Feedback about
web page
Date:
4/3/2005
Subject: creation
Just want to comment on your pleasant approach to this question. Other
sites are so blatantly biased and emotional, that yours is a breath of
fresh air.
Thanks.
DR
Sent:
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Subject: Radiometric dating
Mr. Walker,
I am a Navy doctor who is researching creationism and evolution in my
spare time. Concerning the geologic column, I assume that igneous rock
within the different layers correlate to their estimated age, down to
the 550 million year old Cambrian. Can you please explain why rock
gives older ages the further down the column you go? Or am I making
assumptions?
Thank you.
MR, Florida
See
The way it really is.
and Q&A Topics--Radiometric Dating.
Sent:
Friday, January 07, 2005
Subject: Enquiry
Dear Dr. Walker:
I am a recently-converted Bible-believing Christian, and have found the
information on the Answers in Genesis extremely helpful on many
occasions. I am not remotely a geologist, but having spent our
honeymoon on some of the Hawaiian islands, I would be very interested
to read a young-earth Creationist perspective on the formation of this
wonderful volcanic island chain, since I would imagine that they are
often used to illustrate the old earth paradigm. I would be very
grateful if you could point me towards any appropriate web links - I
have searched around, and also emailed the AIG website directly, but
they were unaware of any.
With many thanks in advance,
RH, UK
|
Dear
RH,
It
was
good to receive your email.
I
was not
able to quickly find anything
specific about the Hawaiian islands from a creationist perspective.
Generally, the relative timing of events as proposed by secular
geologists is a reasonable starting point. They just have the absolute
timing wrong because their dates are based on wrong assumptions.
I
would
speculate that the Hawaiian islands
formed after the Flood. I.e. after the oceans floors had formed and
flood water had returned to the sea. The the following links have
material that mention them and would be relevant. These links show that
there is really no problem explaining the islands and accepting that
they are only a few thousand years old. See:
Surtsey Island.
Dragons
Volcanism
Radioactive dating--the way it works.
Secular
geologists say the islands formed as
a result of the Pacific plate moving over a stationary hot spot in the
mantle. They say that as the plate moved the islands formed one after
the other in a line. As the plate changed direction the line of islands
changed direction.
Some
creationist geologists accept the plate
tectonic theory (greatly speeded up) but others don't. See the
discussion at:
Permian extinction
Forum on plate tectonics.
I
notice
that some secular geologists are
also skeptical of the hot spot idea.
I hope you have a very happy
New Year.
Yours in Christ,
Tas Walker
|
Dear
Tas,
Many thanks for taking the time to send this reply, which I found very
interesting.
The Answers in Genesis site is an excellent resource, and I pray it
will continue to be used to lead people to the truth.
The Lord be with you,
RH
Sent:
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Subject: A question about rock formation
Greetings Tas!
I was directed to you by Answer's in Genesis. I have a question to ask
about rock formation in the Grand Canyon. I got the book "A different
View" for my father for Christmas and want to be prepared to answer any
questions he may have. How were the many different layers formed that
they find. There are so many different rock types and I am curious as
to your understanding. Why are there such abrupt changes from one rock
type to another? I apreciate any input you would have.
Blessings to you in Christ,
JF, USA
|
Hi
JF,
Thanks
for your email.
Probably the best creationist source about Grand Canyon is Steve
Austin's book called Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe
This
book interprets each of the Grand Canyon strata in chapter 3 and then
explains a creationist geologic view of how the strata were deposited
in chapter 4.
Of course no one was present when it happened so Austin's model is an
interpretation. Different creationists sometimes have different ideas.
But Austin's model on page 69 of his book is a good explanation,
suggesting that the strata were due to a huge flow of water onto the
basement rock.
So the bottom layers start out coarse and bouldery because of the fast
flowing water. Then they progressively become finer as you move up
because the energy of the flow wanes. That is why the bottom layers are
the Tapeats Sandston, changing into the Bright Angel Shale and then the
Muav Limestone.
The abrupt changes are probably due to the water temporarily changing
direction and bringing in material from a different source area. These
generally erode the lower layers producing unconformities as occur
between the Muav and Temple Butte strata. Then the same sequence can be
seen again: coarse to fine.
All
the best to you.
I hope your father enjoyed the book.
In Christ,
Tas Walker
|
Sent:
Friday, December 24, 2004
Subject: Question
You
wrote, "If the Bible taught that the world was millions of years old,
we would believe that. However, the concept of millions of years of
death and suffering contradicts the Word of God, and destroys the
foundation of the Gospel of Christ."
