Guest / Limited Access /

In 2012, a Gallup poll found that 46 percent of U.S. adults believed "God created humans pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Thirty-two percent believed humans evolved with God's guidance, ...

Read More

Displaying 1–20 of 262 comments.

1 2 3 4 5  …  14 next page

Jonathan Hill

March 05, 2014  11:29am

Hi all. This is the author of the above piece. Perhaps it's not typical to respond to the comments, but there seems to be some misunderstandings that could be cleared up. In response to Larry Gilman's concerns, I hope it was clear that I was trying to measure the components of the Gallup question independently. You'll notice that the Gallup question contains the reference to 10,000 years. I am quite aware that there are old earth creationists. As to the nature of God's involvement in the creation of humans, the NSRHO survey contains an additional question about how God was involved in this creation. Once again, because the Gallup question does not specify how God created, I did not include it in this analysis. Let me also state how disappointing it is to return to this piece and read such vitriol in the comments section. The article concluded with a plea for civil, loving discourse on the topic within the church. How sorry I am to see this deteriorate into ad hominem attacks.

Report Abuse

Larry Gilman

February 27, 2014  12:46pm

It truly blew my mind when, well into this post's series of perfectly good points about the coarse resolution of Gallup's questions, I hit this: "Let's look at the creationist position. It contains, at a minimum, the following beliefs: . . .God was involved in the creation of humans. Humans were created within the last 10,000 years." The first proposition, with its maximally vague verb choice "involved," is no improvement over the ham-handed vocabulary of Gallup's questions. "Involvement" could denote anything from mystical immanence to Deist watch-winding before the Big Bang to a literalist Adam and Eve popping out of vacuum. Useless. Then that second item. To flat-out equate _young-earth_ Creationism with Creationism per se is so hopelessly, flat-out, freshman, haven't-you-read-anything-by-anybody-on-this-subject-at-all wrong, I don't know what more to say. Except that a high-res picture of popular creation beliefs is clearly not yet in the pipe.

Report Abuse

Joseph Tertius

February 22, 2014  10:03pm

The bottom line is this: Young Earth Creationists are standing up for their cherished TRADITIONS about the Bible, claiming that THEIR interpretation is the only valid one. Ken Ham et al uses this to play the martyr: "We are the only ones standing up for the Word of God." No, so much of what he teaches at the Creation Museum cannot be found in the Bible. Not just the 6,000 year old universe but 200 years of hyper-evolution after the flood (which he claims turned two "original cats" into everything from house cats to tigers &cheetahs. Indeed,his claims that Noah's Flood was global is a flawed interpretation based upon unfortunate confusion over the word ERETZ, which refers to the LAND, COUNTRY, REGION, or SOIL/GROUND--not the planet earth. (ERETZ could have appeared in the plural is ALL lands were in view.) The Bible says sin brought death to HUMANS, not to plants a& animals! YECs have the right to their own opinions but not their own facts. Pat Robertson got it right: stop the silliness

Report Abuse

Joseph Tertius

February 22, 2014  9:43pm

Audrey, have you ever wondered why you can't come up with even ONE scientist in a relevant field who has published evidence for a 6,000 years old earth who is not from a Young Earth Creationist background (and church for that matter)? If the science was behind your claims, there would be published science for it unrelated to the religious propaganda of Christian organizations. There would be atheists and agnostics, Hindus and Taoists, and many other belief systems represented among the scientists claiming that the earth is 6,000 years old. (Here's where you claim that a vast "conspiracy theory" prevents such publications.) I challenge you to submit even ONE item of scientific evidence for a young earth which has survived peer review. You see, I used to present that evidence, having become a devotee of Morris and Whitcomb. But it was rubbish in 1961---and the exact same rubbish is published today despite having been debunked long ago. Yes, some Christians kept opposing Copernicus.

Report Abuse

Joseph Tertius

February 22, 2014  9:36pm

No, Audrey. It is not an "opinion". It is a fact. (By the way, another fact is that a billion is a thousand millions. The fact I was quoting Ken Ham probably flew right over your head.) Some people hold the opinion that the sun orbits the earth but their opinion is wrong. Likewise with your belief that the earth is 6,000 years old---an opinion not to be found within the Bible. As to "degreed scientists", that is irrelevant---especially when their degrees are in computer science, dentistry, and veterinary medicine! [Yes, I looked up the background of those "degreed scientists" on Ken Ham's lists.] They are no more relevant to the science than is my piano tuner. It is not about CITING IRRELEVANT AUTHORITIES. It is about EVIDENCE. God has clearly revealed the age of the earth---and there is ZERO EVIDENCE for a young earth. (Tell us your #1 Scientific Evidence for a young earth if you think such evidence exists.) I spent years on the YEC lecture circuit. I left because of the lies.

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

February 22, 2014  5:20pm

Joseph, I also refuse to believe that God is a liar - I know better. It is your OPINION that the earth is millions of years old (many scientists say "billions", which is quite a difference), and it is your OPINION that there is "zero" evidence for a young earth. Professed Christians who believe in evolution typically display an arrogant attitude toward "less-learned" Christians who believe God's Word just as it is written, including Genesis. This in itself is a red flag. There are MANY fully-degreed scientists who were steeped in evolutionary theories throughout their years of education, who now believe just the opposite - they believe God's Word, and they see MOUNTAINS of evidence for it just as it is written. You accuse Ham of "ranting", but I've never seen or heard that, not once. No one living today observed the Creation - except GOD - I'll take His Word. "Let God be true and every man a liar."

Report Abuse

Joseph Tertius

February 21, 2014  7:17pm

Audrey wrote: 'Jesus was ridiculed, mocked, hated and rejected - He said we would be too if we followed Him. I am shocked that you would compare Ham with Camping - there's no comparison at all."/// We are called to be fools for Christ---BECAUSE OF THE CROSS, not because we say foolish things like Ken Ham does. I reject his rantings not only because they contradict the scriptures but because they also reject God's creation. God's Book of Nature tells us CLEARLY how old is the earth. There is ZERO evidence for a "young earth". There are MOUNTAINS of evidence for many millions of years. I refuse to think that God is a liar by contradiction himself in his Book of Scripture vs. Book of Creation. Moreover, Genesis 1 describes God's COMMANDS being organized around SIX YOM----not the FULFILMENT. "Let the earth bring forth" is a command, not the millions of years over which those various living things appeared and multiplied. You favor TRADITION over what the Bible actually states. Ham lies.

Report Abuse

Joseph Tertius

February 21, 2014  7:12pm

Rick Dalbey wrote: "I followed the Institute for Creation Research, invited Duane Gish to the campus of Portland State and was a little embarrassed when he could not defend himself."/// I had a similar experience in the early 1970's. Gish and Ham have helped produce more atheists than Richard Dawkins ever will. Why? Because so many Christians who followed them (as I once did Gish, Morris, and Whitcomb) eventually become trouble at their pathological LYING. (I used to ask Henry Morris backstage, "If we have the truth, why should we have to lie? You know that you won't 'fix the error' in the next edition of your book--despite what you told the questioner during tonight's Q&A. Next week at another conference you will repeat your argument as if nothing happened.") Audrey fails to admit to herself that lots of people (like me) fully accept Genesis 1 but totally reject her INTERPRETATIONS of what she thinks it says. Cherished traditions is NOT enough for me. I only care what it says.

Report Abuse

Joseph Tertius

February 21, 2014  7:08pm

Audrey Ruth wrote: "Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day."/// I can tell from your writing that you are not at all fluent in Biblical Hebrew. In answer to your question, "Why would Genesis 1 be the exception?" Simple: It is not an exception. (You need to search the OT a little more carefully.) But the CONTEXT of Genesis 1 is very different than the rest of the Tanakh: The rest of the OT is dealing with the daily lives of HUMANS. Genesis 1 is about the cosmological history. So we would EXPECT some words to be used differently because of that enormous difference in context. Human history deals in days, weeks, months, and years. But Genesis 1 is not about the history of a single human or family. Moreover, "the evening and the morning" is an IDIOM meaning "from start to finish." (Plus, it doesn't define a 24hour day in any case!) as to your "Hebrew lexicon", BDB was it? Or Strongs? LOL.

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

February 20, 2014  2:56am

Rick, you've been "at this" longer than I have. The Lord graciously moved in my life in a powerful way more than 38 years ago, and ever since then He has taught me His Word by the power of His Holy Spirit. Beware of the prodigal son "elder brother" syndrome. I cannot agree that Ham is "doing harm to the Gospel", but I believe that compromising Christians do that daily by casting doubt on God's Word as true and trustworthy. Jesus was ridiculed, mocked, hated and rejected - He said we would be too if we followed Him. I am shocked that you would compare Ham with Camping - there's no comparison at all. I agree with this: God could have created the universe in 6 seconds or six years or 6 long periods. But the question is, WHAT DOES GOD'S WORD SAY (including Genesis) and how do observations of nature fit with His Word? That word "observations" is key. No one living today observed the Creation - except GOD - I'll take His Word. "Let God be true and every man a liar."

Report Abuse

Rick Dalbey

February 20, 2014  2:33am

Audrey, I've been at this as long as you have, having met the Lord 43 years ago, diving right into apologetics. I'll bet I've read as many books as you have about Young Earth Creation. I've read both sides in detail of every argument. I followed the Institute for Creation Research, invited Duane Gish to the campus of Portland State and was a little embarrassed when he could not defend himself. Yes, Ken Ham is a brother, but I believe he's off on a sidetrack and doing harm to the Gospel. He sets Teenagers up for failure in college and brings ridicule to the Bible. To me he is similar to Harold Camping and his theories of dates for the 2nd coming. I try to warn people away from Ken Ham. He has fanatic followers who become obsessed with his fantasies. I've warned our pastor of our 5000 member Foursquare church. God could have created the universe in 6 seconds or six years or 6 long periods. The question is what is the intention of Genesis and how does it fit with observations of nature.

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

February 20, 2014  2:15am

A classic, well-respected Hebrew-English lexicon has seven headings and many subheadings for the meaning of yom; but it defines the creation days of Genesis 1 as ordinary days under the heading “day as defined by evening and morning.” A number and the phrase “evening and morning” are used with each of the six days of creation. Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 359 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with the word “evening” or “morning” 23 times. “Evening” and “morning” appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times the text refers to an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word “night.” Outside of Genesis 1, “night” is used with yom 53 times, and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word “light” with yom in this passage determines the meaning as ordinary day.

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

February 20, 2014  2:13am

The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, such as “in those days.” Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11, where a number is used with “days,” it unambiguously refers to six earth-rotation days. There are words in Biblical Hebrew (such as olam or qedem) that are very suitable for communicating long periods of time, or indefinite time, but none of these words are used in Genesis 1.

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

February 20, 2014  1:54am

Oh my word, Rick, I haven't even mentioned Ken Ham! All I've talked about has been the Word of God. At the same time, Ham is a brother in the Lord, and you need to consider your dissing of him in light of what the Lord tells us about the accuser of the brethren. Have you heard Ham's testimony? He grew up in Australia, in a secular culture, not knowing how applicable the Word of God is for everyday living - it was confined to Sundays only (a dear Aussie friend has told me the same thing.) By the time he was a teen, having absorbed the message all his life that he was an accident of nature with no reason for living and no destiny, he was suicidal. Only a supernatural work of God saved his life. We cannot comprehend growing up in that sort of culture, but our grandchildren might, if the Lord tarries. Your God is too small/impotent because you have indicated the Creation account in Genesis was not possible, that it 'could not' have happened that way. NOTHING is too hard for God!

Report Abuse

Rick Dalbey

February 20, 2014  1:33am

Audrey, I respect you as a Godly Christian woman, a great mother and able defender of the gospel. I have been scrupulous to stick to the word of God only, and scrupulous about not adding one jot or tittle. Even my last two entries. I love the word of God deeply and love Jesus with all my heart. All I am asking from you is a little respect. Not, "Rick, your God is impotent". Impotent? We may disagree, but I come to my interpretation honestly. I have tried avoid being critical towards you and instead shift the blame to Ken Ham. We have fought many a battle together on many blogs. This issue is not critical to salvation. We both are NOT atheistic evolutionists, we both reject random chance, (I've told you this over and over. Adam and eve were NOT created through evolution.) We both believe God created all things in 7 distinct periods, we believe in a personal Adam and Eve who are the parents of the human race. So lets celebrate what we agree on and leave it at that.

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

February 20, 2014  1:28am

Re-posting this because you seem to have missed it the first time: Please be very careful about dissing believers - I'm sure you know who the accuser of the brethren is. I love you in the Lord, and I really think we only honor God when we stick to the issue instead of resorting to put-downs. The enemy sits back on his heels and cackles when he can set brother against brother (or sister).

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

February 20, 2014  1:25am

It seems to me that instead of saying, "Why not billions of years in Genesis?", we should be saying, "Why not believe the Genesis account of Creation just as it is written?" Jesus said to the Father, "Your Word IS truth." You suppose and extrapolate things which are not written in the scriptures, and indicate that you do not believe it is possible that God created all that exists just as the Bible says He did. You indicate that you have to make excuses for what is written in His Word. Jesus said of Adam and Eve that they were created in the beginning. He did not even imply they were created billions of years later. Oh, and there's that pesky verse where God says, "Let us make a man", completely negating any evolutionary process. Then He says He made Eve from Adam's rib. Do you believe that, or do you think you have to make excuses for that too? I've not labeled your theories as "crackpot". It's strange that you would attack a believer for believing God's Word! Strange indeed.

Report Abuse

Rick Dalbey

February 20, 2014  1:07am

I am going to the wedding feast of the lamb in heaven, how about you? “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.” It is human death that is the last enemy. In heaven we will eat roast beef! “The Lord of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine. And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, Even the veil which is stretched over all nations. He will swallow up death for all time.” Isa 25:6. So, when do we eat roast beef? In heaven? Do you see the problem?

Report Abuse

Rick Dalbey

February 20, 2014  1:05am

Audrey, do I have to show you a verse that proves crocodiles and penguins were created vegetarians? The whole notion would have been ridiculous to the Hebrews. Its like proving that Abraham did NOT drive a car. You have a crackpot theory that has no basis in scripture or reality. Psalms says God made the lions the way they are and he feeds them. Common sense. Do I have to prove to you that Yom can mean long period of time? There are 67 verses where Yom means long period of time, Read Strong’s definition of Yom. If there has ever been a case where Yom should indicate a long period of time, the creation of the universe would certainly qualify. In fact, Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever? An infinite number of years...billions upon billions. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, why not billions of years in Genesis?

Report Abuse

audrey ruth

February 20, 2014  1:00am

Rick, your God is too small, too impotent, too incapable. He does not fit Jesus' statements RE: "Nothing is too hard for God." "With God, nothing is impossible." And Psalm 104 does NOT say that God created lions to eat meat, just that they were eating meat when the psalmist wrote that song. Please be very careful about dissing believers - I'm sure you know who the accuser of the brethren is. I love you in the Lord, and I really think we only honor God when we stick to the issue instead of resorting to put-downs. The enemy sits back and cackles when he can set brother against brother (or sister).

Report Abuse

Displaying 1–20 of 262 comments.

1 2 3 4 5  …  14 next page

View this article in Reader Mode