Ken Ham, Young Earth Creation

Young Earth Creationism, Ken Ham, The Creation Museum . . . and Dragons?

*     *     *

There are some topics that can really get Christians all worked up and young earth creationism (YEC) is one of them.  At a church we attended years ago (not the church that sued me), it was discovered that an elder who had been voted in by church members did not believe in a literal 6-day creation. This created quite an uproar among folks who believed in YEC and he was asked to step down.  In that same church, I heard of a father who was searching for colleges for his high school students.  In his research, he could only find a handful of Christian colleges across the nation that accepted the 6-day creation theory and actually taught it.  This was extremely important to him and his kids only attended colleges that taught young earth creationism (YEC).

I had a clue that this was a hot topic when we were at homeschool conventions and Ken Ham was frequently at our state-run Christian convention.  Whenever he spoke, there was a crowd. He sold lots and lots of creationist and dinosaur books and our family still has these books. My husband loved attending the workshops and bought quite a few of the books over the years.

A message from the founder
(Photo credit: ellenm1)

Do you know about Ken Ham?  He moved to the US from Australia in 1987 and is the president and founder of Answers in Genesis (brief introduction follows).   Ham is a biblical apologist, popular speaker, author, radio host on his own show Answers … with Ken Ham, founder of Answers magazine.  He is the brainchild of the Creation Museum and also the full-size Noah’s ark (still under construction).  He has a bachelor’s degree in applied science and several honorary doctorates.

In case Answers in Genesis is new to you, here’s an excerpt from the site:

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe). (Source)

Ken Ham, President of Answers in Genesis discusses the importance he sees of the literal Genesis account of creation:

The majority of Christians in churches probably aren’t sure whether God really created everything in six literal days. Many believe it doesn’t matter whether it took six days or six million years. However, it is vital to believe in six literal days for many reasons. Foremost is that allowing these days to be long periods of time undermines the foundations of the message of the Cross.

Do you believe people can be a Christian if they don’t put as much credence into the literal 6-day creation as Ken Ham?    I am not convinced that if you don’t believe in YEC that you are undermining the message of the Cross as he states.  When I read about being a Christian, the Bible says to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved (Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9-11).  It doesn’t say to believe in the literal 6-day account of creation to be saved.  The important part of Genesis to me is that God created the world and everything in it.  He’s the Master designer/creator.  But hey, that’s just me.  Of course your opinion my differ from mine.

Let me give you more of Mr. Ham’s explanation of why he thinks the literal days is important:

If we allow our children to accept the possibility that we can doubt the days of creation when the language speaks so plainly, then we are teaching them a particular approach to all of Scripture. Why shouldn’t they then start to doubt that Christ’s Virgin Birth really means a virgin birth? Why shouldn’t they start to doubt that the Resurrection really means resurrection?  (Source)

Whoa!  This guy does not mess around.  He’s serious as a heart attack about the literal six days.  He’s so serious that he founded the Creation Museum.  Here’s the Wiki summary which is notably slanted against creationism:

This is a photo I took on 2 June, 2007 at the ...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Creation Museum is a museum near Petersburg, Kentucky that presents a biblical account of the origins of the universe, life, and humankind, portraying a creationist narrative based upon a literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis, rather than scientific knowledge. It opened its doors to the public on May 28, 2007.

The Creation Museum has been criticized as promoting fallacy over fact and attempting to advance the tenets of a particular religious view while rejecting, overlooking and misconstruing authentic science. The museum has received criticism from the scientific community, educators, Christian groups acquainted with the scientific method, and in the press.

Its exhibits reject universal common descent and biological evolution, and assert that the Earth and all of its life forms were created 6,000 years ago over a six-day period. In contrast to the scientific consensus, exhibits promote creationist claims including the proposition that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted, and that dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark.   Scientific evidence supports the conclusions that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and that the dinosaurs became extinct 65.5 million years before human beings arose.  

Take a look at the admission prices charged at the museum:

Screen shot 2013-07-05 at 8.33.10 AM

I just did the math and guess how much it would cost the Smith family?   $211.60.  Whoa, Nellie!

Ham is definitely a literal 6-day creationist purist and he very much defends the accounts in Genesis and gives a warning to those who do not view it with equal importance:

Ken’s emphasis is on the relevance and authority of the book of Genesis to the life of the average Christian, and how compromise on Genesis has opened a dangerous door regarding how the culture and church view biblical authority.  (Source)

Ok, that quote comes from Ham’s site.  But check out this new exhibit (I bolded the key text):

Screen shot 2013-07-05 at 8.27.54 AM

Dragon Invasion

A dazzling new exhibit will soon descend upon the Creation Museum. Dragon Legends will bring visitors face to face with fantastic tales of dragons from all over the world.

Regale yourself with delightful artwork and other beautiful adornments as you stroll beneath extraordinary Chinese dragons in the museum’s portico. Learn about fabulous encounters with these incredible beasts from China to Africa, Europe to the Americas, and Australia to the Middle East. Discover what ancient historians have written about these creatures, and examine armaments that may have been used by valiant dragon slayers.

Why are there so many dragon legends from cultures around the globe? Why do descriptions of these magnificent animals often sound similar to what we call dinosaurs? How could our ancestors carve, paint, or write about these creatures if they have truly been extinct for millions of years?

Evolutionists struggle to explain the intriguing evidence that people lived at the same time as dinosaurs. God’s Word indicates that dinosaurs and man were created on the same day, so biblical creationists are not surprised to uncover clues that ancient man had indeed seen these beasts.

Were dinosaurs dragons? Find out at the Creation Museum’s new Dragon Legends exhibit, and prepare to believe.

What do you think?  The word “dragon” is mentioned in the bible.  At this site, if you do a search for dinosaurs, you will not see the word “dinosaur,” but they search engines pull up verses that someone believes refers to dinosaurs.   But even secular media is noticing the conflict in this short news clip:

*     *     *

For your enjoyment, I want to leave you with a video of a real dragon – – one of  God’s creations, a real bearded dragon.  This is no imaginary creature.   PS – if you have kids, they may appreciate this.   Mine did – – – oh, and don’t miss the last couple of seconds.   🙂

*     *     *

*     *     *

110 thoughts on “Young Earth Creationism, Ken Ham, The Creation Museum . . . and Dragons?”

  1. JA – where is the comment that, “no dragons were injured during the making of this video?” 🙂 he he… btw: though very expensive, the cost of this private museum didn’t seem out of sync with private museums we’ve been to in the past; unless the place is very tiny.


  2. Ric – I have no idea if that dragon was injured or not – haha.

    The museum is a 70,000 SF facility on 49 acres. They now have an extensive zipline which they hope will bring in extra visitors, so it doesn’t seem tiny.


  3. This subject has been very important to me and my Christian growth. Back in the 1960s, while attending community college, I was being taught science entirely contrary to the first chapter of Genius and being told that no one with an ounce of brains could possibly believe in the 6 day creation. I had a friend introduce me to a man that proved to make that belief false. Dr. Henry Morris was as educated and smart as any man that I ever came in contact with and he believed in a young earth and totally believed in the creation account of Genius. My first time through the book, The Genius Flood, first of all showed me that an intelligent person could believe in the account that Genius gave.
    I reviewed what he said and though I still has some reservations at that time, it made me continue to study with an open mind the probability that that portion of the Bible was true. This was important to me because I figured if the first chapter of the Bible was not true then I could throw the rest of it away as well. Since that time and a lot of study later, I have taught this subject in two churches using a lot of Ken Ham;s material along with many other sources. One thing I found interesting was, I was a teacher at my church with 26 kids that were post high school up to about 30 year old and in the 15 or so years since then, not one of these kids walked away from their faith. Many finished with degrees from secular colleges. It seems like they had the tools to ward off Darwinism and its negative effects on one’s faith.
    I have made the statement many times, one does not have to check in their brains at the church door to be a Bible believing Christian.


  4. Dragons, they still exist on the island of Komoto. (sp?) Interesting enough they are called Komoto Dragons. They have deer for lunch and other large animals.


  5. Jimmdee: I’ve asked my daughter, Hannah, to write up something on her experience with Young Earth Creationism. I hope she will because her answer might surprise you. It did me. I’ll make a separate post out of it if she does.


  6. One of the most compelling arguments for creation instead of Darwinism is mathematical. The probability of one eye to communicate with a brain and to be able to actually see is 1 to 10 to the 254 power. When one looks at this figure one may not be to impressed with as to how large of a number it is. 10 to the 80 power is a conservative number of the number of electrons in the entire universe. If that is not large enough for you to agree with, bump it up to 81, that is 10 time larger. Oh and with my example for this process to happen by a complete happenstance of chance, the 6 billion years that Darwinism gives as the age of the universe is no where near enough time for that processes to happen.


  7. Christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

    I don’t remember off hand where in the Bible it says this, but somewhere it says that a day for God is like 1,000 years for us. I think the only point the Genesis writer was trying to make was that God made the universe and everything in it, not that it necessarily happened in six 24-hour periods in Earth time or that believing the universe was created in six 24-hour periods is essential to believing in Jesus’ resurrection.


  8. I don’t believe in young earth. I do, however believe that the bible supports Adam and Eve as far back as about 6 thousand years, but the earth and universe I believe is as old as the scientists wish to tell us it is. There are hints in the Bible in regards to that one within just the 2nd verse of Genesis 1 when investigating the Hebrew words, dissecting it.

    Jeremiah 4:23
    I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

    Genesis 1:2
    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

    The study of Genesis 1:2 is the Gap Theory, and there is a lot of evidence for it.

    Another hint:
    The 7th Day of creation isn’t over with yet. That is the “rest” of God, and he is still resting from creation (Hebrews chapter 4). We, as Christians are in God’s 7th Day. Another way to say that is that we are in the Sabbath of God…we are RESTING from our works, just as God is resting from his works. Each and everyday is a Christian Sabbath, or a Christian 7th Day. We are “in” God’s Rest (7th Day Sabbath). Saturday is not the Sabbath. Neither is Sunday. Every carnal day is the spiritual 7th day Sabbath.

    Since the 7th day isn’t over, then we cannot presume that there were “literal” 24 hour days in the previous 6 days. Spiritual days are different than carnal days.

    There will be an 8th day. That day is eternity. There is a hint of that in the last yearly feast of God from Leviticus 23.

    There is evidence of this in the first few verses in Genesis in the Hebrew. The earth was “flooded”. There was a reason that it was flooded. In the days of Noah, that was the second time that the earth was flooded.

    Now, I am NOT hinting that there was a first creation before Adam and Eve. Not at all. I have no idea as to why the earth was flooded in Genesis 1:2. In no case in the creation days does it discuss that God created angels.

    Angels are from eternity (NO TIME). The phrase, “In the beginning” indicates “time”. Our universe is based on “time”. In heaven there is no beginning, so there is no concept if “time”. God didn’t create the angels in the beginning. He created the Angels before the beginning [of “time”]. There is enough biblical evidence to support that there was a significant amount of time lapse between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

    When “time” began is where “young earth” creationists miss a lot of information, and they disregard some scripture that points that the universe is in a continuous expansion, and even the scientists agree with that. That info is in the book of Job, I think, the same book that states that the world is hung on nothing. When our Hubbell Telescope looks at things, it is seeing it from the past already. Many years in the past. We measure things based on the speed of light, hence light years. But, the young earth creationists disregard all that. There are many more hints in the bible about “old earth”, too.

    The Young Earth people will say, “Yep, I believe the Bible”, and yet, they don’t question what they read, or bother to do in depth study as to why some of us do not believe in a young earth. They have already assumed that there are literal 24 hour days in Genesis, so, to them, case closed.

    as far as dinosaurs/dragons, I believe that dinosaurs existed, as the paleontologists prove that. As to how they became instinct is beyond me. The word dragon is used 37 times in the KJV. I never really studied that one out. Regardless, animals were “formed” after Adam, so they do go back about 6 thousand years. But as far as the earth and universe, that’s a different story.

    Day 1 was when Adam took his first breath of life. That wasn’t the 8th day. God’s Seventh Day has yet to end. Hebrews Chapter 4 teaches us this. Spiritual Days vs. Carnal Days.



  9. Here is another topic to consider in regards to old earth:

    1. Genesis 1 discusses creation.
    2. Genesis 2 discusses formation.

    Compare the two chapters side by side.

    In chapter 1, the animals were “created” before man (male and female he created them).

    In chapter 2, the animals were “formed” AFTER Adam was formed. Then after Adam was formed, THEN Eve was formed.

    Remember the ole saying, Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, in this case, that which came first was the creation of the spirits of man (Chapter 1). Then after that came the formation of the body.

    SEED came first before the plants. Likewise, Spirit came first before the body. Notice the words “before it grew”.

    ALL seed (spirits of man) was created first, and creation was over and done with on the 6th day…no more creating. One by one, each seed (spirit of man) is planted in dirt (we are, after all, dirt bodies).

    Genesis 2:5-6
    5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
    6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.


  10. YEC has absolutely nothing to do with being a Christian or one’s salvation. I love how people like Ken Ham claim to be experts on the OT, yet display no understanding at all of Judaism. Learning about Judaism being a part of Eastern philosophy and religion sheds a lot of light on understanding it in a manner closer to that of its historical adherents.

    YEC also has to resort to one of two claims in order to “disprove” science. One is that the laws of physics have changed in very recent (cosmologically speaking) times. The second is that God created the things in the universe with an “apparent age” to them. Why would God do either of these things (and not mention them in Scripture)? The only logical answer is that He did it in order to deceive some people, i.e., those evil, god-hating scientists. If you want to worship a deceiver, that’s your business, but the God I worship doesn’t have to resort to such small-minded tricks to keep track of who truly believes. He gave us mystery, and inquiring minds capable of logic and reason to explore that mystery.


  11. Eric Fry, I am so glad that you said that. Christianity is an extension of Judaism, not a replacement of. Many Christians today dismiss the Jewish side of things. The Jews are a light to the Gentiles.



  12. I just don’t understand why some people make YEC a faith issue. It seems like this should be an issue we can agree to disagree on and still maintain our fellowship as Christians.

    I don’t have strong opinions either for or against YEC. I find it interesting. I was raised SBC with a father who spent his entire career as a geophysicist for an oil company. He used to talk about carbon dating and how many millions of years old different rock formations were. I never questioned it, and am still inclined to believe these things. It hasn’t affected my faith.


  13. By the way, Julie Anne, we all loved the video of the bearded dragon. Especially the end. 🙂


  14. I have been engaging the pastor of the church I have been attending lately about this issue.It didn’t surprise me or even really bother me that he is a literal six day creationist until he started using a non-literal (anything differing from his reading of Genesis 1 and 2) interpretation as an example of the things that our recent graduates will encounter from “dumb professors” even in Christian Universities. Much as Jimmydee encountered people who would label him as dumb for believing in a literal reading of the creation account in Genesis, this pastor was willing to label anyone with the opposite view as dumb.

    The reality of it is that there are very intelligent people on both sides of this issue, and I think that a compelling argument can be made either way. My personal belief is that it really doesn’t matter that much, and focusing as much as we do on the number of days is to miss the forest for the trees. I honestly think that engaging in this debate to the degree that we are is to the detriment of the church and the spread of the gospel itself. This is really an internal debate, and arguing in the public square like it is a test for orthodoxy isn’t really doing us any favors.


  15. Dallas,

    I don’t mind discussing the Bible in any circumstance, public or private. I think that putting topics like this in a box for internal debates strengthens the case for the evolutionists. They want to shut us up anyway. Christians should never shut up about topics in the Bible, whether there are disagreements or not. We all must hear all sides of the debate. I think that it does all of us favors.

    It’s all nice and well to tell people that we believe every word of the Bible, but when it comes to what’s in the Bible, we must shut up, and stop arguing, that really is not a good thing. I believe that God wants us to scrutinize every word. And when nonsense is being taught, we must bring it to light that it is ridiculous teaching, exposing the false teachers, so that potential new converts will not be swayed to believe a lie.

    Just my opinion.



  16. BTDT, I’m glad you liked the video. My kids enjoyed it, too 🙂

    I’m the same way with you. I can go either way – it’s just not paramount to my faith.


  17. Eric: I get really annoyed when someone says or acts like something is a gospel issue when in fact it is not – – – really annoyed. And I get even more annoyed when they behave like a bully. I have more on Ken Ham.


  18. I like how you presented this JA. I am with you in that I think if YEC belief was essential to creation, Jesus would have brought it up at least once.


  19. Ed, I think you may have missed my point a little bit. When I talk about engaging in the debate to the degree that we do, I am not talking about sitting down and having a talk about creation with your agnostic friend. I am talking about the shouting match that we have allowed ourselves to get into which has removed any real nuance from the discussion. Say I were having a discussion with someone who believed in atheistic evolution… I am much more concerned with the fact that they are an atheist than that they believe in evolution. I have very little interest in working to convert them from an evolutionary stance. I would be much more interested in a conversation about what Genesis 1 and 2 have to say about God, what it has to say about creation, and what it says about man. I happen to think that it still says all those things whether you take it in a hard lined literal way or if you allow for some poetic license in the text.


  20. Shakes, I did a little unscientific test the other day. I came across a page that had the every verse listed that referenced creation in any way. I did a key word search on that page for things that you might expect to see if there were references to the specific days or number of days of creation. Outside of the creation account itself, and the giving of the Sabbath there was no mention that I could find of the actual days of creation. You get reference of the things that happened on those days but no real mention of the days themselves. I don’t know that the Bible thinks that this is nearly as big a deal as we do.


  21. its a very interesting topic to say the least, but the bottom line is, we don’t know. to make it such a literal (b&W) argument from the text, has always made me think folks have to ignore too much other stuff. but then again, we don’t really know from the text if it ALL included 6 days or not. But the power of God is way more massive than ourselves, so God didn’t need the Navy Seabees to build it. 🙂

    Dake’s study bible discusses a “gap theroy.” I think most consider it heretical, but it is an interesting note.

    To borrow from Keith Green, “if creation of the world has taken 6 days, and the creation of our heavenly home has taken (so far) 6,000 years, man, we’re living in a garbage can”


  22. Dallas,

    Well, while you bring up some good points, I don’t mind the shouting matches at all. I am not one who likes nice, polite, and quiet debates. Those are boring.

    Take for example:
    Jesus said: “…whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
    Matthew 5:22

    Paul said: “Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:”
    1 Corinthians 15:36

    I think it suffice to say that Paul was more than a bit ticked off in regards to people’s crazy thinking. Thou fool isn’t exactly a nice thing to say, and I would bet my life that Paul’s voice was a bit harsh.

    I have read many commentaries where many take area’s the Bible as “poetic”. That word is a cover up, in order to say that scripture doesn’t really mean what it states. I don’t buy into that logic at all. If the experts can’t figure it out, the default is to say that it is poetic. Here is the problem: They haven’t put on their “spiritual” lenses to see what it really states. They lack spiritual understanding. They look at the carnal meanings, but avoid the spiritual meanings. Spiritual isn’t poetic.

    You had said:
    “I am much more concerned with the fact that they are an atheist than that they believe in evolution. I have very little interest in working to convert them from an evolutionary stance.”

    My response:
    It just may be from an evolutionary stance that you just may have to convert them from. Are you just going to leave the discussion if it is?



  23. Dallas,

    I am an old earth creationist, so I have more in common with the atheists than the young earth people do. I believe that science speaks here, and that science cannot be discarded. But I do not believe in evolution. What I wrote @ 11:56 and @ 12:01 is my belief.



  24. Ric,

    You had said:
    “Dake’s study bible discusses a “gap theroy.” I think most consider it heretical, but it is an interesting note. ”

    My response:
    I believe Young Earth is heretical, but it is an interesting note. I believe in the “gap” theory.



  25. Our family has been to the Creation Museum twice since it opened. We enjoyed our visits very much and learned a lot. I recommend it! A family membership will save a large family some did for us. We hope to visit again and try out the zip lines! Go during December for a special Christmas experience. It’s like stepping back into the time of Christ’s birth.


  26. I think I’m going to tuck away this comment from Ed so that when someone comes across him in a debate, they will know where he is coming from:

    Well, while you bring up some good points, I don’t mind the shouting matches at all. I am not one who likes nice, polite, and quiet debates. Those are boring.

    Ed, you might consider it for a signature line. What do you think?


  27. Julie Anne,

    I never thought of using a signature line before. It might be something to consider one day. God help me if I ever begin to debate myself, tho.



  28. HA, I want to see that.

    Hey, you and I didn’t debate when we met. I knew something felt off. You were too nice. I guess it would have been hard to debate during a volleyball game 🙂


  29. Dallas,

    One more point in regards to converting the evolutionary atheist. You may find this hard to believe, but many an atheist know the Bible better than Bible believing Christians do.



  30. sounding board doesn’t sound like, “debate” to me. I took, from reading about your site, and other posts, that it was to engage the topics… I guess that can be done with debate, but if it’s what I’ve seen with the attacks between B4B and his enemies on this blog, I hope it won’t continue.

    ed, whatever.


  31. Ric,

    I was being funny to you…we need a sense of humor sometimes, while at the same time being sincere.

    This board has a history of debate in it. Spiritual abuse derives from false beliefs, false teachings, etc., and there are people of those beliefs that will attempt to defend those beliefs on this board, rather than the victims of abuse. B4B is just one of many that have commented on this board that falls into that category. It is important, in my opinion, to scripture whip those false teachers that wish to defend their position in which the spiritual abuse began. Satan used the Bible as a means to tempt Jesus, but Jesus scripture whipped him back.

    Without the Bible to confront those abusers with, we are unequipped.



  32. Ed, You raise a good point. Many times I am very uncomfortable with the discussion because it feels similar to what I experienced at the abusive church. But at the same time, this is a safe place where we can challenge those who come across like our abusers. We all have a voice here. There are no-talk rules here.


  33. Ric said;

    “I’ve seen with the attacks between B4B and his enemies on this blog, I hope it won’t continue.”