I am
sixteen years old, and I plan to be a Christian pastor, yet I disagree
with what you said. Does this mean I am not a Christian? Now, the
teaching that I have experienced is that the Bible is God-inspired
Word. I believe this whole-heartedly. There is some definite history in
the Bible, and there is an absolute plethora of valuable teachings.
However, how do you know that God intended the creation story in
Genesis to be taken literally?
|
[Tas]
Well I wish you all the best as you seek to serve the Lord. I reckon
the only way to know whether the creation account is literal is to make
sure we understand what the Bible is saying. There are lots of good
Bible reasons why Genesis is recording real history, e.g. Jesus
referred to it as history, the Apostle Paul referred to it as history,
and the other writers of the Old and New Testament referred to it as
history. Don't take my word for it, check a concordance for names like
Adam, Noah, Abel, Lot, etc and read the context of how they are
referred to. I always encourage folk to check the Bible for themselves.
If you show me that I'm wrong from the Word I'll gladly change my view.
After all, no one knows everything and we are all fallen, fallible
human beings.
|
In fact, how do you even
know that God intended the entire Bible to be taken as literal history?
If God really wanted to write a history book, then why are there gaps
of time in the Bible? Why do we have to settle with mere genealogies
instead of detailed history? Perhaps God thought that moralistic
teachings were more important than history. I would agree; I enjoy
ethics much more than history. Does this make me un-Christian? Be
careful before you judge me.
|
[Tas]
I'm not judging you and I'm sorry that you got that impression.
However, the morality of the Bible depends on the Bible's history. If
the Bible history is not true then its morality collapses.
|
So, it looks like you are taking the Bible
absolutely literally. Does this mean that you believe four horses of
different colors are going to invade the world? I would expect that you
believe in the antichrist, war, famine, and death, rather than four
literal horses. Am I right? Oops, if I am right, then it looks to me
like you aren't a Bible-believing Christian anymore.
|
[Tas]
The Book of Revelation explains itself that it contains a lot of
symbols (e.g. Rev 1:20 'The seven stars are the angels ... and the
seven lampstands are the seven churches.' That is quite different from
the writing in the Gospels and the writing in the historical parts of
the OT such as Genesis, Exodus, Ruth, Ezra, etc. where they describe
events, people and places.
|
Have
you heard of C.S. Lewis? It's a silly question; I know. You have
hopefully read Mere Christianity a few times. However, have you read
the Problem of Pain? I remember there being a chapter devoted to the
possible origin of man that included original sin. Lewis didn't seem to
believe in young-earth creationism. Why is that? Why would someone who
is considered one of the greatest contributions to rational
Christianity do such a thing? I assume you would say that "Satan got
hold of him," or something of the sort. Now, why don't you let God be
the judge? You wrote, "Sadly, the ones which cause most confusion and
distress are those written by professing 'Bible-believers'."
Don't you understand that believing the Bible does not necessitate
believing it as a science book or a history book? It seems to me that
many people are thinking so much about which Christians are bad
Christians that they forget about being good Christians themselves. I
used to be that way, and I repent of my horridly disgusting pride. How
dare I determine what it means to be a Christian? I am a mere human --
an imperfect being. So are you. Perhaps you should focus more on
yourself, on repenting of sins, on following Christ's example.
|
[Tas]
You have to decide for yourself who is teaching correctly and who is
not. In fact, the Bible tells us to check everything. Even Paul
corrected Peter (Gal 2:11) because he was wrong, but that does not mean
Peter was not a Christian.
|
The
quote above written by
you has an interestingly condescending tone, and I just didn't respect
such a tone coming from a fellow human — a fellow imperfect being. We
are supposed to be brothers in Christ; is that not true? How can
brothers in Christ be so set on banishing each other out of the
brotherhood of God? Would Christ teach this? Was Christ focused on
teaching His apostles and the rest of the world how to interpret
Genesis? Or was He focused on teaching our hearts? He seemed much more
concerned with the fact that we are supposed to believe God created us
and that Christ is the Son of God, followed by His focus on defeating
spiritual sins. Am I right?
|
[Tas]
Tone is a subjective thing but correct teaching can be judged
objectively against the Word. I suppose Peter may have been a bit
offended when Paul corrected him. I'm sorry if it came across as
condescending, but I hope that does not stop you evaluating whether
what I said was correct. I have found in my life that I have never
appreciated being corrected by people at the time, but in hindsight I
have appreciated what they have said to me and that they took the time
and courage to do it. So be encouraged.
|
Before
I end this, I have a couple more things to
note. Mainly, I would request that you refrain from replying in a
condescending manner because I am young.
