Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by robbyyoung » Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:19 pm

jonperry wrote:Last week I went to see the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum. I knew that as an educator, much of what I would see would bother me, but I was surprised to find that some of what is taught might also bother Christians. They teach hyper evolution after the flood, for example, which I thought was strange. What are your thoughts on that place?

I recently heard the Southern Baptist Convention is supporting the Ark and this surprised me. I used to volunteer at a food bank with several Southern Baptist pastors. They were smart guys, I would have thought they would be more careful than to broadly promote the non-biblical doctrines of Ken Ham.

Here is my review video of the place in case you've never been: https://youtu.be/Fg2LGUSXFxk

Jon
Hi Jon,

It’s good to converse with you again. Nice job on the video and giving your audience a scientific perspective. My immediate thoughts reflected, again, disappointment in the lack of faith among Christians regarding the “MIRACULOUS” in the genesis and Noah account. I am a strong advocate for the “gorilla in the room”, i.e., that the biblical creation and flood were entirely miraculous events. As any scientist would know, you cannot possibly defend a purely scientific reasoning for a seven-day creation and surviving a worldwide flood. Therefore, scientists rightly look for how a natural world could produce such diversity and life itself. But, the creation and flood account has nothing to do with the natural laws that govern the universe, they were set aside. When God said, let there be light, separating night from day, and created the first evening and morning, the first-day and subsequent others were, in fact, miracles. After the flood, God said be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Obviously God miraculously provided for their immediate needs, such as food and health. Therefore, there is no need for any hyper-evolution theory.

Jon, scientists cannot account for miracles; however, Christians should. I believe YECs should boldly proclaim the obvious miraculous nature of creation and the flood because this is the biblical explanation. For example, when Jesus fed the five thousand, He created fresh loaves of baked bread out of thin air! That bread, scientifically, was no different from any other baked bread. It was complete with age, and probably had scorch marks from baking. Now a scientist would rightly conclude that under normal circumstances the bread would have to go through a series of processes in order to come to fruition. But that's not what happened. It came into existence out of thin air! This is no different from the creation account.

Yes, under normal conditions the laws of the universe proclaims awesome truths. But, these laws came into existence “miraculously” and therefore cannot be the causation of everything, God is. So when we consider the age of “the analogous bread”, we ought not to let normality blind us from the truth, it came into existence instantaneously. The search for knowledge must first begin with the truth.

Blessings my friend.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:10 am

[quote="Si"]

Nor does evolution teach that humans evolved from chimps, but that they share a common ancestor.

Dwight: And the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve had no ancestors, but that they were created in God's image on the 6th day of creation. It also teaches that any ancestor of today's chimps were not made in God's image, but were created animals and remain animals today. Man, however, never was an animal and is not an animal today. So it comes down to a simple bottom line: Are you going to believe the Bible or are you going to believe something else that contradicts the Bible?

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Si » Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:12 am

dwight92070 wrote:And the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve had no ancestors, but that they were created in God's image on the 6th day of creation. It also teaches that any ancestor of today's chimps were not made in God's image, but were created animals and remain animals today. Man, however, never was an animal and is not an animal today. So it comes down to a simple bottom line: Are you going to believe the Bible or are you going to believe something else that contradicts the Bible?
The point of my post was to try and more clearly express Jon Perry's viewpoint, because your post showed that you had little understanding of it. Your objections to his posts cannot further a conversation because the premises upon which they were based are fundamentally wrong. If you are going to debate someone, at least be respectful enough to accurately represent what they believe, and to respond to the points that they make. I sincerely tried my best to clear up the misunderstanding to move the conversation forward. But I'm coming to see that I don't think you want to accurately understand evolutionists, in order to have a productive debate, I think you want to ridicule them.

Evolution only contradicts the Bible in your system. There are other views on the early chapters of Genesis, and there have been for all of Church history. There are many faithful Christians who have a different view than you. This was all explained in a debate we had several months ago, but I see you don't have the courtesy to take my views at face value either.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:03 pm

Si wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:And the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve had no ancestors, but that they were created in God's image on the 6th day of creation. It also teaches that any ancestor of today's chimps were not made in God's image, but were created animals and remain animals today. Man, however, never was an animal and is not an animal today. So it comes down to a simple bottom line: Are you going to believe the Bible or are you going to believe something else that contradicts the Bible?
The point of my post was to try and more clearly express Jon Perry's viewpoint, because your post showed that you had little understanding of it.

