Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:07 pm

Si wrote:Infant baptism was the norm for the majority of Church fathers and throughout Church history and for most protestant reformers. Doesn't mean it's right, and an appeal to the masses is considered a logical fallacy in formal debate.

Dwight: Doesn't mean that it's wrong either. (Although I personally disagree with infant baptism.)

As for Martin Luther, he took issue with the leading science of his day. In regards to Copernicus, Martin Luther said:
There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. [Luther remarked] “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth [Josh. 10:12].

Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol 54. Table Talk, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 358–9.
So, it turns out that it is not without precedent that good faithful Christians can be a little hesitant to accept science that goes against traditional understandings.
Dwight:Therein lies the difference. The fact that the earth moves around the sun is true science and can be proven. Evolution is neither true science, nor can it be proven.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Si » Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:57 pm

dwight92070 wrote:Doesn't mean that it's wrong either. (Although I personally disagree with infant baptism.)
But that goes to show you that arguing for a literal reading of Genesis based on what most Christians throughout history believed really isn't a valid argument.
dwight92070 wrote:Therein lies the difference. The fact that the earth moves around the sun is true science and can be proven. Evolution is neither true science, nor can it be proven.
Evolution is supported by an overwhelming abundance of evidence. I know I'm not going to convince you of that, but really that was beside my point. Luther believed in a literal Genesis just like he believed in a literal firmament that held celestial bodies that rotated around a still earth. The rejection of Geo-centrism flew right in the face of the "plain understanding of scripture" and Church tradition, just like Evolution does nowadays. A heliocentric solar system is not intuitive, but a complex scientific finding worked out by scientists going against long established traditions. Some more Luther quotes:
Indeed, it is more likely that the bodies of the stars, like that of the sun, are round, and that they are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night, each according to its endowment and its creation.

Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), 42
We Christians must be different from the philosophers [i.e. scientists] in the way we think about the causes of these things. And if some are beyond our comprehension (like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens), we must believe them and admit our lack of knowledge rather than either wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.

Martin Luther, Luther’s Works. Vol 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), 30
You said a while back,
The only difference now is that some humans think they are smarter than the word of God.
Sorry Dwight, your attitude towards evolution reminds me of Luther's attitude towards heliocentrism. Your scorn for what you call "So-called modern science" is just just the attitude Luther had. I really don't understand such cynicism to think that contrary views on creation must come from some arrogant or haughty motive. It has been demonstrated beyond argument that 1) Christians have held to non-literal views of Genesis since the earliest days of the Church, and 2) The popular view is not always the best. In the face of such evidence, it seems to me that we should accept a diverse range of opinions on this matter with charity.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:36 am

Si wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:Doesn't mean that it's wrong either. (Although I personally disagree with infant baptism.)
But that goes to show you that arguing for a literal reading of Genesis based on what most Christians throughout history believed really isn't a valid argument.

Dwight: I agree that the majority is not always right, nor is the majority always wrong. But the fact that most Christian fathers,(i.e. those who lived during the last years of the apostles,and shortly after) believed in a literal interpetation of Genesis, carries a lot of weight. Then to add to that the fact that most Christian leaders throughout most of church history also believed in a literal Genesis, also carries much weight. Nevertheless we still have to look at each doctrine or subject on it's own merit and how well it aligns with scripture. Infant baptism doesn't align at all with scripture. Nor does evolution, obviously, in my opinion. Interpreting Genesis literally, on the other hand, does not contradict scripture at all. Interpreting it symbolically, again in my opinion, does. Paul clearly tells us that death entered into the world through the sin of Adam and Eve. Evolution tells us that death occurred long before man even evolved. That is a contradiction.

Evolution is supported by an overwhelming abundance of evidence.

Dwight: If that were true, there would be much less controversy in the church than there is. Obviously, what constitutes evidence for you does not work for thousands of Christians, past and present.

You said a while back,
The only difference now is that some humans think they are smarter than the word of God.
Sorry Dwight, your attitude towards evolution reminds me of Luther's attitude towards heliocentrism. Your scorn for what you call "So-called modern science" is just just the attitude Luther had. I really don't understand such cynicism to think that contrary views on creation must come from some arrogant or haughty motive.

Dwight: It's because I see so many examples of arrogant and haughty people who scorn anyone who accepts the Bible, most of which claim that they rely on modern science. Take, for example, Bill Nye. Does he strike you as a humble man, who respects Christians? Unfortunately, many Christians who take Genesis symbolically have picked up on that same attitude for their fellow Christians who take Genesis literally. No, I'm not accusing you of that. But too often, it's almost as if the attitude comes with the belief. The same is true with the global warming controversy. Those who believe it scorn those of us who don't and call us "climate change deniers" and other "colorful" names. I see it also in politics. Those who oppose Trump arrogantly scorn those of us who voted for him.

It has been demonstrated beyond argument

Dwight: beyond argument? I'm sorry but that is not a good attitude on your part. So I guess I should just shut up and agree with you, even though I don't?

that 1) Christians have held to non-literal views of Genesis since the earliest days of the Church,

Dwight: but not the majority of them. (and the majority matters, especially the closer they were to the apostles)

and 2) The popular view is not always the best.

