Really?

In a recent post on his blog Pharyngula, P.Z. Meyers makes the following statement in his discussion of atheists.

Dictionary Atheists. Boy, I really do hate these guys. You've got a discussion going, talking about why you're an atheist, or what atheism should mean to the community, or some such topic that is dealing with our ideas and society, and some smug [jerk] comes along and announces that "Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term." As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else; as if atheists are people who have attained a zen-like ideal, their minds a void, containing nothing but atheism, which itself is nothing. ...

If I ask you to explain to me why you are an atheist, reciting the dictionary at me, you are saying nothing: asking why you are a person who does not believe in god is not answered when you reply, "Because I am a person who does not believe in god." And if you protest when I say that there is more to the practice of atheism than that, insisting that there isn't just makes you dogmatic and blind.

Meyers has got this right, and it is something that people don't often realize. When you make a statement about the existence of God you are forced to make certain conclusions about the world if you are to remain consistent. Atheism has deep theological and scientific implications, and once you buy into a part of atheism, you buy into an interpretation of facts that is 1) not always consistent with itself, and 2)inconsistent with biblical thought.

This is why believing in an old earth is such a problem. Scientifically the claim is still questionable, and there are other conclusions that can be drawn from the scientific evidence. The belief that we live on an earth older than twelve thousand years old is one that was hammered out and and brought mainstream by the belief in evolution, a theory in and of itself diametrically opposed to the account given by Jehovah. In evolution, and belief in an old earth, death is a part of the fabric of the world, the driver of progress instead of a result of human sin, and how can you believe in a God who built death into the fabric of the world? If you want to read more on this, check out my post from a while ago Why does Creation Matter

Meyers' post is interesting, and I suggest that you read it, it gives an interesting look at atheism as some of the more influential and militant atheists see it. Also, just scanning his blog, you can see that all the man has to do if he wants to beat on Christianity before breakfast is scan the internet, find a few Christians making fools of themselves and walla! he's debunked christianity, again. Some of these people a good men who are fools in the world's eyes, but others are just simply being foolish. If Christians would take care of themselves and clean up our own act, we've have a lot easier time doing the Lord's work.

Evolution Is On Hold

Apparently today's horses are not evolving as they should, at least according to this article at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518641,00.html . Despite the collosal ammount of money spent on breeding faster horses isn't helping a whole lot.

"Evidence from the Triple Crown races suggests that the process of
selective breeding of thoroughbreds (as practiced in the U.S.) is incapable of
producing a substantially faster horse," Denny writes. "Despite the efforts of
the breeders, speeds are not increasing, and current attempts to breed
faster horses may instead be producing horses that are more fragile."

Despite all the talk about how evolution is a fact and not a theory, this might suggest otherwise, and I wonder how many other studies or facts like this are known?
This flies squarely in the face of evolution, which claims that Selection, Natural or otherwise, can lead from organism B to organism A+.

Why Young Earth

In recent years, as naturalism has continued its march into every crevasse of life, the crazy idiots who believe in a literal six day creation have become nearly extinct. Yet some still claim that the Young Earth model of creation is not only probable, but is the only view that is consistent with Christianity and Science. Why? What is the big deal? And what does it matter?
It might be profitable to look back at history, why did mainstream Christians change from a Young Earth model to the Old Earth model. Until Darwin popularized the theory of evolution (and yes, it is and remains a theory, not a scientific fact) very few scientist or theologians held that the earth was more than several thousand years old. Most Christians accepted that the earth was between ten and six thousand years old; there was no reason to suspect or postulate otherwise, six thousand years was approximately the figure arrived at by adding up the genealogies in the Bible and matching them with when certain events occurred. Evolution however, required many, many years. First they claimed they needed a few million.
Then they learned that the cell was more complex than they thought, and they simultaneously discovered that the earth was a few million years older than they had thought. And so the process continued until today with some naturalist claiming the earth is many billions of years old. They then turned to Christians and claimed that they were 'superstitious' because they did not accept that the earth is millions or billions of years old (This depends upon what dating method you use. If you age a sample with four different methods you often end up with four radically different ages). Their reasoning looks something like this:
Evolution is true
Evolution requires that the Earth is millions of years old
Therefore, the earth is millions of years old.

Christianity and other religions claim the years is not millions of years old
We know that the earth is millions of years old,
Therefore, we know Christianity and other religions are not true
If Christianity and all other religions are not true
Then they cannot challenge Evolution
If Evolution cannot be challenged
Then Evolution is True.
Just a hint for those of you who have not taken Logic 101, when your conclusion and your first proposition are one and the same you have what is called a circular argument, i.e. one that is false.
Christians employed three strategies in response to the charge that a literal creation is absurd because naturalists say so. The first stratagem is to simply accept what science is saying and reject Christianity. The second stratagem is to believe that the scientists have got it wrong (something not unheard of), and the bible has it right when it says day. The second stratagem is to try and fit the millions or billions of years into Genesis, and the most common way of doing that is to say that each 'day' in Genesis represents an age.
There are, however, many problems with doing this. The first is that the Hebrew word Yom used in Genesis means 24 hour day. Yom Kippur is the 'Day of Atonement', not the age, millennium, epoch, or era of atonement. Everywhere in the bible the word Yom is used with a number, or the phrase 'evening and morning' it means a literal 24 hour day. Many try to say that in English we often use 'day' to mean an age: the day of the Lord, In my grandfather's day, etc. We often say the dawn of an age, or the evening of an era. But do we ever say things like 'I remember how my father grew up in the morning of the first day of my grandfather' when we intend day to mean era? I don't. Maybe you do.
That is in English, here we are dealing with Hebrew, where Yom means 24 hour day.
Perhaps the single most important problem with the Old Earth view point is that it requires death before the fall in direct contradiction of Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...” If death, pain, and suffering were built into the world by an all powerful, intelligent being working from outside time and space, how can such a god be called Holy?
In the end, we should not be asking ourselves 'why young earth?” but rather “why old earth?” Many have adopted the old earth viewpoint in order to appear scholarly and intellectual, but they are disliked by both sides, and atheists mock them for being unable to interpret their own Bible. Look at what the bible has to say about creation and the fall, there is no better interpreter of the Bible than the Bible itself.