Dwight: That may be true, but I sincerely tried to understand him and your accusations against me are unfounded.

Your objections to his posts cannot further a conversation because the premises upon which they were based are fundamentally wrong.

Dwight: The only premise I have is that the Bible is true and anything that contradicts it is false, and those are not "fundamentally wrong". If that does not help to further a conversation, I can only conclude that you don't wish to proceed with that understanding.

If you are going to debate someone, at least be respectful enough to accurately represent what they believe, and to respond to the points that they make.

Dwight: I thought I had done exactly that and you are disrespecting me to accuse me of doing otherwise.

I sincerely tried my best to clear up the misunderstanding to move the conversation forward. But I'm coming to see that I don't think you want to accurately understand evolutionists, in order to have a productive debate, I think you want to ridicule them.

Dwight: Just because I pointed out a flaw in your explanation, and showed how even that does not agree with the Bible, you are attacking me and ridiculing me.


Evolution only contradicts the Bible in your system.

Dwight: That is correct except it is not "my system". Ken Ham agrees and so do thousands of other Christians. There are other views on the early chapters of Genesis, and there have been for all of Church history. There are many faithful Christians who have a different view than you. This was all explained in a debate we had several months ago, but I see you don't have the courtesy to take my views at face value either.
Dwight: The only one being discourteous is the one who cannot tolerate other Christians who take a stand against the lie of evolution. You also cannot tolerate the fact that I have the freedom to believe what I do, so you falsely accuse me of being disrespectful, when, in fact, it is you who are being disrespectful and ridiculing. Let the record show that you attacked me personally, when all I did was state my opinion and attacked no one personally.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Si » Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:53 pm

Dwight,

You didn't provide a single counter argument when you quoted the first post I made in this thread, you just got on your high horse and pontificated about how you interpret the early chapters of Genesis and said I don't believe the Bible, but something that contradicts it. If you want to respect someone and sincerely interact with them, it means you have to interact with what they say. When you sidestep everything a person says, and argue from a self-righteous position, it is very disrespectful and offputting. In the days of creation thread, I had to constantly fend off accusations and personal attacks from you.

Some of your replies to Jon were snarky and condescending, behavior that is totally unbecoming of a Christian, who is to give a defense with gentleness and respect. One example:
So we're supposed to look at composite pictures of skulls from the Smithsonian and conclude that these were various forms of humans/animals? How scientific! Not!
I can't think of a more disrespectful way to respond to the point Jon was trying to make. This is not the way we are to interact with other people as Christians. You could have actually explained reasons why you disagreed with his the Smithsonian link, but instead you dismissed and ridiculed. As Christians we should conduct ourselves with patience, humility, and respect for others.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:37 am

[quote="Si"]Dwight,

You didn't provide a single counter argument when you quoted the first post I made in this thread,

Dwight: I did not comment on every single sentence you said, because I don't fully understand your points in every sentence, or fully see the relevancy of them. It would be foolish for me to comment on something you said, where I don't fully get your point. To "sidestep" those things is not disrespect. I simply moved on to more clear points, so I did comment on the point that evolution teaches that man and chimps have a common ancestor. Since it is clear that the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve had no ancestors, then it also clear that evolutionary teaching (assuming it teaches what you say it does, and I don't deny that) contradicts what the Bible says. You chose to label that "getting on my high horse and pontificating", which is now yet another totally unwarranted personal attack. Yes, to believe something that contradicts the Bible is to reject the Bible, at least as far as that subject goes. If the shoe fits, wear it. You can't say on the one hand that you accept the Bible account and then present the evolutionary belief that Adam and Eve had ancestors. The Bible teaches that they had no ancestors, evolution teaches that they did. You can't have it both ways. There was no personal attack made. I was stating a logical general truth. You took it as a personal attack, but you took it wrong.

If you want to respect someone and sincerely interact with them, it means you have to interact with what they say.

Dwight: That's a 2 way street. The only "interaction" you have given me on what I said has been personal attacks, now adding a 3rd attack in denouncing me as self-righteous.

Some of your replies to Jon were snarky and condescending, behavior that is totally unbecoming of a Christian, who is to give a defense with gentleness and respect.
Dwight: You mean like the way you have been responding to me?

[quote]So we're supposed to look at composite pictures of skulls from the Smithsonian and conclude that these were various forms of humans/animals? How scientific! Not!

I can't think of a more disrespectful way to respond to the point Jon was trying to make.

