response letter from 'answers in genesis'

[dynasty]

alright, so here's a little background. I stumbled upon this site while doing research for an essay about the bible i'm writing now. i contacted 'answers in genesis' with regards to this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...4/oldearth.asp

I wrote to them, arguing they did not take the correct approach in arguing Sagan because his quote and the path of logic following do not make sense. Ken Ham, the writer, argued that the fossil record shows of disease and thorned plants before the rise of man. "However, the fossil record is not a pretty one! It shows evidence of animals eating each other,³ of
diseases like cancer in their bones,⁴ of violence,⁴ of plants with thorns⁵ and so on."

I emailed them only to ask why this point was argued, since disease and thorned plants were a direct result of Adam and Eve's disrespect for what he commanded. And of course, you can't argue that thorned plants and diseases were around before man when if we actually look for "answers in Genesis" we see that it says the exact opposite.

To go further in depth in the article, Ken Ham comes to this conclusion:

The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death. Thus Christians who compromise with the millions of years attributed by many scientists to the fossil record, are in that sense seemingly worshipping a different god — the cruel god of an old earth.
The problem with people like Sagan and Darwin was that they didn’t understand (or wouldn’t accept) that there was a perfect world to begin with — it was very good.
However, in Adam we rebelled (Romans 5), and the resulting judgment of death and the Curse changed the very good world into one that is groaning in pain till now (Romans 8:22).
When looking at this present world, these men weren’t looking at the nature of God, but the results of our sin! What a difference.
The God of the Bible, the God of mercy, grace and love, sent His one and only Son to be a man (but God nonetheless), to become our sin-bearer so that we could be saved from sin and its final effect of eternal separation from God:

‘For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

There’s no doubt — the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel.
Let this be a challenge to the Church to return to the loving, holy, righteous God of the Bible.

I completely disagreed with this conclusion, that The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death, and went on to talk about it.
So here's the letter:

[mrblonde77]

People who believe in Creationism piss me off and make me laugh at the same time. It's truly mind boggling that anybody could believe such a thing. Oh well...

[Phatso]

All this talk of sin and God creating this special little planet makes me giggle. Funny how Genesis didn't include the creation of the many other things we've discovered in this MASSIVE Universe.

I mean, fi the people who first wrote down Genesis knew so much about how God created this and created that, why didn't they know about all the other things in the Universe? Did God talk to them and just forget to mention "Oh yeah, forgot to tell you, you're about the size of a speck of dust in the grand scheme of things." or maybe he didn't want them to know. Make them feel a little.. defeated about their purpose in life. Controlling the masses.

I mean, guiding the people along the path of righteousness and Christ-ness.

Wonder if Adam and ever had a pet dino.

[Medicine Al]

I hope you weren't looking for these guys to ADMIT they made a mistake! That would be such an imperfection in the universe...

I need to go now and write to Santa and ask him why Rudolf's nose makes that funny sound when it lights up.