Don’t Be Confused About the Age of the Earth

What you believe about the age of the Earth is one of the most important issues you will ever encounter. If you’re one of those blasphemous old-Earth people, your belief will not only determine determine your social and political affiliations during your brief and sinful life — but it will also determine whether you spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. No issue could be more important.

Therefore, it is with great pleasure that we bring you the latest wisdom from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. His new post is titled How Old Is the Earth? Find Out in Earth Battles. It’s at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

The age of the earth is an emotional topic — but why? Well, because it’s at the heart of evolutionary naturalism (really, the religion of atheism). If the idea of millions/billions of years isn’t true, then the evolutionary religion falls apart. Sadly, many Christians have accepted part of the religion of atheism (naturalism) — the millions of years and/or evolution — and added it into the Bible. So how should we think about this issue?

We told you this was an important issue. Now pay attention! Hambo says:

It depends on whether you start with God’s Word or man’s word. [Right!] Well, start with God’s Word in a new video production from Evidence Press, Earth Battles: How Old Is It? This exciting video [It’s exciting!] uses the Grand Canyon to explore how we understand the age of the earth through the lens of God’s Word and biblical history, particularly the global flood of Noah’s day. … Through beautiful 3D animations, models of the flood, and tours of the Grand Canyon, you will see that the Grand Canyon is the result of a watery catastrophe — the global flood — not slow erosion over millions of years.

If you don’t buy this video, you’re a fool! Then Hambo tells us about some more videos:

This new video is the third in a series from Evidence Press. Also, enjoy Universe Battles, which explores observable evidence that the universe is not billions of years old, and DNA Battles, which dives into the fierce debate regarding the historicity of Adam and Eve. [Links omitted!]

Amazingly, Hambo then raises another subject:

Evolutionists claim that the question of the origin of life isn’t an evolutionary question at all. But if you can’t get life to come from nonlife, evolution can’t even begin! [That’s brilliant!] Well, in a new book, The Stairway to Life [Link omitted!], biochemist Change Laura Tan, PhD, and medical engineer Rob Stadler, PhD, conduct an “origin of life reality check” [Wow!] and show that life cannot come from nonlif [sic] and such an idea is not scientific.

You really need these resources, dear reader! It’s not too late to save yourself, so click over to ol’ Hambo’s website and load up on these books and videos. The result will be life-changing! And be sure to tell ’em the Curmudgeon sent ya!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

10 responses to “Don’t Be Confused About the Age of the Earth

  1. Hambo is a clown, and a hypocrite.

    In about 7 weeks, a definitive book should be available.

    Herman

    ephraim7@aol.com

  2. If there were no beginning to life, if life and the universe had an infinite past, or if there was a cycle of ongoing return, orvif time has some other way without a beginning (think of “what is south of the South Pole”) ….
    Or if there were some other mechanism going on in the earliest life, other than evolution, other than common descent …. What if there were “continuous creation” as proposed by Fred Hoyle?
    What if somehow or other the Big Bang produced life?
    I am not arguing for any of those, only that they are conceivable.

  3. I am just reading a book titled “The Heresy of Ham. What every evangelical needs to know about the creation-evolution controversy”.

    J E Anderson, the author, is an evangelical Bible professor and expert. The heresy he warns about is not the belief in a young earth and a historical Adam & Eve. The heresy is “the claim of young earth creationists like Ken Ham that a literal/historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is the foundation of the Gospel itself”.

    Every Christian should be fighting this dangerous nonsense.

  4. Welcome back, Herman Cummings.

  5. Kennie can have the lens of biblical myths; I’ll take radioactivity dating. Heck, radioactive carbon, which has a relatively short half-life, proves the earth is way older than Ken thinks, and uranium half-life is even worse for the myths Ken likes.

  6. Pure ham – Wants to talk about the age of the earth so recruits a biochemist and medical engineer! Which begs the question, what is Ham’s pet geologist, Dr Andrew Snelling B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D, up to these days?

    Poor old Snelling – a geological Jekyll and Hyde. When he’s talking to the geology world, he has no problem acknowledging ages of formations in the billions of years. But when he’s on the Ham payroll, it’s 6000 years and not a penny more. Poor fellow. Surprising that he’s able to sleep at night.