    The only way that will stop is if B4B stops commenting. People here will not tolerate bully behavior. But experience has shown that someone else just like him will eventually come along.


  34. Ric, and those who believe in young earth:

    I did tiny bit of research in regards to Dake. He believed in a Pre-Adamic “race” of people. From a web site that I am reading about his beliefs, he is a whack job.

    The Gap Theory as I understand it.

    Genesis 1:2
    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    Without Form = Tohuw = Strong’s H8414
    Void = Bohuw = Strong’s Concordance H922

    Let’s reconsider:

    Jeremiah 4:23
    I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

    Again, Without Form, and Void. Tohuw, and Bohuw.

    I will let the reader look up those Hebrew words from the Strongs Concordance. Remember to reconsider Jeremiah in the study. Also, Psalms, Jonah, 2 Samuel, for words such as “deep”, “darkness”, etc. KJV is preferred in conjunction with a Strong’s concordance. Please do not use commentaries. Write your own.

    1. was: [hayah].
    2. without form [tohuw], and void [bohuw]
    3. face: [paniym] of the deep: [tĕhowm].
    4. Spirit: [ruwach]
    5. face of the waters: [mayim].

    Haya is a Hebrew word for “exists”, which is the same Hebrew word for I Am, when God told Moses, Tell the children of Israel that I Am sent you in Exodus 3. That is Strong’s concordance #1961. Am = Be = Exist. When Jesus said Before Abraham was, I am, you will see that am=exists, and was is the imperfect use of am.

    Darkness. That is another word to consider, in conjunction with the word “deep”.

    Remember, put on spiritual lenses. It isn’t just the word definitions, but the spiritual story. The word deep is in many places of the Bible. So is the word Darkness.

    Angels had to be kicked out of heaven, hell created for the angels. Where is hell? In the heart of the earth. When were the angels kicked out of heaven? Who was Hell Created for? When was hell created?

    These are valid questions to consider, before concluding a young earth.



  35. Last question for the above, after “when was hell created”: When were the angels created? The answer to that one is before “time”, before the beginning, in eternity. Genesis states that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. He certainly was not discussing his abode when he said “heaven”, as his abode is eternal. God has always been in heaven. He created the Angels before Genesis 1:1.

    Consider the angels in this:
    1. When were they created?
    2. When were they kicked out?
    3. Where were they kicked to?
    4. Where is hell?
    5. Who was hell created for?



  36. Hell was created for Ed? Ed, don’t be so hard on yourself.

    Here’s why I’m almost convinced the earth is young. Not really young cuz it looks old to me but for the purpose of this topic. Yom is supposedly interpreted as a day (ie 24 hour period) Try inserting the word ‘age’ or ‘era’ in those verses and it makes no sense. The bible gives geneologies from Adam to Jesus. The implication is a set time. How-some-ever, God is the great redeemer so there could’ve been death and destruction before Adam. So I’m not sure. I don’t go for Dake’s gap theory though and I don’t believe in evolution. I believe it’s time to get some shut eye.


  37. Julie Anne
    Thank you for this excellent post. I think it is vital for people to know that Ken Ham’s alleged “science” has been debunked by many Christian scientists. The majority of scientists who claim to be Christian do no believe in a young earth.

    Ham will not allow his science to be peer reviewed, claiming a great conspiracy against him. Once you have to claim a conspiracy in order to justify something, you have lost the debate.

    YE has been responsible for the demise of the faith of many young people. At, over 50% credit YEC for causing them to question the faith. The science at Ham’s site can be debunked in a first year biology course in college. And that is where we are losing our young people.

    As for genealogies, we have to be careful. Note the number of times 7 comes up in the lineage of Jesus. It is bringing forth a point. Also, it was entirely appropriate to skip layers of a lineage if it did not contribute to the overall picture.

    I highly recommend that everyone go to sites like Reasons to Believe, Answers in Creation, etc to get the other side of the story. Believe it or not, there are thoughtful rebuttals by Christians for every question Ham or anyone else might raise. Be a Berean and study it all.


  38. Gary,
    Yom is the only sticking point that is brought up in debates in regards to 24 hour days. That was my point in regards to that people only look at the carnal meanings of words, rather than to look at the spiritual meaning. So, to give a spiritual meaning, the 7th day has yet to end. God is still resting (Hebrews 4). There was not an 8th day.



  39. Did Adam have a belly button? Were the original trees first created mature with rings in the trunk. Answer these question and you might have your answer to the YEC. If God created things mature from the first act of creation, I think its reasonable to view things with a perceived age from our perspective. For instance if God created Adam as a man and not as a boy (as indicated), I would imagine that many would think Adam was many years old the day he was created. Extrapolate this to the earth or even the universe and its not hard for me to see how biased science can be when you don’t take into account that God created things mature from day 1.


  40. This is an interesting topic. I was introduced to the Gap Theory back in the 70’s in my youth group and I never really gave it much thought until reading about these debates. I am now understanding that the first five books of the bible were recorded by Moses as God revealed himself to the Israelites after they were brought out of Egypt. The order of creation had purpose and meaning in that context as God was showing them that he was not like the gods they knew from Egypt or the nations around.
    For me this context was explained very well by an interview and articles at this link:
    There are transcripts which are perhaps quicker to get through. I also left this link at TWW a few months ago when YE/OE was being discussed there.


  41. I have a hard time understanding how anybody CAN believe in YEC. All you have to do is travel the United States and actually pay attention to the scenery outside your window. The Ozarks are the oldest mountain chain – it is physically impossible for them to have weathered down that much in a mere 6,000 years. Then there is Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs, CO; that area used to be under a large body of water, most likely an ocean. How do we know this? The fossils of marine critters left behind. Anybody who chooses to believe in Ken Ham’s tales of a Young Earth is willfully ignoring the research of thousands of scientists, including my own father. Many of these researchers are believers and see their work as demonstrating the magnificent power of a Creator who designed our incredible world. When we choose to ignore their hard work and essentially call them liars, we are alienating them. We are saying that all of their research and knowledge means nothing to us because we do not care.

    It might help if I share a little bit about my background. I have a double major in History and Classics with a minor in Anthropology. Several people in my family hold advanced graduate degrees in fields related to geology and the study of the Earth. Our interests coincide frequently. Knowing about geologic processes better helps me understand the conditions that affected the preservation of artifacts from an archaeological site. Anthropology is the study of humans through non-written word; historians study the written word. So an archaeologist is also an anthropologist. Paleontologists study the forms of living creatures through their fossilized creatures – in other words, they study dinosaurs but not humans. Humans and dinosaurs did not exist during the same time period. They just didn’t. To argue otherwise is to be as foolish as those who think the Earth is flat. Archaeologists and paleontologists are scientists. Their work is so important to us because they share with us what has happened in our world.

    I had a professor in college who specialized in the biogenetics of ancient flora and fauna. I asked him why he had that degree and was an archaeologist and his answer shocked me. This professor actually specialized in the study of human coprolites – fossilized poo. He said that that fossilized poo was the only way to study the actions of an individual from an ancient civilization. Normally archaeology focuses on a society as a whole. By analyzing the coprolites this professor was able to know exactly what an individual had consumed – he learned about their diets in a way that was not possible through standard archaeological digs.

    Everything Dee said earlier was correct. If you ever visit an archaeological dig, you will find that the majority of people working are atheists or agnostics. YEC has done more to destroy the faith of people than can be imagined. Propagating these blatant falsehoods does nothing but make us look like fools.


  42. Andrew,
    The study of the “difference” between Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter two indicates that when God created man, it was the spirit that he created, not the body. The body is dirt. Spirit was planted in the man, and Adam became a living soul. There is a difference between creation and formation.

    Now, couple that with the following:
    Genesis 2:5-6
    5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

    6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

    The tree was not mature. It was a seed. God created the seed first. Planted the seed. Then it grew.

    In the same way, God created the spirit first. Then planted the spirit (breath of life) in dirt, and Adam became a living soul.

    Notice the “differences” between chapter 1 and 2.

    In chapter 1 God created animals before he created man.

    In chapter 2, however, he formed Adam BEFORE the animals.

    Chapter 1 = Creation [of spirit]
    Chapter 2 = Formation [of body]

    Chapter 1= Creation of seed
    Chapter 2 = The seed needed to be watered, and that had not happened until verse 6 of chapter 2. Nothing grew until it was watered, and, there was not a man to till the ground, either. That is in chapter 2. Man was not on the planet yet, and yet, man was created in chapter 1.

    There are many things that people do not seem to consider when buying off on young earth.



  43. Mandy,

    I liked everything that you said, but I am confused by the conclusion in regards to the dinosaurs not existing at the same time as man. Animals were created by God in Genesis 1, but formed after Adam was formed, and Adam named them all. There is no indication that animals existed on this earth prior to the formation of Adam. I would like to have more insight on that topic.



  44. Andrew
    That is a typical talking point that Ken Ham uses. He also says something to the effect that “my grandmother looks old and she is only 90.” Did you know that OEC/ TE/EC who are committed Christians have answered your statement in depth. Chapman 24 is doing a great job as well.


  45. Thanks, Dee, for stopping by. True confessions: this subject bored me for so many years. And I would skim past your blog posts on The Wartburg Watch (so sorry, hope we can still be friends haha) because of that. To me, it’s just not an essential doctrinal issue and I just let the debaters debate. However, it became much more personal for me in the past few months because of my daughter. I’m hoping to share Hannah’s (my 26-yr old daughter) story today. I think people really need to look carefully at this issue (and no be like I was) because it does have serious implications.


  46. A number of theistic evolutionists decided that the name didn’t properly emphasize their believe in Creator God. So they came up with evolutionary creationist which I really like.

    I have seen some of my kids’ friends leave the faith over this issue. They were raised in a school and church that sang the Ham party line and thought they could argue the science. They got to college and found that the professors wiped the floor with the weak arguments of Ham and those cut from the same cloth.

    They left the faith. One said to me “They lied about this and I bet they lied about everything else.”


  47. My brother and sister-in-law are into YEC in a big way. I’ve read some of the books they have. Some proponents of YEC make good points at times, but I just can’t reconcile it fully with the research of paleontologists and archaeologists. And when some (like Ken Ham) start to indulge in conspiracy theories and the scientific establishment being “out to silence them”, they lose credibility with me.

    What really bugs me is Ham’s insistence that belief in YEC is essential for all Christians. I can’t see how acceptance of an “old” earth or the theory of evolution makes me less of a Christian.

    I agree with Elvira above (though I haven’t read the article yet, sorry). As far as I can tell, the Genesis account of creation was written in opposition to the polytheistic ideas of the non-Israelite nations, not against Darwinism. Its main purpose was to illustrate who God is, and who we are in relation to Him. Using Genesis to attack Darwin’s theories is, to me, like using a saw to drive a nail.


  48. Dee,

    Thanks Dee. I really got studying this topic when I was in the stages of study for debate with the Jehovah’s Witnesses in regards to the body that the resurrected Jesus has. They call it a spirit body, but the Bible refers to it as a “spiritual” body, not a spirit body. My study was in regards to “spirit, soul, body…what are they?”

    And later, it became more clear as I studied the 7th Day Adventist use of “And Adam became a “living” soul.

    Both of the JW and the 7th Day Adventists proclaim that we don’t have a soul, we are one. Both of those religions are closely related, coming from the same exact background.

    Time and time again, the bible refers to seed time and harvest. I coupled that withing my study, as it does pertain.

    And a question to all, a riddle:

    How do you get the seed of an apple out of an apple without touching the apple at all?

    Seed time and harvest is a great study in regards to spirit, and James 2:26.



  49. Ed,
    got it on the humor, maybe I’ll catch those in the future. Bad headache day yesterday too (I don’t know if y’all caught it the other day when I mentioned prayer for a migraine, that was for real).

    JA and Ed,
    I understand those bullies will come, and unkind people who think pushing people to their way of thinking will persist. However, I contend those folks are easily identified in this setting and instead of “whipping” them with sarcasm, name-calling, and just plane rudeness, they can be challenged doctrinally and refuted, but without all the other stuff. Maybe with that, some of those folks would come to a different way of understanding (note: this is Ric potentially being over idealistic – I’ve rarely seen folks change their theological diet openly on the internet, not even in the FIDO-Net days.

    At the very least, that is my hope. I fail to meet that mark as well, but I think we should seek to be that way, even if we discover scriptural understandings that we’ve maintained, but need fine tuning.

    Thanks for listening.


  50. Ric,
    Unfortunately, I haven’t been available much the last few weeks, as I have been working a lot lately, so I missed out on the prayer for migraines. I get them, too sometimes. Haven’t had one in a couple of years, but they were frequent there for a while. I know what you went thru, so I am sorry about that.

    Anyway, I naturally have a sarcastic sense of humor, and due to that, I have been accused of being arrogant. I don’t mind being accused of that. Some say that my arrogance won’t convince anyone of what I say. Well, if that is the reason that they use, then they aren’t really serious about the topic to begin with. That’s like saying, “I am a proud atheist because Christians are hypocrites.” Gandi also said something like that. To me, that is a weak argument.

    When Paul said to the Corinthians, “Thou Fool”, he was in danger of Hell Fire, based on what Jesus said on the topic of “Thou Fool”.

    If we are to be Christ like, Was Jesus himself Christ like when he was engaging the Pharisee leadership? Yes, he was being Christ Like, because he is Christ. Our problem is that we have redefined what “Christ Like” means. To some of us, Christ like is just as Paul stated to the Corinthians, being bold enough to tell it like it is.



  51. We used Apologia’s books for a few years during our homeschooling. When I first started on them, I didn’t realize how YEC they were. I knew that each of the books in the younger series focused on a day in creation (mammals, swimming creatures, flying creatures, etc.). I thought the books provided some great information and they were interesting to my kids.

    It wasn’t until we read the Astronomy book that we were slammed in the face with YEC. And, to me, it wasn’t presented in a good scientific way. It was as science book, by the way. Instead of theories, it was listed as fact – that the world was created in a literal 6 days, and that any other theories are wrong. They went to great lengths to discuss why other theories were wrong.

    I don’t hold a certain view point of creation. I struggled with teaching that Astronomy book to my son because I want him to be a good thinker and not just ingest every idea that is given to him. So, we had many discussions about what was presented. I believe God created the world. That’s it. How he created it is up to him and remains a mystery to me. Could God have created the world with a big bang? Could he have created animals through evolution? Could he have created it in a literal 6 days? My answer is yes to all of the above.


  52. Kathi: See, Kathi, and we were buying those YEC science books because that was the biblical science.

    I think I have some science books to sell.


  53. Ed,
    Thanks, and I’d wish these things on no-one. I get 1 or 2 migraines a week.

    Regarding your defense of tone (?), maybe these are some things worth consideration.

    Jesus was Christ-like when engaging the pharisees. He was also perfect and knew their hearts, and the hearts of the people around them. But, to everyone else, he was healer, provider, counselor, price of peace, mighty God, savior etc.

    I don’t recommend making a defense off of one of Christ’s reaction to a people group, whom Jesus rebuked. I think Proverbs provides a better position to argue your point in chapter 26, 4 and 5: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” This passage gives us a sense that we need to be careful and each situation needs to be analyzed for how to respond. In both cases, the person was still considered a fool, but the reaction was different.

    Also, another reason to be like the rest of Christ’s nature, not just being like how he was when rebuking leaders, is your argument is the same one used by pastors that abuse; and typically only used in those contexts, of being less than 1 Cor 13. They esteem, “that’s the way I am” or “that’s the way God made me” or “I’m a prophet, so I don’t have to speak kind” or “Jesus rebuked the leaders and was sarcastic with them.” Doesn’t the image of Christ bear out more character than merely being hostile toward those that don’t believe the same way we do? I think so.

    I’m not saying you are one of these people, but it can come off that way (as you eluded). I would point to 1 Corinthians 13 and Galatians 5 regarding how God’s love and the Spirit work in us (and you know these things).

    I was challenged by a book called, ‘Respectable Sins – Jerry Bridges, NAVPRES. He takes on the idea of Anger, and how believers will point to Christ being angry against the religious leaders. He makes some very good points. He deals with other acceptable sins as well.

    Lastly, I do enjoy engaging a topic. Sometimes I discover I’m wrong and grow from the experience, other times I’m encouraged with what I believe having had folks like you and JA, and others, engage with me. Its my hope that others have had similar experiences from my input.

    I do indeed appreciate your prayers for headache. God works through the prayers of His saints.

    Ed, thank you.


  54. I do think that there’s some good in Apologia’s Explorer books. The information about the different animals is good, the experiments were good, and it engaged the kids with wonderful pictures and clear understanding. When we got to the astronomy book, I was done with them. And, Apologia’s middle school and high school level books were just way too difficult for my oldest. I sold two of them this year!

    As far as introducing the dragons to the exhibit, I’m impressed that they can include a little bit of legend with their facts.


  55. Great words, Ric, I’ve been taking them to heart. I’ve been researching this YEC stuff for the past few days and someone was describing the authors of a 500-page book that refutes YEC. It is written by PhD level scholars/scientists/professors. One of the remarks made was that these guys had no need to react to the rhetoric spewed out by the likes of Ham. They simply let facts and science prove itself without getting into the drama. The difference is the behavior. I think behavior shows the heart.


  56. JA,
    After reading the PDF of the link you provided, I don’t buy off on any of them as a whole. There are agreements in some, but disagreements in many.

    Take for example the OEC in regards to Adam, and in regards to evolution.

    In regards to evolution, it states that God intervened numerous times on earth to create life. That goes against Hebrews 4, where God rested from all of his creation on the 7th day, and is still resting. There has never been an intervention to create more life. And, I have a problem with the explanation of the dinosaurs, too, and the flood of Noah’s day was just a local thing. There is lots of flaws in that regard

    I may be an OEC, but I sure do not subscribe to the experts explanation of it, based on the PDF outline. Also, in regards to Neanderthals not having a spirit…all creatures have a spirit. It’s what keeps the body alive. The body is dead without the spirit (James 2:26). Even animals have a spirit.

    Ecclesiastes 3:21
    Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

    Notice the word “downward”? Animals in heaven prior to going to earth!!!! That is the same with man. Seed, planted in dirt (egg and sperm), and it grows a body, hence, life begins at conception, as life requires a body. Life requires a spirit in that body.

    Too many discrepancies for me to agree with the outline of OEC, and yet, I am an OEC, with a different take on it.



  57. Ric,

    Well, when we take a look as to how Paul conducted himself, not only did he say “Thou fool” to the Corinthians, he also said, “Oh foolish Galatians”.

    Also, he and Mark (Book of Acts) had a huge falling out, and they were both believers. There are many instances where Paul was sarcastic, and name calling.

    2 Corinthians 11 begins his sarcasm, as he calls it, a bit of folly.

    Paul said to be like him!! And if he wasn’t rebuked by Jesus for it, then it is free license.



  58. Ed – are you saying the definitions (YEC) aren’t lining up with your understanding of them?

    Or . . .that you are having a difficult time figuring out how to identify yourself within those defined groups?


  59. “Paul said to be like him!! And if he wasn’t rebuked by Jesus for it, then it is free license.”

    HA!! Well, there you go, Ed . . . . as if you needed Paul’s permission to be sarcastic. 😉


  60. Julie Anne,

    No, I don’t agree with ANY of the YEC stuff, regardless. But it’s the Old Earth Creation explanation that I have a problem with. I believe in Old Earth Creation, but I dismiss many of the explanations that they outline as fact. To me, it’s fiction. While the YEC, OEC, and TE, state that they go by the Bible, I have Bible to refute all three with.



  61. JA,

    Well, I did, kinda, in this whole thread…it just needs to be inserted into the table you provided. It seems that each of the three are more concerned with CARNAL explanations, and totally miss the spiritual. Even with a big bang theory, the Big Bang requires matter first, and yet, God created matter. So I have a problem with that as well in the OEC.



  62. JA,

    The Jews believe that God “sang” the universe into existence. In the beginning God spoke things into existence (LOGOS). Everything was created from nothing. The Big Bang tells us that something was created from something.


  63. I believe in a young earth and six day creation. To many problems with the old earth theory. Also I don’t believe evolution is compatible with the Bible.


  64. Brian,

    I love the sarcasm in the article (really). Outside of that, it is a very good explanation, and Andrew should read it, as he is the first one to bring that topic up to me. Before Andrew had said that, I never knew that was a talking point of the YEC. Now I see that it is a popular talking point. And yet, they all seem to miss Genesis 2, that nothing grew without first watering the seed that was planted in the dirt, and that no man was yet on the earth to till the ground. How can they even bring up such examples that full grown trees already existed, when Genesis 2 states something totally different? How do they miss scripture?



  65. Just a note. It appears that the leading proponent for Old Earth Creationism is Hugh Ross. Dr. Hugh Ross. The astronomer. He founded the Reason to Believe (RTB) ministries.

    And, it appears that the leading proponent for Young Earth Creationism is none other than Ken Ham.

    This is like a public service announcement.

    I consider myself to be an Old Earth Creationist, just as I have outlined above, thru many comments in this thread. I do NOT believe in the same things as Hugh Ross, however. He does not speak for me. I speak for me. I alone speak for me. I will not now, nor ever take Hugh Ross’s talking points, and run with them.

    However, based on what Andrew wrote earlier, it is obvious that people do use other people’s talking points. I need to keep that in mind as others will defend Young Earth Creationism, because I don’t see much in the area of Bible verses being used to support any YEC claims, whereas I always use Bible verses to support my claims.


    Ed Chapman


  66. I find the arguments based on the length star light has traveled to be quite compelling. Greg Koukl(very conservative, btw) does a good job summarizing it here :

    The DVD, “Starlight and Time” by Dr. Russell Humphreys, gives a great explanation of a solution for the problem of the time it takes for light to travel from the distant stars. I had to go through it about 10 times to start to understand the concept because it is heavy stuff. BYW, the flood answers many of the question one would have about age but I guess one would have to believe in that part of Genius to see that that deluge would have formed the strata rock which gives the appearance of age.
    The Mount St. Hellens eruption in the 1980s produced a canyon system about 1/40 the size of the Great Canyon in just a short time. It is an interesting study if you are really interested in trying to determine young earth, old earth.


