Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-13-2007, 08:43 PM
slave4him
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais View Post
Following up on the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) research project at the Institute for Creation Research

Your post sounded like boiler plate: simply Googling one phrase at random shows that you cut-and-pasted the entire post from http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-.../features/rate . This is Ken Ham's ministry. Even though this is an informal forum- a post which consists entirely of cut-and-paste from another website deserves a link back to the source.

If your idea of "exchange" is to simply cut and paste other people's words, then I'm left with the impression that you really don't have much interest in the discussion. Hit and run cut-and-paste. Sad.
Sorry to make you feel so sad. I did copy and paste and thought I put a link. I did in my second post but I guess us YECs aren't allowed to make any mistakes but old earth Creationist can have moutains of them. I Can't refute every thing you said because I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. Though I have researched YEC, OEC, secular evolutionist and others theories.
In all my research the YEC seem to make the most sense to me. I know my research is probablly a mustard seed compared to yours but I make decisions based on what I understand. Here is what I don't understand about old earth views. No where in history do you see records of an old earth. Any where the begining of the earth is talked about there seems to be a sudden appereance of mankind. The bible doesn't show an old earth unless you seem to have to add to words like "day". Here is an article (Not mine)
that really makes sense to me. I will post it in my next post.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-13-2007, 08:45 PM
slave4him
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
http://icr.org/article/2031/

Most everyone has been taught all through their school years that the earth, life, animals, and man have all been developing from primordial beginnings over billions of years of natural evolution. Many have tried to "baptize" this process, so to speak, by calling it "theistic" evolution or "progressive" creation saying that God may have used evolution as His process of creation.

Because of this ubiquitous indoctrination, even many evangelical Christians have felt they must conform to this evolutionary worldview, especially in relation to the so-called "deep time" that is so essential to evolutionism. One respected leader of the "Intelligent Design" movement, for example, recently wrote to me that he would prefer to believe in a "young earth," but that science had proved that the earth was very old, so he had to go with science. Two other leaders of this I.D. movement told me personally on two separate occasions that they could not even afford to listen to my arguments for a young earth because they were afraid they would be convinced and that this would halt their opportunities to speak to college groups and others about Intelligent Design.

So I have written this brief article to show once again that the Lord Jesus Himself believes in recent creation and the young earth. Assuming that a Christian is a person who believes in the deity and inerrant authority of Christ, it would seem that this fact should be sufficient to convince him.

What I will do here, therefore, is to list three key reasons for concluding that our Lord Jesus Christ believed and taught literal recent creation of all things essentially instantaneously by the omnipotent command of God, who "spake, and it was done" (Psalm 33:9).

1. The Bible nowhere allows for long ages.
One can search the Scriptures (see my book Biblical Creationism for proof) from beginning to end without finding even a hint of evolution or long ages. To Jesus, every "jot or one tittle" of Scripture was divinely inspired (Matthew 5:18) and He warned us severely against adding any other words to it (Revelation 22:18). The Bible, therefore, would certainly not leave the vital doctrine of creation open to human speculation.

2. The Bible explicitly states how and when creation took place.
Although many evangelicals have long equivocated as to the meaning of the "days" of creation, this type of ad hoc handling of Scripture is never justified in the context, and Christ Himself would never have interpreted them as indefinite ages of some kind. Not only is "day" (Hebrew, yom) defined in this context the first time it is used (Genesis 1:5), but the writer conclusively restricted its interpretation to the literal meaning by numbering the days ("first day," "second day," etc.) and by indicating their boundaries ("evening and morning"), both of which restrictions elsewhere in the Old Testament limit the meaning to literal days. The question seems to be even more firmly settled when God wrote with His own finger that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the [seventh] day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11), thereby basing our calendar's seven-day week on this primeval creation week. Jesus referred to this divine example when He said that "The sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27) to meet our weekly need of rest from work.