Job
32:8-9: 8 But it is the
spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him
understanding. 9 It is not only the old who are wise, not
only the aged who understand what is right. (from New International
Version)
1 Tim
4:12 12 Don't let
anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for
the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.
(from New International Version)
|
[Tas]
Yes, these are encouraging verses for young people and I pray you will
be greatly used of the Lord.
|
You
may be wondering what my beliefs as a Christian are. My dad was raised
Methodist, and my mom was raised Catholic. Some of my family members
are Lutheran, and others are Baptist, while my mom's side is Catholic.
However, my mom, dad, brother, and myself are all nondenominational
Christians.
Even so, we are not Unitarian. If you would like to see what we
believe, then look around here: [web address deleted]
For a more specific statement of beliefs, look here: [web address
deleted]
So, am I, my family, and my entire church a group of 'Bible-believing'
heretics? Are we wolves in sheep's clothing? Are we false prophets?
|
[Tas]
I checked out the web site for your church and it looks pretty
exciting. Seems to me from a quick surf of the site that it is a good
place for you to be.
|
In
Christ,
ZS
Sent:
Thursday, 13 January 2005
Subject: RE: Question
Dear Tas,
Thank
you very much for the reply. For the most
part, I was playing devil's advocate with that e-mail. You were
probably surprised to see that I went to that church, since my church
is quite conservative, and my reply was superficially liberal. Now, all
I really wanted to do with that e-mail was to see how you would respond
to the liberal-minded Christians. I've been reading a lot of Norman
Geisler lately, who is also rather conservative, and I tend to agree
with virtually everything he says. Of course, while C.S. Lewis has
written masterful works, I do not agree with theistic evolution, which
Lewis favored.
I
understand your viewpoint, and I respect it
vastly. There is one part of your reply that I tend to debate myself
with sometimes, however. What evidence is there that Christ and Paul
actually referred to those people as real people? I mean, I'm not
saying they didn't; I just want to see the evidence for myself.
Thanks
again for this reply; it helped. I pray
that you continue to serve the Lord with all your might.
In
Christ,
ZS
|
Hi
ZS,
Yes, I was very pleased to
see that you went to that church and a bit
surprised. All the material on the web seemed good but you seemed so
confused that it did not add up. It is good that you want to see the
evidence for yourself. In fact, it is vital not to just accept what
people say but check it with the Word of God.
There is a lot of evidence that the New Testament
writers believed the
events recorded in the Old Testament were real events involving real
people. Too much, in fact, for me to list it all here, but I will
mention some.
Matt
23:35 Jesus refers to Abel as a real person.
Matt 24:35 Jesus refers to
Noah as a real person and the Flood as a
real event, comparing them with his second coming which will also be a
real event.
Mark 10:6 Jesus refers to Adam and Eve (not by
name) and says that the
first two people were male and female and they were present at the
beginning of creation (in other words, Jesus accepted a young age for
the earth, not an age of billions of years--if the world is billions of
years old the first man and woman did not appear until the 'end' of
creation).
Luke
3: 22-38. This genealogy of Jesus obviously has real people in it
but it goes back to Adam and the patriarchs before the Flood, and to
God. Luke gives no indication that some of these people were unreal,
mythological people.
Romans 5:12-19 Paul compares
Christ with Adam. His comparison would
seem silly if Adam was not a real person who did the things that are
recorded of him in Genesis. I.e. if Adam was not real then was Christ
not real either? If Adam did not literally die does that mean that
Christ did not literally rise from the dead?
1 Cor 15:21-22. Paul compares Christ and Adam and
obviously considers
both were real people.
Hebrews
11. The writer refers to a lot of people we would consider to
be real people (David, Gideon, Sampson, etc.). But he also refers to
Abel, Enoch and Noah and he obviously considered they were real too. He
gives no hint that they were mythological people.
2 Peter 2:4-10. Peter speaks
of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah in a way that
treats both as real people involved in real events as recorded in
Genesis.
Jude v7. Speaks of Sodom & Gomorrah. V11 of
Cain and Balaam. V
14 of Enoch and Adam. All treated as equally real people. Interesting
he refers to Enoch as 7th from Adam which gives a strong evidence that
there were no gaps in the genealogies. If you count Enoch in the
Genesis or Chronicles genealogy you will see that he is 7th from Adam.
These
are not all the references. You can find others by using a
concordance or a Bible search program on your computer.
All the best and God bless you,
Tas
|
|
