Creation Science Fellowship, Inc One Year Creation Program SESSION TWELVE Apologetics and Applications of the Creation Model of Origins Robert E. Walsh October 6, 2011 AGENDA 4 Apologetics 4 Creation and the Environment 4 Creation and Health and Nutrition APOLOGETICS 4 “Apologetics” is a compound Greek word from: –“apo ” the Greek Preposition meaning “from ” –“logoj ” meaning “word” or transliterated “logic” – Our compound word literally means, •“Fromthe Word”
Transcript
Creation Science Fellowship, IncOne Year Creation Program
SESSION TWELVEApologetics and Applications of the
Creation Model of OriginsRobert E. WalshOctober 6, 2011
AGENDA
4 Apologetics4 Creation and the Environment4 Creation and Health and Nutrition
APOLOGETICS
4 “Apologetics” is a compound Greek word from:
– “apo” the Greek Preposition meaning “from”
– “logoj” meaning “word” or transliterated “logic”
– Our compound word literally means,• “From the Word”
A PRACTICAL PROBLEM
4 How often have you heard the statement
4 “I am a young earth creationist because the evidence best fits that model”
4 First, is this statement true?4 Secondly, is this a good way of defending the
Creation Model?
THE ANSWERS
4 Is this statement true?– Yes, but for reasons that may not at first be
obvious
4 Is this a good way of defending the Creation Model?– No !
WHY A BAD DEFENSE?
4 If one’s opponent has done more homework then one may lose the battle (i.e. your opponent may have more examples of “alleged” evidence)
4 Falsely based on the axiom– Evidence + Human Reasoning = Victory
4 Presupposes that the so-called “evidence”is model neutral (more on this below)
THE BIBLICAL METHOD OF APOLOGETICS
THE BIBLICAL METHOD OF APOLOGETICS4 Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his
folly, lest thou also be like unto him.4 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he
be wise in his own conceit.
4 !!! What a wonderful and remarkably contradictory statement !!!
4 OR IS IT?????
THE BIBLICAL WAY OF APOLOGETICS
4Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.– Do not argue your position within the same
worldview (presuppositions) of your opponent• Do not argue your position within the evolutionary
worldview of chance, probability, and materialism• Do not argue your position within the paradigm of “long
ages”
THE BIBLICAL WAY OF APOLOGETICS
4Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.– Using your opponent ’s worldview and
presuppositions reduce his position to absurdity• Show that your opponent’s worldview collapses on its
own weight• Show that your opponent’s set of presuppositions are
ultimately self-contradictory
THE BIBLICAL METHOD OF APOLOGETICS4 The Biblical Method of Apologetics
particularly attacks the very foundation of its opponents
4 Until relatively recently, Creationists have focused on the fruit of the evolutionary paradigm, rather than aiming at the roots and trunk
THE BIBLICAL METHOD OF APOLOGETICS4 The Biblical Worldview gives the only rational
basis and accounting for the “scientific method”– Though some who profess to align themselves
with the Biblical Apologetic incorrectly dismiss the “scientific method”
4 The Biblical Worldview alone gives coherency to the data
Presuppositions, Data,and Evidence
What is Data?
4 When examining the Grand Canyon we observe strata that apparently were laid down
• This is the Data NOTEvidence
Presuppositions and Evidence4 “Interpreting the “Data” with one’s set of
“Presuppositions” causes the Data to become “Evidence” for one’s particular model
Evidence
4 We are compelled to conclude
4 EVIDENCE = Data + Interpretation
» Equivalently
4 EVIDENCE = Data + Presuppositions
Presuppositions and Evidence
4 Evolution (General Trends)• Strata laid down over
long period of geologic time
• Bedding planes should show erosion
• Higher strata are younger than older strata
• Time changing is vertical throughout the column
• Creation (General Trends)• Strata quickly laid down
by catastrophic processes• Bedding plains should
show little erosion
• Strata laid down by laminar flows
• Time changing is almost horizontal
The Apologetic History of Creationism4 Since the publishing of the Genesis Flood (1961) Creationists
have almost exclusively tried to show the “science” of the Creation Model. This is the fundamental characteristic of the Modern Creation Period
4 In recent years, Creationists are beginning to address the “religious” nature of the evolutionary paradigm. In this regard the religious biases of evolutionary materialism are being laid open. This activity generally attacks the very roots of evolutionary materialism and not merely the fruit
The Apologetic History of the Creationism4 Generally speaking, Creationists need to understand
that they are in a three front apologetic war:
– Must develop a rigorous Biblical Model of Origins
– Must develop a rigorous Scientific Model of Origins
– Must apologetically reduce the religion of evolutionary materialism to its natural absurdity
• Show that it is religious• Show that it fails on its own weight• Show that it is self -contradictory• Attack the root no merely the fruit
The Apologetic History of Creationism4 By understanding this three front war it must be
recognized by those who would argue that the Biblical Apologetic Method does away with the Scientific Method is fundamentally contrary to the Biblical Model of Apologetics and that the pursuit of the development of the Scientific Creation Model is a necessary and an honorable pursuit.