3. The Lord Jesus recognized that men and women existed right from the beginning.
The current opinion is that the cosmos evolved about 16 billion years ago, the earth about 4.6 billion, primitive life perhaps two billion, and human life about one million years ago. The Lord Jesus, on the other hand (who was there, having Himself created all things—note John 1:1-3), taught that men and women were made essentially at the same time as the cosmos itself, when He said that "from the beginning God . . . made them male and female" (Mark 10:6). "The beginning" obviously was a reference to Genesis 1:1, and Christ was specifically citing Genesis 1:26.

On another occasion, speaking especially of Adam's son Abel, He referred to "the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world" (Luke 11:50-51), thereby acknowledging that Abel was the first prophet, martyred in the very first generation—not 4.6 billion years after the formation of the earth. Jesus also said that Satan, using Cain to slay Abel, "was a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44).

Note also that the father of John the Baptist, prophesying when filled with the Holy Spirit, said that God's holy prophets had been predicting a coming Savior "since the world began" (Luke 1:70). Then the apostle Peter later preached that the second coming of Christ and the ultimate removal of the great Curse on the earth had even been events that "God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21). The apostle Paul wrote that evidence of God as Creator should have been "clearly seen" (by men, of course) ever since "the creation of the world."

There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus was what evolutionists today (both theistic and atheistic) would call a "young-earth creationist." It would seem that this should settle the question for all true Christians, who should certainly—on the authority of Christ Himself—completely reject the notion of geologic ages.

But they don't! For one thing, not all who consider themselves Christians really believe the Bible, especially its unpopular teachings. Unfortunately, many who think they are Bible-believing Christians have become adept at "wresting" the Scriptures (note II Peter 3:17), even the recorded words of Jesus and the apostles, to make them conform to the scientism of evolutionary speculation. As noted above, there is not the slightest suggestion of millions and billions of years anywhere in the Bible when it is taken simply to mean what it says. That is why we "young-earth creationists" have to keep on reemphasizing the pervasive Bible teaching of just thousands of years of earth and cosmic history.

But what are we supposed to do when the Bible disagrees with the majority of scientists on such matters?

We are to believe the Bible—that's what! When the teachings of men conflict with the Word of God, it would be wise to go with God.

Furthermore, there are now thousands of scientists (fully credentialed with post-graduate degrees from accredited universities) who have become convinced believers in recent creation. No doubt we are still a minority, but it is a growing minority. There are several hundred such scientists in the Creation Research Society, not to mention those on our ICR faculty as well as those associated with numerous other creationist organizations around the world.

There is also a rapidly growing body of scientific data that not only shows the impossibility of macroevolution but also much that repudiates the so-called evidences of "billions of years." Creationist geologists have been developing an abundance of evidence of global catastrophism instead of uniformitarianism in earth history—thus confirming the Biblical record of the great Flood as the major explanation for the fossil-bearing rocks in the earth's crust, instead of having to invent imaginary long ages of evolution to account for them.

It is possible now even to amass a list of dozens of worldwide natural processes (e.g., accumulation of salt in the sea) which, even on uniformist assumptions, will yield ages much too brief for evolution. Thus, even without referring to the Bible at all, it is possible to make an impressive case for recent creation. One cannot determine the exact age of the earth by science, of course, and these various processes may yield various values, but all prove too small for evolutionism to be possible.

With the supposed exception of radiometric dating, that is. The decay of uranium into lead, rubidium into strontium, and a few other such processes can be made to show extremely long ages, so radioactive decay processes have been considered by evolutionists to be firm proof of the billions of years.

But Christians need to remember that such calculations, like all the others, are based on the arbitrary assumption of uniformitarianism, which not only is unprovable but contrary to the Bible. The apostle Peter calls it "willing ignorance" (note II Peter 3:3-6) when this assumption ignores the world-changing impact of special creation of all things in the beginning and the worldwide geologic impact of the global Deluge in the days of Noah.

Furthermore, the forthcoming publications of the ICR/CRS RATE Initiative will show strong scientific evidence that even these radioactive decay processes really provide convincing arguments that the earth is thousands of years old—not billions!