Dwight: I showed no respect for his argument, but I was not disrespecting Jon himself. As far as commenting on the Smithsonian link, there was no article that I could find. All I saw was an image with a label under it, which I did comment on.

As Christians we should conduct ourselves with patience, humility, and respect for others.

Dwight: I couldn't agree more.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:37 pm

I find it very sad that Christian brothers cannot disagree agreeably, but find it necessary to launch personal attacks on each other and then eventually, shut them off altogether. Just because a brother disagrees with me, that does not make him any-the-less my brother in Christ. I speak rather bluntly at times and some take offense at that, immediately thinking that that it is a personal attack. Like my most recent apparent offense: "You call that science? Not!" This was not meant as a personal attack on Jon, but obviously Si took offense at it. Am I guilty of personal offenses? You bet I am, and many times here on the forum. To the best of my knowledge, I have repented of those offenses and don't want to offend anyone again. But something tells me that that is an impossible task. James said that "we all stumble in many ways". John said, "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." Sin is a reality of life while we are here on earth, even among Christians. We don't want to sin and we never stop fighting sin, but it happens anyway.
My "personal attack" referred to above was just a blunt debate point, not meant to ridicule or attack Jon. I would apologize if that was not true, but it is true. I have apologized here on the forum before when I knew I had a bad attitude,etc., so I'm not too proud to humble myself. I find it curious that Jon himself seems to have just dropped out of the conversation. Perhaps he can tell me if he was offended by my statement. I think we, as Christian brothers, can be too thin-skinned, taking personal offense, when none was meant. Does that mean it's okay to attack someone personally? Never! (Unless God specifically led someone to do so, such as John the Baptist and the Pharisees) But here on the Bible forum, why is it that we cannot agree to disagree, and still respect one another? Si, you mentioned our debate on this topic from months ago. I don't remember any particulars, but it appears you still carry a grudge against me, saying that I personally attacked you (or others). Like I said, I am not aware of any "unresolved" personal attacks that I am guilty of, but if you (or anyone else) would give me the details, I am ready and willing to repent and ask your forgiveness. Again, I remember apologizing more than once in the past on the forum but if I missed something that has caused hurt, I will sincerely do it again. I am reminded of 1 John 1:10 - The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in Him. Can't we be at peace with each other and still have our opinions or interpretations?

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Si » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:25 pm

Dwight,

I hope we can come to an understanding, but honestly I am growing frustrated with the tactics you use to debate this issue. I would sure like to have a conversation, but a conversation requires a give and take where we respect one another. I made a post specifically addressing the issues you raised, and tried offer a counter viewpoint. I wanted to have a friendly exchange on the matter. But you didn't reply in kind, responding to my points, but asserted your own literal interpretation of Genesis, and presented me with the dichotomy of either believing in the Bible or something that contradicts it.

If anything, it is statements like that which shut off conversation. In one post the argument went from Ken Ham's theory of speciation to whether or not I believe the Bible. When I have made clear on these boards that I have a high view of scripture, and take following Jesus very seriously, do you not understand how reducing the argument to me either believing the Bible or not is so frustrating to me? I don't think it's very charitable to take shots at the very foundations of another Christian's faith over disagreements in a doctrinal debate. I brought up the "Days of Creation" thread because you engaged in similar tactics there, for example accusing me of reinforcing unbelief and destroying the foundation of marriage. It reminds me of how some Calvinists unfairly call Arminians "man centered", irregardless of the Arminian's devotion to God, and centrality of God in their life.

If you don't understand the point someone makes, ask for clarification. I would have been glad, because I felt that before the discussion could continue, we had to understand where each other was coming from. I grew up as a young earth creationist, and Ken Ham was on the TV in my house all the time. His theory of how a small number of animals who were on the Ark branched out into the hundreds of thousands of species we have today is pretty basic to his system. I tried to explain that, and also tried to explain why there are no half-chimp, half-humans.

If you want to continue the conversation from there, I would be happy to talk with you. But I'm not going to have the foundational commitment I have to my faith put into question. I trust Dwight that you are firm in your faith and your commitments to being a disciple of Jesus. All I ask is you extend to me a mutual trust in my commitment.

