AIG has posted a response to a reader which nicely summarizes the main biblical and scientific evidence for a young earth (i.e. thousands, not millions of years old). They also pimp Dr. DeYoung’s book Thousands Not Billions, which is all about radio dating.
23 Responses
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
From reading seeker one would think that xianity is about nothing more than replacing science with creationism and defaming gays. No wonder so many intelligent people think that it's a crock.
Really? I find very few truly intelligent people who are non-believers. It is written, "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God."
Are you kidding? "It is written???" Yeah, it's written. It's written in The Bible.
Compelling logic, Steve.
Like I said, a crock.
Hmm….creationists discover the value of spin. Apparently DI has hired the same firm that orchestrated the "Swift-boating" of John Kerry.
Read this link for a good explanation of what's actually going on: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/john_…
Sigh. What an example of scientific discussion. This is why evolution is only believed by 50% of the U.S. populace – because many (most?) evolutionists
– patronize
– don't give a straight answer
– often avoid the questions and give you some answer for a question you weren't asking
– have no interest in being in dialogue, but rather, spend all of their energies trying to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with them must be daft
Pathetic!
Christ commanded that "not an iota, not a dot" of the old law be ignored "till heaven and earth pass away".
I believe that you are definitely misunderstanding what Jesus meant, and purposely misapplying it here.
Matthew Henry's comments
He protests against the thought of cancelling and weakening the Old Testament; Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets. (1.) "Let not the pious Jews, who have an affection for the law and the prophets, fear that I come to destroy them." Let them be not prejudiced against Christ and his doctrine, from a jealousy that this kingdom he came to set up, would derogate from the honour of the scriptures, which they had embraced as coming from God, and of which they had experienced the power and purity; no, let them be satisfied that Christ has no ill design upon the law and the prophets. "Let not the profane Jews, who have a disaffection to the law and the prophets, and are weary of that yoke, hope that I am come to destroy them." Let not carnal libertines imagine that the Messiah is come to discharge them from the obligation of divine precepts and yet to secure to them divine promises, to make the happy and yet to give them leave to live as they list. Christ commands nothing now which was forbidden either by the law of nature or the moral law, nor forbids any thing which those laws had enjoined; it is a great mistake to think he does, and he here takes care to rectify the mistake; I am not come to destroy. The Saviour of souls is the destroyer of nothing but the works of the devil, of nothing that comes from God, much less of those excellent dictates which we have from Moses and the prophets. No, he came to fulfil them. That is, [1.] To obey the commands of the law, for he was made under the law, Galatians 4:4. He in all respects yielded obedience to the law, honoured his parents, sanctified the sabbath, prayed, gave alms, and did that which never any one else did, obeyed perfectly, and never broke the law in any thing. [2.] To make good the promises of the law, and the predictions of the prophets, which did all bear witness to him. The covenant of grace is, for substance, the same now that it was then, and Christ the Mediator of it. [3.] To answer the types of the law; thus (as bishop Tillotson expresses it), he did not make void, but make good, the ceremonial law, and manifested himself to be the Substance of all those shadows.
Scofield
Christ's relation to the law of Moses may be thus summarized:
(1) He was made under the law Galatians 4:4.
(2) He lived in perfect obedience to the law John 8:46; Matthew 17:5; 1 Peter 2:21-23.
(3) he was a minister of the law to the Jews, clearing it from rabbinical sophistries, enforcing it in all its pitiless severity upon those who professed to obey it (e.g.) Luke 10:25-37 but confirming the promises made to the fathers under the Mosaic Covenant Romans 15:8.
(4) He fulfilled the types of the law by His holy life and sacrificial death Hebrews 9:11-26.
(5) He bore, vicariously, the curse of the law that the Abrahamic Covenant might avail all who believe Galatians 3:13,14.
(6) He brought out by His redemption all who believe from the place of servants under the law into the place of sons Galatians 4:1-7.
(7) He mediated by His blood the New Covenant of assurance and grace in which all believers stand Romans 5:2; Hebrews 8:6-13 so establishing the "law of Christ" Galatians 6:2 with its precepts of higher exaltation made possible by the indwelling Spirit.
"Pathetic!"
Indeed your dishonesty and hypocrisy is pathetic. "seeker" — what a lie — your beliefs are unassailable. You asked about Lubenow, and I answered: he doesn't know what he is talking about, and his "falsifications" of evolution simply aren't, any more than "the present king of France has no beard" proves that you beat your wife. The assertion both is nonsensical and has no bearing on whether you beat your wife. But the fact that Lubenow's assertions are nonsensical and have no bearing on the validity of evolution won't change your belief that Lubenow has falsified evolution, nor will it stop you from posting Lubenow's inanities at PandasThumb in order to show up all those evil-utionists.
