[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Attack on the USS Liberty (June 8, 1967) - Speech by Survivor Phillip Tourney At the Revisionist History of War Conference (Video) ‘I Smell CIA/Deep State All Over ThisÂ’ — RFK Jr. VP Nicole Shanahan Blasts Sanctuary Cities, we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles” - Democrat Senator Cory Booke We have no legal framework for designating domestic terror organizations Los Angeles Braces For Another Day Of Chaos As Newsom Pits Marxist Color Revolution Against Trump Admin Methylene Blue Benefits Another Mossad War Crime 80 served arrest warrants at 'cartel afterparty' in South Carolina When Ideas Become Too Dangerous To Platform The silent bloodbath that's tearing through the middle-class Kiev Postponed Exchange With Russia, Leaves Bodies Of 6,000 Slain Ukrainian Troops In Trucks Iranian Intelligence Stole Trove Of Sensitive Israeli Nuclear Files In the USA, the identity of Musk's abuser, who gave him a black eye, was revealed Return of 6,000 Soldiers' Bodies Will Cost Ukraine Extra $2.1Bln Palantir's Secret War: Inside the Plot to Cripple WikiLeaks Digital Prison in the Making? In France we're horrified by spending money on Ukraine Russia has patented technology for launching drones from the space station Kill ICE: Foreign Flags And Fires Sweep LA 6,000-year-old skeletons with never-before-seen DNA rewrites human history First Close Look at China’s Ultra-Long Range Sixth Generation J-36Jet I'm Caitlin Clark, and I refuse to return to the WNBA Border Czar Tom Homan: “We Are Going to Bring National Guard in Tonight” to Los Angeles These Are The U.S. States With The Most Drug Use Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: No Room for Compromise 14 Scholars Speak Out on the Book of Genesis
Source: Answers In Genesis
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/art ... 9/02/04/no-room-for-compromise
Published: Feb 5, 2009
Author: AIG
Post Date: 2009-02-05 12:07:38 by Old Friend
Keywords: None
Views: 883
Comments: 36

In the just-published scholarly book, Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, fourteen evangelical theologians bring together the most rigorous, up-to-date biblical and historical arguments in favor of reading Genesis chapters 1–11 as factual history.

No one who accepts the idea of millions of years or says that the age of the earth doesn’t matter can ignore the careful arguments that Coming to Grips with Genesis presents in favor of a six-day creation, the global Flood, and a young earth. It will also strengthen the convictions of those who do believe Genesis.

The question of the age of the creation is not just a debate about science, but more importantly about Scripture. Are God’s words our final authority? Can they really be interpreted in a way that accommodates millions of years?

Book chapters include:

* Analysis of the Hebrew verbs in Genesis 1 to assess the historicity of the chapter * Arguments for taking the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 as complete chronologies * Theological implications of accepting natural evil and death before Adam’s sin * Discussion of Jesus’ and the apostles’ teachings regarding a young earth * The Flood account in Genesis 6–8 and its geological implications * . . . and much more

No serious article on the subject of evolution and the age of the earth will be complete without consideration of this landmark reference work. And while it is a scholarly book for use in seminary and Bible college courses, the editors and authors worked hard to make it accessible to serious-minded lay readers. Early feedback has confirmed that it is.

The editors, Drs.Terry Mortenson and Thane Hutcherson Ury, have lectured in many countries on this subject and are members of the Evangelical Theological Society. The forewords are by renowned Bible teacher Dr. John MacArthur (pastor and president of The Master’s Seminary), and the late Dr. Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

The debate about Genesis and the age of the earth will not go away, as long as the integrity of God's Word is at stake.

Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, November 2008), 460 pages.

Editors:

Terry Mortenson (M.Div., Ph.D. in history of geology, Coventry University, England) was a missionary with Campus Crusade for Christ for 26 years before joining Answers in Genesis in 2001 as a speaker, writer, and researcher. Answers in Genesis, founded and led by Ken Ham, is well known for its new high-tech Creation Museum and its stand on “upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse.”

Thane Hutcherson Ury (Ph.D., Systematic Theology, Andrews University) was a professor of theology and philosophy for fifteen years at Bethel College, Indiana, before joining the faculty at the United Wesleyan Graduate Institute, Hong Kong, in 2006.