Dwight: unless it agrees with scripture and the less popular view does not.

In the face of such evidence, it seems to me that we should accept a diverse range of opinions on this matter with charity.

Dwight: I do not hate you or anyone who agrees with you. I acknowledge there are different opinions and even though I disagree with someone, I will not hate them.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Si » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:50 am

dwight92070 wrote:I agree that the majority is not always right, nor is the majority always wrong. But the fact that most Christian fathers,(i.e. those who lived during the last years of the apostles,and shortly after) believed in a literal interpetation of Genesis, carries a lot of weight. Then to add to that the fact that most Christian leaders throughout most of church history also believed in a literal Genesis, also carries much weight. Nevertheless we still have to look at each doctrine or subject on it's own merit and how well it aligns with scripture. Infant baptism doesn't align at all with scripture. Nor does evolution, obviously, in my opinion. Interpreting Genesis literally, on the other hand, does not contradict scripture at all. Interpreting it symbolically, again in my opinion, does. Paul clearly tells us that death entered into the world through the sin of Adam and Eve. Evolution tells us that death occurred long before man even evolved. That is a contradiction.
First of all, the Church fathers lived in a time before modern science existed, so obviously they could not have believed in evolution. The number of Church fathers who believed in a literal understanding carries no more weight than those who baptized infants. You have not addressed my Luther quotes. Luther took Genesis much more literally than modern young earth creationists, and look at how wrong he was. I explained earlier how I interpret these early stories. It is only a contradiction if you demand a literal reading. The story was true as Paul understood it, but has a much broader theological application that is equally true and powerful whether taken literally or not.
dwight92070 wrote:If that were true, there would be much less controversy in the church than there is. Obviously, what constitutes evidence for you does not work for thousands of Christians, past and present.
All I ask you to do is recognize that the same is true in reverse. What constitutes evidence for young earth creationists and/or Genesis literalists ALSO does not work for many Christians, past and present. Which is why I suggest liberty and charity on the issue.
dwight92070 wrote:It's because I see so many examples of arrogant and haughty people who scorn anyone who accepts the Bible, most of which claim that they rely on modern science. Take, for example, Bill Nye. Does he strike you as a humble man, who respects Christians? Unfortunately, many Christians who take Genesis symbolically have picked up on that same attitude for their fellow Christians who take Genesis literally. No, I'm not accusing you of that. But too often, it's almost as if the attitude comes with the belief.
I'm not sure why a non-Christian like Bill Nye has been brought into the discussion. If you have been disrespected by theistic evolutionists and OEC's, I am sorry that that happened to you. I think that on this, like on other areas of unending debate, we need to just agree that we won't find common ground until the Lord returns.
dwight92070 wrote:beyond argument? I'm sorry but that is not a good attitude on your part. So I guess I should just shut up and agree with you, even though I don't?

that 1) Christians have held to non-literal views of Genesis since the earliest days of the Church,

Dwight: but not the majority of them. (and the majority matters, especially the closer they were to the apostles)

and 2) The popular view is not always the best.

Dwight: unless it agrees with scripture and the less popular view does not.
Dwight, the "demonstrated beyond argument" part was in reference to the two points that followed. The point was a call for charity. If you're going to pick a half a sentence of mine out of context and use it to say I have a bad attitude, when the point of the entire sentence and the one that followed was to suggest that we should have charity in non essentials, that's missing the point entirely. Did you read the entire post before you started replying? I don't think you should "shut up and agree" because I said in the next sentence, which was a continuation of the thought, that we should accept a diversity of opinions on creation with charity! Go ahead and disagree with my application of those two points all you want, but they have been demonstrated to be true, which is in fact what you seem to have done, so I am not sure what the problem is.
dwight92070 wrote:I do not hate you or anyone who agrees with you. I acknowledge there are different opinions and even though I disagree with someone, I will not hate them.
There's a big difference between not hating someone and Christian charity.
Last edited by Si on Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Jason » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:51 am

Evolution is supported by an overwhelming abundance of evidence. I know I'm not going to convince you of that, but really that was beside my point. Luther believed in a literal Genesis just like he believed in a literal firmament that held celestial bodies that rotated around a still earth. The rejection of Geo-centrism flew right in the face of the "plain understanding of scripture" and Church tradition, just like Evolution does nowadays.
Si, I know this was addressed to Dwight, but please allow me to take exception to this point. There are many within the scientific community (PhDs in biology, chemistry, and physics) who do not believe the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. The majority of them are theists, but their arguments do not come from the bible. One of the most outspoken (and competent) opponents of macro-evolution, Michael Denton, is actually agnostic. It's true that the vast majority who work in the sciences believe common descent is true, but as you rightly pointed out to Dwight, we must not make an appeal to the majority. Especially when there's extreme pressure in academia to not be labeled as a religious or superstitious person.

The most impressive evidence for evolution, to me, is natural and artificial selection, but we can only do this within a species so it's only evidence for adaptation. And to extrapolate from that to common descent using homologous structures and DNA is an unsatisfactory leap. A theistic evolutionist has the upper hand over a naturalist here because one could make the argument that God's hand is guiding the process, rather than blind forces. But evolution is also a rather messy and violent affair, and it would seem unusual if this were God's grand design (remembering that much of this took place in a pre-fallen world).

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:17 pm

For anyone interested, here is a letter from Answers in Genesis regarding their dating of the Mt. St. Helen's (lava) formed rock after it's eruption in 1980:

Hello Dwight, thank you for writing to Answers in Genesis.



Dr. Steven Austin is the scientist who collected and tested samples from Mt. St. Helens. He is not an employee of AiG, and if you want a more thorough explanation, you may have better success by contacting Dr. Austin directly at Logos Research.

http://logosresearchassociates.org/team/steve-austin/



Organizational contact at: http://logosresearchassociates.org/



But I think I can sufficiently answer your questions about the Mt. St. Helens rock samples.



By definition of secular geologists themselves, radiometric dating is only performed on cooled below closure temperature igneous (or metamorphic) rocks. Radiometric decay, again by definition, is unknowable in the molten state. Magma inside a volcano and flowing lava can’t be dated, for example. Recently cooled igneous rocks should yield no detectable age, yet they don’t, they yield ages in the millions to billions age range when independently tested.



You can check out the parameters here:

http://people.hofstra.edu/j_b_benningto ... ating.html and



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometri ... emperature



Therefore a recently formed igneous rock should be set at 0 time radiometrically, according to the conventional igneous dating definition. Dr. Austin did do a write up of his methodologies, preparations and independent lab results for us in this article:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/mo ... s-volcano/



and his findings are therefore technically correct, and the half-life of Potassium–40 should not have been a factor in a 10-year old rock, and yet the dating method yielded a faulty result, which casts doubt on the whole procedure.



To my knowledge, no one else has taken a sample of the volcanic rocks from Mt. St. Helens and submitted them to an independent laboratory for testing. The reason being is that secular geologists assume that there will be no result (a zero date), so they do not waste the time obtaining permits and paying for the lab fees associated with dating the rocks. Dr. Austin wanted to have a volcanic rock sample from a known site and known age dated to see if that “assumption” was correct. It was not. So he did not take advantage of a known exception; he used proper methods to show that the dating methods are faulty on rocks of known ages.







Sincerely,



Troy Lacey

Answers in Genesis

PO Box 510

Hebron, KY 41048

www.answersingenesis.org



Answers in Genesis is a non-profit, Christ-centered, non-denominational ministry dedicated to upholding the authority of Scripture from the very first verse! The information contained in this e-mail message is proprietary, privileged and confidential, and is intended for the use of the addressee and no one else. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:20 pm

I just realized I was not supposed to forward this info per Answers in Genesis' regulations, according to the last paragraph. Oops!

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:25 am

First of all, the Church fathers lived in a time before modern science existed, so obviously they could not have believed in evolution.

Dwight: That is obvious but you were the one who pointed out how a few of them did not take Genesis 1 literally.

The number of Church fathers who believed in a literal understanding carries no more weight than those who baptized infants.

Dwight: Really? So if we found out that NONE of the church fathers took Genesis 1 literally, that wouldn't be relevant? Of course it would. If none of them took it literally, then that would be strong evidence that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Not proof, but strong evidence. Conversely, if the majority of them did accept Genesis 1 as literal, which they did, then that too is strong evidence that it was meant to be taken literally.

You have not addressed my Luther quotes. Luther took Genesis much more literally than modern young earth creationists, and look at how wrong he was.

Dwight: So I guess you are saying that, like Luther, who took Genesis literally, I too could be proved wrong by modern science?? How is science going to prove that Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally?

I explained earlier how I interpret these early stories. It is only a contradiction if you demand a literal reading.

Dwight: Exactly, if it is not literal, then nothing ever contradicts anything else. If it is not literal, then I can come up with tons of theological applications. So can anybody. We can all have our own theological application, whether they agree or not, and you cannot say that mine is wrong and I cannot say that yours is wrong. After all, it is just a fictitious story, which can have a multitude of applications, or maybe even no application. Why does a work of fiction even need an application? I could interpret it to be written solely for the satisfaction of reading an interesting story and my interpretation would be just as correct as yours.

There's a big difference between not hating someone and Christian charity.[/quote]

Dwight: It is only a big difference if you demand a literal reading (of your last sentence).

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 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:07 am

robbyyoung wrote:Of course, (excluding any evolution theories) which OEC belief system are you associated with, and what online resource best describes your personal position, if any?
Sorry for the very slow reply. That would be Hugh Ross and Reasons To Believe: http://reasons.org/

I trust them on these matters because, after using them as a resource for many years, I have yet to find a point on which they compromise either Scripture or science, or any data they simply ignore because it's inconvenient for their position, as both YEC and evolutionism do so often (the Mt. St. Helens rock sample being a prime example from the YEC side).

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:10 am

Backwoodsman,

If you will look at the letter from Answers in Genesis (previous post), you will see there that they claim that the method that Dr. Austin used to date the Mt. St. Helen's rock was the PROPER method. So it's your word against theirs. I am not a scientist, so whose word should I believe?

Dwight

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”