Preterism & Creationism

[Guest]

Steve7150,

First of all the old earth theory has nothing to do with an atheistic evolutionary viewpoint. I neither am an atheist nor do i believe in macro evolution.

I agree old earth is not directly related to an atheistic viewpoint. I did not have this in mind, and so I hope my previous post did imply that the views were equivalent.

However with the advances in radio telescopes and measuring technology i don't think analysing the age of the universe should be called arbitrary assumptions. We can not only see stars but stars at different ages and stages like dwarf stars which are dying and star explosions and galaxys at different stages of life and death and black holes. Unless these things are illussions then they have been around for far more then a few thousand years and the time is coming when bible believers have to accept what God is showing us in nature and stop reacting to the emotional fear of evolution...

I disagree for two reasons; first this statement does not accurately represent the YEC viewpoint, and second it present a false dilema. Your argument appears to be:

1) Stars [or Galaxys] of differing ages and stages of development exist.
2) The development of a star takes millions of years.
3) The stars in latter stages of development must be therefore be millions of years old.
4) The universe must be older than the stars it contains.
5) The earth must have been formed much more than 6000 years ago.

I will not challenge anything about points 1, 2 or 3. The YEC model is that time passes at different rates in different positions within the universe. The idea that time can pass at different rates, in fact at vastly different rates, is a direct consequence of Einstien's theory of relativity. Therefore, the age of the universe depends on what part of the universe one is speaking of. Thus, I would challenge points 4 and 5. It is a valid argument to say that the age of the universe where we are located is only a few thousand years old, and that the age of the universe is much older further from earth. Since time flows at different rates in different parts of the universe, there is no contradiction between the evidence you mention and believing in a literal several thousand year old universe (as measured by clocks located here on earth).

Now, in defense of the statement I made that it is an arbitrary assumption I will say the following: Observational evidence, such as that which you have cited, does not imply whether the cosmology I had mentioned (White Hole Cosmology), or the big bang cosmology is correct. Whether one cosmology is true or the other depends on the answer to these questions: Is the universe homogenous on a large scale? Is there a center to the universe? Is there any edge to the universe? The big bang theory requires the answers "yes", "no", and "no", respectively. The answer one gives to these questions are strictly assumptions, for the answer cannot be made from observation. If any of these assumptions are opposite the BB theory requirements, then the gravitational time dialation affects I have mentioned will exist.

... and stop reacting to the emotional fear of evolution.

This is not my motivation.

Now let's be honest, answersingenesis is a 24 hour/day site and they will interpret from their viewpoint and my source is old earth and will do the same. I can answer each of your points but you won't accept it.

One thing I appreciate about Steve Gregg is that he has demonstrated a willingness to examine the arguments on either side of any issue and make a judgement one way or the other based on those arguments. I am certainly not as good at doing this as is Mr. Gregg, but nevertheless, it is my goal to weigh the arguments for and against a position and judge accordingly. As such, I would like to avoid as much as possible appeals to authority (i.e. most scientists believe, or Gleason Archer says, etc,.) and actually discuss the actual arguments for why any given assertion is made.

For example Gleason Archer says "bara" means to create out of nothing which is different then "asah" which is to bring forth.

I would like to ask you this: On what basis does Gleason Archer conclude that these are the meanings?

Regarding firmament it does generally mean atmosphere and God created water ABOVE it and BELOW it therefore it must mean atmosphere. That's where most of the water for the flood came from ,the water encased in something above the atmosphere.

Again here I would like to challenge you to specifically defend the notion that "firmament ... does generally mean atmosphere".

On the OEC side:
* "That's where most of the water for the flood came from, the water encased in something above the atmosphere."
* The assumption that the sun and moon being described as 'in' the firmament could mean the light began to shine through the firmament.

On the YEC side:
* God called the firmament heaven [Gen 1:8]. Heaven is the Hebrew word 'shamayim', its range of meaning includes 'the abode of the stars'. This meaning would appear to be defendable based on usage such as Isaiah 13:10.
* Day 4, the sun and moon are described as 'in' the firament, which suggests the firmament is more than the atmosphere.
* It is an assumption that the floodwaters came from the upper waters of the firmament, and that there was water directly above the atmosphere.

I would be very interested in any points you could add on either side so we can judge which side has the better arguments on this point.

We can already clearly see in Gen 2.4 the word "day" does not mean 24 hours.