For review copies or for interviews with the editors (above), contact:

Stacey Drake, Publicity Dept. New Leaf Publishing/Master Books Stacey[at]newleafpress.net 1-800-999-3777

Editor’s note: One of the appendices of Coming to Grips with Genesis is the document “Affirmations and Denials Essential to a Consistent Christian (Biblical) Worldview,” which is meant to be a supplement to the affirmations and denials in the statements on biblical inerrancy and biblical hermeneutics by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy published in the early 1980s. As helpful as those documents were for the church’s understanding of Scripture, the authors of Coming to Grips with Genesis believe that the statements related to creation, evolution, and the age of the earth were inadequate and opened the door to false ideas in the church. We invite others who are theologically trained and agree with us to add their names to the list of signatories and to do all they can to encourage Christians in their sphere of influence to embrace, teach, and defend these additional affirmations and denials. To add your name to this list of signatories, please follow the instructions on this form. Please be sure to make other potentially interested candidates that you know aware of this document by giving them the web address AnswersInGenesis.org/go/affirmations.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.

#2. To: Old Friend (#0)

A book, written by theologians. Wonderful. I wonder how they pulled that off without strangling each other.

I dont understand how anyone can believe the "young earth" nonsense.

PSUSA  posted on  2009-02-05   12:17:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

A book, written by theologians. Wonderful. I wonder how they pulled that off without strangling each other.

I dont understand how anyone can believe the "young earth" nonsense.

While by no legitimate use of the word am I an atheist nevertheless the "Young Earth" is hooey.

One goes where the evidence leads and the evidence suggests that the earth is billions of years old and is a relatively young planet. This does not disprove the existence of a Universal "Creator". It is however theologically inconvenient for some of the "High Priests".

Neither can there be support for "unique creation" as given the apparent age of the Universe, which gets older each year, their is abundant suggestion that not only is life on earth not unique, beyond the reality that we are each distinct individual unique from each other, but the rule rather than the exception throughout the known cosmos.

However, for those with a control agenda the "young earth" along with "Darwin's THEORY", are useful tools for befuddling, confusing, and controlling.

The major Fundamentalists/Televangelists all appear to be under the firm control of Intelligence Agencies and thus their function is not to preach the gospel but to preach the PsyOps.

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-05   13:48:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

If the earth is so old. Why aren't we all talking like we just breathed in a helium baloon? http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp The Evidence Henke Wants to Hide

Figure 1. Microscopic zircons. Photo by R. V. Gentry.

I’ll try to keep this simple, so for the scientific details, please consult the two most relevant publications, which are also archived on the Internet. I’ll call them ICC 2003[6] and CRSQ 2004.[7] Decades ago, Robert Gentry analyzed tiny zircon (zirconium silicate) crystals recovered from hot Precambrian (over 545 million years old according to the geologic timescale) “basement” rock in New Mexico.[8] Figure 1 shows some of the zircons he analyzed, between 50 and 75 microns (millionths of a meter) long.

Enough of the uranium in the zircons had decayed to lead to give them a radioisotope (radioactive element) age of “1.5 billion” years. But Gentry found that up to 58% of the helium that the nuclear decay would deposit in the zircons was still in them. This was surprising, because helium diffuses (leaks) rapidly out of most minerals.

Not knowing how fast helium leaks from zircon, I estimated what the leak rates would be when we measured them. In essence (of course the math is more complicated), all I did to get the estimates was to divide the amount of helium lost from the crystal by the time (assumed by each model) during which it had been lost. That gives us the leak rates for each of the two models. The “1.5 billion year” model has rates over 100,000 times slower than the “6,000 year” model, because the former has to retain the helium for a much longer time. Then in the year 2000, the RATE group published the estimates as numerical predictions for those two models.[9]

Figure 2. Model-predicted (red and magenta diamonds) and measured (blue dots) helium leak rates of zircons. The data fit the 6,000-year prediction very well.

Figure 2 shows the predictions as red and magenta diamond symbols. The bottom axis shows the temperature (in °C) of each sample in situ, that is, while it was in the granitic rock unit. (I have reversed the direction of temperature from what is traditional in such “Arrhenius” plots.) The vertical axis shows “diffusivity”, which is a measure of how fast helium leaks from a material. The vertical axis is tremendously compressed, representing a factor of one trillion increase in leakage rates from bottom to top. The black numbers under the diamonds are the percentages of helium retained in each sample.

The red and magenta vertical lines through the diamonds are the “two-sigma error bars”. These statistical error bounds were implicit in our reports, but we had not shown them explicitly in our graphs before now. The bars essentially show the 95% confidence limits I estimate for the accuracy of the predictions. The forthcoming RATE “results” book gives details on how I estimated the error bounds.