4 We honor the Creator by attempting to understand His Creation whether by Biblical Apologetics or the Scientific Method
Creation and Nutrition
Pre-Fall Nutrition Model
4 Gen 1:29 “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”
4 Man was originally a vegetarian and ate no animal flesh
Life SpanGenerationAverage Life SpanAverage Generation
908
117
Antediluvian Longevity
4 Average human life-span was 908 years4 Average generation was 117 to messianic
patriarch
4 What might have been the physical elements that went into longer life spans for the Antediluvians?
Antediluvian Canopy ?
4 Some type of canopy surrounding the Earth– Reduced Carbon 14 production and ingestion– Reduced cosmic radiation ingestion
– Greater partial pressures of O2 and CO2
4 Each of these would go into better general health, lack of pollutants, more available Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide for both man and plant
Less Carbon 14 Production
Less Cosmic Radiation
Greater O2 and CO2
Some Type of Canopy
Pre-Flood Hydrology
4 Fauna watered from below– Does not necessarily exclude
Antediluvian rain cycles
4 Bringing rich mineral nutrient water to vegetation– Healthy for animal life– Could aid in gigantism
SEDIMENTARY ROCK
METAMORPHIC ROCK
IGNEOUS ROCK
An
tedi
luvi
an H
ydro
logi
c C
ycle
The Flood
Implications of the Flood
4 Destroyed possible canopy– Greater cosmic radiation– Greater Carbon 14
– Less Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide
4 Destroyed Antediluvian Hydrologic Cycle– Plants depend on rain for water
– Plants not as nutriated as before
4 Man exposed to a “lesser” Earth
Implications of the Flood
4 Man susceptible to the elements4 Man susceptible to hostile animals4 Man susceptible to hostile plants
4 Geographical landscape radically changed– Pangaea splits during the Days of Peleg
4 Man’s longevity decreases radically
Longevity of Post-Flood Man
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Shem
Arp
haxa
d
Sala
h
Ebe
r
Pele
g
Reu
Ser
ug
Age
of
Dea
th
Patriarch
Post Diluvian Fathers
Ages
Average Lifespan
Longevity of Post-Flood Man4 Pangaea split during the generation of Peleg4 Peleg’s father Eber is the last long- living
“post-Flood patriarch”– Life time is essentially cut in half– 450+ to 200+
4 No canopy for protection4 Less super nutriated vegetation for man and
animal
Summary Conclusions
4 Today’s nutritional standards are woefully less than truly required– Need to research the nutritional needs of man within the
confines of the Biblical Worldview– American nutritional pyramid inaccurate if not out right wrong
4 Creationists have allowed the evolutionary model to create the current model of nutrition, even the so-called alternative models are evolutionarily based– See “Life Extension” byDurkPearson and Sandy Shaw– Good material but evolutionarily based and does not have to
be in this author’s opinion
Creation and the Environment
Setting the Stage (1 of 3)
4 God created planet Earth as a self-sufficient system (including the star Sol)
4 Man, created on the Sixth Day is charged with caring for the entire globe– “…have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. ” Gen 1:28c
Setting the Stage (2 of 3)
4 Part of the man’s responsibilities is to “manage” (have dominion) the earth and all the creatures contained therein.
4 Because of this, man was to spread out over the Earth and express his dominion.– “…fill the earth, and subdue it” Gen 1:28b
4 God never intended planet Earth be left to the “probabilities of the wind”.
Setting the Stage (3 of 3)4 “…replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of
you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things” Gen 9:1c-3.
– After the Flood man had the same responsibility to disperse throughout the planet and fill the Earth. In this way, man could fulfill his responsibility of “managing the planet”
– In order for the animals to repopulate the Earth, God put the fear of man in them so that they would “naturally” disperse throughout the globe and fill the Earth.
– Animal flesh is now allowed to be normally eaten by mankind
Managing the Environment
Managing the Environment
4 Man’s responsibility is to manage the Earth and its Environment… this is what is meant by “taking dominion”. What it doesn’t mean is:– Abusing the environment. Man is not to rape and pillage
the country side. Managing is always to be in view. Abusingthe environment is a sin.
– Not using the environment . Giving the environment to the “probabilities of the wind” is not managing the environment. Non-using the environment is a sin.
4 Two equal and opposite environmental sins.
Managing the Environment
4 Let’s look at an example of raping and pillaging the environment
4 The deforestation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, USA
4 An example of ABUSE!
Logging of PA’s Forests
4 Much of Pennsylvania was deforested by the latter 19th Century
4 Parts of Cook’s forest remain as “virgin forest”
Managing the Environment
4 Let’s look at an example of letting the forests “go to the wind”
4 The notion of old growth forests
4 An example of NON-USE!
Old Growth in Cook’s Forest
More Old Growth…
Old Growth Forest Problems4 Most of the life is in the forest canopy
4 The large trees, especially the hemlock and white pine are so dense at the top that insufficient light gets to the forest floor
4 Ground vegetation and fauna die due to lack of sunlight
4 Forest animals starve or move away due to lack of browse
4 Forest floor absolutely dead
4 Old growth forests are not efficient
Old Growth Forest Problems4 Letting all forests without exception become
old growth forests is not good4 Leaving our forests to the “probability of he
