent post, one might even call it bearing false witness.

Dwight: So I guess you believe that Ken Ham is dishonest and lying to us. Please clearly state his lies and the scriptures that prove he is lying. (Of course, those with less scientific knowledge shouldn't be judged too harshly for simply believing those they thought were trustworthy.)

Dwight, you seem to unquestioningly accept things you agree with, without even trying to verify whether they're actually correct (like the AIG article)

Dwight: You are so wrong. I question everything I hear or read and I compare it to the scripture to determine if it's correct or false. If the AIG article verifies that the earth is young, why wouldn't I accept it? I believe the scripture itself shows us that the earth is young. Ken Ham has not shown that he is a liar or a deceiver. On the other hand, many evolutionists have been found to be just that, creating fake fossils to give the impression that they are a missing link. But I suppose you want me to study ice core samples and different methods of dating and then and only then can I verify AIG's article. That's probably not going to happen, at least not to any great degree, because I have a life. I don't have the time to study all the things that I would like to. So, at a certain point, I trust godly men and women, who have done the studying for us. (You will know them by their fruits) I would be very surprised if you don't do the same thing. But to a great degree, God has simplified this task for us, i.e. we do not have to study hundreds and thousands of extra-Biblical sources to determine whether they are correct or not. If we primarily study the Bible, then all we have to do is to determine whether they agree with the Bible or not.

but reject out of hand anything that disagrees with you

Dwight: Wrong again. If I see it in the Bible, I will change my mind in a heartbeat.

even when it comes with clear explanations that you could verify just by opening your Bible and checking them (like Hanegraaff's article on genealogies).

Dwight: I've got my Bible open. Show me where it says that Matthew DELIBERATELY left out names in his genealogy, so he could have 3 sets of 14 generations. Show me where it says that Matthew chose the number 14 because it is the Hebrew numerical equivalent of David's name. Please verify these assertions by Hank from the Bible itself.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by TK » Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:48 am

From creation.com:
Matthew’s genealogy
As I argued in a previous article, the purpose of Matthew’s genealogy was to trace the legal line of rightful heirs to the throne of David. This of course included biological descent, but also some ‘adoptive’ relationships where a man had no descendant, or whose descendants were disqualified. Matthew’s genealogy used obvious ‘telescoping’ where less important people were omitted.

Matthew claims that his choice of names is significant because of the number of generations listed “So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ fourteen generations” (Matthew 1:17). The most plausible significance for this is because the numerical value of the letters in David’s name added up to 14. (my emphasis)

Luke’s genealogy
When we interpret the genealogies correctly, we see that they are trustworthy historical records.
Luke’s genealogy looks a lot more complete, and was probably the biological genealogy of Mary, so we see Jesus’ biological ancestry from David, and from Adam. We would expect that Luke would want to give us a complete chain to link Jesus biologically with David. But from Adam to David, he uses the Old Testament sources which have gaps, as explained above.

Luke’s genealogy is unusual in that it starts with Jesus and goes back to Adam—all the other genealogies go from father to son. This allows it to end with, “the son of Adam, the son of God.” This means that the genealogy starts and ends with a “son of God”, and nicely makes the theological point that Jesus is linked to all of humanity via common descent from Adam.
link to article: https://creation.com/genealogy-gaps

So its not just Hank saying that about Matthew's genealogy- YE creationists say it as well.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by TK » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:06 am

Robby wrote:
if it is a by-product of a miracle, the data is also representative of illogical facts.
Are you saying the "appearance of age" of the universe was an "accidental" by product of a miraculous 6 day creation? If so, the problem with this of course is that applying the term "accident" to God is problematic to say the least. That leaves the other possibility, namely that the appearance of age was intentional. That is also very problematic and is a primary objection I have to YE creationism (i.e., I do not believe God would intentionally fool us).

I still believe the miracle of bread and fish making and and wine making is apples and oranges. No one is disputing (at least I'm not) that Jesus did these things and could have done other things like it. When he raised persons from the dead he was obviously remaking something in their bodies and had power to restore the breath of life into them. When he healed blind people he was in essence remaking their eyes. I have little doubt that if an optometrist had looked into Bartimaeus's eyes immediately after he was healed he would not have been able to tell he was blind minutes before.

But when it comes to the multiplied fish, for example, there may be difficulties. Obviously the fish were large enough to eat, i.e. they were mature. Lets say they appeared to be 3 year old fish compared to similar fish from the lake. Would these miraculous fish show signs of age, trauma, parasitic activity, degeneration (frayed fins, e.g.). Further, the age of a fish can be determined bu examining their scales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimatin ... ge_of_fish). Would these newly created fish's scales show "age lines?" I do not believe so, but that does not mean the fish were not miraculously created in a mature state.