Therefore, we plead once again with our Christian theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, gap creationists, and intelligent design minimalists to come back to the Bible for their view of the world and its history. We should most certainly believe the words of our Lord Jesus Christ on this vital subject. "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord," He might well say, "and [believe] not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46).

*Dr. Henry Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-13-2007, 08:51 PM
meBNme meBNme is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais View Post
...
He then went on to say, "I'm trying to be nice here..." then he ceased to be very nice at all. That's the way these people are. Their livelihoods are dependant upon a scam. When you expose their scam you threaten their money tree and more importantly their ego.
Yes, unfortunately, truth and tradition often clash.
people think that just because they have the truth about the Godhead, and salvation, that everything else they believe must be true to.
Or that nothing else matters, subjects like this are unimportant time wasters.

Whatever happened to diving into Gods word and discovering brand new things that you never knew? Wonderful new mysteries just waiting to be revealed. But no, we cant go into something that might rock the boat of our understanding.

My Thanks to all who are contributing to this thread!!!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-13-2007, 08:54 PM
slave4him
Guest


 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais View Post
Hi slave4him, thanks for posting. My intial response when I see ICR material is the embarassment that I felt when I used to promote this stuff. I started out on this topic many years ago as a YEC who was simply trying to understand the "Age of the Earth" debate. I was involved in full time ministry at the time so naturally my research was coming out in my preaching as well. I had to do a lot of catching up to even understand most of the questions that were being put forth.

The RATE program began after it was pointed out repeatedly by "evolutionists" that the YEC's arguments on radioactive decay rates were all based upon a deliberate twisting of a footnote in a Univ. textbook by ICR staff. The footnote dealt with the proper methods in collecting samples for testing. For example, if you visit a Hawaiin volcano and take up a lava sample that was known to have been deposited 100 years ago - you should collect only lava from that flow. To instead collect a xenolith (a rock "from elsewhere" that was carried along by the flow) and claim that your sample is "100 years old" is to be intentionally deceptive.

Of course after reading that, the ICR staff immediately went out collecting xenoliths from a variety of places. Hawaii, Mount Saint Helens, etc. I have a pic at home of ICR "scientists" gleefully picking out gravel from a mudflow at Mount Saint Helens. They then shipped the gravel "samples" to a lab and got back dates in the millions of years. Yet the mudflow was created in 1981. They trumpeted that for 20 years before they were called "liars" enough times that they had to go back to the drawing board.

The RATE, program was the result of that. I'm breaking this post up to avoid overwhelming folks with too much info at once. In the next post we'll take about RATE. But for starters, remember that RATE was necessary because ICR staff had been caught repeatedly in a lie.
What you say here may all be true. But I do not take my position based off of the ICR. There are many others whom the ICR and answers in Genesis post their articles. Have you ever heard of Arlo Moehlenpah, D. Sc. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from Washington University in 1957, a Master of Science degree from the University of Minnesota in 1960, and a Doctor of Science degree from Washington University in 1970. These degrees were in Chemical Engineering with an emphasis in physical science. He also graduated from Apostolic Bible Institute with a Bachelor’s degree in Apostolic Studies.
I get alot of my information from him and Kent Hovind who before you say it I know hes in Jail for not paying his taxes. He may not be good at rendering to caesar what is caesars but he does make more sense than the hundreds of evolutionist and secular scientist that he has debated.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-13-2007, 09:00 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais View Post
Of course God "could have" created the stars with an appearance of age, but why the deception?
Again I am not talking about an apparence of age. Im talking about actual age. As with light. Im not talking about age. Im talking about speed. We know the speed of light. Based on that we can know how long it would take light to reach us from a certain star. That is constant. Im not saying God faked that. Im saying God could have made it so the light was already reaching us. That's not deception. Deception is the intentional intent to deceive someone. It still takes the same amount of time NOW for the light to reach us. Im not saying that was changed. Im speculating in order to make a point that God could have made that light from nothing, already hitting the earth. It still takes light that long to travel. The planets are still that far away.

