I have always found William Lane Craig's ability to reason quite remarkable and I have gleaned many beneficial tools from his teaching. In fact, it is through some of his teaching that has caused me to consider going to Biola for my graduate work. This is in spite of his acceptance of old earth creationism and according to his recent comments; possibly theistic evolution. However, his recent comments are disappointing. Was curious to everyone else's thoughts on this. 

Views: 751

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dr. Tofflemire--I did a cursory review of the fossil content of cambian layers, and they have found flowering plants and seeds in these layers.  It seems to me that there is a huge contingent of al kind sof life represented in these layers...the information about flowering plants in the cambrian is all over the internet? Just sayin....this for me bodes young earth and not old earth gradualism.  If the bibles Genesis, is a historical over view of the creation, then to seems that all life was created at one time slot if you will in 6/24 hour days.... I don't get long periods of time from the bible or from the fossil record, and combined with the c14 AMS testing there is every reason to put to bed the long earth creationist view, but that is what seems clear to me....... cheers!

   

This argument is simply about the mighty power of God and what He has the ability to do. Does God have the power to create the universe in 1 second? Will He take millions of years to recreate it?

I heard this as a Pod-cast on the Reasonable Faith website. I normally Mr Lane Craig seems very careful with his words, here he seemed loose and careless; more off-garde than on, using contested issues, then deciding that those who use the Bible as a starting point to see if the data fits where just outright wrong. Dating the earth with questionable science is the very thing that the young age for the earth proponents at odds with. All the indicators used for a old earth has been brought in to question by observational science often highlighted by them. Who does Reasonable Faith think creationist are? Just a bunch of amateurs? What an insult to those who sincerely work in their scientific fields who have honestly seen discrepancies with the story told by the evolution paradigm. Who then decide that the data doesn't fit, so reject the theory.

For example take this interview with Gary Parker: http://www.creationtoday.org/what-made-a-biology-professor-evolve-i...

Is it unreasonable to expect the he needs to accommodate the evolution paradigm, even though his direct experience sees that the data does not fit nor need the long ages to achieve the things he's experiencing? Like wise this interview with Ken Ham: http://www.creationtoday.org/should-every-christian-be-a-young-eart...

What about the work done by the RATE project? http://www.icr.org/rate/

If those who believe a young earth sees that science supports the claims of the Bible, why call them an embarrassment? The charge seems odd. As far as I've seen, heard and read from young earth creationist, they base there objections to the evolution paradigm using the scientific data. They use the data that is available to everyone, if not, have provided their own. Bending with the proposed scientific interpretations of the time without making sure that is even right to begin with is a mistake. Something that's wrong, has and will always be wrong.

The simplest reading of the Bibles indicates that the Earth was created in six days, with God resting on the seventh day. Moses tells us that God Himself spoke in both the creation account and at Mount Sinai. Reading long ages into the creation account because its based on death strewn throughout the fossil record over millions of years creates problems for God's character. It inference makes him responsible for death before the account given in Genesis chapters one to three. For God to pronounce it very good after creating man, the sanctioned it holy means this is how He wanted it. Atheist aren't stupid, they would destroy God before Christian's who claims that these first three chapters doesn't matter by simply pointing this out. If the Christian hadn't worked it out for themselves.

The only reason for the need for millions of years is that the evolution paradigm could not even get started without it. Many argue about seeing starlight, when I think they need to ask what sort of power could have placed them there and is still pushing and creating them 15 billion years later? For example if you divide the number of supposed stars into 15 billion years, how many should we see forming? Then check how many we actually see forming. This should tell you something about what modern science is proposing. It all about God's power to do it. Its easier to work the Bible top-down than bottom-up. This applies to everything we've seen in science.

Lou can you please give me some references for the fossils of flowering plants in the cambrian? Thanks for your reply.

Travis, be assured that Craig is a solid and sound Christological apologist. But he is wrong about origins and he is wrong about "thinking" as it relates to the creationary truth of origins.

But always remember that no creationist from the mainstream feels that just because someone is "off" on origins that this diminishes in any way our brotherhood in Christ. There is one and only one poster that I know of here who always attacks people's Christian Character over views of origins. And this is not the position of the Creation Conversations forum. It is also contrary to the rules of engagement to suggest that a Christian who believes in old ages, and evolution is necessarily not a true Christian.

Nonetheless, I myself would not recommend becoming attached to any educational institution that is Christian, but at the same time off on such an important issue as origins. One would be better of going to a secular STATE university and staying up-to-date on apologetics through campus ministries and solid apologetic ministries that embrace the straightforward sense of the biblical narrative on origins - 6 Day Creation of All things that were made (Gen. 1; Ex. 20:11; John 1).

By the way, if "Creationism is an embarrassment" (ala Wm L. Craig) then it is in good company. The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to them that are lost, and a rock of offense - doesn't make it any less true. We happily embrace the "embarrassment" of the Cross and the truth of Creation.

In my review of flowering plant fossils I could find none in the Cambrian. Here are my search results:

http://www.fossilmall.com/Fossil_Plants.htm That plant diversification, including the evolution of vascular tissue and water circulatory systems (the tracheophytes or higher plants), proceeded rapidly through the Silurian and into the early Devonian is evidenced by a rich floral fossil assemblage preserved with cellular detail in the Middle Devonian. The flowering plants (angiosperms), also known as Angiospermae or Magnoliophyta, are the most diverse group of extant land plants. When flowing evolved remains unsettled since the fossil record is inconclusive, but there is conjecture that the ancestors of the angiosperms diverged from an unknown group of gymnosperms during the late Triassic, more than 200 million years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian  Although there were a variety of macroscopic marine plants (e.g. Margaretia and Dalyia), no true land plant (embryophyte) fossils are known from the Cambrian. However, biofilms and microbial mats were well developed on Cambrian tidal flats and beaches.,[28] and further inland were a variety of lichens, fungi and microbes forming microbial earth ecosystems, comparable with modern soil crust of desert regions, contributing to soil formation.[29]

This also agrees with Snelling's book The Earth's Catastrophic Past

Lou Hamby said:

Dr. Tofflemire--I did a cursory review of the fossil content of cambian layers, and they have found flowering plants and seeds in these layers.  It seems to me that there is a huge contingent of al kind sof life represented in these layers...the information about flowering plants in the cambrian is all over the internet? Just sayin....this for me bodes young earth and not old earth gradualism.  If the bibles Genesis, is a historical over view of the creation, then to seems that all life was created at one time slot if you will in 6/24 hour days.... I don't get long periods of time from the bible or from the fossil record, and combined with the c14 AMS testing there is every reason to put to bed the long earth creationist view, but that is what seems clear to me....... cheers!

   

Did you even read the opening post?

Zuma said:

William Lain Craig is a theistic evolutionist.  I ponder why his name should be listed here.

We are aware of William Lain Craig's position on Creation. ". . . his acceptance of old earth creationism and according to his recent comments; possibly theistic evolution. However, his recent comments are disappointing."

Did you even read the opening post? Apparently you have not read any of the posts in this thread.

Zuma said:

To what I know William Lain Craig supported God in assisting the evolution for the creation of the world.  Or in other words, he did not believe God directly created the world.

We are aware of William Lain Craig's position on Creation. ". . . his acceptance of old earth creationism and according to his recent comments; possibly theistic evolution. However, his recent comments are disappointing."

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service