I agree, the word day does not mean 24 hours in this verse. The word day has a semantic range which includes at least the following: (1) A 12 hour period (2) A 24 hour period (3) A finite period of time.

The real question is what does the word for day mean in Genesis 1? The usage and context of the word in Gen 2:4 is different than Genesis 1. I contend that the usage and context of the word in Genesis 1 do not favor meaning #3, but that the usage and context in Genesis 2:4 do favor meaning #3.

Now on this 6th day it seems a lot of stuff happened...

OK, lets do some counting:

1 minute : "God created man"
1 minute : "and God spoke to man"
1 hour : "and God put man in a deep sleep and created Eve."
1 minute : "God put man in Eden to cultivate it. How much cultivating do you think he accomplished on this day?" I think he did none, for this is simply a statement of Adams purpose, not his completed actions.
10 hours : "God brought every beast and bird to Adam to name them on this day. There had to be at least thousands. In ancient times something was named because of some charactoristic it had therefore requiring some thought to be put into it." Let's say there were about 3000 animals to name. Adam had a perfect mind and could name and speak a name in ten seconds. In my opinion, it is Ad Hoc to assume subsequent cultural conventions of observation before naming would have applied to Adam. Thus, a time could be on the order of 10 hours.

Is there time? 1 min + 1 min + 1 hour + 1 minute + 10 hours = 11 hours and 2 minutes.

Yes, there is time.

I've heard answers like God took Adam outside of time or God made time stand still but that's reading things into the text that are'nt there.

I agree, that argument would be invalid, for it is Ad Hoc.

The ability to measure the age of the universe is vastly superior to where it was just 10 years ago and even a few years ago. This is not a conspiracy by atheist scientists to disprove scripture. Many astronomers are Christians or orthodox jews or diests and usually the hardened atheists don't even like the big bang because since it's an effect it points to a cause. The died in the wool atheist will usually try to say that the universe has existed eternally thereby eliminating the need for a Creator.

I am not arguing or saying that there is any conspiracy whatsoever. I would, however, say that a materialistic worldview is dominate in Western culture, and that the acceptance of a materialistic worldview makes the assumptions necessary for the big bang theory appear very reasonable.

if you or anyone is interested in a lively debate on this topic check out JohnAnkerberg.com and radio shows and the topic called "Is the universe billions of years old or 6,000 years old?"

Thanks for the reference. I found this debate and listened to most of it earlier this week. About, a year or two ago I had read a review of it at http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ro ... alysis.asp, but I had not actually listened to the audio until now.

Dr. Ross is a better orator than Hovind in this debate, but what really matters is the quality of his arguments. IMO, the review by AIG points out the weaknesses of many of Dr. Ross's arguments well.

Last year I read Dr. Ross's book "Creation and Time", as my old earth creationist friend had given me a copy. I then read the "Creation and Time" book by Van Bebber and Taylor which is written as a rebuttle to Dr. Ross's book. Van Bebber's arguments are very specific and address Dr. Ross's point by point. Van Bebber's arguments are stronger than Dr. Ross's.

I had searched Dr. Ross's website on a few occasions hoping to find a response to Van Bebber's arguments. Unfortunately, the only response his organization has made was a brief article entitled "A Review of Mark Van Bebber's and Paul S. Taylor's A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross, Reviewed by Mark T. Clark, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Political Science". The bulk of the article is ad hominem attacks against the Van Bebber and Taylor. The article contained no responses to any of Van Bebbers specific arguments.

I can no longer find this article on the Dr. Ross's website, however, a copy of it remains here http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/rossrev.html. I encourage you to read the review, especially the text in the opening paragraphs. Frankly, I find it appalling that a christian apologetics organization would publish such an article! My view of Dr. Ross's ministry has been very low ever since, and has only become worse as I have learned more about it.

Regards,
Pete

[Guest]

Pete, Thanks for your interesting reply. I'm glad you listened to the Hoving/Ross debate i thought it was worthwhile to hear. I'll read the reviews and other links asap.
For now i'd like to focus on one item and that is according to you there were 3,000 species that Adam had to name on that day and he could have done it in 11 hours. Putting aside how much thought he could have given this naming process it seems to me the assumption of 3,000 species can't reconcile with the fact that today only 6,000 years later according to YECs, there are now 5,000,000 species. And since God stopped the creation process after the 6th day the increase can't be attributed to supernational intervention. Micro-evolution is a slow process taking a lot of time and if it occurred on this kind of magnitude over such a short period of time the changes would be observable in real time but there is no such physical evidence. Even die hard evolutionists who would love to claim such a rapid speed for evolution don't make such claims.

