Why I am Not a Young Earth Creationist. John Mac. Arthur, ally of Young Earth Creation. I grew up in an ultra- conservative, 4 1/2 point Calvinist, expository Bible teaching church. When I was in high school, my church in Lincoln Nebraska brought in a special speaker, the Young Earth Creationist and Bible teacher John C. Whitcomb. He gave a series of talks about science and the Bible.

It was FASCINATING. Ten times more interesting than the usual Sunday Biblical exegesis. Watch Bedtime Stories 4Shared. A six- part series, a multi- day, power packed tour de force of creation science. Whitcomb delivered a scorching exposé of the fallacies of carbon dating; he described the worldwide flood; the Genesis account, the deterioration and de- evolution of the human genome; the tower of Babel.

He explained how Noah’s flood accounted for geological anomalies which secular scientists misconstrued as “millions of years; ” and how the earth is actually 6,0. He explained how we know that from the Biblical genealogies. I was captivated.

I grew up in an ultra-conservative, 4 1/2 point Calvinist, expository Bible teaching church. When I was in high school, my church in Lincoln Nebraska broug. The Evangelical Congregational Church model of Christian Fellowship. Presenting equality in the individual Christian believers (royal) priesthood. The Queen of Oversharing. The personal essay may be over—but Joyce Maynard isn’t.

Whitcomb was a pivotal figure in the Young Earth Creation movement. He and his co- author Henry Morris created an entire field known as “Flood geology.” A weekend seminar similar to that one still appears at a church near you multiple times a year. My church growing up was very similar to John Mac. Arthur’s. He’s pictured above. When I was seven, I had a dinosaur book I wore out from total fascination. It described dinosaurs living 6.

My 2nd grade teacher taught me how to handle that: “Just laugh at it.” So I did. Origins didn’t come up much in high school or college. Once I had a conversation about Jesus around the water cooler at work. I offered a pretty convincing case for the resurrection, and a co- worker admitted as much. But he said, “There’s no way you’re going to convince me that all of humanity is the result of two naked people, an apple and a snake.” I didn’t have a comeback. I professionally subscribed to a publication called Sensors. Magazine. It struck me how technologies – especially sensors, from cameras to ultrasonics to devices most folks have never imagined – are greatly inspired by sensors in the human body and animal kingdom.

As an engineer I intuitively sensed a tremendous level of design in nature. I also knew there were a LOT of questions I couldn’t answer. I wasn’t exactly seeking opportunities to debate. One day I heard up talk by astrophysicist Hugh Ross called “New Scientific Evidence for the God of the Bible” and it set my mind on fire.

How Jews Control America. A Christian America! - Not A Jewish America! Jewish Agenda Articles, Jewification Of America Articles. How Jews Control America. Issuu is a digital publishing platform that makes it simple to publish magazines, catalogs, newspapers, books, and more online. Easily share your publications and get. Vincent Regan, Actor: 300. Vincent Regan was born on May 16, 1965. He is an actor and director, known for 300 (2006), Lockout (2012) and Troy (2004). He has been.

A virtually unrecognized victim soul of the Church “She died to save lost souls, to atone for their sins. Anneliese was a kind, loving, sweet and obedient girl.

This guy explained how the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest in 1. Why? Because evidence for a single discrete beginning 1. He showed, verse by verse, how modern cosmology and the opening verses of Genesis match exceedingly well. All that was needed was a shift in perspective, a few very elegant assumptions. So long as you assume a “day” is a period of time, and take the story as being told from an earthly vantage point (which is established in Genesis 1: 2), it all fits – tit for tat.

Ross described the extreme fine tuning required for gravity, the expansion rate of the big bang, forces, constants etc – physics facts Electrical Engineers are quite familiar with. Wow. That was a mind- blower. Guess what – no conflict between mainstream cosmology and Genesis after all. I sent Ross’s tape to a physics professor friend of mine. He wrote back with a rebuke: “David Hume dismantled the ‘design argument’ 2. His reply didn’t contain much actual substance, however. He did nothing to explain the fact that no plausible re- configuration of any of those interdependent constants would result in any kind of coherent universe.

