A Matter of Days
February 18, 2009 
41 Comments
I wonder how this can be explained by those who believe the universe was created in exactly 144 hours, 6,000 years ago, and that the earth is 72 hours older than the sun. And how could the tree have survived a global flood 4,500 years ago, under several thousand pounds per square inch of pressure? How does the young-universe creationist (hereafter YUC) theory explain yearly deposits on coral atolls stretching back 400 million years? Or the craters on planetary and lunar surfaces, all of which are supposed to have occurred in less than 6,000 years?
We’ve always been fascinated by this debate and equally discouraged that some YUCs want to elevate their theories to the level of essential doctrine. Some churches have split over it, and dissent has rarely been tolerated. Ken Ham, of the popular Hamite miscegenation cult, is one of the ringleaders of this circus. He argues that “when sin defaced the image of God back in the Garden of Eden, it marred man’s ability to think.” In other words, the questions in the previous paragraph are not only impertinent but evidence of sinful presuppositions. Ham calls OUCs the false prophets of Matthew 7:15, and says that rejection of his Infallible Interpretation “destroys the basis of the Gospel message” and “the message of redemption.”
We agree with these men:
It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time. ~ J. Gresham Machen
The simple fact is that day in Hebrew (just as in English) is used in three separate senses: to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by day in Genesis. ~ Francis Schaeffer
Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist who ever lived, said, “you may make ye first day as long as you please & ye second day too.” Here are some other notable OUCs.
We agree with the Presbyterian Church in America that there are four possible views that could be true, including the YUC calendar-day view. The trouble arises when one side becomes so dogmatic that they try to anathematize everyone else. On the other hand, it just wouldn’t feel like church if some people were not being consigned to outer darkness because of their scripturally-derived beliefs. Just ask any Kinist.
We’ve found that there are roughly three favorite defenses of the YUC theory:
1) The word “day” always means 24 hours when it is associated with an ordinal, such as first day, second day, etc. This is really nothing more than a textual contrivance that fits the theory rather than a conclusion that logically and necessarily follows from the definition. It doesn’t account for verses such as Habakkuk 3:6, which refers to the mountains as “ancient” and the hills as “age-old.”
2) Romans 5:12 tells us that animals could not have died prior to Adam’s Fall. The problem here is that Romans 5:12 says no such thing. Rather, it tells us that death came to all men through sin. You can read it for yourself. Animals don’t sin, and there is no proof that they inherited the penalty of Adam’s sin. More on this sentimentalism below.
3) Second Peter 3:3-6 disproves OUC “uniformitarianism.” This is a word which basically conveys the idea that present rates of change can tell us about the past and the future, because natural processes are gradual. While it is true that the laws of nature have been fixed (Jeremiah 33:25), no OUC believes that all natural processes are gradual; some are slow and some are rapid. Moreover, no OUC denies periodic, supernatural, miraculous intervention by the Creator. (An example of the accusation here from Henry Morris when he refers to “no divine intervention.”) Therefore, OUCs can hardly be classified as “uniformitarians,” especially when we see that the text of 2 Peter concerns “scoffers” who walk “according to their own lusts” and deny “the promise of His coming,” and is not about the creation period at all.
An interesting side-note: Henry Morris, the grand-daddy of YUC, even denied, on the basis of Hebrews 4:3, that stellar evolution continues to take place (formation of stars, galaxies, etc.), because God has finished His work. Ironically, YUC “catastrophists” must resort to a belief in hyper-evolution on a scale many orders of magnitude greater than the most optimistic Darwinist speculation. (More on this point in the pictures below.) If this is true, we should see the same thing taking place today. YUCs know that they must somehow produce evidence that multiple living genera can descend from an original kind. This is where Kinists will take great interest, because YUCs actually suggest that such Obaminations as ligers, wholphins, and geep (goat/sheep) fit the theory. Of course, Moses commands that this sort of thing is opposed to the natural order in Leviticus 19, not in support of it. And if it were true, DNA would indicate greater differences between the individuals of a species than between species, and it does not.
Still, the arguments from all sides are fascinating. For instance, James Hutton was an Englishman who came of age in the early 18th century believing the earth to be about 6,000 years old. But as he studied Hadrian’s Wall, which borders Scotland and was completed by the Roman emperor Hadrian in 126 AD, he noticed that despite some weathering, the stones in the wall were very little changed by the elements and the passage of time. How, he wondered, could the wall be more than one-fourth the age of the earth when compared to the erosion visible in rocks on the earth’s surface? YUCs have replied that God, contrary to His revealed nature, has decreed intentional deceit on a vast scale and has created the world and the universe with signs of age, even creating light in transit from distant stars so that Adam and Eve would not have to wait thousands of years until illumination arrived. Gary North buys into this Grand Deception and almost turns into a Buddhist. He writes: “The Bible’s account of the chronology of creation points to an illusion… The seeming age of the stars is an illusion… Either the constancy of the speed of light is an illusion, or the size of the universe is an illusion, or else the physical events that we hypothesize to explain the visible changes in light or radiation are false inferences.” Such are the demands of an Infallible Interpretation, but his theory could be helped by a few scientists who argue (contrary to Einstein) that the speed of light is not constant, and that it was 60 orders of magnitude faster back then. We’ll leave this one to the good old scientific method. Some of us will, anyway.
B.S. artist Doug Wilson was on a good path here, discussing the obvious fact that the fall of Adam did not suddenly cause entropy. Likewise, God did not give dogs canine teeth so that they would be vegetarians, but this sort of thing is forced by YUCs in order to cram a large number of events into 24 hour spans. Strangest of all, we think, is the idea they have that plant death prior to the Fall was perfectly fine but animal death could not possibly have occurred. People think of their pets, apparently, and get overly sentimental. Pontiff Wilson of White-aho makes the same error when he announces, with inappropriate certainty, “that predatory animals of the higher sentient orders are participants in the dislocations that came from our Fall. There will be no hyenas as such in the resurrection.” This is the sort of thing that makes Christians sound silly. The Bible says nothing about animals suffering a graduated penalty for man’s sin based on “sentience,” but Wilson states nonetheless that hyenas were not in the “good” part of creation. Psalm 104 contradicts him, stating that carnivores receive their prey from the hand of God. “But what about insects?” quoth Wilson. “Or predatory bacteria? There we have to confess that we just don’t know…” Something Wilson doesn’t know? It’s just too good to be true. He cops out on this point because the death of plants and insects prior to the Fall ruins his theory.
We were discussing with a friend the belief held by Ken Hamites that a global flood occurred in 2348 BC, at noonish on Friday the 13th, and destroyed all human life. About 600 years later, at the very longest, according to their timelines, we see Egyptian drawings depicting races as they appear even now in the 21st century – all of them deriving ostensibly from eight souls surrounded by dinosaurs and saber-toothed tigers.
Here’s a sample of Ken Ham’s nonsense:
Consider that incredibly short Egyptian timespan. Not even a Darwinist hopped on Captain Morgan’s believes in such rapid mutations, yet this is a common belief among YUCs. It compels them to correctly reject random natural selection that turned apes into humans, but also inconsistently hold that multitudinous species evolved very rapidly from common genetic ancestors.
Here are Negro slaves in ancient Egypt, looking just as we would expect:
(The previous picture is not of slaves but of Africans bringing tribute to Egypt.)
The Egyptian rulers were clearly Caucasian. Here is a bust of Queen Nefertiti:
Another from the Fourth Dynasty:
Rameses II:
You remember King Tut, who is called “my favorite honky” in that old song by Steve Martin:
And here is Hannibal, that famous “African,” with the same non-Negroid, non-Arab, and non-Berber features:
God purposely shrouded His means of creating the races in the mystery of history. All we know is that from one man and woman (whom even scientists call mitochondrial Eve) He crafted the divisions of mankind with loving care. He gave us very recessive White genes that would have made it impossible for us to look and think and behave as we do if we were all floating like dumplings in the melting pot of Jewish fantasy. There were white buffalo on the western plains at one time, but they could never form herds and simply blended back into their lowest common type. If the Hamites are correct, and Whites emerged in relative instancy from Noah’s genetic soup, we should see the same thing happening today in Brazil. Where is the spontaneous generation of White communities from mestizo stock after a few hundred years of mixture? After all, Pentecost has reversed Babel, the race-mixing preachers tell us.
Or could it be that Kinists are correct? From one blood God made the nations (Acts 17:26) and brings glory to Himself through the pattern of kind after kind. So which do you believe, natural selection or Divine Providence? How could a creationist even wonder? In any case, the Rock of Ages is the issue, not the age of rocks. While it is shameful that YUCs treat the age of the universe as an essential doctrine of faith, it is far worse that the vast majority of all creationists are neo-gnostic race-mixers who talk endlessly about creation but despise God’s created order.
I personally think there is a strong argument that Noah’s flood was localized but covering the vast area of the Tarim Basin, killing all life in an area given to Noah and his White children, one of whom was cursed and was lost by blending with Cainites to the south. The flood and God’s subsequent promise set the stage for European and Slavic history. We are called Caucasians because it was over those mountains that our ancestors walked into the Promised Land of Europe from the Promised Land of Israel. Of course, I could be wrong about this, but you would have to prove it.
Here’s a question for your homework. The waters of the Flood covered “the face of the earth” (Gen. 7:4). When Cain was also driven from “the face of the earth” (Gen. 4:14), how long did his spaceship orbit the globe? For extra credit, explain how Cain prevented the canopy of water above the firmament from fouling his carburetor.
“Hatred obscures distinctions,” wrote C.S. Lewis. “Free crossing obliterates characters,” wrote Charles Darwin. On this point, at least, they agreed. The problem with Darwin, of course, is that race only mattered to him in terms of natural selection. Like a scientist who injects a monkey with some toxic serum just to witness the effects, he expected and desired racial warfare in order to prove his theories about which races would be favored under which set of conditions. Here’s a quote that is very much to the point:
A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes and as morality is one important element in their success the standard of morality and the number of well endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.
The Kinist, by contrast, accepts the truth about virtue in this statement and therefore desires peace and separation, so that all men may grope for God and find Him (Acts 17:28).
“Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care.” ~ Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
If you want to see where evolutionary theory is moving, watch this short speech. It begins in a very entertaining way and then it spits on the Creator using all the inventiveness and creativeness of the White race. But notice that the progression to homo evolutis is not natural (and therefore unfalsifiable) but is imagined to be catalyzed by silicon cyborgs and scripturally forbidden man-animal gene splicing. Like so:
And this man dares to mock the anthropic principle as “arrogance”! The irony is lost on everyone in the audience. Darwinists worship themselves while pretending to be helpless cogs in the wheel of impersonal Nature, and then ridicule us for worshiping a God greater than ourselves.
But just as there are many things worthy of admiration in the preceding video, much of what Darwin had to say is also of value. We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as some apologists do. As Tom says, it really is quite insightful to associate Intelligent Design’s appeal to universalism with pro-lifers who appeal to the civil adultery movement for legitimacy, or the modern (new and improved) Christian who appeals to “universal human rights,” as though our ancient White civilization, our mos maiorum, and the duties bred in our bones can be laid like a template over barbarians who eat their brothers and mate with their sisters.
When poor people with two-digit IQ’s are given the right to immigrate and vote on politicians who then decide how to tax the greater property and income of those with three-digit IQ’s, whom they outnumber, democracy becomes a farce of two wolves voting themselves a lamb for dinner. When those differences are largely genetic and intractable, and those with less wealth have higher birthrates, we have a recipe for a very unstable society, on its way to the logical progression of multiculturalism: from the First World to crony-corrupt Mexico, from Mexico to racial-socialist Venezuela, from Venezuela to the affirmative-action-state (and world rape capital) of South Africa, from South Africa to the lawless murders, rapes, stealing and mass inflation of Zimbabwe, and from Zimbabwe to the permanent abyss of Haiti.
But hey, it feels good to rant about Hitler and Darwin, right?
Houston Stewart Chamberlain observed that the “most physiologically uniform and noblest race of animals in the world, the English thoroughbred, was deliberately produced by the human application of ascertained principles of breeding.” And Nietzsche, who is so often quoted for his warning against “the mendacious pure race swindle,” nevertheless pointed out the observed evil consequences, physical, psychological and social, of indiscriminate racial crossing, and stressed both the practicability and the importance of systematically purifying race. “Purified races,” he wrote, “have always become stronger and more beautiful. The Greeks may serve us as a model of purified race and culture! And it is to be hoped that some day a pure European race and culture may arise.” That last part is pushing it. We have been infinitely better served by a diversity of European cultures rather than a monolithic one, and even those cultures have been of larger scale and more variegated than ancient Greek culture. Remember: We’re Kinists, not racists, although racists are our bosom buddies. And anti-Semites come to our barbecues and baptisms. {Flagging down my train of thought…}
According to Professors E.M. East and D.F. Jones, “[Francis] Galton concluded that the ablest race in history was bred in Attica between 530 and 430 B.C., when from 45,000 free-born males surviving the age of 50 there came fourteen of the most illustrious men of all time.” To fully appreciate this, you have to keep in mind that endogamy was the strict custom of all Athenians, not just these Atticans. To so much as live with an alien resulted in the punishment of being sold into slavery. It was during this time of carefully-regulated endogamy that the Spartans arose, for whom there are no equals in history. (Spartan strength, bravery, and intelligence are partly to thank for your very existence.) Here are the names of those 14 illustrious men.
Statesmen and commanders: Themistocles, Miltiades and his son Cimon, Aristeides, Pericles
Literary and scientific men: Thucydides, Socrates, Xenophon, Plato
Poets: Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes
Sculptor: Phidias
Doug Wilson is right about one thing: “that God does not just reveal Himself in Scripture. He reveals Himself in nature” as well. We know that certain affections are vile “not just because God says so in Scripture…but also because we discover in the natural world that the parts don’t fit… They don’t fit spiritually, mentally, emotionally, or culturally.” This is why Rushdoony taught that inter-religious, inter-cultural, and even inter-racial marriages work against the very purpose of marriage. And if you deny it, try to find some examples of God’s testimony in nature that would lead you to believe that He approves of interracial marriage. How many sheeps and goats do you see pairing up? Crickets and grasshoppers? Eagles and vultures? These all supposedly come from the same “kinds,” according to Hamites.
“For as the raven, so the egg. The apple falls not gladly from the branch. What by elders was sung is the lore of the young. Bad hair and bad hide always make a bad pelt. Hawks don’t hatch eagles. ‘Fret not yourself because of evildoers; be not envious against the workers of iniquity. For like the grass they shall soon be cut down and as the green herb they shall wither…fret not yourself because of him who prospers in his way… For evildoers shall be cut off… For yet a little while, and the ungodly shall be no more: and when you seek for his place, it shall not be’ [Psalms 37]. Where are the haughty nose-blowers of Ham’s bloodline today? There is neither stick nor stocking of theirs to be found in the world.” More from Ehud on Valerius Herberger’s Magnalia Dei.
Finally, a message to you young boys out there: If girls of your own kind don’t appeal to you, either have your eyes checked or have your mental problems treated by licensed professionals. Thank you, and good day.
Excellent post, yet again, fellows!
Great article, thank you. I have always thought much the same myself, thanks to my father’s insights.
Alluding to your last paragraph, what would you tell those boys and girls who were taken in by race-mixing propaganda, and have created offspring with those not of their own kind? And where is their hope?
Rusty says:
Alluding to your last paragraph, what would you tell those boys and girls who were
taken in by race-mixing propaganda, and have created offspring with those not of
their own kind? And where is their hope?
Good question. Also, if someone has a small amount of non-white ancestry, does that make them non-white to “Kinists”? And do Kinists consider Spanish and Italians (from Europe) to be White?
Great article. I had a good chuckle at Cain’s spaceship, and the extra credit question. A lot of interesting information that has raised some awareness for me. Thanks.
Those are tough questions, Rusty and HG. For some things there aren’t easy answers, like how to get out of a war. It’s much easier to make the right decision from the start.
Just as the apostle tells us that some people are vessels of destruction, there are entire people groups who are living testaments of God’s judgment. Just as HG is referring to the Moorish element in Europe, more and more White Americans these days find strangers turning up in their own family trees. When this happens, the familial instinct fights against the racial instinct and makes a man double-minded, unstable in all his ways.
There are a couple of interesting things to note about this. One is that Whites know who they are. We can greet fellow Whites whom we’ve never met and instantly share a rapport. Our kin are not unknown to us. When Lincoln referred to “the mystic chords of memory,” everyone knew what he was talking about. No DNA test was needed. But the other side of this is that we will ultimately die as a people if we spurn our heritage. Our European ancestors taught us to be “racists,” which is why we have lived among Blacks for 400 years and still look the same as our great-grandfathers many times over. Looks are far from the only thing we share with them, because race is not simply skin color. The Spanish and Portuguese were not “racists,” mixed with Indians, and fell from a great height. It’s not hatred for those mestizos when we point out that they are not like us, and they will not be a part of us. We say the same to mulattoes, and we hope they never need bone marrow transplants, because if they do they’ll wish that their parents had been racists too.
The only thing we would say to such people, Rusty, is that we are all equal in the sense of being equally lost without Christ. The odds are against them from the beginning, though, because blood and faith support each other. How likely is it that a person will walk in the ways of his ancestors if he has cut himself off from his ancestors and his people? Not very, by all indications. It doesn’t mean that all hope is lost though.
The key point is that we won’t allow our people as a whole to suffer or be dragged down by aberrance at the margins. Likewise, we don’t outlaw the medical profession just because of abortionists. We don’t outlaw marriage just because some men beat their wives. We don’t pretend that our God-given heritage is insignificant just because some people want to commit adultery.
It’s easy to imagine a time in the near future when “Britons” will look like this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE51G30V20090217?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Will this mean that Charles Martel was an evil racist and hater for using cold steel to keep these people away from us? Not at all. I have no doubt that he will be called nothing but a racist and killer (like in that Neil Young song about Cortez). And Whites who intermarry with the invaders will put our noble history far from their minds. But though such a day is upon us, Kinists will endure.
It comes down to this, fellows.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/muzzling-science-while-doing-lattice-multiplication/
You want to KNOW. Then maintaining racial purity is the logical 21st-century equivalent of the Genealogies of the Ancient HEbrews, from which the Genaologies of Matthew are the culmination.
Yes, I know it talks later in the N.T. about ‘foolish genealogies’ but who was this addressed to?
Jews (who denied Christ as Messiah) counting on THEIR genealogies to make them righteous before God. Which is a totally different thing than trusting in Christ, and then REMAINING pure racially so as NOT to SIN against the grace, to ‘make it abound even more, or using God’s forebearnace to ‘lust after strange flesh.’
I’m not very impressed by Carbon-14 dating of that “10,000 year old” tree in Sweden.
Do you think your position on Gen. 7:4 makes it difficult to take a postmillennial approach to Ezekiel 47?
Sorry, I don’t follow you.
Sorry for the lack of clarity. Well, your reference to Gen. 4:14 notwithstanding, it seems to me that the language of the Bible in Genesis 7 is clearly speaking of a *universal* flood. (Note the emphasis on “all/whole” given in Gen. 7:3.) Now, it might be conceptually restrictable to a flood affecting only God’s Covenant people — non-Cainitic “sons of God.” Since the descendants of Cain were outside the Covenant, one might be able to make the case for a non-universal flood; i.e., one that wiped out most of God’s *Covenant* people — with the exception of Noah and his family — while leaving the descendants of Cain largely unaffected, with the judgment having been brought by God for the Covenant people’s sin of intermarriage with the Cainites. One other thing that might make a flood of less than global scale feasible would be if mankind had not yet spread out to cover the entire earth. We see a forced diaspora at Babel but perhaps prior to the flood as well people had tended to live only near each other, rather than spreading out far and wide to cover the entire globe. Nevertheless I think the language of 7:3 makes this interpretation difficult to sustain. I think the flood wiped out all the Cainites as well as the “sons of God,” with the sole exception of Noah and his family.
The flood account describes a reversal of the original creation process, a sort of “reboot” of the world. The flood is presented as being “as far as the curse is found, so to speak.” I can’t imagine it NOT including all the descendants of Cain as well as the non-Cainitic Covenant people.
I referred to Ezekiel’s vision of the healing waters flowing out of the temple because conceptually that passage seems to tie into the universality of the flood. Just as the flood covered the entire earth, bringing death, the sweet water of Holy Spirit covers (nearly) the entire earth, transforming death into life wherever He works. A similar conceptual tie-in is found in Isaiah 11:9 and Habakkuk 2:14, “For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” Given such language, the Postmillennial vision of the universality of Christ’s reign through the power of the gospel and the Holy Spirit seems to build directly on the universality of the flood.
Anyway, your thoughts or comments would be welcome.
On the hypothesis that creation was mature, i.e. Eden was instantaneously made with trees, two adult humans, animals, etc., but regardless of how long ago, the first question I have is, “how old would stuff have ‘looked’ the next day from the viewpoint of modern science?” Would carbon-14 show an age of one day? (I doubt it. What initial ratio of -12 and -14 should one assume of a created entity?) Would trees have had rings, or would it be continuous pulp? (I would assume no rings UNLESS rings are part of the structural design-plan for trees.) Would Adam and Eve have had belly buttons? (I would assume not, UNLESS these are part of the design-plan for humans.)
Now, does any of this imply “deception” on the part of God? Of course not. The contrary assertion by the “scientist” is deception, since he wants to assert an outlook that INSISTS that creation MUST BE uniformitarian.
The real question that neither YUC nor OUC have answered adequately in my mind is this: what is the meaning of metrical time as such, especially before the appearance of animal life?
There are many ways for naturalism to creep in to a system of thought.
“I personally think there is a strong argument that Noah’s flood was localized but covering the vast area of the Tarim Basin, killing all life in an area given to Noah and his White children, one of whom was cursed and was lost by blending with Cainites to the south. The flood and God’s subsequent promise set the stage for European and Slavic history. We are called Caucasians because it was over those mountains that our ancestors walked into the Promised Land of Europe from the Promised Land of Israel. Of course, I could be wrong about this, but you would have to prove it.”
I am concerned with the ideas you propound here, and feel compelled to register my disapproval. Besides that denying the universality of the Flood is deeply questionable in itself (peoples all around the world have their own flood-legends), this stuff is close to “Christian Identity” heresy that colored races are descendants of Cain (implying that only Whites are proper Adamites), and you also seem to think that White Europeans are descendants of Israelites. You are frankly bordering here on what can be legitimately described as racialist self-idolatry.
You are also too eager to accept some of the the speculations of anti-God modern science, making the emotional argument that “God wouldn’t deceive us by such and such appearances”. But it is actually written (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12):
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
I do believe that Darwinian evolutionism may well be at least one those “strong delusions” that God permits Satan to propagate among mankind, and that will deceive those who do not truly hold onto the Biblical truth. Thus by “divine selection”, phony believers who cannot withstand spiritual challenge will be weeded out.
Admin. I guess you are saying that there is disagreement amongst racially-concious people as to whether Southern Europeans are considered white (because of the Moorish occupation and subsequent interbreeding in certain parts of Spain and Italy), and that you fall on the side of those who do not consider them white?
I thought perhaps you felt differently, because of your post at: http://spiritwaterblood.com/2008/12/crisp-and-clean-no-caffeine/ and this particular quote from that post:
I’ve always been fascinated by the idea that we can’t be opposed to miscegenation and we can’t seek our own name and place among the nations of the earth unless we prove that we have Absolutely Pure White DNA©. Crisp and clean, no caffeine!
Christopher, neither do I. Genesis is pre-History; Historical literature. Ezekiel is Prophetic literature. While they have the same Holy Spirit as their Author, what correlation are you referring to?
As a young earth Kinist, I find reliance Carbon-14 dating somewhat laughable. This is the method that puts material from a volcano that we know erupted 150 years ago as having formed ten of thousands of years ago. Send a bone sample to five different places to be tested and you’ll get five different answers with up to hundred of thousands of years difference.
And even if some of the carbon dating is correct and shows dates longer than 6,000 to 10,000 years, you still run into the problem that the test assumes you can extrapolate back that far. If a doctor were to have examined Adam an hour after he was created he would have put his age at much greater than 60 minutes. It is quite possible for God to create with the appearance of age.
While I agree that Ken Ham’s racial views are idiotic at best, much of his “144 hours, 6,000 years ago” science I find very convincing.
Most folks who are tagged “Christian Identity” would disagree with Petr’s assertion that CI believes a “heresy that colored races are descendants of Cain.” Identity adherents believe instead that the colored races were here long before Adam was created. And many (though not all) Identity adherents believe that the Christ-hating Jews are descended from Cain, as the physical seed of Satan.
The one thing CI followers (and I) would agree with is the assumption about the belief that “only Whites are proper Adamites.” The colored races are not descended from Adam; their kind walked the earth long before Adam was formed from the dust of the ground.
I’ve grown accustomed to seeing my beliefs called “heresy” on forums dominated by those hostile to kinism and the tenets embraced by our fathers. It’s interesting to see the “H word” poke its nose under the tent here at SWB.
Thought-provoking comments from all. There isn’t even full agreement on this topic among the people who write for this website, but it’s one of our favorite topics for discussion, and I think this is the first time it has been covered here in some depth.
Chris: You mentioned Gen. 7:3, and we mentioned the next verse (4) above. The point of our little joke, which Silas enjoyed, was to show that “the face of the earth” doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means. “World” doesn’t necessarily mean the whole world. Nor does “all” in Scripture always mean all. But you could very well be correct that all human life perished in the Flood. This is also the view of Hugh Ross, who is an OUC. I don’t know if Ezekiel’s vision of the waters can be tied in a definite way to a global flood as it can to the ultimate inclusion of Gentiles in the Church, but I’ll certainly ponder it. As for the old prophecy that the earth would be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea, it should be remembered that the Apostle Paul said this had already been fulfilled in the first century:
“Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world (Greek oikoumene)” (Romans 10:18)
“…has been made known to all nations (Greek ethnos)” (Romans 16:25-26)
“…as it has also in all the world (Greek kosmos)” (Colossians 1:5-6)
These are good examples of how the words “all” and “world” are possibly misapplied to a global Flood.
Tim: I think you’re familiar with Dr. Gerald Schroeder, the Jew among Jews in Jew Stein’s “Expelled” documentary. He has a very intriguing theory that there is a relative effect that makes what were actually 24 hour creation days appear to us as billions of years. You could probably do a search for his book, which is quite fascinating.
As for carbon-14, it’s actually very useful for measuring samples that are close in age to its half-life, as in the case of the aforementioned tree. But the whole point of taking a scientific approach to the problem is to not rely solely on one dating mechanism. If carbon-14 dating is faulty, it will be shown to be faulty in other ways. This debate has been going on for a long time, as you can see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
I think maybe a couple thousand years need to pass so that the accuracy of measurements can be corroborated.
Petr: As I said, there is disagreement among the writers here as to the specifics of creation, and we’re not dogmatic about it. But we all agree that all human beings came from Adam. If all human beings likewise came from Noah then we have no explanation for the hyper-evolution that commenced. But in either case, I fail to see how it constitutes “racialist self-idolatry.”
Needless to say, we deny that scientists are unable to understand math and physics just because they might not believe on Christ. That’s not the issue at all. The issue always comes back to the YUC Infallible Interpretation and the rejection of any other possible interpretations.
Your quote of 2 Thess. 2:11-12 is unconvincing, because it is being used in the same way that 2 Peter 3:3-6 is used by YUCs – associating fellow Christians with the damned merely for failing to accept the Infallible Interpretation. We’re neither Darwinists, nor do we “take pleasure in unrighteousness.”
HG: My point is much broader than simply parsing strands of DNA to see who gets to join the club. (It’s not even a club in any real sense of the word. As Sam Francis said, race is an abstraction. We’re more concerned with our people of real flesh and blood.) My point is that no DNA test is needed. There are no half-breeds who are reading Walter Scott and trying to swallow lutefisk because they want to identify with White people and cling to White heritage. Everywhere we turn, we see just the opposite – people like Obama who are trying desperately to prove how non-White they are. (I refer to his books, not his campaign rhetoric.) We have more of a macroscopic view, and this is what was meant by that quote from an earlier post (which I did not write personally, alas).
EP: Carbon-14 is most useful for ages close to its half-life, which happens to be close to what YUCs consider to be the age of the entire universe. The results are skewed otherwise. As for differing samples, it’s probably still more accurate than what you might hear from different pathologists who look at your blood through a microscope. Fossilized bones look similar to surrounding rocks, and the two will yield different results. The important thing is to not rely on any single method or any single test.
“It is quite possible for God to create with the appearance of age.”
Indeed, but where else do we find anything like this in His revealed nature? This is like saying that the vast depths of space are illusory because there was no need to have actually created what will never be used by us, or even seen except through a telescope. It was possible for Jesus to restore the blind man’s sight without first spitting on mud and rolling it into the shape of an eyeball, but did He do it?
“There are no half-breeds who are reading Walter Scott and trying to swallow lutefisk because they want to identify with White people and cling to White heritage.”
Bare bra, Takk! LOLOL
I missed one thing earlier: Petr’s statement that we “also seem to think that White Europeans are descendants of Israelites.” Yes sir, most indubitably. If you find any other candidates who both look like the ancient Israelites and have carried their faith in the Messiah to the ends of the earth, do let us know, and we might revise the theory.
This kind of ties in with what Wheeler said, because this alone is sufficient to tag us as “Christian Identity” even though we disagree with the part about pre-Adamite HUMAN races. Instead, we understand that races such as Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons (which preceded Adam) were not humans but bipedal primates. Could some inter-breeding have occurred? We don’t know, but mitochondrial DNA studies seem to rule out the possibility.
Admin said: We have more of a macroscopic view, and this is what was meant by that quote from an earlier post (which I did not write personally, alas).
……………………………………
Okay, thanks. I take from that, that it is more about what is dear to you, and what you want to defend (Western Civilization, true Christianity), than in whether you have blonde hair and blue eyes (although those are good, too).
Correct. By the way, Whites are the real colored people. They come in blue, brown, green, red, and blond colors. And I may be missing a few.
What was said about defending Western civilization led me to another thought which I don’t really have time to develop right now. Politics and cultural analysis are almost entirely ideological now. Just as is true of liberalism, “conservatism” is merely a conservation of ideas rather than a conservation of actual flesh and blood. Paleoconservatives and neoconservatives define themselves in terms of domestic and foreign policy positions. But those who have eyes to see know that neocons are driven by concern for the real people of Israel. Paleocons, being reactionary, feel that they need to defend something real too, and so you’ll hear “fail-eoconservatives” like Tom Fleming talk about “localism.” Or Steve Sailer calls himself a “citizenist.” These ideologies have no meaning whatsoever apart from the American Empire, and they will fall by the wayside while Kinism rolls on like a diesel train. This is because blood is thicker than water.
Admin, about the possibility that the referenced OT prophecies were fulfilled by the time of Paul’s writing, I strongly agree that Paul’s words need to be taken into consideration. There is a stone plaque carved in Chinese, commemorating the spread of the Christian Gospel in China, that dates itself at 80 A.D., so it is not much of a stretch to imagine that the Gospel could have literally reached to the ends of the earth while Paul was still writing a few decades prior to that date. Anyway, as you say, there is a lot to consider on all sides regarding this subject. Thanks for posting on this topic and stimulating the various responses.
Someone said, “It is quite possible for God to create with the appearance of age.”
The point to realize is, it is not possible for God to create without the appearance of age.
This is because “apparent age” is a human generalization based on observing things that are not created ex nihilo, but which providentially morph from existing material, and whose time epoch can be measured by comparison with other things, e.g. the number of times the sun revolves around the earth.
If Adam was created instantaneously as an adult, was he “two minutes old” or “thirty years old”? Both are true — depending on what you mean.
Anything that does not “have the appearance of age” actually has the “appearance” of being eternal, such as, an electron, or the hypothesized singularity preceding the big bang.
This argument applies to subtle “appearance” of age as well, such as radiocarbon content. The method has some validity (even granting all the variances) IF AND ONLY IF the assumption of providential continuity can legitimately be made. It is, therefore, question-begging when the epoch would overlap with creation.
Interesting material. I have this problem with the idea that Europeans are descended physically from the Israelites. I have looked at it over and over and can’t answer this question- if you accept scientific, archaeological evidence as accurate, it reveals that there were native people in Briton long before the Exodus. How then can they be Israelites, when Israel was in slavery in Egypt? The Brythonic people, the Welch in particular, can not be Israelites. While I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, Dr. Arthur Custance has an excellent study on the races of men using Genesis 10 as his basis and following the theory of Japhetic migration into Europe. Also, on a British-or European-Israelite theory, what do you do with Genesis 9:27? If European peoples are Semitic Israelites, where did Japheth’s family go?
Further problems arise as well. Even some British-Israel advocates distinguish between the European tribes, in particular rejecting the Teutons as possibly descendants of the Assyrians, not Israel. They do exhibit a difference in temperament and conformity than the Nordics. Did they have a common ancestor, or are the Teutons interlopers?
You’re right, Europeans are Japhethites, but it seems to me that the lost tribes of Israel and then later the Judean diaspora migrated to Europe also. Perhaps this is what is partially meant when it is said that God will enlarge Japheth, and he will dwell in the tents of Shem, but I don’t know. This prophecy is at least true in the spiritual sense. It seems clear to me that Japheth was enlarged well before Babel, but I shouldn’t have described the European composition as though I’m certain about any of this, because I’m not. We’re very much into the realm of speculation here.
Tim makes a good point there. So if we look at the example of Jesus creating an eyeball from the mud for the blind man, Tim is saying that tests on the age of the eyeball would probably yield results that are much longer than the true age of the eyeball, mainly because it is fully developed. This could be true, although I don’t see why a newly-created, fully-grown Adam would not have the skin of a baby. The question is whether he was born with calluses on his fingers. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said something about how miracles are not contrary to natural processes but simply speed them up or suspend them. (Clay is used for the eye since our bodies are carbon-based.) My own feeling is that creating Adam fully-grown is not deceptive but to give him calluses that he did not actually earn, or to create starlight that did not actually originate from the burning star, is deceptive, though miraculous any way you look at it. Since we can’t do anything more than theorize about this, it’s easy to see why the two paradigms can’t come to terms on evidence alone. It always goes back to how Scripture is interpreted in the first place.
“Your quote of 2 Thess. 2:11-12 is unconvincing, because it is being used in the same way that 2 Peter 3:3-6 is used by YUCs – associating fellow Christians with the damned merely for failing to accept the Infallible Interpretation. We’re neither Darwinists, nor do we “take pleasure in unrighteousness.”
—-
That wasn’t the way I understood the point of the poster who made the comment. What I believe he meant to say is not that every OUC will be damned, but that some people WILL be damned because they lost their faith through being led astray by false ideas. So for example, because of their “love of unrighteousness,” some will be attracted to Marxism and lose their faith in Christ. Others for the same reason will be attracted to Darwinism and lose their faith in Christ. Others will succumb to Voltaire or to Freud. In every period of history Satan is busily promoting some set of bad ideas.
The other point I believe he was trying to make is that sometimes when these bad ideas come along, the only salvation is to cling to our beliefs with blind Faith and tenacity, even when Marxism seems to be sweeping over the world, or when usury is so ubiquitous that Christians can no longer understand why it is a sin. Later times might come to understand better why each thing opposed to the Gospel is false. Today we know only that this latest trend, whatever it might be, is opposed to the Gospel.
“That wasn’t the way I understood the point of the poster who made the comment. What I believe he meant to say is not that every OUC will be damned, but that some people WILL be damned because they lost their faith through being led astray by false ideas. So for example, because of their “love of unrighteousness,” some will be attracted to Marxism and lose their faith in Christ. Others for the same reason will be attracted to Darwinism and lose their faith in Christ. Others will succumb to Voltaire or to Freud. In every period of history Satan is busily promoting some set of bad ideas.”
Yes, that’s pretty much what I meant. You got my drift.
I myself would be actually open to SOME OEC ideas, like seeing the creation days in some spiritual aeonic sense, and I do not consider myself a dogmatic YEC. And yet I now (after having gone through spiritual struggles myself) do not feel any particular need to suck up to Darwinian science establishment and actively seek their approval. To put it succinctly, I now neither look for a fight with mainstream science, but I do not shy away from it either – if conflict becomes seemingly inevitable.
Only a fool would fail to see what kind of threat the orthodox Darwinian narrative (as I like to call it) has been to Christian worldview. It HAS been a great temptation of modern society, a modern Christian’s cross to bear and conquer.
But just like there were few half-hearted dissenters like Nicodemus even amongst the Sanhedrin elite that called for Christ’s blood (see John 7), so there have been, and still are, some few top academicians who “have not bowed their knee” to Darwinism.
For example, see John Sanford, the guy who invented “gene gun” and thus pioneered the genetic manipulation of plants:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6102/
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6060
“Formerly an atheist, since the mid-1980s Sanford has looked into Theistic Evolution (1985-late nineties), Old Earth Creation (late nineties), and Young Earth Creation (2000-present). According to his own words, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000″
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford
Also check out this guy:
“Von Braun, a life-long Lutheran, was a believer in intelligent design in the Universe long before it became a catch phrase and a lightning rod of debate.”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1
and
http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4vonbraun.htm
“sometimes when these bad ideas come along, the only salvation is to cling to our beliefs with blind Faith and tenacity, even when Marxism seems to be sweeping over the world, or when usury is so ubiquitous that Christians can no longer understand why it is a sin. Later times might come to understand better why each thing opposed to the Gospel is false. Today we know only that this latest trend, whatever it might be, is opposed to the Gospel.”
I believe we see examples of this in Church history at every epoch. Arius’ teachings swept almost the entire Church away; so, too, did Nestorius; and the Papists have been doing it for centuries- both in their attempts at Florence/Ferrara with the Orthodox, and in 1517 with the Teutons, and in 1588 with Spain and the Armada- this last on a scale of armed conflict, versus just a ‘war of ideas’- but don’t forget those ‘Spanish ambassadors’ in the Court of Elizabeth!
Having said that, I would also like to point out that one of the reasons I personally came back to a more ‘catholic’ [small 'c'!] frame of mind, is that I DID see the benefit of the communion of the saints (i.e., Tradition), rather than what Chesterton called ‘the tyranny of the Living.’ One needs ALWAYS to see that one can never trust a ‘new idea,’ until we compare it to the timeline of the Church. For, unless we do, we will ALWAYS fall for Ol’ Nick’s Tricks- he only has a small number of them (he IS a created being after all, and not omniscient!) and he merely waits until a new generation comes along to re-hash idea #45, say, rather than come up with a completely new plan, hoping that Man will not recognize it ‘this time around.’ [II Cor. 2:11]
The bible is either all true, or all false. God exists, or he does not. Those two mutually exlusive concepts MUST work together and are interrelated. I love this website and eat up most of what is posted here. I would say, however, stick to kinist and racial things and things speaking to the descent of our country and our race into self destruction. We don’t need more disbelievers explaining the bible and God to us.
Always comes across as trying to convince yourselves you aren’t going to hell, rather than as an effort at “enlightening” us idiots who believe we have a soul, and that God made us, not some debunked process by some marxist adherent and buddy of Karl M. When you talk about things you know about, you are right on the mark. When you go off on your hate the bible, hate the concept of God rants, and advocate for the “enlightenment” and reasonableness of denominations who have embraced homosexuals as ordained priests, you come across as full of crap. It is rather funny, hnowever, how you so accurately depict the descent of our race and our nation into the abyss, yet miss the relation the descent of our national and racial spiritual consciousness into the abyss is not only related, but most likely causal. The more we depart from God, the more the rest happens. Deny it as you will.