"I believe that you are definitely misunderstanding what Jesus meant, and purposely misapplying it here."
No, seeker, I simply copied to from some website, as part of my demonstration that people who take as their standard of truth what was written by goatherds thousands of years ago are INCREDIBLY STUPID. Providing me a bunch of statements from the same goatherds doesn't make you any less STUPID.
You asked about Lubenow, and I answered: he doesn't know what he is talking about,.
I wasn't asking for opinion, I was asking for facts. Most evolutionists confuse the two, I know, but I still want the data.
Regarding scripture, I commend you for admitting to your ignorance of how to understand it. However, the fact that you fail to recognize wisdom from the past because those from the past were merely "ignorant goat herders" makes it seem like you only trust people who are somehow educated. A bit of modern hubris, it seems to me.
You should heed this wisdom:
"When i was young, I valued intelligence – when I was old, I valued compassion."
"Intelligence is not wisdom, nor is knowledge unless it is applied correctly."
Seeker,
I take no position on Popper's comments, but isn't it convenient that you seem to be the only person around here who "really" understands the Bible? I mean, isn't it relatively unfair of you to claim that everybody who disagrees with you doesn't understand the Bible?
Just seems like an excellent way to avoid conversation.
You asked about Lubenow, and I answered: he doesn't know what he is talking about,.
I wasn't asking for opinion, I was asking for facts.
The statement above is factual — he doesn't know what he's talking about. And you were given a link to a detailed explanation of that fact, findable, as I said, via google: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.ht…
you only trust people who are somehow educated. A bit of modern hubris, it seems to me.
It's "hubris" to only trust people who actually know things? I suppose then, that it's not hubris for you to blabber about "hubris" when you have no idea what the word means.
The question is, why should I take the writings of goatherds as authoritative about anything? Surely the insistence that what you are offering is "wisdom" is the worst sort of hubris.
Intelligence is not wisdom, nor is knowledge unless it is applied correctly.
Perhaps, but lack of intelligence plus lack of knowledge is not wisdom either, especially when it is coupled with the sort of intellectual dishonesty and all-around intellectual and ethical corruption that you demonstrate.
Y' gotta love this statement that "seeker" trolled onto PandasThumb:
As it is said, wisdom lies quietly in the heart of the wise, but the fool tells all he knows.
In that case, I expect him to immediately SHUT UP, and remain silent for the rest of his days.
As readers can plainly see, my accusations of arrogance in the evolutionist camps is well founded.
As readers can plainly see, my accusations of arrogance in the evolutionist camps is well founded.
What we can plainly see is that you are a fool telling all that you know — which is just about nothing.
Such venom. I recommend counseling.
It's always interesting to see how vitriolic conversations regarding Creation/Evolution always become. My, my it seems Popper's Ghost is going to pop a vain in his head. Let's all relax and engage in an experiment in honesty. PG, I have a question and a challenge for you. First the question, do you consider yourself an honest intellectual or a dishonest intellectual? If the former, here is my challenge. Read the book of Proverbs and follow its teachings for 30 days. Then, let me know if you're anger doesn't subside and in fact that your life in totality is more rewarding than it is today.
If the ad hominem attacks continue, we'll all know the answer to the question I posed. If it turns out to that you are the latter, and I hope that is not the case, I hope you don't mind if I pray for you.
Bryanm,
Nice try, but I doubt that PG is actually interested in character development, or spiritual literature. He has a low view of the latter (cf. "goatherders"), and probably views your "challenge" as a thinly veiled attempt to trick him into reading your precious book. I doubt he has the desire or the will to discipline himself to study such literature, since he obviously values his vaunted anti-faith stance over wisdom.
Character develops through Christianity? Or regresses into unbelievable hatred of difference? Because I'd swear sometimes that it seems like the latter and not the former.
Seeker,
While I'm at it, for someone who gets so pissed at me for insulting others instead of debating others, it certainly seems like you're doing precisely the same thing. Hold yourself to the same standard that you expect of others.
Just google 'Lubenow'. His book has been trashed by experts, point by point. If you really want to know about why his 'science' fails, then spend a few minutes reading up on him. If you're not prepared to do that, then don't blame people for being irritated with you.
If you find the criticisms wanting, then make an original arguement showing why the critics of Lubenow have it wrong (as opposed to a re-hash of debunked ideas) and send it in to panadasthumb.org/