The problem with a YE creation viewpoint, however, is the plethora of evidence for a billions of years old earth/universe that was either accidental or intentional if the earth is truly only 6000 or so years old.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by robbyyoung » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:18 am

TK wrote:Robby wrote:
if it is a by-product of a miracle, the data is also representative of illogical facts.
Are you saying the "appearance of age" of the universe was an "accidental" by product of a miraculous 6 day creation? If so, the problem with this of course is that applying the term "accident" to God is problematic to say the least. That leaves the other possibility, namely that the appearance of age was intentional.
Hi TK,

No, I am not saying the appearance of age was accidental, it was deliberate in order for the universe to be fully functional. The creation days show the same pattern of miracles being applied incrementally.
TK wrote:I still believe the miracle of bread and fish making and and wine making is apples and oranges. No one is disputing (at least I'm not) that Jesus did these things and could have done other things like it. When he raised persons from the dead he was obviously remaking something in their bodies and had power to restore the breath of life into them. When he healed blind people he was in essence remaking their eyes. I have little doubt that if an optometrist had looked into Bartimaeus's eyes immediately after he was healed he would not have been able to tell he was blind minutes before.

But when it comes to the multiplied fish, for example, there may be difficulties. Obviously the fish were large enough to eat, i.e. they were mature. Lets say they appeared to be 3 year old fish compared to similar fish from the lake. Would these miraculous fish show signs of age, trauma, parasitic activity, degeneration (frayed fins, e.g.). Further, the age of a fish can be determined bu examining their scales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimatin ... ge_of_fish). Would these newly created fish's scales show "age lines?" I do not believe so, but that does not mean the fish were not miraculously created in a mature state.
I'm sorry but I don't see your point here. The bread and fish miracles are not apples and oranges to the same fully functional creation miracles. The bread's start point was zero, but it came into existence as if its start point was hours in the making. Totally illogical by scientific standards, but are we going to believe what the science says and discount the miracle? Or, are we going to appreciate the science of how it could have happened but at the same time believe God created it instantly?
TK wrote:(i.e., I do not believe God would intentionally fool us)
This is a misrepresentation of God's miracles. How is God fooling anyone when HE' told us how the universe came into existence? I can see if He didn't tell us, but He did. The problem lies in not believing what He said. If we are so quick to believe His other miracles which regenerates, heals, or comes into existence, why can't we except the miracle of creation? It's obvious He spoke creation into existence as functional, in part, until the seven-days were completed.
TK wrote:The problem with a YE creation viewpoint, however, is the plethora of evidence for a billions of years old earth/universe that was either accidental or intentional if the earth is truly only 6000 or so years old.
I marvel at the science which tell us, through natural processes, how creation could have occurred, but since God said He did it in seven-days, the miracle is much more impressive.

Blessings.

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 17, 2018 10:12 pm

TK wrote:From creation.com:
Matthew’s genealogy
As I argued in a previous article, the purpose of Matthew’s genealogy was to trace the legal line of rightful heirs to the throne of David. This of course included biological descent, but also some ‘adoptive’ relationships where a man had no descendant, or whose descendants were disqualified. Matthew’s genealogy used obvious ‘telescoping’ where less important people were omitted.

Dwight: That's a possible theory, but Matthew doesn't tell us that.

Matthew claims that his choice of names is significant because of the number of generations listed

Dwight: Again, those are your words, not Matthew's. Obviously Matthew lists 3 sets of 14, but says nothing about the significance of the names or the number 14.

“So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ fourteen generations” (Matthew 1:17).

The most plausible significance for this is because the numerical value of the letters in David’s name added up to 14. (my emphasis)

Dwight: Here's where we go "off the wall". Nowhere does Matthew mention anything about numerical values of anyone's name. For anyone to suggest this is total speculation. I could make up something like that too, with just as much value. Let's see, there are 3 sets, which obviously is a reference to the Trinity. 3 X 14=42, so you can add the 4 and the 2, which is 6, which is the number of man. So, we have Jesus' genealogy, and He is part of the Trinity, but He is also man. There you go, my speculation is just as plausible as yours (which is not very plausible at all).

Luke’s genealogy
When we interpret the genealogies correctly, we see that they are trustworthy historical records.
Luke’s genealogy looks a lot more complete, and was probably the biological genealogy of Mary, so we see Jesus’ biological ancestry from David, and from Adam. We would expect that Luke would want to give us a complete chain to link Jesus biologically with David. But from Adam to David, he uses the Old Testament sources which have gaps, as explained above.

Luke’s genealogy is unusual in that it starts with Jesus and goes back to Adam—all the other genealogies go from father to son. This allows it to end with, “the son of Adam, the son of God.” This means that the genealogy starts and ends with a “son of God”, and nicely makes the theological point that Jesus is linked to all of humanity via common descent from Adam.
link to article: https://creation.com/genealogy-gaps

So its not just Hank saying that about Matthew's genealogy- YE creationists say it as well.
Dwight: So we have Hank saying that and YE creationists saying that. The only problem is that Matthew didn't say that.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by TK » Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:02 am

The primary point made is that there is a dispute about whether some of the genealogies contain gaps, and that there are YE and OE creationists on the same side of the issue saying very similar things. To me, at least, this indicates that perhaps dogmatism is not the most reasonable course. Obviously you have to be convinced in your own mind.

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”