You keep saying deception as if I agree with you this implies deception. Look, if I were able to plant a tree and chemically make it grow in a week into a huge huge huge tree...to all eyes it would look like a very old tree. That would ONLY be deception if I said "Well it is a very old tree".

But Im not even saying that. With many things Im saying God created it in a bubble where time and light..everything dependent on time was super speeded up by God. The results being that the earth DID infact age billions of years, but within a short period of "time". The earth really IS that old. Im not saying it just looks that old.
__________________
Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:


  1. There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
  2. The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
  3. Every sinner must repent of their sins.
  4. That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
  5. That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
  6. The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-13-2007, 10:18 PM
pelathais's Avatar
pelathais pelathais is offline
Accepts all friends requests


 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by slave4him View Post
Sorry to make you feel so sad. I did copy and paste and thought I put a link. I did in my second post but I guess us YECs aren't allowed to make any mistakes but old earth Creationist can have moutains of them. I Can't refute every thing you said because I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. Though I have researched YEC, OEC, secular evolutionist and others theories.
In all my research the YEC seem to make the most sense to me. I know my research is probablly a mustard seed compared to yours but I make decisions based on what I understand. Here is what I don't understand about old earth views. No where in history do you see records of an old earth. Any where the begining of the earth is talked about there seems to be a sudden appereance of mankind. The bible doesn't show an old earth unless you seem to have to add to words like "day". Here is an article (Not mine) that really makes sense to me. I will post it in my next post.
Thanks, I'm getting ready to leave here and might not be able to respond in a timely fashion to the article. Your thoughts are valid! That was my point earlier. I wanted to elicit something of a dialoge with a human and not be talking indirectly to Ken Ham's webmaster. LOL. Sorry if that came across in a brusk fashion.

I've bolded a statement you made (above). About the "sudden" appearance of man. When we go looking through history (even inspired Scripture) we find a record that man appeared "suddenly" (more or less). I think this is because the questions that these histories (and Scripture) seek to answer are really focused upon human beings. Everything before humans was considered a "prologue to man." Therefore, since just telling the "story of man" involves volumes, it was probably best to compact the "prologue" into some neat and pithy statements so that the writer can get directly into the "important stuff."

Genesis is a book of "beginnings." Yet the largest material aspects of creation are handled in what amounts to a footnote. We get a far richer story when it comes time for Isaac to find a wife than we get for the entire creation!

The sun, the moon and the stars? "Oh, yeah, they're there... but did you get the details about Joseph and his brothers?" Even Judah's little "problem" with Tamar gets more ink than the creation of the entire animal kingdom. That means by default the "animal kingdom" and its "genesis" ends up being obscured by the absence of a detailed divine description.

I think that there's an important lesson in this.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-13-2007, 10:42 PM
pelathais's Avatar
pelathais pelathais is offline
Accepts all friends requests


 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by slave4him View Post
What you say here may all be true. But I do not take my position based off of the ICR. There are many others whom the ICR and answers in Genesis post their articles. Have you ever heard of Arlo Moehlenpah, D. Sc. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from Washington University in 1957, a Master of Science degree from the University of Minnesota in 1960, and a Doctor of Science degree from Washington University in 1970. These degrees were in Chemical Engineering with an emphasis in physical science. He also graduated from Apostolic Bible Institute with a Bachelor’s degree in Apostolic Studies.
I get alot of my information from him and Kent Hovind who before you say it I know hes in Jail for not paying his taxes. He may not be good at rendering to caesar what is caesars but he does make more sense than the hundreds of evolutionist and secular scientist that he has debated.
uhm, yes I've already (sadly) discussed my relationship with the apostolic writer you describe. With the exception of the chapter on horse evolution, his book is not even his own original research but a rehash of some time he spent with Henry Morris shortly before Morris died. The author related that to me directly, I didn't invent it. The horse chapter was written as a response to an earlier edition of this article.

Your apostolic writer became angry with me when I questioned him about his many unsourced citations of "faulty" radiometric dating in both his book and the PowerPoint presentations that he published. My questions ended a friendship that was older than the one I have with my own wife. To make a long story shorter, he refused to acknowledge that he, ICR and Kent Hovind were all using the book "Forbidden Archeology" published by a subsidiary of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Yet I could read verbatum statements from his book straight out of the Krishna material. The use of this book by the YEC crowd is well documented.

