Creationists claim to read Genesis literally. This indeed is one of the proclamations made in the IEAC Reaffirmation Statement which says in its background that the various signatories “accept the creation record as literal in its details”. This is a fine sounding declaration. We thought we would align Genesis 1 in the KJV with the old earth creation model promoted by The Lampstand Magazine (a promoter of the Reaffirmation Statement). Lots of words had to be deleted or added. Be warned you might be upset. The intention is not to upset but rather demonstrate the old earth creation view is NOT a literal reading. Neither is the young earth creationist view, as should also be evidence from the below. Continue reading
Young man in denial is caught out by paternity test; argues that the scientists are mistaken, that conception was a special act of God, and that physical similarities are merely the result of common design.
Sorry…not very convincing.
Don’t be a fool. Don’t deny the genetic evidence. Face the facts. We were wrong about evolution, we were wrong about Adam. Admit the truth and move on.
As newer more powerful telescopes penetrate deeper into space, they enable astronomers to observe deeper and deeper into time. As it is possible to observe virtually all the way back to the moment of creation when the Universe was merely 380,000 years old, astronomers are able to study the emergence and birth of the Universe when it was less than one thirtieth of one percent of its present 13.7 billion year age. Continue reading
“The Roman church is by no means the only one guilty of misinterpreting Bible teaching in such a way as to create a conflict with science or with reason. All denominations have failed in this respect, to a greater or a lesser extent. We ourselves have not been altogether free from this error. Though our important and distinctive doctrines have been established upon a sure Bible foundation (a cause for gratitude, not pride), we have occasionally been unnecessarily dogmatic in our interpretation of Scripture, when convincing Bible evidence has been wanting; and when time has exposed the flaws in our adventurous expositions, our confusion has been almost as painful as if the real foundations had been shaken. We must not permit our self-criticism to distract us from our main point, which is: that that which is described as conflict between science and the Bible, may, in fact, be conflict between science and unsound Bible exposition.”
Watkins, ‘The Inspired Scriptures – Our Sure Foundation: 10 – Difficulties’, The Christadelphian (99.1172.55), 1961..
High profile creationists decry evolutionary creationists/theistic evolution using their powers of exposition, logic and rhetoric. But the same creationists don’t even understand basic words. How they remain credible is incredible.
Some creationists have gone into print to try and reject Evolutionary Creation. Their counter argument to the non factual use of the heart is summarised below. Their essential argument is that because SOME uses of heart are obviously metaphorical therefore ALL uses are. The evidence of archaeology/history is ignored. Key components of the argument are shown below: Continue reading