  67. sorry for being late to respond. To much going on with our lake ministry this weekend and preparing to take our youth on a mission trip this coming Monday

    JA, I do believe a person can be saved and not believe in young earth. One deacon in our church who I loved and respected greatly believed in the gap theory and made sure I knew it. We never came to blows over this but served God faithfully together til he was called home a year and a half ago. I know he will be there to greet me when I get there.

    Ed I don’t have time to get into all that since I am leaving but just one example one be the unreliability of the carbon dating test.


  68. Thanks for the response, Darrell, and I hope your mission trip is fruitful. 🙂

    Pretty soon I”m going to be taking off to serve as counselor at a high school camp like I did last year. I love hanging with high schoolers.


  69. Darrell,

    You are a busy man!! Well, maybe one day we can discuss things. However, I do not use carbon dating examples, if you haven’t noticed. I use scripture, and you will see that in my comments. I am already aware of the unreliability of the carbon dating. The science that I am discussing is “time”, how is it measured? I could care less about the purpose of carbon dating for measuring earth age, as I know that is unreliable, but universe time measurement is a different story, as that isn’t based on carbon dating.



  70. Jimmydee – I am familiar with “Starlight and Time”. I just think the rebuttals to Humphrey’s are much more convincing scientifically.


  71. Dallas, I forgot to subscribe to the comments so I didn’t see your response. Thanks! I agree. Discussions like this always remind me of CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters. Anything to distract people from loving others keeps the message of salvation from being spread.

    To everyone else, I apologize for jumping in at the end of the conversation without catching up.


  72. Shakes, good reference… make sure to distract your subject with peripheral subjects of theology… anything to keep him from placing his true focus on the enemy.

    A point that I wanted to bring up previously, but I got caught on some rabbit trails in my thinking, is that there are plenty of people who have been Christians for years, decades even who have not written in stone their stance on this subject. On the other hand there are many who would present the debate in such a way that you would feel like you had to have your mind made up on this before you can even get started with this Jesus character.

    I ended up posting this is a bit of passive aggressiveness on facebook the other day:

    “In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”
    ― Augustine


  73. Excellent quote! I have no problem with the fact that I don’t have a stance on this. I wasn’t there; I don’t know. For me, saying anything else kind of makes me a liar and dissuades anyone from believing me when I talk about the things I really do believe and have faith in. This isn’t true for everyone of course, and I would not presume to tell anyone else how to handle the topic. But, I came to terms with this answer years ago when I realized that by sweeping this issue aside with a shrug, I could talk openly about faith and what it means to me with people who would use topics like this to shut me out otherwise. Talks about faith became less about how the world was made and more about why it needed saving.


  74. Shakes and Dallas,

    Lucky for me that Augustine doesn’t speak for me. I was never a fan of his, anyway. He’s too Catholic…or is it Calvinist? Or Both? That said, Augustine isn’t the Word of God, whereas Genesis is. How can we sweep any of the Word of God aside with a shrug? We are to meditate on the word of God, allowing the Holy Spirit to teach, growing in faith. The more we know, the more our faith grows, increases, . We all have a different measure of faith. Before Jesus left the earth, he said that he has much more to teach (from the scriptures), but that his disciples just weren’t ready to hear it yet. Those teachings are what the Holy Spirit does, and, the Holy Spirit teaches spiritual things. Man teaches carnal things.

    We should be interested in allowing the Holy Spirit to teach us those spiritual things, and not rely on Augustine to warn us against those things.

    Just my thoughts.



  75. Let me ask you something. If you were pastoring a church and began attributing your beliefs as spiritually discerned and dismissing any dissenters as being tainted by carnal influences wouldn’t that be something that could be easily used to spiritually abuse people?


  76. That is easy to answer. I wouldn’t preach it. I would encourage the disciples of Jesus to individually seek it, just as I did to you and shakes. Here on a blog, that is a different story, as I give to you what I have learned. I always look to the spiritual. I have noticed that many a Calvinist, or those who quote Augustine, look at the carnal way too much. An example, when I bring up the Promised Land as being that of a spiritual interpretation of Heaven, I have been accused of not using exegesis, in that it is only discussing, and I quote, “Palestine”. This is the same reason why I also have a problem with not only the YEC, but the model of the OEC as well. From my research in the matter, they are both off base, based on what I provided in this blog already.



  77. Well, I don’t know how you got a shrug to equal sweeping the word of God aside. Where I come from a shrug is the nonverbal equivalent of saying “I don’t know.” And how did any of what I said lead you to believe that I am not meditating on scripture? I have read the Bible multiple times and studied Creation just to get to the point of admitting I cannot say for sure how the world was created.

    Neither of us are relying on Augustine, although I probably should only speak for myself. We look to others who have studied scripture more than we have to help reveal more of God’s word. The person I referred to was C.S. Lewis. How come you didn’t tell me you dismiss his work as well? That would make more sense.

    See the problem with dismissing Augustine as being too Catholic is that he was born in the year 354. And that is a problem because Protestantism (your Christianity) didn’t even start until Martin Luther came along in the 1517. So telling me to dismiss someone who studied religion and scriptures very early on in the church doesn’t make any sense. You may not like that he was Catholic, but back then, he was just a Christian.


  78. Shakes,

    You said a lot more than an “Shrug”. It was also accompanied with,
    “I have no problem with the fact that I don’t have a stance on this”.

    Also, “sweeping this issue aside” was just before “Shrug”.

    Where I come from, that means that you don’t care either way.

    Then you say,
    “We look to others who have studied scripture more than we have to help reveal more of God’s word.”

    By the way, I do dismiss C.S. Lewis. I dismiss all dead people. I go to the living. Jesus lives. He is the one to seek out for answers. If one lacks wisdom, ask Jesus. He gives liberally. That’s in the Bible. You need not any man to teach you. That’s in the Bible. As another states in this thread, be a Berean. That means to not believe those who have studied scripture more than you, it means for YOU to study it out, yourself, daily. That is not a teaching within Catholicism, generally, as the Catholics will quote Peter that we have no right to “privately interpret” scripture. But Peter never said any such thing.

    I am a Christian. I believe that the Bible encourages to “sola scriptora”, just as the example of the Bereans did. By the way, Calvinists (I am not one) are protestant (not Catholic), and Calvinism is more Augustine than you think.

    Oh, as far as Luther goes, he was wrong in many things, too. So, I don’t look to “church fathers”, for another way of saying it.



  79. I do study the Bible. But I know that my scope is extremely limited. And yes, I did say I shrug the issue aside. Meaning when non-Christians try to dismiss me and my beliefs by asking me about the Creation controversy, I shrug to indicate that I don’t know and move on to more important conversations.

    I am not going to argue with you. You seem to read way too much into what I am saying anyway. I don’t even know why you decided to have a problem with me or anything I said. The only contribution I made to this conversation is to say that I do not believe that one’s view of creation affects their salvation. Then I had a nice conversation with Dallas followed by you dropping in with accusations of not reading the Bible.

    Believe who you want, choose the teachers that you want, stop telling me who I should and should not be listening to. Well, you can keep doing it but as you said, I study the Bible and learn what I need to from there not from random people to whom I have never before spoken. I haven’t even disagreed with you on anything other than your interpretations of my thoughts. So there isn’t really a debate anyway.