[Guest]

Steve7150,

I will answer this questions in two ways:

First, the text does not state that Adam named individual species. I would expect that Adam had named the animals on a more general level. For example, Adam may have said names more like 'bear', rather than polar bear, black bear, brown bear, grizzly bear, etc,.

Second, the comparsion between biological evolution and the YEC view of speciation is not equivalent. The YEC view and the Darwinian view of change occuring over time are radically different.

The Darwinian view is that change occurs by a mechanism of changes to the genetic instructions (namely mutations) which cause different survival rates (natural selection). The survival of the fittest occurs, and theoretically the creatures slowly improve over time. Thus, over time there is a gain of information in the genetic instructions. This is a very slow process, if not entirely impossible.

The YEC view is entirely different. In the YEC view, God had created a set of genetically rich creatures. The first creatures would have already had the information necessary to produce a large variety of offspring. The succesive generations of offspring then inherit only subsets of the original information (namely through DNA). The kinds become more static as time progresses because each successive generation has less information than the previous generation. Remember, in every generation there will be much genetic information that is lost because it does not get passed on from the parents to offspring. In this view, there is no new information arising, there is only loss of already existing information. Natural selection is viewed as a factor, but only in the sense that it selects [or removes] already existing information.

I think it is also worth mentioning that there is some evidence that the original created kinds may have been ancestors to a relatively broad set of today's species. For example, some tigers and lions can interbreed, and so can some whales and dolphins. Since the Genesis text says they are to reproduce after their kind, the ability to interbreed would suggest that these could have been the same 'kind' in Genesis 1.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=liger
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=wholphin

See also,
http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v2 ... iation.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/ ... iation.asp

Regards,
Pete

[Guest]

Pete, In your scenerio with 3,000 species Adam would take 10 seconds to name each animal. Though he had a perfect nature he still managed to sin. There is nothing supernatural about him ,nothing that would indicate a brilliant intellect and he had no history nor any knowledge about these animals. God had him name them to validate his dominion over them so this was an important symbolic process and in ancient times naming something meant to understand their charactoristics and have the name reflect that. There would be no point in naming each animal in 10 seconds nor could Adam do that with any thought or meaning in the process. It would trivalize God's creations. Even Jesus took time before he renamed Peter and it reflected something about Peter.
Plus the plain reading of the text says that "God formed EVERY beast of the field and EVERY bird of the sky and brought THEM to the man to see what he would call them and whatever the man called A LIVING CREATURE that was it's name." Gen 2.19
Every beast and bird sounds like each animal and bird which must be far more then 3,000 probably more like 30,000 which would rule out the 24 hour/day scenerio.
But even at 3,000, ten seconds per naming would be dishonoring God's creations making them almost meaningless and making the names virtually meaningless. I just doubt God operates in such a fashion for he is long suffering and patient. It is not his way to have Adam name each animal in 10 seconds per. And that's allowing for only 3,000 animals to name which is doubtful.
Some of the other proposals by the YECs are hypothetical scenerios but unproven and theories. Time moving at different rates in the universe ,white holes, hyperaccelerated microevolution are scenerios that are theories but not observed outside of some claims of YECs. 3,000 species turning into 5,000,000 species over 6,000 years should be a phenomenon easily observable and documented but nowhere has it been reported and it would be big news if it were.
This is not to say that these theories you propose are impossible because they're not but INHO they are very unlikely.

[Guest]

I don't know much about astronomy or the technical case for the age of the universe. Therefore, even though I am young-earth, I am aware that I may learn something someday to prove me wrong on this.

On the matter of Adam naming the animals, however, I do have some thoughts. First, if Adam's task was a broad one, like the biblical example of calling all flying creatures (including bats!) by the term "bird" (e.g., Lev.11:13-19), this would save a great deal of time. Everything in the sea with fins might similarly be included under a single term, like "fish," which might include marine mammals as well (this way, the creature that swallowed Jonah might be rightly called, either "a great fish" or a "whale."