  7. Dave Luckett

    tedinoz points out a vital characteristic of the YEC mindset: the ability to espouse and accept two incompatible ideas. Not simultaneously, necessarily, but to assert either according to circumstances. Snelling adopts the attitude necessary to the context in which he is operating.

    But this is not only found in their treatment of scientific versus religious ideas. It is also found in their treatment of purely religious ones. Worse, it’s also true of most Christians, institutionally, if not personally. Christian churches – mainstream ones as much as fundamentalists – officially believe in hell as eternal damnation in fire. They have to. They deny the recorded words of Jesus if they don’t. But they believe in the redemption wrought somehow by His death and resurrection, provided that it is accepted by faith.

    That is, they believe in a God who requires that we forgive one another with no limit – for that is what Jesus said we must – but who cannot forgive us without an agonised death in expiation. They believe in a God who, in default of that death, would cause our eternal torment in fire, and who does that in many cases anyway.

    Would they perform or allow such an infinite enormity? Would Ham, even? In charity, I don’t think so. I suspect that even a sadistic psychopath would tire of the screams and the pleading, after a while. But they worship a God who they think does that, and they want me and you and everyone to worship it too. This is a God who does, who is, infinitely worse than the worst a human being could ever do, or be. How can such a thing be worshipped?

    The mainstream Christian denominations became aware of this obvious contradiction, I think with the challenge of humanism, five centuries ago. They, at least, have soft-pedalled it more and more ever since. It’s now a considerable embarrassment to them. But they have an intractable problem: if there is no eternal damnation, then the doctrine of the redemption falls into a hole.

    What to do? The only answers are either not to think about it, or to believe two incompatible things about God, by turns. The more fundamentalist the believer, the more necessary this becomes.

    So it’s not so terribly suprising that Ham or Snelling can cultivate the extraordinary degree of mental dichotomy they display. They believe in a just and merciful God who damns people. In comparison to that belief, the other contradictions of that insane worldview are easily accommodated.

  8. @hans435
    Bible believers from long ago had their reasons for not taking the chronology of Genesis 1-11 literally. Not that there was scientific evidence for millions of years overriding the six days of creation, but, for example, Augustine of Hippo of about AD 400 felt compelled to abandon an understanding of day as being the time from sunset to sunset. By the 19th century, just about everyone had given up on a Ussher-style chronology and admitted that there were many millions of years of Earth history. An example being the Scofield Reference Bible. Or, on the science side, before understanding of radioactivity etc., Lord Kelvin’s low figure was about 20 million years.
    The Seventh Day Adventists, generally considered as a fringe group, kept to Young Earth Creationism on the basis of their prophet, Ellen G. White.
    Not until the mid 20th century did YEC become a popular option.

  9. Charles Deetz ;)

    Why of the proof of God and his power to create locked in a DVD I have to pay for, and not in the free and famous science book of the ages? All it would take us one more sentence … The waters receded and carved mile deep canyons.

  10. Theodore J Lawry

    Interesting. For years the leading creationist book on the Grand Canyon was Steven A. Austin’s “Grand Canyon: Monument To Catastrophe” which said that the Canyon was NOT made by the Flood but by the sudden draining of three ancient lakes. The “lakes” were far too small and the “evidence” for their existence, pathetic, but Austin for many years was creationism’s one and only geologist, plus he had spent a lot of time around the GC, studying it and giving creationist tours. So few would contradict him.

    Including Ham, himself. There is, or at least was (2010), a large wall map (See Figure 1, p. 291) in Ham’s Creation Museum displaying Austin’s lake theory. So Ham turned his back on the Flood, even though Austin worked for Ham’s arch rival, the ICR (Institute for Creation Research). Now Ham goes all out for the Flood theory. Not so infallible after all!

    And creationist geologist Snelling, who does the Flood video, used to “support” Austin’s lake theory, but now that neither he nor Austin work for ICR anymore, it seems he is moving away from it. I put “support” in quotes because when Snelling was working for ICR, he wrote an 1,100 page, two volume, book (Earth’s Catastrophic Past) which mentioned Austin’s lake theory, but only gave it two(!) sentences buried on p. 768 in an 1,100 page book. He must have known about all the flaws in Austin’s lake theory, but didn’t want to mention them or endorse the lake theory either. Wimp!