There is a rather odd little article from Answers in Genesis that tries to have it both ways; a literal creation but one that was created "ageless."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/mature-age
The universe does not "look old" but is "mature" instead. Because, according to Ham, all of the dating techniques used in conventional science are wrong, they cannot be trusted to give an accurate reading of the past as they are "fallible." He asserts that creation scientists have "proven" repeatedly that the dating techniques are inaccurate. To this I would respond that, if "creation scientists", an oxymoron if there ever was one, had proof or truly good reason to assert that the dating techniques were wrong, then get it published in a reputable science journal rather than engaging in the collective back-scratching of Young-Earth Creationist publications. Science is a self-correcting mechanism; if a hypothesis or theory can be demonstrated to be wrong, then science will come to accept it. But of course, operating as they do, creationists have no such evidence. They engage in armchair speculation rather than hands-on science in the field, the laboratory or the research library.
Ham asserts no evidence in favor of his hypothesis, that the earth is mature rather than old, relying instead on circular reasoning to justify his ideas. Their reading of the Bible posits a young earth. But how do we know the earth is young? Because God wouldn't "lie" and say the earth is young if it is quite old. My brain is reeling at the fuzzy logic behind Ham's statements.
The world was created "mature", as in Adam and Eve were already past childhood and puberty, and gave the appearance of age though they were only a few days old. This rather reminds me of the birth of Athena in Greek myth, where the goddess sprang fully-formed from the head of her father, along with many of the other myths of the Greeks where the gods grew to maturity in a day or less. While Ham asserts that anyone at the time would be unable to tell that the creation had only existed for a day, this doesn't stop him from thinking that he and the creationists know the age. By this line of reasoning, couldn't we say that they were actually quite old already, since they argue that before the Fall there was no sin? So how does Ham know that he is right and the whole of modern science is wrong by this argument?
It only seems to demonstrate the strange, irrational world in which they operate.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/mature-age
The universe does not "look old" but is "mature" instead. Because, according to Ham, all of the dating techniques used in conventional science are wrong, they cannot be trusted to give an accurate reading of the past as they are "fallible." He asserts that creation scientists have "proven" repeatedly that the dating techniques are inaccurate. To this I would respond that, if "creation scientists", an oxymoron if there ever was one, had proof or truly good reason to assert that the dating techniques were wrong, then get it published in a reputable science journal rather than engaging in the collective back-scratching of Young-Earth Creationist publications. Science is a self-correcting mechanism; if a hypothesis or theory can be demonstrated to be wrong, then science will come to accept it. But of course, operating as they do, creationists have no such evidence. They engage in armchair speculation rather than hands-on science in the field, the laboratory or the research library.
Ham asserts no evidence in favor of his hypothesis, that the earth is mature rather than old, relying instead on circular reasoning to justify his ideas. Their reading of the Bible posits a young earth. But how do we know the earth is young? Because God wouldn't "lie" and say the earth is young if it is quite old. My brain is reeling at the fuzzy logic behind Ham's statements.
The world was created "mature", as in Adam and Eve were already past childhood and puberty, and gave the appearance of age though they were only a few days old. This rather reminds me of the birth of Athena in Greek myth, where the goddess sprang fully-formed from the head of her father, along with many of the other myths of the Greeks where the gods grew to maturity in a day or less. While Ham asserts that anyone at the time would be unable to tell that the creation had only existed for a day, this doesn't stop him from thinking that he and the creationists know the age. By this line of reasoning, couldn't we say that they were actually quite old already, since they argue that before the Fall there was no sin? So how does Ham know that he is right and the whole of modern science is wrong by this argument?
It only seems to demonstrate the strange, irrational world in which they operate.
Comments
Post a Comment