SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : Creationist - Ken Ham

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
live4jc
Member



Joined: 2008/10/2
Posts: 203


 Re: Creationist - Ken Ham



Hi Guys,

I was curious as to what people might be thinking of in terms of the methods or reasoning used by creation scientists that would not be intellectually defensible. I do know that I have come across statements made by some creation scientists, which have really seemed like a 'stretch' and which I wish hadn't been made. But I am wondering what types of statements others are thinking of.

I feel that using creation science 'arguments' has its place, but can also be taken too far, especially if argumentation is employed as a substitute for the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.

In Acts, the apostles were said to 'reason', and to 'dispute' with people, and in their presentations of the gospel, they made reference to known facts of history, and to what could be commonly observed by people, about the world around them. I believe that the apostles felt it valuable to provide an evidentiary basis for faith in Christ. At the same time though, evidence and logic was never used as a replacement for faith in the Saviour's work on the cross. Rather it was part of the platform that was built for the purpose of helping people to understand the necessity of faith towards Christ and repentance towards God.

In Jesus,
John

 2010/2/20 15:54Profile
wayneman
Member



Joined: 2009/1/24
Posts: 454
Michigan

 Re: junk science

My favorite is the doctrine that the universe is 6000 years old but appears 13 billion years old because the Lord created it "with vintage." That statement may be factually accurate but in science it does not qualify as a theory, or even a hypothesis, because it cannot be tested, mathematically demonstrated, proven or disproven. It is a "fact"...which must be taken by "faith." So why trot out junk science to support the word of God? It only undermines Christian credibility when they see us resorting to charlatanry to support our doctrine. It is better to just say, "We don't believe we are highly-evolved primates because we take the Word of God over the word of man."

We should render unto science the things that are science's and unto God the things that are God's.

It would be OK to demonstrate that Genesis is at least scientifically plausible, but creation science doesn't even succeed in doing that, much less proving or demonstrating anything.


_________________
Wayne Kraus

 2010/2/20 17:08Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 1983
Joplin, Missouri

 Re: Ken Ham

I have been following what has been going on with the ministry of Answers in Genesis for some time. My formal training is in Mathematics and Physics and I have always been interested in all things science.

The foundation of the entirety of that particular ministry is that the Bible can be trusted as the foundation of our faith. That if supposed science and the straightforward teaching of scripture are ever at odds, one can always rely on the straightforward teaching of scripture as accurate and the science as still in need of modification. They have shown this through the scientific research and study that they have done. They are not trying in any way to "prove" the Bible true nor to try to find some scientific hook to hand faith on. Rather, they are proclaiming the message that the Bible is the basis of truth and that this truth is the basic assumption that all Christians should used when interpreting science. I don't think they have ever tried to replace faith with evidence or logic. I think it is an awesome ministry.

By the way, there are many who have categorically rejected Christ and have never opened themselves up to allow Him to get a foot in the door so to speak because of what they have been taught by atheist evolutionist teachers. I know of very bright young boy of 10 years of age who said, "I just don't think I believe the Bible is true at all because it does not agree with what my teacher said in "science". He could see the difference at 10. Wow!! However, many of these people have heard the events that science deals with explained in a scientifically and Biblically sound way and have said, "Maybe I can accept that God exists. This really makes sense.", and these people have immediately or eventually come to be born again.

I definitely think it has its place.

Travis


_________________
Travis

 2010/2/20 17:16Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 1983
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
My favorite is the doctrine that the universe is 6000 years old but appears 13 billion years old because the Lord created it "with vintage." That statement may be factually accurate but in science it does not qualify as a theory, or even a hypothesis, because it cannot be tested, mathematically demonstrated, proven or disproven. It is a "fact"...which must be taken by "faith." So why trot out junk science to support the word of God? It only undermines Christian credibility when they see us resorting to charlatanry to support our doctrine. It is better to just say, "We don't believe we are highly-evolved primates because we take the Word of God over the word of man." We should render unto science the things that are science's and unto God the things that are God's. It would be OK to demonstrate that Genesis is at least scientifically plausible, but creation science doesn't even succeed in doing that, much less proving or demonstrating anything.



Wayneman: This "in vintage" idea is not one held very seriously by most creationists. I suggest you look for a book called "Starlight and Time" that is available on the website of Answers in Genesis, Amazon.com, and many other sites. It outlines a new theory of cosmology by Russell Humphreys. Flows right out of Einstein's theory of general relativity and answers many of the questions that theories like the big bang totally fail to answer. Again, it is not the Bible, but it is good science, which by the way is simply man studying in a systematic way the amazing structure and order of the things that God created. No one is trying to "prove" anything. They are accepting by faith that the Biblical account of 7 days of creation plus the clear geneologies listed in the first five books of the Bible (the famous begats)adds up to about 6000 years. They accept what scripture says and use it as the basic truth upon which they base scientific research.

Travis


_________________
Travis

 2010/2/20 17:23Profile
RkMetzger
Member



Joined: 2009/1/31
Posts: 1


 Re:

In the hopes that we are all trying to stay close to the Lord and not allow "minor issues" like creationism to get in the way;
I would recommend you look at an organization called Reasons to Believe and particularly a number of books by a man named Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist and a Christian as well. ALso, he is most definitely NOT an evolutionist and believes the bible is the infallibly written word of God. I believe they make a number of credible arguements to the young earth position put forth by Answers in Genesis. They also specifically make a number of very pointed references to Humphries' works. We are all justifiably concerned by arguements by scientists that squelch the spiritual appetites of young people; we should also be concerned about those who are pushed away from Christianity because of the requirement that you adhere to the 6000 year old earth theory. This in no wa sugests that we bend our positions to make them more palitable to others who are searching for the truth; only that we make sure about understanding both sides of the arguement before we require that folks are young earth Christians before we break bread with them. My only response to both camps is check both out and prayerfully consider the arguements of each. In the final analysis, we are Christians and we are fallen and we make mistakes. May we show the same grace to others that God has shown us.

