Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Si » Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:05 pm

robbyyoung wrote:Hi Si,

If God implies that the causation of creation is via miracles, not natural processes, why is it so difficult to accept this fundamental attribute of God’s work? In other words, if God said He spoke all these things into immediate existence, science’s starting point begins with the natural processes already in place—complete with time, purpose, and matter. So where is the disconnect or controversy if miracles are the causation of creation? Why should God’s miraculous testimony of creation be dismissed and subservient to the very laws/knowledge that were created by him? The laws that govern the universe didn’t create themselves, they were spoken into existence like everything else. What are your pithy thoughts?

Blessings.
In addition to miracles which supersede natural processes, the providential guidance of natural processes also seems miraculous to me. Whether guiding primordial life forms to a desired outcome including the evolution of man, or guiding the east wind which divided the red sea, both are miraculous. Every subatomic particle and every galaxy cluster is sustained by God, he is not subservient to natural laws in any old earth or theistic evolution viewpoint that I am aware of. I'm not dismissing anything about the creation account, but putting it in what seems to me to be the proper ancient context. Whether formed as is, or formed as a primordial singularity that was providentially guided into its present form, the creative decree of God by necessity preceded the creation itself, and that act of creation is miraculous.

Some creationists suggest that everything was created with the appearance of age, so in a sense scientists are not wrong to extrapolate great age due to observation. Where the scientists err is not acknowledging the miraculous beginning where these things came into being fully formed, with the appearance of age intrinsic to them. It just seems odd that God at the moment of creation, would create tens of thousands of spurious ice core layers, normally deposited by the passing of seasonal cycles, or would have strategically positioned light particles from galaxies 10 billion light years away on earth's doorstep so that simple observation by humans would give them a false impression of age.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Singalphile » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:37 pm

Hello, all.

To jonperry: I don't know anything about Ken Ham, but I think it's unlikely that his opinions about evolution (to whatever degree) constitute "non-biblical doctrines", as you put it, simply because the Bible has so little, if anything, to say about such things.

To everyone else:

I know we've gone over all this, but I'll just state my thoughts again, though they are similar to Si's (and others), I think:

1. The creation and "fall" accounts strike me as a different genre than anything else in Genesis or any other OT or NT writing. I think the elements that make them unique are obvious, so I won't state them.

2. If I knew nothing about geology, biology, etc., those Genesis accounts would still strike me as non-literal in a way that is different than any other OT or NT writing. They might be literal, but I don't know of any reason why they really should be taken literally. (Non-literal is not the same thing as untrue, obviously.)

3. The theological lessons in those accounts are important (that God created all things, that man is His greatest creation, the mankind was tempted by the deceiver/adversary and disobeyed God and is therefore subject to hardships and death, etc.). Any literal facts (that God created everything within six 24 hour periods, that He created birds and fish before he created land animals, that the first woman was made from a man's rib, etc.), if any, are not at all important to us, imo, except for, arguably, the existence of a first "made in God's image" man and woman. (I think there probably was such a first pair.)

4. The theological lessons are applicable (to the original audience and us) and true regardless of whether or not anything in those accounts is interpreted literally. Even the existence of a first man and woman could be taken as symbolic or typological, imo. We often refer to a theologically true but non-literal story simply to affirm the teachings of the story, not the literalness of the story.

5. I do not know if the NT people assumed or knew those accounts to be literal. I don't see how it would matter to me. It is not a sin to have a wrong opinion, is it? It's not even a shortcoming, necessarily. It's normal. (I'm not saying they were wrong. Only that they might have been.)

So what's my point? It is this: Let the biologists, geologists, and anthropologists (etc.) among us look and see what the history of such things looks like. If Earth seems very old, then fine. If it appears that some animals (or humans) evolved from other animals, then fine. Appearances can be inconclusive, of course, but it's not necessarily contrary to the teaching in the Bible. If the Bible is a biology textbook, then it's the worst one ever! As I understand it, nobody has any sensible explanation of life, the universe, humans, morality, the mind, etc. that excludes God. I think we can focus on that, without treating other details as crucial.
Si wrote:It just seems odd that God at the moment of creation, would create tens of thousands of spurious ice core layers, normally deposited by the passing of seasonal cycles, or would have strategically positioned light particles from galaxies 10 billion light years away on earth's doorstep so that simple observation by humans would give them a false impression of age.
It doesn't necessarily seem very odd to me. Do you think those things might serve some purpose?

Thank you!
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by robbyyoung » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:02 pm

Si wrote:It just seems odd that God at the moment of creation, would create tens of thousands of spurious ice core layers, normally deposited by the passing of seasonal cycles, or would have strategically positioned light particles from galaxies 10 billion light years away on earth's doorstep so that simple observation by humans would give them a false impression of age.
Hi Si,

Odd indeed. I’ll go farther than that, how about absurd, unbelievable, and ludicrous. Imagine, turning water into wine, creating fresh baked bread and matured fish instantly. Yes, God is apparently fond of giving people “false impressions of age/time” on account of His own glory and purposes. In the end, are we to believe the creation or the Creator. After all, creation can deceive us if we don't first trust God's testimony. I’m not making a charge against you, but I heard this “false impression of age” argument before. Any “so-called” evidence must first pass through the filter of the miraculous causation by the Creator. IMHO, God given false impressions of age is by no means a reason to ditch the YEC testimony, especially when God displayed, yet again, this characteristic in several NT accounts.

When it comes to miracles, there is no amount of education or higher learning available to reconcile the action with time, space, matter. So what are we left with? We are left with having faith in the same Word that started and sustains everything. Although creation is complicated, the miracle of its origins is not. IMO, conflating these two thoughts would be an error, leading to wild speculations. But like you said, our opposing views shouldn't cause division in the body of Christ. For now, I am not persuaded to be removed from the YEC understanding, and I wish you fulfillment in your pursuit of truth.

Blessings.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Si » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:41 pm

Thanks Singalphile for your post, you made a lot of good points.
Singalphile wrote:It doesn't necessarily seem very odd to me. Do you think those things might serve some purpose?
My point was, it seems most appropriate to consider ice core samples and light-year distance to be actual measurements of time. Thus, 80 thousand seasonal ice layers would represent 80 thousand years, and seeing light from 10 billion light years away means that light is 10 billion years old. What would seem odd to me would be if God expected us to think the earth was 6 thousand years old in spite of there being pretty clear ways to measure the age of the earth, or universe. It was an objection that I raised to the "created with the appearance of age" argument.
robbyyoung wrote:Hi Si,

Odd indeed. I’ll go farther than that, how about absurd, unbelievable, and ludicrous. Imagine, turning water into wine, creating fresh baked bread and matured fish instantly. Yes, God is apparently fond of giving people “false impressions of age/time” on account of His own glory and purposes. In the end, are we to believe the creation or the Creator. After all, creation can deceive us if we don't first trust God's testimony. I’m not making a charge against you, but I heard this “false impression of age” argument before. Any “so-called” evidence must first pass through the filter of the miraculous causation by the Creator. IMHO, God given false impressions of age is by no means a reason to ditch the YEC testimony, especially when God displayed, yet again, this characteristic in several NT accounts.

When it comes to miracles, there is no amount of education or higher learning available to reconcile the action with time, space, matter. So what are we left with? We are left with having faith in the same Word that started and sustains everything. Although creation is complicated, the miracle of its origins is not. IMO, conflating these two thoughts would be an error, leading to wild speculations. But like you said, our opposing views shouldn't cause division in the body of Christ. For now, I am not persuaded to be removed from the YEC understanding, and I wish you fulfillment in your pursuit of truth.

Blessings.
Hello robbyyoung,

From my perspective, at the moment of the big bang, God created every molecule that is in the universe and in every living cell of every organism. As he knows the hairs on our heads he surely knew every molecule that would make up the body of Christ at the incarnation. That we are even here at all is pure nonsense without giving due to our creator, For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen.

My understanding of the feeding of the multitude was not that Jesus made new loaves and fishes, but the miracle was in that so much excess was created in dividing what little was there to begin with. I suppose that is beside the point you are making. I appreciate your point, and it is a good one. As I have explained in earlier posts, I just don't see it as a point that Genesis is making, and I also see room for the notion of creation and development. Genesis describes God forming Adam from the dust of the ground, and Eve from his rib. Cannot God as potter fashion what he chooses to fashion from earlier forms?

As for the miracle of the origins of creation not being complicated, could you explain? I take water into wine literally, and the origin or how of that, I can't grasp. From my point of view anything in the domain of God is infinitely beyond my ability to comprehend, but I may be misunderstanding you. Scientists really just take measurements of what observable creation can tell them. There is a lot of evil in the world, but science has made our ability to evangelize so much easier. A message that once would take months to deliver can be delivered in a second. Computers hasten our ability to translate and disperse Scripture to every corner of the world. Geologists make sure a building has sound footing. Genetic branches of medicine, which have their roots in evolutionary biology, can help us heal the sick. I think science has contributed a lot of great things that are not wild or speculative, but demonstrably beneficial.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Paidion » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:47 pm

Scientists really just take measurements of what observable creation can tell them.
Actually, some of them do much more than that. They interpret "observable creation" by constructing models that cannot be empirically verified.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by TK » Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:57 am

Comparing ice core samples that seemingly show layers indicative of far more than 6000 years to the miracles of wine and bread making is a total case of apples and oranges.

What PURPOSE would God have in fooling us into believing that ice core samples actually mean something? Just for a good laugh? He didn’t create dummies after all.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by Homer » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:45 am

Si (and everyone in this discussion),

Regarding John Lennox we watched this last night:

https://www.socratesinthecity.com/watch ... od-part-1/

Lennox, of Oxford, who has three doctorates, points out there is no conflict between science and God, and how the atheist system tries to maintain that materialism is all there is but it can not account for information and the mind.

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

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:00 pm

Speaking of ice core layers, I am reminded of the layers of sedimentary rock that the eruption of Mt.St. Helen caused in just a matter of hours. The layers are very similar to the layers seen in the Grand Canyon, which geologists tell us represents millions of years. I'm convinced if they looked at the layers of Mt. St. Helen without knowing it was caused by a recent volcano, they would also assign millions of years to those as well.

So, in this case, it is not a matter of God deceiving man, but man deceiving himself or fooling himself by his interpretation of what he observes. Is it possible that man is deceived in his interpretation of the ice core samples as well? In fact, in the ark at the Ark Encounter, Ken Ham gives an example of just that, i.e. how an ice core sample was determined by scientists to be millions of years old, when in fact it was less than 100 years old. (I may have the details wrong, but it was very close to that) How about fossils? Is it possible that man is fooling himself by how he interprets the age of fossils?

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by robbyyoung » Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:48 pm

Si wrote: Hello robbyyoung,

From my perspective, at the moment of the big bang, God created every molecule that is in the universe and in every living cell of every organism. As he knows the hairs on our heads he surely knew every molecule that would make up the body of Christ at the incarnation. That we are even here at all is pure nonsense without giving due to our creator, For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen.

My understanding of the feeding of the multitude was not that Jesus made new loaves and fishes, but the miracle was in that so much excess was created in dividing what little was there to begin with. I suppose that is beside the point you are making. I appreciate your point, and it is a good one. As I have explained in earlier posts, I just don't see it as a point that Genesis is making, and I also see room for the notion of creation and development. Genesis describes God forming Adam from the dust of the ground, and Eve from his rib. Cannot God as potter fashion what he chooses to fashion from earlier forms?

As for the miracle of the origins of creation not being complicated, could you explain? I take water into wine literally, and the origin or how of that, I can't grasp. From my point of view anything in the domain of God is infinitely beyond my ability to comprehend, but I may be misunderstanding you. Scientists really just take measurements of what observable creation can tell them. There is a lot of evil in the world, but science has made our ability to evangelize so much easier. A message that once would take months to deliver can be delivered in a second. Computers hasten our ability to translate and disperse Scripture to every corner of the world. Geologists make sure a building has sound footing. Genetic branches of medicine, which have their roots in evolutionary biology, can help us heal the sick. I think science has contributed a lot of great things that are not wild or speculative, but demonstrably beneficial.
Hi Si,

I am no scientist, however, I do enjoy reading the assumptions they bring to the table in order to explain what they find in and on the ground. Assumptions can be proven wrong by asking one simple question: Were you there? Without accurately knowing the conditions, dating methods can be ridiculously in error. For example, here’s some science banter concerning Mt. St. Helen’s radioisotope recklessness due to human assumptions! https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ra ... in-rubble/

As for Ice-Cores, the assumption is deep time, studying purposed equilibrium or 110,000 annual layers. This does not account for the biblical worldwide flood. “However, when one steps back and questions the unspoken starting assumptions and allows the parameters to vary by the full range available, completely different consistent results can be obtained. This shows the importance of where we start” (Oard, 2004). Here’s the entire article:

https://answersingenesis.org/environmen ... the-flood/

Nevertheless, I choose the biblical young earth account. Like I said before, reading the creation can and will deceive us if we choose to discount God’s testimony of the universe’s true starting point. I for one cannot trust man’s assumptions over what God declares, 7 days with evenings and mornings, all miraculously coming to fruition.

Blessings.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Do you agree with the Ark Encounter?

Post by robbyyoung » Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:52 pm

TK wrote:What PURPOSE would God have in fooling us into believing that ice core samples actually mean something? Just for a good laugh? He didn’t create dummies after all.
Hi TK,

I believe man could be fooling himself by not trusting in God's testimony of a literal 7 day creation. As for not creating dummies, well that's arguable. :D

Blessings.

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”