There is no reason to believe that Adam gave specific names to all the various species individually. "Kinds" in scripture may be categories nowhere near as narrow as what we call "species."

If we take Genesis 2:19-20 to mean that God brought "every beast of the field and every bird of the air" to Adam to be named, there is no reason to assume that this naming was much more detailed than the broad labels which we find in v.20: "cattle," "birds of the air," "beasts of the field,"...that covers millions of species with only three labels! If I were to say "vertebrates, invertebrates and microbes" I have with those three words mentioned every creature known to man.

There is no perceptible importance in the specific names that Adam gave the animals, whether general or specific, for the simple reason that no one today can say even what language Adam spoke, and animals have different names in different languages. We can be reasonably certain that the English word "giraffe," or the Dutch word "wildebeest," never passed Adam's lips.

So what is the significance of Adam naming the animals? It is, I think, just the same as the significance of God giving new names to people like Abraham, Jacob or Simon Peter. It is a demonstration of authority. As parents have the authority to name their children, so has God the authority over man, and man has that authority over the animals. It is this fact, and not the specific names that Adam gave to any particular animals, that I think is important here.

[Guest]

Steve, What you're saying is possible but it seems to me it's like the other scenerios of the YECs which is making things fit into that belief system. God creates every animal and every bird and tells Adam to name what he just created. There is no change in the flow of conversation to indicate that God in telling Adam to name every animal and bird means anything different then what the plain words indicate.
Another words when God says to name every beast and every bird the word EVERY means to me each and everyone not broad catagories. "And whatever the man called A LIVING CREATURE that was it's name." Gen 2.19 "a living creature" is singular not a catagory or group. And yes it was to establish dominion over every single creature and bird. Either you're right and he did name 3 or 4 catagories or if he did name every creature it would have been done thoughtfully over a long time period not 24 hours. But like i said "whatever he named A living creature" sounds like the latter scenerio to me.

[Guest]

Re: the below

I had searched Dr. Ross's website on a few occasions hoping to find a response to Van Bebber's arguments. Unfortunately, the only response his organization has made was a brief article entitled "A Review of Mark Van Bebber's and Paul S. Taylor's A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross, Reviewed by Mark T. Clark, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Political Science". The bulk of the article is ad hominem attacks against the Van Bebber and Taylor. The article contained no responses to any of Van Bebbers specific arguments.

I can no longer find this article on the Dr. Ross's website, however, a copy of it remains here http://www.geocities.com/darrickdean/rossrev.html. I encourage you to read the review, especially the text in the opening paragraphs. Frankly, I find it appalling that a christian apologetics organization would publish such an article! My view of Dr. Ross's ministry has been very low ever since, and has only become worse as I have learned more about it.

-- I note that this article was not written by Ross or his staff. The reason it was pulled is likely obvious, but I have listened to and read much of Hovind and Sarfati's own material in addition to Ross (who I've actually been able to meet and hear at our church), and I have to say that, though I don't understand all or even most of the science (even being a scientist), I find Ross particularly humble and the YECs to be almost universally defined by their ad hominem (though this very discussion borders on ad hominem on both sides even my ow).

I compare the seemingly knee-jerk attitudes and illogic of the leading YECs as a fearful response to what they perceive to be an attack by the "evolutionary scientists" and their refusal to even consider God's general revelation in their views.

Unfortunately, politics has entered this debate and I believe that much of this debate in evangelical circles now is again largely an effort to get Intelligent Design into school curriculums at all costs. Consider Ross' article, here, (http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/20 ... re_than_id )

More Than Intelligent Design
By Hugh Ross

Scholars involved in what has come to be known as “the Intelligent Design movement” deserve respect. They swim against the powerful tide of naturalism, and I applaud their efforts and integrity. At the same time, however, I sense a need to clarify a subtle but significant distinction between their goals and those of the organization I represent, Reasons To Believe.

Intelligent Design (ID) proponents refrain from making a specific identification of the Designer, and they have their reasons. Many work in academia and have firsthand awareness of ardent naturalists’ and outspoken nontheists’ resistance (to choose a mild term) to Christian theism. Because that wall of resistance seems so impenetrable, they propose a step-wise move against the reigning paradigm. They seek to establish first the possible existence of some undefined intelligent designer, then the probable existence of such a designer, and later, perhaps, to discuss the (possibly) discernable characteristics of the designer. At this last step, the Christians among them might propose the God of the Bible as the likely designer.

