From: John W Burgeson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 12:40:03 EDT
Josh wrote: "
What I'd like is for anyone to point me to useful resources to help
a more detailed of Ken Ham's approach and responses to his approach that
have already been made. "
See the link below. This is a letter from Paul Masson to Mr. Ham. I have
never seen it rebutted.
Part of the letter (there is much more):
You said that the Bible says the earth is not millions of years old - it
does not say that.
You said that the Bible says that thorns and did not exist before Adam
sinned. It does not say that.
..the evolution you claim all meat eaters went through implies that you
believe in some natural process that is much more evolutionary that the
most ardent evolutionists - that all the characteristics of plants and
animals that are related to catching prey or escaping predators (from
camouflage to speed and teeth and fangs and claws and horns and antlers
etc etc) developed in just a short time.
Your view that truth cannot be gained from Godís creation is clearly
unbiblical and has set you on a path of thinking that distorts the
scriptures. For example you misused I Cor 15: 3-4. You claimed that the
only way we know about the resurrection is from the scriptures - not from
some scientific observations. Yet the way the disciples knew Christ was
alive was through direct observation with their fallen eyes. Scripture is
a record of human observations of reality.
Concerning bias, you have so connected certain interpretations of
scripture with your salvation and morality that you feel obligated not
only to reinterpret all of creation in light of no death before the fall
etc. but to actually throw out creation as fallen and untruthful. It
seems that one who believes God could use whatever method he wanted to
create would be less biased in interpreting creation evidence.
To put the resurrection in the same category as a young earth
interpretation is really stretching it and creating a dangerous rigidity
by linking them so that for either to be true both must be true.
In our conversation you said that if there weren't the Bible you too
would conclude that the earth is old - yet earlier in your talk you
claimed something to the effect that the majority of the evidence pointed
to a young earth. You can't have it both ways.
Your view taken to the extreme could imply that we can't trust our eyes
when we look at the written symbols of fallen ink on the fallen paper
pages that the Word of God was written on.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 08 2003 - 12:49:32 EDT