In 2001 we commissioned one of the world’s most respected experimenters in this field to measure the diffusivity of helium in the same-size zircons from the same borehole in the same rock formation. We used an existing mining company as an intermediary, and we asked it to not tell the experimenter about us or our goals. The experimenter, being a uniformitarian (believer in long ages) and not having read our prediction, had no idea what results we were hoping for. It was a truly “blind” experiment, and we (the RATE team) were eagerly awaiting the data.

Figure 2 shows the experimental results as blue dots with blue “2-sigma error bars” going vertically through them. If we repeated the experiments hundreds of times, we estimate the data points would remain within the caps on the error bars over 95% of the time. Again, the RATE “results” book (which has now passed through extensive peer review and is being proofread) will have the details on the error estimates.

To our great delight, the data fell right on the “6,000 year” prediction! This alignment validates the young-age model even for readers who are not experts in this field, because the probability of such a lineup by accident is small. The data resoundingly reject the “1.5 billion year” model. The experimenter, whose name is in one of our articles, stands by his data, even though as a uniformitarian he does not like our interpretation of them. (Even after several years, he has not offered an alternative interpretation.)

This sequence of events places the burden of disproof on the critics, because they must explain how, if there is no truth to our model, the data “accidentally by sheer coincidence just happened by blind chance” to fall right on the predictions of our model.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   13:51:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

One can take "1" anomalous datum, fit it to ones preconcetions, and then gleefully shout "seeeeeeeeeeeeee" without anything haven been proved.

Anomalous data pops up all the time in honest science. What is done with the data is then an indicator as to the intellectual integrity of the researcher.

When the researcher has no good explanation for the data the honest conclusion is that the data is "unexplained" by the current level of knowledge. It is like Archaeologists looking at artifacts of advanced technology being unable to comprehend what they were looking at because the KNOWN level of current technology, at their time, was well below the evidenced level of technology. Nineteenth century Archaeologists had no knowledge of aircraft, earth moving equipment, compound radial saws for stone, etc, ....

If fell into the category of one of the late Arthur C. Clarke's comments:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is equivalent to magic."

Because something is unexplained proves nothing more than it is unexplained. To attempt to fit a datum, out of context, to a preconception is intellectually dishonest.

There is abundant geological evidence giving approximate ages to different strata which have been arrived at through verifiable science. As a Catastrophist I do not always agree with the Uniformitarians, but in the broad the mechanisims of geological formation, erosion, and weathering are known and provable mechanisms.

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-05   14:03:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

through verifiable science.

That is the point. The age of the earth cannot be scientifically proven. They weren't there. It is not verifiable.

No way to check their answer. Not science.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-05   14:06:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The age of the earth cannot be scientifically proven. They weren't there.

"There's no way to prove that a murder took place, your honor, because the prosecutor wasn't there. I demand that you throw out the fingerprint and DNA evidence and remove all charges against my client!"

According to the "reasoning" of Bible Thumpers, we should then free all criminals who were convicted based on anything other than eye witness accounts. Physical evidence doesn't count because "you weren't there."

Religious nuts should stay away from science, it's embarassing to read some of the nonsense they come up with. The concept of inferring past events from current evidence is foreign to a mind that says "All I need to know is in the Good Book!"

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2009-02-05   14:12:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Even more interesting is that the Egyptian Scribes, in the time of Solon as reported by Plato in his Dialogues (Tinnaeus and Critias), had documentary records going back 100,000 years.

The reality is that, however poetic, we do not know the true age of the original texts of the Bible. That is an item glossed over, and frequently unknown or ignored, by the "Young Earth" crowd.

I am not a scholar in the area, and make no pretense of it, but have heard at least one scholar postulate that the first texts of the Old Testament are truly verrrrry old - dating back into those same Egyptian Archives mentioned by Solon and reported by Plato, destroyed by ignorant Barbarians - both Christian and Muslim, the origins of which are lost in the sands of time.

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-02-05   14:43:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#26. To: Original_Intent, Rupert_Pupkin, Old Friend (#25)

I am not a scholar in the area, and make no pretense of it, but have heard at least one scholar postulate that the first texts of the Old Testament are truly verrrrry old - dating back into those same Egyptian Archives mentioned by Solon and reported by Plato, destroyed by ignorant Barbarians - both Christian and Muslim, the origins of which are lost in the sands of time.

You can always tell if a particular religion is earnestly speaking truth or not by their need to destroy ancient manuscripts and artifacts.

If they burn down libraries and archives, then there must have been something there that seriously undermined their dogma.

The Roman Catholic Church was infamous for it's persecution of those who disagreed with them, and Rome was quite happy to burn down any historical evidence of anything that contradicted their new found religion.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-05 14:58:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]