One irony of this painstakingly cautious approach is that naturalism may die of natural causes before ID advocates reach steps two or three. In the upper echelons of research and scholarship, naturalistic theories’ frailty is more and more freely acknowledged. Even if ID proponents do nothing to expose the inadequacies and inconsistencies of its explanation for the cosmos and life, naturalism may self-destruct.

Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars. Such a model does not lend itself to verification, nor can it make specific, credible predictions. On both counts, scholars, particularly scientists, would be reluctant to acknowledge the concept’s viability and give it serious attention. Nor does this approach offer them spiritual direction.

As I speak on university campuses and elsewhere, I see a larger challenge to Christianity than naturalism: the challenge of a vague or idiosyncratic spirituality, faith detached from objective truth and legitimate spiritual authority. In fact, virtually all forms of spirituality except Christianity seem in vogue with the new “spiritual” people, who tend to be less receptive than nontheists to the Christian gospel. In other words, leading a nontheist to a belief in an “intelligent designer” could do more spiritual harm than good.

Experience persuades me that the time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap. It packs both a scientific and a spiritual punch. It builds trust, stimulates discussion, relieves unnecessary tension about hidden religious agendas, and turns attention quickly and fruitfully toward testing and predictions.

This creation model approach shows the kind of confidence that is willing to accept, rather than shy away from, vulnerability. Not only does this model welcome the kinds of critical scrutiny applied to nontheistic models, but it also invites refinement and critical comparison with other theistic and deistic models.

Honest discussion and critique of various origins models, including various Christian origins models, can have a positive impact on furthering scientific endeavor as a whole. Entrenched dogmas and political correctness have for many years only hampered progress toward building a body of knowledge. The restrictive atmosphere seems palpable at times, as many professors and researchers I have met can attest.
Herein lies an opportunity to exemplify the freedom that exists in Christ.

Truth holds no threat for the Christian. Truth in the scientific arena, which can be directly or indirectly tested, will always be consistent with truth in the spiritual arena. And, despite protestations from all sides, truth in nature must be connected with something, or Someone, beyond the natural realm—the something or Someone responsible for nature’s existence and characteristics.

The most important feature of the creation model approach is that it challenges spiritual vagueness and subjectivism head on. It demonstrates, as well as defends, the legitimacy of biblical authority and the truth-claims of Jesus Christ. The bottom line for me and for my colleagues at RTB is this: truth always points the truth-seeker to its Source, the one person in history who could make and back up the claim, “I am the truth.” That’s what makes science so fun and fascinating.

as exemplary of his motives compared to YECs and judge for yourself whether the ad hominem representation of his character and motives is correct and whether getting a weak argument presented in public schools as the "Christian" view could do more harm than good against those who might otherwise be led to consider the truth claims of Christianity but for the seemingly irrational ID's they come into contact with who ignore the most obvious observations in science even if their criticisms of evolutionsts are spot-on.

I honestly believe that most YECs (thankfully, not those here it seems) feel that they must be as far away from evolutionists as they possibly can be in some odd sense of binary dualism to remain faithful to Scripture and that any recognition of scientific (or even ordinary) observation against what they believe is the literal interpretation is somehow being disloyal to the Word. I'm befuddled how my otherwise intelligent friends who rationally apply logic and hermeneutic to Scripture somehow can't grasp the basic concept that "yom" being interpreted as "indeterminate period of time" instead of "24 hours" is a literal interpretation issue and does not require that you apply symbolism to "yom." "Indeterminate period of time" is not figurative -- it is simply another possible literal definition. I've argued this basic point over and over with the same people and they just don't get it.

In discussing with my Christian brothers and my agnostic or atheistic friends and colleages, I have unfortunately found this topic as irrational and emotional and void of logic and intellectual honesty as the abortion debate. I don't care much for having such debates, and though I have gone back and forth on this point through my own life, I presently lean towards the OEC view and believe that SOME interpretation (even if there are flaws in the present OEC view) is going to be consistent with an old earth. Though some "weak" science (in my view) arguably "supports" a young earth and sort of logically explains upheavals and tectonic shifts, and the like, I find the ones I've explored to be wanting in some significant respect or another.

My present position is much like Steve's position on Hell. Though I lean one way, I see rational arguments on both sides and can see how an honest seeker could lean one way or the other -- I simply don't find most YEC "scientists" to be credible even if there is a later science that can be found to support such a view (which I am open to).

