Refutations of Talk Origins' refutations of creationist claims

Status
Not open for further replies.

MichaelNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
A few months ago when I was questioning the Christian faith, I read quite a bit about evolution and especially Talk Origins' refutations of creationist claims, particularly regarding the age of the Earth. While I don't question Christianity now, I am no longer sure about the age of the Earth and I was wondering if anyone here knows of any sites that specifically address these refutations. I am familiar with Answers in Genesis and Creation.com and have found them both very helpful in this area.
 
It depends on what your particular issue is. I think talk.origins makes clear that what they are about is not disputing Christianity/Theism in particular, but in looking at the scientific questions about evolution and the age of the universe/Earth.

Those scientific questions do not have to be in conflict. For example, evidence saying the Earth is old could really be showing that the Earth appears old (mature universe theory). I think some resources Answers in Genesis goes too far in trying to disprove and re-interpret various natural phenomena to show the Earth/universe is young. I think the universe generally attests that it is old, and if the Bible attests that the universe is young, then we should understand that God created a mature universe. I heard in a debate with Hugh Ross and Jason Lyle (OEC from Reasons to Believe and YEC from Answers in Genesis, both PhD Astrophysicists) that Lyle would not believe the Universe is young without the Bible. That is, if he only had natural revelation and no special revelation, he would not believe in a young earth, but he does believe in a young earth because of his interpretation of the Bible. I understand from this that we can only understand the universe to be young with the aid of special revolution.

Answers in Genesis is probably the most comprehensive in answering questions like the ones you would get from information on talk.origins, but they have some weird approaches to things. For example, I consider their hyper-evolutionary views to be hard to believe. See for example https://thenaturalhistorian.com/yec-hyper-evolution-archive/

If your questions are most specifically about the age of the Earth, I would take a look at the OPC report on creation. I don't know what the views are in your church, but I know the RCNZ and OPC have close relations: https://www.opc.org/GA/creation.html

There are different approaches taken. Some like Hugh Ross/Reasons to Believe believe in an old universe but have very little room for evolution (saying that God progressively created over time before the garden). Others like Ken Ham/Answers in Genesis believe in a young earth but believe in very rapid and differentiating evolution (but staying within kinds). Organizations like BioLogos tend to be comfortable with accepting an old earth and theistic evolution, while generally arguing for a literal Adam.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top