Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

Hugh Ross or Ken Ham? Who is an evo to believe? Is MTW a Hugh Ross or a Ken Ham? ANswer; neither.I've heard a lot about me lately. It seems to be the usual suspects. Buz, me and maybe another creo.I know that we are the creo's that stick around, so to speak. But I think we're different animals in that we are essentially left to wonder and devise our own opinions about Genesis, because God wasn't taking part in an encyclopedia of science when wanting Moses to write down some stuff. WHy this topic is so important simply baffles me. At this stage I'm inclined to not care whether a distant monkey was my relative or not, as long as God was the cause of it all.It's like Percy and Minemoose said, in the topic, "The Current Accepted Ideas of Creation Science?".I think there's some confusion as to who we are. But I concede that it is true that we are all different from each other (creos). I think Buz takes Genesis literally. Something about the four days. And it's true that we all have our own groups and even idiosyncrasies some of us. YECs and OECs, etc. Flat-earthers and general conspiracy theorists.I think the problem is that we aren't the same for merely sharing a belief in the bible. That's what we share, belief that the bible is true whether literally or not so literally.I personally have earned the name "creationist" because of some confusion over my position from myself! Can you believe that! But I don't think you guys should put creationists on the dart board as someone to aim at. If anything, our differences show that we are not all creo clones with the same arguments. I for example, don't have any set criteria as to how God created the universe. I will, somewhat pantheistically, basically settle for the accepted science of the current age more or less. Yet I believe God "created".Please don't fall for the undistributed middle because of our shared name-tag. Here's a classic example of that fallacy;If Bush believes in God, and you are a believer then you and Bush are the same animal, so God would vote Bush so you must.This is invalid because me and Bush ONLY share belief in God, and I or anyone else can believe in God without voting for any particular person. So if you're a believer, it doesn't mean you're a Bushie. Now also nobody can say as to who God would vote for, but I won't go off topic. Likewise, I am a creationist but that doesn't mean I'm Ken Ham, I'm a completely different animal. I'm not a YEC SHraff. I WASSo then you might say, "but then if their stories don't match, then why believe them".My honest answer is that you can still believe in what we truly share, --> belief in the God of the bible, of which there is no different position pertaining to creationism. Nor do the words in Genesis change with time, even if creationist's positions do. So look to God, not us. We are imperfect.

Thanks for putting this topic through Admin-objective. It's a rare occurence for an admin to do this with my topics.I must stress to readers that infact this topic is not to do with me but rather the topic of what is meant by "creationist", and their differences, yet consistent agreement on biblical truths.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-25-2005 07:41 PM

I'd like to stay out of the argument with Jar and Buz and concentrate on this point you made Sylas. I agree. This is why I recommend the bible and what it does say.An old-earther might say the universe is 14 billion YO.
A YEC will say 6000 Y.But the bible says neither, and God certainly isn't interested in communicating anything about the topic.I'm starting to think this whole debate is in existence because of men and their interpretations of the bible. I think I'll go back to how I used to be. It used to be simple, the bible said that God done some things, and science gathered facts, and the two weren't really contradictory unless one went looking for problems.Since "the earth bringing forth" life is also a verse, then really anything goes. So it's useless for me to try my own interpretation because it's likely wrong like the others.Also, no offense "Faith" but I think if some of the bible was wrong then that doesn't mean it all is. That's bad logic. It also doesn't mean God is fallible, it means --> the bible is.I've heard the following illogic from YECs too many times to worry too much.If one human is a killer, then that must mean all are killers..If that person just got angry, then that means he is always angry.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-28-2005 01:15 PM

You miss my point. What I'm saying is that the bible is just a book. I worship God, not the book. If some of it is wrong then it can still be inspired. If you're missing a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, you can still make out the picture. But I'm not saying the bible is wrong in places, but then - would it really matter, if God is still true? Now Christ even said "your law" to the Jews, and used the OT against them.Think about it. They worshipped their own books and law more than anything, including God (the pharisees etc), and so how do you hit them where it hurts? By telling them how wrong they had got their own books.If I am to take all scripture as inspired by God then that also means books outside of the bible does it not?I think believers get far too caught up in worshipping the bible. I also believe in the bible, and all of it, but the Word of God is Jesus Christ. I think the bible is given for our lives. But when it comes down to it, I find that only men concentrating on what they shouldn't be concentrating on creates the problems.If the Jews thought that the calendar dates at about 6,000 years then that's fair enough. But the bible doesn't say the earth was created then. Infact they've worked it out. And as far as I know God didn't tell them to do that, as he didn't say how old the earth or universe is.

Okay, I was going to reply to Faith and Shraff but I feel like history now. How on earth has five pages been added in one day?!Getting back onto topic, I agree about those few you mentioned Shraff. Infact I don't mention these things much but I don't think creationism is science personally.It seems Faith, that science is against God according to you yet you are for what you might call creation science? This is where we differ I suppose, as creationists, and I suppose it justifies the opening post. We ourselves are different animals. I don't think science has anything much to do with Genesis or floods, or belief.As for the law, didn't the NT said that an angel gave it to Moses?I find the early law books a bit barbaric. No offense, but if God ordered me to rape women and kill babas, then I'd have to abandon God. Good job I know he wouldn't ever ask that, because I believe in Christ.And also, all that violence, and burning people for their transgressions, and warring, - for me this just proves how wrong they all were about what the Commandments where about, thus only Christ knew what they were about thus he fulfilled the law.I think those early biblical Jews(Deuteronomy) and their band of merry murderers transgressed the commandment to not kill many times.(PS. My bad, I meant to press "general reply")This message has been edited by Dilbert fine hog, 03-30-2005 07:55 AM

Please stick around my friend. I have read NONE of this thread but I am living proof that they aren't so tough. Lot of talk around here, but we need good ID creos like yourself because we have a shortage, as Buz would say. (banned creo Buz who done nothing wrong).