Nothing more than a hand- waving dismissal. I plowed forward, happy to now have a general cosmology that matched the Biblical one – but on a much grander scale. Guess what, those dinosaurs really did live 6.

The story I’ve told so far will make Old Earth Creationists quite happy – and Young Earth Creationists unhappy. The reason it makes YECs unhappy is… YEC is brittle. Any change to the story forces them to disassemble quite a number of theological shibboleths and re- assemble them. Go down this road and you’ll soon find major Biblical engine parts scattered around on the shop floor. For awhile may not feel quite sure if they’re going to go back together.

This is anathema to a traditional evangelical. Especially where I came from. Our systematic theology was a vast spreadsheet of theological exact answers and precision- formed parts, carefully engineered and fine- tuned like a NASCAR drive train. To a traditional evangelical, this comes down to an issue of authority. Are you going to believe godless secular scientists?

Or are you going to believe God’s word?” This is how Answers In Genesis frames the question. It’s either/or, black- and- white. There’s little dance or interplay between science and theology. You take the plain sense literal reading of Genesis, you eschew those “liberals” who “compromise” God’s Holy Word. Any apparent disagreement with science is obviously a science problem. Not a theology problem.

Not an interpretation problem. When I was in high school I had debates with my pal Pat, who belonged to a traditional strand of Church of Christ.

COC interpreted not a few, but MANY things differently than my home team. I saw that as they rotated their theological Rubik’s cube, they matched some pieces much differently than we did. As I became familiar with other protestants and Catholics, I saw that the re- configurations of Christian theology can be almost endless. The central pillars of Christianity are quite solid. It’s pretty hard to come up with anything much different from the Apostle’s Creed, for example, without butchering the Bible. But once you get to secondary and tertiary issues, there are many ways to work the puzzle. I was a pastor’s kid.

As Biblically educated as anybody’s likely to get short of seminary. And already by age 2. I viewed the 1. 0- decimal precision and proclaimed certainty of reformed evangelical theology with a jaundiced eye. I noticed that theologians fiddle with interpretations for their entire lives, and do clever sleight of hand with each other (with plenty of petty name calling, posturing, shaming and shunning) to win debates and protect egos. I knew too much about the Bible to crown one single, rigid, Ken Ham interpretation as king – or anybody else’s for that matter. Don’t get me wrong, I embrace the inspiration and authority of the Bible.

I believe in the lifelong pursuit of truth and discernment. But I believe the value and experience of twisting the Rubik’s cube itself is actually more important than the particular Rubik’s configuration your cube happens to land on today.

Nuances of theology are squishy. That’s a fact. I also think the capacity to dialogue with people who disagree with you, and still love them without losing your cool, is much closer to the “point” of Christianity than whatever doctrines we abstract from the stories and texts. Also: As an Electrical Engineer, I found some things in science are not squishy at all. Like the speed of light. It’s the “c” in Einstein’s “e=mc^2.” That “c” appears all over the place in physics. It’s in Maxwell’s equations, which define light’s essential behavior; “c” cements the relationship between electric fields and magnetism, and we can measure it with ten decimals of precision. There is nothing remotely controversial about this in science.

Contrast this to Darwinism, for example, which has been plagued with endless problems and conflicting data for 1. The speed of light, so far as I know as an electrical engineer, is a constant in physics. Sure, light’s speed changes in a prism, but as a physical constant it does not budge. It doesn’t even shift with the speed of objects.

As far as we can tell it’s an absolute barrier. Q: If a star is 1. A: 1. 00 million years ago.

All kinds of YECs have tried to dodge that question and that answer. None have succeeded. If they were right, physics itself would be a complete mess.