 2010/2/20 17:36Profile
wayneman
Member



Joined: 2009/1/24
Posts: 454
Michigan

 Re:

Travis,

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out.


_________________
Wayne Kraus

 2010/2/20 17:41Profile









 Re:

Hugh Ross believes and teaches that the 6 days of creation in the book of Genesis is not really six days.

He also teaches that the flood was just a local flood centralized in
the middle east.

This is from Christian answers net:
The Flood and the Ark

Hugh Ross teaches that the Flood did not cover the entire earth nor all the mountains of the day. Rather, Noah and the animals floated on a shallow, temporary inland sea (22 feet deep) somehow covering the Mesopotamian region. He claims that earth’s entire human population was limited to this area. The Bible clearly states that every land animal and bird on the face of the earth was wiped out (Genesis 6:7, 7:21-23). Dr. Ross teaches that most of the animals of the world were not affected, only those animals in Mesopotamia. Of course, few, if any, of these animals were unique to the region.

According to Dr. Ross, all of today’s land animals and birds are not descended from the creatures on the Ark. In other words, God required Noah to consume 120 years of his life building a huge boat to save representative animals which really didn’t need to be saved. Most, if not all, of these animals were alive and well in other parts of the world.

In Dr. Ross’s scenario, dry land is just over the horizon all along. Despite the lack of necessity, God keeps Noah trapped in this boat full of animals under these strange circumstances for over a year. [Creation and Time, p. 73; Hugh Ross, Facts & Faith, Reasons to Believe’s quarterly newsletter, multiple part article on the Flood (1989-91), specially parts 7 and 8 (Fall and Winter 1990); Hugh Ross, “Noah’s Floating Zoo,” Facts & Faith, Vol. 4 (Fall 1990), pp. 4-5; Hugh Ross, “The Flood,” audiotape (Pasadena, California: Reasons to Believe, 1990).]"

And even far worse:

"Dr. Ross teaches that the existence of physical death in our world is not due to Adam’s sin. Death, suffering and animal predation existed for billions of years throughout the world prior to Adam’s sin. Where did all these things come from? He says, God created them as a basic part of earthly existence since the beginning of life.
Fingerprint of God, pp. 153-155, 159-160; “Reasons to Believe,” 90 second radio spots No. 47 & 48 (February 1991); Hugh Ross, “Focus on the Family” radio program (April 18, 1991)

[Note: This is one of our greatest concerns about Dr. Ross’s teachings. It is in stark contrast to the gospel which says that the second Adam came to conquer the spiritual and physical death that entered paradise due to the sin of the first Adam—and that Christ will one day restore the paradise we lost.]"

 2010/2/20 18:18
bible4life
Member



Joined: 2009/1/21
Posts: 1558
Locport, Illinois

 Re:

I think the Lord uses all types of christians in different ways whether they be christian scientists, apolgists, preachers, evangelists, school teachers, regular people who are christians etc. The lord has used Ken ham and kent hovind to help many people like the brother who said earlier who disbelieved in God because of what they were taught in school on evolution, they are revealing the lies and also presenting facts to prove creation, some unbelievable facts that many people don't know. They are such a blessing to me and to many i know, i do agree that the cross of Jesus is the main focus for all christians and it has to be. One thing i saw that Ken Ham was wrong about that he might of just made a mistake was that satan and the angels that fell all fell before Adam and eve fell, because serpent was tempting them and was not serpent satan, so it had to happen where satan and the his angels fell first not Adam and eve and then satan. Besides that i like him a lot.


_________________
John Beechy

 2010/2/20 18:28Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7446
Mississippi

 Re:

Quote:
One thing i saw that Ken Ham was wrong about that he might of just made a mistake was that satan and the angels that fell all fell before Adam and eve fell, because serpent was tempting them and was not serpent satan, so it had to happen where satan and the his angels fell first not Adam and eve and then satan.



And why is this concept wrong? I have never heard anyone suggest that Lucifer did not fall before Adam & Eve. Or, are you suggesting that Ham says the serpent tempted Lucifer?

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2010/2/20 21:16Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 1983
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

I have listened to Hugh Ross talk about his beliefs, and have seen him debate Ken Ham. Some of his ideas are, to me, irreconcilable with scripture. He is a progressive creationist who believes that God used the big bang to get the whole show started and that each creation day is really a very long period of time. The scientific ramifications of his view require drastic rearrangement of the book of Genesis, reducing it from historical narrative to ancient allegory. The big bang also has some very serious if not fatal scientific problems itself, but it is the best theory that those who must show how the universe is billions of years old have to justify their view. I guess I am pretty literal where Genesis is concerned. Nothing in the book leads us to believe it to be anything other than historical narrative. It is a book of history. I believe that history to be true and find no reason to try to adjust or reinterpret the first few chapters so that I am in closer agreement with secular science. From what I have read I think Dr. Humphrey's cosmology may be the best theory going. Even he will say that it is only a theory, but then again, any cosmology has to be.

I can see this issue as pretty important. If we cannot trust the Genesis account, can we trust the account of Christ? After all, the condition that Jesus came to deal with came about in Genesis.

Travis.


_________________
Travis

 2010/2/20 21:28Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy