Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
bah...
still waiting for a shred of evidence to back up the hilariously outrageous things i pointed out before.
even if you believe those poll results, you're drawing visibly false conclusions from it.
under the creationism section it says...
first, the question pigeonholes everything that may fall under the creationism umbrella. what if you believe man was created 11,000 years ago? there are many many ways to hold a creationism view without placing the birth of humanity within such a timeline. even if you do think man was made as we are now within the last 10,000 years... it says nothing about the earth before man was made. that maybe a "young man" theory, but it's irrelevant to a young earth theory. additionally, people of MANY religions hold that their God is the source of creation. you're taking the percentage of all people who believe in creationism and attributing the entire set to fundamentalist Christians.
|
You posted an opinion, I attempted to refute your opinion with polling data
on the same subject from a reputable source, and you simply dismissed the
signifigance of the polling data with more of your unreferenced opinion and
interpretation of the content and validity of the polling data. Did it take you
more than 5 minutes to accomplish that? I'd like to learn new things from you.
I could post so much more often if I confined my posts to personal opinion.
Every time I decide to respond to an unreferenced opinion post, I learn
something new while researching my response, and if you do, too, then that
is another positive reason to put the time into participating here.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp"><H4>A young Earth—it's not the issue!</H4></a>
<p class="Main">
<p class="author">By Ken Ham
<p class="Main">First published in:<br>
January 1998 AiG-USA Newsletter</P>
<p class="Main">Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds,
those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as 'young
Earthers.' The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the 'old Earthers'
(this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many 'conservative'
Christians) who appeal to what they call 'science,' versus the 'young Earthers,'
who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed 'scientific' evidence
for an old Earth.</P>
<p class="Main">I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known
<i>primarily</i> as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT
'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on <b>Biblical authority</b>. Believing
in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old,
which we accept) is a <i>consequence</i> of accepting the authority of
the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.</P>
<p class="Main">Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class
Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone,
without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up
with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The
answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'</P>
<p class="Main">Let's be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can't find any
hint at all for millions or billions of years. </P>
<p class="Main">For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and
our articles in <a href=http://www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/gateway.asp?PageType=detail&UID=90-3-001>Creation
magazine</a>, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known
and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in
a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation.
However, the reason they don't believe God created in six literal days
is because they are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world
is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they
start <i>outside</i> the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.</P>
<p class="Main">When someone says to me, 'Oh, so you're one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth
creationists,' I reply, 'Actually, I'm a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam
redemptionist!' (which means I'm a young-Earth creationist!).</P>
<p class="Main">Here's what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from
our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must
interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When
I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed,
disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and
bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one
cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease
and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense
as the graveyard of the flood of Noah's day). </P>
<p class="Main">Also, the word for 'day' in the context of Genesis can only
mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation [see Q&A
Genesis: <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#days">Days of Creation</a>
for more information].</P>
<p class="Main">Thus, as a 'revelationist,' I let God's Word speak <i>to</i>
me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language
they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context,
the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies,
etc., all make it clear that I <i>cannot</i> accept millions or billions
of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something
wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.</P>
<p class="Main">And the fact is, <i>every single dating method</i> (outside
of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds
of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions
must be made about the past. <i>Not one</i> dating method man devises
is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger
than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense
either. [See <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp">Q&A: Radiometric
dating</a> and <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp">Q&A: Young age evidence</a>
for more information.]</P>
<p class="Main">Question: Why would any Christian want to take man's fallible
dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the <i>infallible</i>
Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying
that man's word is infallible, but God's Word is fallible!.........</P>
|