This is a very interesting topic that I have been fascinated with for quite some time. Understanding the origins of our race is essential to our sense of who we our. I would like to hear more about the various viewpoints from the authors about their views on the extent of the Flood. Personally I think their might be some compelling evidence to suggest a local flood including a covenent people. Some considerations for this viewpoint are that Moses lists the descendants of Cain in Gen. chapter 4 as if they are still living. Another is that in context chapter 5 seems to be focusing solely on the covenented lineage of Seth. Other races could have been descended from the other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Thirdly, is the reference to the Nephilim that were on the earth in those days “and also after that” of Gen. 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. It seems unlikely that this is a casual reference to people who were merely tall. Also while I do believe that the Bible insists that Adam and Eve are the universal parents of all persons from Eve being the “mother of all living” as well as from Adam’s mention in Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15, the Bible does not make such assertions about Noah being a universal ancestor of all humans. It’s generally assumed that this is the case because it is argued that Gen. 10 is a geneology of all people all over the world. As for the case that flood legends are prominent all over the world, I’m not sure that upon further examination this was found to be as valid of an arguement as it once was.
Much of what I’ve read on this subject has been from Timothy Martin and his book Beyond Creation Science. I’m not sure I agree with all of it, but it is interesting and it ties in creation with eschatology.
One other question that I would pose to the authors of this website is how we should interpret statements in the Old Testament like in Psalm 49:2 which speaks of sons of Adam and sons of men, usually translated low and high or something else. Is this a redundancy, or something else? Could it be making a distinction between the covenental people of Adam, and people generally? Naming a patriarch by his covenental offspring isn’t unusual. I’m thinking of “in Isaac shall thy seed (Abraham’s) be called” from Romans 9. Just a few questions that I’ve been pondering over. Thanks.
Now you’ve got our neurons firing, SF. Very interesting.
I think the short answer is that we just don’t know. As is true of many of the details surrounding creation, God chose not to make it very clear to us.
But you’re correct that the Bible does not refer to Noah as the father of all, in the sense that it refers to Adam. It’s our opinion that there appear to be genealogical gaps in Genesis 10, and using the Bible itself as the key to interpreting the Bible, there is no way to make sense of the idea that this chapter is intended to lay out the family tree of every human being who lived after the Flood. Rather, God is telling His covenant story.
Would you agree that Goliath and the sons of Anak were descended from giants (Nephilim) who predated the Flood, and whose line continued (in part) though they were not saved by the ark? We see them in Numbers 13 as well as in the time of David and Samuel. How did they get there if a global Flood destroyed all but 8 Sethites?
Again, I don’t think it’s a question that can be definitively answered, but there it is.
Rick Saenz over at Dry Creek Chronicles has pointed out an amazing discussion by some of the Young Earth crowd. Apparently, some folks are even altering CH Spurgeon’s sermons in order to make the revered preacher toe the line with Young Earthers. The link is at http://cumberlandbooks.com/blog/?p=1916
Wow! That’s one of the most amazing and brazen things I’ve ever read!
What a relief that Ken Ham has come along to correct Charles Spurgeon’s idiosyncrasies. Just think of what a great preacher Spurgeon could have been if he had hired Ham as a writer. Ham even bowdlerizes Spurgeon’s words in the original! He crosses them out!
Oh, I need to sit for a spell. The brazenness of the Infallible Ham is beyond all description.
The commenter is correct that Answers in Genesis accuses Christians who disagree with them of worshiping a different God.
By the way, Rick Saenz is a very talented and interesting person. He’s the one who joined RC Sproul Jr’s church and was then critical of Sproul and moved away after Sproul abused his authority (and church members) to the point that he was defrocked. Now Sproul has joined Doug Wilson’s enterprise and is very openly trying to turn his little mountain town “coffee-colored” through miscegenation. You don’t often come across men as honorable and admirable as Saenz.
I completely agree with his level-headed approach to obstinacy on the creation period:
“Answers in Genesis, along with many others, are insisting that Christians adhere to principles that have barely been articulated, much less submitted to the church for discussion and consideration. It may very well be that those principles are clearly scriptural and will be easily accepted by all.” Or maybe not. And here’s a shocking idea: We might even disagree…and still be fellow Christians. I know, it’s alarming.
To understand the Bible one needs to refer to the original Hebrew texts sometimes.
For example the word ‘day’ in the bible stems from the Hebrew word ‘yome’ which does not only mean a physical day (24 hours) but means ‘age’ as well.
In other words “seven earth ages”
As for Cain and his spaceship…..The word earth stems from the Hebrew word ‘erets’ and this word also means ‘LAND’
Thus not the whole earth was under water, but the whole land.
We know Adam lived 6,000 years ago, because the Bible actually tells us this. Adam’s Hebrew meaning is having the ability to blush red, to be ruddy.
No other race but the white one, can blush red.
We know the earth is ancient, but we also know that God created Adam only 6,000 years ago. Before Adam the earth was already inhabited by pre-Adamites.
I agree with you on the whole, KH, but can you be certain that Adam was created 6,000 years ago? If the days were ages, as you say, I don’t think you can. You would also have to assume no gaps at all in the genealogical record, such as Genesis 10, and I think this is dubious. But you could be correct. It’s interesting to ponder and discuss, as long as we don’t become schismatics like Doug Phillips and Ken Ham.
The discussion about “pre-Adamites” widely varies in understanding. We know that creatures such as Neanderthals existed, but they don’t appear to be related to humans. I prefer to think of these creatures as bipedal primates (erect apes) who were not created in God’s image. The YUC is forced to assert that they were “cavemen” who lived after Adam. No one can say whether these creatures successfully copulated with humans, but I see no evidence for it.
To conclude that some human races living today are descended from these creatures and have no hope of redemption because they are not created in God’s image is to depart from orthodox Christianity.
The pictures you’ve shown aren’t “negro” are what you claim, they are the Nuba tribe from South of Modern Sudan.
The foundation of ancient Egypt was by Sahara African/ Shahelian tribes.
Also, the so called Caucasian statues are actually the depictions of native Northeast Africans, who tend to have these narrow facial traits. Because of the climate in this region. Its cold during the night and hot during the day time.