Why the subterfuge on their parts?

Kent Hovind, as we both have already stated is in jail as is Mrs. Hovind (not sure how long her sentence was, but she was a guest of the Federal prison system as of last spring). Kent didn't just "fail to render unto ceasar..." Kent spent most of 20 years lying to investigators and perpetrating a massive fraud. He eventually "seceded" from the United States.

Do you remember the flight schools that some of the 9/11 terrorists were training at in Florida? Right after 9/11 people were complaining that Federal prosecutors had failed to ferret these guys out. By some strange coincidence, at the time the terrorists were training in Florida (Kent's HQ is in Florida) Kent was tying up most of the local Feds with a series of frivolous lawsuits intended to buy him more time to move money around. Think of people like Kent Hovind next time the media complains about the Feds being "too busy."

Kent's website used to feature his debate with the "Three University Professors" and he bragged about how he "got them." The "professors" turned out to be airline mechanical instructors and the "University" was a vocational school in Florida. Why would Kent lie about something like that? More importantly, why would you believe Kent about something like that?

I have had direct contact with both individuals that you describe. One is a looney who needs to stay locked up. The other is an old friend who didn't like questions about the Hare Krishnas. Neither is a credible source for accurate information on the subject under discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-13-2007, 11:06 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais View Post
Your apostolic writer became angry with me when I questioned him about his many unsourced citations of "faulty" radiometric dating in both his book and the PowerPoint presentations that he published. My questions ended a friendship that was older than the one I have with my own wife. To make a long story shorter, he refused to acknowledge that he, ICR and Kent Hovind were all using the book "Forbidden Archeology" published by a subsidiary of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Yet I could read verbatum statements from his book straight out of the Krishna material. The use of this book by the YEC crowd is well documented..
I've been looking for info on this book. So far I see that it is published by a company whose purpose is to increase "spirituality" via the "Vedic" culture and others...however not every book is itself outright Krishna material (ie promoting the religion)..

However my main thoughts are more about the "science" of the book. Do you have a website refuting what the book actually says?

The main authors credentials

Michael A. Cremo – Michael A. Cremo is an international authority on archeological anomalies and the co-author of the underground best seller Forbidden Archeology. A research associate of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, he specializes in the history and philosophy of science. He is a member of the World Archeological Congress, the European Association of Archeologists, the History of Science Society, and the Philosophy of Science Association. His books have been translated into thirteen languages
http://www.torchlight.com/

I just want to avoid the same trap Atheists make with regards to Christian Scientists...to dismiss them outright NOT because of their research but because of their religion.
__________________
Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:


  1. There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
  2. The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
  3. Every sinner must repent of their sins.
  4. That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
  5. That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
  6. The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-13-2007, 11:10 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,794
BTW He most certainly is a devotee....
__________________
Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:


  1. There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
  2. The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
  3. Every sinner must repent of their sins.
  4. That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
  5. That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
  6. The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-13-2007, 11:15 PM
Praxeas's Avatar
Praxeas Praxeas is offline
Go Dodgers!


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,794
BTW the co-author is also a devotee
Richard L. Thompson
http://www.afn.org/~bvi/people.html
__________________
Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:


  1. There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
  2. The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
  3. Every sinner must repent of their sins.
  4. That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
  5. That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
  6. The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carlton Pearson and Gina Divoricing??? can anyone confirm? Thad Fellowship Hall 56 12-10-2007 12:19 PM
Audio Bible on CD MrsMcD The Library 30 09-12-2007 11:49 PM
Culture And The Bible. Scott Hutchinson Fellowship Hall 12 07-11-2007 02:25 PM
Huckabee answers question on evolution vrblackwell Fellowship Hall 10 06-11-2007 01:35 PM
Why do YOU believe the Bible? ReformedDave Deep Waters 181 03-26-2007 08:37 AM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.