[Guest]

The more I study the preterist approach, the more I see similarities between it and the Historical Creationism approach of John Sailhamer. Instead of taking the approach that the text refers to things in a global sense, both take a more limited approach. I'm not saying that one approach should lead to the other or is forced by the other, but it is an interesting thought. I would think that if one was open to one, they would probably be more open to the other.
D.

[Guest]

The reason it was pulled is likely obvious...

Actually I later found I was wrong about my statement that it was removed, but I never returned to the forum to correct my prior post. The article was never pulled, it remains right here http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... reat.shtml. (I could not find it earlier, because the search tool I was using returned different results on http://reasons.org and http://reasonstobelieve.org)

I find Ross particularly humble and the YECs to be almost universally defined by their ad hominem ... As exemplary of his motives compared to YECs and judge for yourself whether...

I have never met Ross personally, but I have acquired the opposite view as you state after reading his book "Creation & Time" and the article I reference above. Ross does make multiple Ad hominem, Non sequitur and Straw man attacks against young earth creationists. On the other hand, I did not find the same in reading Sarfati's book "Refuting Comprimise".

As for the article you quoted, Ross here treats those in the intelligent design movement with respect - there are no Ad Hominem attacks here. However, the ID movement is not equivalent to young earth creationism. In fact, the organization Dr. Sarafati is associated with has intentionally distanced themselves from the ID movement and the effort to get ID into public schools. (For example, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1223dover.asp and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp)

If Ross is really willing to part with his Ad homenium attacks against YEC'ists he should pull the article from his website and respond with reasoned answers to Van Bebber's arguments.

...and whether getting a weak argument presented in public schools as the "Christian" view could do more harm than good

I am not sure why you ask this of me, for I have not presented my own view on public schools and ID here. But since you ask, I do not think it should be mandated for two main reasons: First, ID excludes identifying the God of the bible as the designer. Second, forcing the teaching of ID by teachers who themselves reject it is futile, because in general people do not fairly represent the views of their opponents.

...Somehow can't grasp the basic concept that "yom" being interpreted as "indeterminate period of time" instead of "24 hours" is a literal interpretation issue and does not require that you apply symbolism to "yom."

I don't have time tonight to write at any length on this, but I fully agree the word 'yom' can mean a long period of time. However, where I and other YEC's disagree with your position is whether or not the context of Genesis 1 permits the word to be understood in this way. I debated Steve7150 on this very point on this thread http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=693.

[Guest]

I have never met Ross personally, but I have acquired the opposite view as you state after reading his book "Creation & Time" and the article I reference above. Ross does make multiple Ad hominem, Non sequitur and Straw man attacks against young earth creationists. On the other hand, I did not find the same in reading Sarfati's book "Refuting Comprimise".

You've GOT to be kidding about Refuting Compromise. I couldn't finish reading that book for the knee-jerk vitriol; nonetheless, it's difficult to make ANY real assessment over someone's attitude or position by reading a few pieces of a volume of work or a few posts on a web forum where you may be reacting only in the moment. However, when I was first seeking a Christian position to support my attempt to distance myself from the evolutionary teaching I had always been taught, I was first introduced to the YEC position and listened to a great number of lectures and read a ton of, in particular, the AIG folks -- Ken Ham and Sarfati in particular. Frankly, their dogmatic stance appealed to me and was, frankly, comforting. When I first heard Ross at my church (he's been several times in recent years) I was struck by his humility and his evangelistic message, which was quite different from the YEC group I had been "rallying" to. As I read more and, in particular, listened to his regular radio program and web materials, the contrast was remarkable, and I found myself not even being able to finish the Refuting Compromise book. When I finally got the DVD of the first Ross/Ham debate, it was clear that one of them was not even listening to the other and was merely looking for gotchas. Ross was frustrated at times, but only because Ham refused to respond to the questions presented and relied on mantras and dogmatic phrases he had become so accustomed to repeating to receptive audiences. You could tell Ross was frustrated and Ham was angry.

I haven't been posting recently, mostly beacuse djeaton's material bears review and I haven't been familiar with this Historic Creation approach before -- the seeming gap theory similarity bothers me a bit, but I'm openly considering it. The audio does a pretty good job of educating about the various views, so far.