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 09, 2018 5:23 pm

dwight92070 wrote:I find it curious that Jon himself seems to have just dropped out of the conversation.
If you check some past threads, you'll see that's just the way he operates. He disappears for a long time in the middle of a discussion he started, and usually simply ignores facts and arguments that don't fit his belief system. A cynical person could get the idea... on second thought, never mind, I don't suppose that particular digression would be constructive.
I find it very sad that Christian brothers cannot disagree agreeably, but find it necessary to launch personal attacks on each other and then eventually, shut them off altogether.
I accept that you honestly don't see how your approach causes offense and shuts down communication, and I accept that it's not your intention to do so. But the harsh reality is that there's something(s) in it that does exactly that. This would be a really good time to take a step or two back, consider very carefully what Si has said, and get that figured out.

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 09, 2018 10:17 pm

[quote="Si"]Dwight,

I hope we can come to an understanding, but honestly I am growing frustrated with the tactics you use to debate this issue.

Dwight: I appreciate you returning "to the table". If I am using tactics, I am unaware of it. I'm just being myself. However,I understand what you say I am doing, and I would like to make a concerted effort to stop.

I would sure like to have a conversation, but a conversation requires a give and take where we respect one another. I made a post specifically addressing the issues you raised, and tried offer a counter viewpoint. I wanted to have a friendly exchange on the matter. But you didn't reply in kind, responding to my points, but asserted your own literal interpretation of Genesis, and presented me with the dichotomy of either believing in the Bible or something that contradicts it.

Dwight: So, I assume then that it's fair to say that you don't take the Bible creation story literally? Also, I am assuming that you believe God used evolution to bring man on the earth. Please correct me if I made false assumptions. I have not looked back at our previous discussion on the days of creation. I am curious, assuming you believe in a non-literal understanding of the creation, do you also subscribe to a non-literal understanding of the flood and other apparent supernatural events in the Bible? If so, how can you ever know what is literal in the Bible and what is not? I believe there is scripture that is figurative and there is scripture that is literal and the context, history, author, etc. help us to determine which is which. I don't see any reason to take the creation story figuratively. It appears to me that Jesus didn't and Paul didn't. But then, that requires taking them literally.

If you don't understand the point someone makes, ask for clarification. I would have been glad, because I felt that before the discussion could continue, we had to understand where each other was coming from. I grew up as a young earth creationist, and Ken Ham was on the TV in my house all the time. His theory of how a small number of animals who were on the Ark branched out into the hundreds of thousands of species we have today is pretty basic to his system. I tried to explain that, and also tried to explain why there are no half-chimp, half-humans.

Dwight: Okay, I do have some questions. I don't recall Ken Ham saying that hundreds of thousands of SPECIES are extant today that were not on the ark. I could be wrong, but I thought he believed that there have been NO NEW SPECIES since creation. In fact, the idea that new species have come into existence is an evolutionary idea, isn't it? I recall Ken Ham using the word "kinds" of animals, instead of "species". He says that there have been many (maybe thousands) of variations of dogs, for example, but they are all still the same species or kind - i.e. dog. Whenever we have one species turning into another, we have evolution, right?

Dwight: Next, you said that evolution does not teach that humans evolved from chimps, but rather that they both have a common ancestor. Please, I don't mean any offense here, but I find that statement unbelievable! No, I have not studied evolution, so here again, I could be wrong, but it is my impression that that is the MAIN tenet of evolution. I remember seeing the "monkey to man" chart where they show an image of a monkey on the left walking toward the right. To the right of the monkey is an image of a chimp, also walking toward the right. Next is an image of possibly a gorilla, standing more erect. Then another creature that seems part gorilla, but also bears some resemblance to a man, i.e. half-man, half-ape. This keeps going until all the way to the right, you see the image of a man. If that is not an evolutionary depiction of a monkey becoming a chimp, becoming an ape, etc. etc., then what is the meaning of that chart?

Dwight: Also, when you say that they both have a common ancestor, isn't that just a distinction without a difference? If there were no half-men, half-apes, then how could man ever appear on the scene through evolution? Again, I don't mean any disrespect here, but did a male and a female gorilla have intercourse, and out pops a little baby human? I sincerely do not understand how humans could have evolved without partial animal, partial human creatures leading up to the 100% man.

Dwight: Finally, I can only quote what you said in your post: "Evolution teaches that new species form when two groups of one species become genetically isolated from one another and successively adapt to their new environments over many generations. Eventually, the groups diverge to the point where, even if they did come back in contact, they could not have viable offspring. When members of a species breed with one another, it creates a shared set of features among the population. No individual members of a species can evolve in isolation because they are inextricably linked to the gene pool of their species". You might as well be speaking Greek here, because I have no idea what you are saying.

Respectfully,
Dwight

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”