    It is highly possible that I am not communicating my thoughts well, or having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say to me. I do suffer from brain fog from time to time. I have no other explanation for our exchange.


  80. OK, I have been rebuked. However, you said: ” Anything to distract people from loving others keeps the message of salvation from being spread.”

    I need to say that this is not a salvation issue to begin with. This sort of teaching is for those who are already saved. This is why the Holy Spirit is needed to teach spiritual things. The unsaved do not have the Holy Spirit, the saved do. If we are going to understand the Word of God, we need to have our spiritual lenses on. What seems to be happening in this topic (outside of this blog post), is that people are using more science (carnal) than scripture (spiritual) on both sides of the debate.

    I can barely prove that I existed yesterday, let alone prove that Neanderthals existed before Adam in some sort of a Pre-Adamic setting. Old Earth Creationists believe that. But I can prove that the Bible shows that is nonsense. In the same way, I can prove that the concepts of the YEC is nonsense.

    There are not a lot of choices of models to choose from. If I say that I believe in Old Earth, people are going to assume that I subscribe to the only choice available that there is in regards to the scientific study of Old Earth. But I don’t.

    My beliefs are based on what I provided on this thread.

    Thanks for the rebuke. I probably needed it.



  81. The question posed by this blog post was, “Do you believe people can be a Christian if they don’t put as much credence into the literal 6-day creation as Ken Ham?” That is the conversation I wanted to join. I appreciate what you are saying, I really do. But you are telling me that I was wrong to answer the question posed.

    I think that is where the disconnect is coming from. Thank you for taking the time to work through this with me. I want you to know that I have used up my energy for the day. I have Chronic Fatigue and can only do so much. I am telling you this in case you respond again. I don’t want you to think I am upset or ignoring you.

    Peace to you my brother 😀 .


  82. Shakes,

    Oh, no please don’t get me wrong. I never meant to imply that you were wrong in answering the question posed. My issue was only with the point that you have really no opinion either way. My personal opinion, if conversations like this arise from the non-Christians, mostly as a means to make fun of us, we had better have some sort of a response, other than just to say that the topic is a distraction from spreading love, and the gospel. It’s all a part of defending the faith.

    God Bless, and get some rest!!



  83. When I was a teenager, I tended to lean towards a young earth model. The Bible seemed pretty straight forward on it to me, and evolution was directly opposed to creation. As I’ve gotten older and learned more however, especially about how genetics work and carbon dating, I don’t really hold those views anymore. I still don’t believe in the evolutionary theory that all life started out as single cell organisms, or that humans evolved from apes, but I do believe that species can change over time and take on whole new traits. That is evolution, genetics at work. Carbon dating is also a reasonably accurate form of dating as well, and it pretty well suggests that the earth is more than just a few thousand years old. I do think it can be reasonable for a person to hold to YEC, provided they do not make it of Gospel importance. Similarly, I think somebody can be an evolutionary creationist and still be a devote Christian. Our faith hinges on the person, life, death, and ressurection of Christ. If that is true, Christianity is true…period. There is MUCH more evidence supporting the historocity of Christ’s death and resurrection than for YEC, so I’ll hang my hat on that.


  84. Ed said–

    “My personal opinion, if conversations like this arise from the non-Christians, mostly as a means to make fun of us, we had better have some sort of a response, other than just to say that the topic is a distraction from spreading love, and the gospel. It’s all a part of defending the faith.”

    I agree. This issue is not of Gospel importance, but it is still important to people. We can’t be expected to have an answer for everything, but it is important to share what we think on topics such as this when asked by unbelievers. If nothing else, it will help them to see our genuineness and honesty, two things that many Christians lack. If it this were part of a conversation I were having with an unbeliever about my faith, basically I would try to share what I though without ublowing it off, but also try to quickly bring the conversation back to Christ.


  85. A friend of mine had this perspective, I thought it was good.

    “allow me to just pose a question. If I, being a mediocre artist at best, could create a drawing of an 85-year-old man on a piece of paper, with wrinkles, glasses, thinning hair, and a few missing teeth in his smile, does that make the drawing 85 years old? You can count the wrinkles and analyze the missing hair and try to calculate EXACTLY HOW OLD this man is, on the piece of paper, and what age I was thinking of when I created it (IF I even HAD an exact age in mind), but it’s a new drawing. So if I can do that, don’t you think God – who is infinitely more artistic, wise, hilarious, and creative than I am – could do the same? What if you’re both right? What if it’s an old image on a new canvas and you’re not supposed to figure out every mystery and analyze the universe to death until you’re so full of knowledge that your soul has no room to breathe?”


  86. JoeJoe, because this was directed at the conversation Ed and I were having I feel I need to make clear that this is exactly my point. My words have been twisted completely around. I don’t tell non-Christians that this is a distraction from spreading love and the gospel. I answer the question honestly. I don’t know.


  87. J. Randall Stewart,

    Good question. I have seen it before, slightly different. It comes from the talking points of the YEC. But it doesn’t work. Here is why:

    It is only a mystery to those who don’t study the subject out from the Bible. The 7th Day has not ended (Hebrews 4). In regards to man and animals, Genesis Chapter 1 is creation of spirits (Invisible) in eternity, whereas Genesis Chapter 2 is the formation of the body, which is dirt, and that dirt was created in verse 1 of Genesis.

    Animals were created first, but formed after Adam was formed. Then after all the animals, then Eve was formed.

    Pretty simple. Since the 7th day hasn’t ended yet, that, in and of itself debunks a 24 hour day.

    Spiritual days differ than carnal days.



  88. Shakes,

    Is it that you don’t know, or that you don’t care to know? That is the point that I was trying to make. Based on what I am getting from you, you don’t really care, either way.



  89. I don’t know. I do care. I have spent a lot of time and energy researching the topic over the years without being able to come to a conclusion.


  90. Ed,
    thanks for your insightful response. I don’t think I, or my friend, were referencing a 24 hour day. I think, in both cases, we were referencing a God that can’t be fully understood, or explained, and advocating that all this arguing over stuff that is unknowable is probably counter-productive. I would end only with this thought, words are symbols. When God tells us about Himself, He is translating into our understanding something beyond our understanding. That, in and of itself, should give us pause to consider.


  91. OK, I got ya. I do have to say, tho, when I was doing indepth study on other things, it is extremely easy to go off on tangents, and I ended up leaving the topic that I was originally studying, in order to learn of another. I was like, “Look at that…Look at what I just found!!”. Trust me, you will find it, if you dig for the treasure!!



  92. J. Randall Stewart,

    With all due respect, I disagree.

    You had said:
    “we were referencing a God that can’t be fully understood, or explained, and advocating that all this arguing over stuff that is unknowable is probably counter-productive.”

    I think that is a cop out to in order to avoid studying scripture, allowing the Holy Spirit to teach spiritual things. What is it counter-productive to? Isn’t Genesis the same word of God that, say, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

    Are those subject so much easier that a 5th grader can understand?

    I say, EAT THE MEAT. How can you have any pudding if you can’t eat your meat? (Compliments of Pink Floyd). Get away from the milk. Or, are you still in the milk phase?

    If so, just don’t drink the cool aid of the YEC. You have already, because you just gave THEIR talking point when referencing a painting of an old man. So, apparently at one time in your life, it was NOT considered counter-productive.



Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s