Posted on 02/05/2009 5:00:13 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Books claiming that science disproves ‘young-earth’ creationism are very common, and books that claim the Bible itself does not mandate a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis are not in short supply either. David Snoke’s book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth ostensibly falls in the latter group, though his main reason for rejecting biblical creation is really uniformitarian ‘science’. Books like these generally don’t pose a threat to informed creationists, and this one is no exception. In fact, Snoke could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had actually taken the time to read more creationist literature; most of the things he cites as problems for creationists have been answered years ago.
First, some clear flaws in the book must be pointed out. It takes an amazing amount of arrogance to think that someone can refute young-earth creationism in any kind of detail in a book less than 200 pages long, and with just over 4 pages of endnotes which cite only half a dozen actual creationist works. The only creationist book he cites is The Genesis Flood, which is over 45 years old. No mention of Refuting Compromise for example that refutes almost all his arguments.1 And the most up-to-date creationist article cited is from 1993. Clearly this is a man at the cutting edge!
Incompetent arrogance...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
You had quite a list there. Did you mean to say dudes? If you meant me, and you don't want to hear from me then don't post provocative stuff on the forum. Otherwise, suck it up.
I'm not bothered by the latter. For that matter, even the late Pope wasn't either. He did tell Stephen Hawking once that it's OK to inquire up to the big bang, but not before. That struck me as living in the real world and still defending his theological views.
“See post 129. It is absolutely hilarious. Straight out of Spy versus Spy.” [excerpt: 139]
“You should ask me why I'm still laughing after reading your post.” [excerpt: 140]Since your so up on Spy v. Spy (whatever that is) you should have avoided textbook responses.
[[Just being a good Freeper by being completely obnoxious and disregarding someone’s wishes?]]
[[Good Freepers don’t harass people in an attempt to silence them.]]
But the obnoxious ones will find soem way to dismiss what you said and still feel they are being ‘good’ about it.
First, there is no harassment. All I do is provide truthful Biblical and scientific information that correct posts that are rife with errors. Other people with science backgrounds do the same. We are serious and conservative Christians who have seen firsthand the damage that YEC does.
Second, I'm not trying to silence anyone, so please do not accuse me of doing that. It certainly does appear that others are trying to silence me though.
He-Who-Does-Not-Want-To-Be-Pinged is welcome to post all he wants. That is his right. It is also my right to respond to errors in the articles that he posts. If I posted nonsense from a Palestinian newspaper, He-Who-Does-Not-Want-To-Be-Pinged has every right to point out the untruths in the newspaper story.
Funny that Obama, too, considers it harassment if anybody asks him a question he can't answer. "Can't you just let me eat my waffle?"
So just who is satchmodog9?
“But the obnoxious ones will find soem way to dismiss what you said and still feel they are being ‘good’ about it.”Most of the disruptive posters on Crevo threads come here for the sole purpose of causing trouble. (and reporting it back to their buds on other forums)
“First, there is no harassment.” [excerpt]And I've got a bridge to sell.
“We are serious and conservative Christians” ... [excerpt]I hear Obama is a Christian also...
“Second, I'm not trying to silence anyone, ” [excerpt]Make that two bridges.
“He-Who-Does-Not-Want-To-Be-Pinged is welcome to post all he wants. That is his right. It is also my right to respond to errors in the articles that he posts.” [excerpt]Then show some courtesy and address the errors and not the poster.
“Funny that Obama, too, considers it harassment if anybody asks him a question he can't answer.” [excerpt]There is a big bold line between asking a question and endlessly harassing someone for several hundred posts.
“So just who is satchmodog9?”The guy who no Troll has ever heard of.
It wasn’t to you, it was to the first person on the list who feels impelled to keep pinging me after being asked to cease and desist. I told him if he kept doing it I was going to start posting his lies for all to see. You were on his ping list, so I included you in the reply.
So....it is your opinion that when Ezekiel, speaking of the same event, says Lucifer was in the Garden of Eden before iniquity was found in him [28:13-17].....this is not teaching that he existed on a pre Adamic Earth....in the garden?
When he says that he would ascend above the clouds [Isaiah 14:12] as part of his rebellion.....this does not teach that he was on the Earth.....below the clouds?
Are you saying that Lucifer has not yet rebelled and everything we've just read is future prophecy? Is that really your position?
==As the moderators told you the other night, I have a perfect right to respond to things that you post.
I heard the mods loud and clear. I can’t stop you from pinging me on the threads I post (but I can stop you from stalking me). That is why I told you that if you ignore my wishes not to be bothered by your lying, slanderous self, then I was going to start posting examples of the same as my reply.
He’s talking to the city of Tyre in Ezekiel, not Satan. He’s speaking to Tyre as if Tyre is Satan because Tyre’s sin parallels Satan’s. God uses language that would directly apply to Satan and shows how this language directly applies to Tyre. Equating Satan’s arrogance over his beauty to the prince of Tyre’s arrogance over his prosperity.
What you’re reading in Ezekiel is almost 4000 years after creation. Satan was already cast down and the details of his banishment from heaven was already recorded by Isaiah a couple hundred years before Ezekiel’s prophecy.
Are you just looking for a proof text for old earth or are you trying to understand the passage?
The first thing you need to realize is we’re all sinners. Your sin has separated you from a holy God. When you die you’ll be banished to eternal Hell if your sin isn’t paid for. Hell was created for Satan and his angels but when Adam decided to follow Satan he gave dominion of Earth over to Satan and earned a place in Hell.
You can’t pay for your sin and neither can I. Only a perfect sacrifice can appease God’s wrath at our disgusting disobedience. Jesus who was God incarnate agreed to pay. God only requires one thing of us: To accept that payment with the knowledge it’s the only way.
Throughout the book, he smears young-earth creationists, depicting them as people who ‘latch on to people with dubious credentials who tell us what we want to hear’ (p. 23), who accuse the secular scientific establishment of conspiracy to cover up young-earth evidence (p. 31) and engage in unethical scientific practices (p. 187).
I hate to say it, but that's a pretty accurate description of what the YEC movement does. For example, one of the big YEC websites, TrueOrigin.org:
As for unethical practices, one example is the radiometric work of John Woodmorappe, which is refuted here by Stephen Schimmrich. Schimmrich also points to the duplicity of other YEC scientists like Carl Baugh and As the author says:
As a geologist and an evangelical Christian, I am very concerned about the popularity of young-earth creationism within the Christian community. I too believe in Genesis 1:1, but there is simply no credible evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old (and a lot of credible evidence that it's around 4,600,000,000 years old) or that there was a geologically-recent global flood. My experience with young-earth creationists is that their arguments are almost always based on obsolete data, a misrepresentation of the facts, and a willful ignorance of contrary data. My experience has also taught me, and many others, that virtually all of the claims made by young-earth creationists simply crumble when investigated in any detail.
That’s good. Very good. I would like to see you post more of the same. YEC is such a terrible diversion.
“YEC is such a terrible diversion.” [excerpt]Any form of Creation is.
Sorry, but you haven't followed the last few threads. Addressing the errors with YEC is considered:
Dissent is not allowed in these threads and any dissent is met with personal attacks.
I have no quarrel with the person in question, other than posting material that is so obviously wrong. But try to point out the problems with material and you're met with wrath and fury. TXnMA, myself, and others who happen to be trained scientists with real science careers are not welcomed, but insulted.
[Ezekiel 28:12-15] Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
So....it's your position that the King of Tyre was full of wisdom and perfect in beauty; He was in the Garden of Eden and was covered with precious stones; He was an anointed cherub and had been on the Holy Mountain of God; He walked on stones of fire and had been perfect in all his ways until sin was found in him?
I don't really believe that Ezekiel thought that the King of Tyre was an anointed cherub......some may...but I don't.
The above verses show that Satan had an exalted position on Earth prior to Eden.....and was brought down. He did not have this position when Adam was created nor could these facts be true of him on the Earth since he regained dominion through Adam. Ezekiel teaches that Lucifer had a prior kingdom on this Earth.
Any form of Creation is.
As is Christianity.
Very well said. Unfortunately, YEC gives the enemy more tools to batter us with.
My first degree (BS Chemistry) was from a Christian college. I saw a number of people lose their faith when the YEC they were taught confronted reality. Instead of abandoning YEC, they abandoned Christianity. That's a horrible, horrible thing to see happen. Although I was taking Hebrew and could show them that OEC does not conflict with the Bible, it still didn't help. They had been -- I hate to use the word indoctrinated -- strongly taught that if you did not believe in YEC, you were not a real Christian. Their understandable logic at that age was (1) the earth and universe are old; so (2) Christianity must be wrong.
Also, I happen to work with very highly educated and smart people, and I have to get around the "all Christians are stupid because they believe the earth is 6,000 years old" problem.
I do not doubt the sincerity and strong Christian faith of YECs. You, (other person), and I will no doubt share many good times in heaven. However, I do have problems with YEC beause, in the circle of people that God put me in, it's a real stumbling block.
Does that explain a little better why YEC is one of my few hot-button issues?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.