Is it Open Season on TEs now?

[ExpatChristian]

you believe Jesus lived, died and rose again but have no scientific proof for it so why do you need all this scientific proof for creation? or the flood?

You are right, there is no proof of these things. The flood, literal creationism etc. There is proof for evolution. Scientists can watch it with animals with short life spans like fruit flies. They change the environment in controlled conditions and literally watch evolution. Scientists watch bacteria evolve in response to new anti-biotics. They actually watch it. It has been proved. End of story. Go to a fish market and look at a sole (that is a fish archie - different from soul). Look at this pic. It is quite clear that this fish once swam upright but found a niche by lying flat on the bottom. Now its eyes are shifting to one side so that they can be on the top of the fish rather than have one eye scraping the bottom surface the whole time. This stuff is obvious for all those who will see and who are not in clinical denial given the threat to their belief system.

(ok. I was going to post a pic but this site has some stupid rule that you need to have a 100 posts to share a pic with your forum buddies)

Here is the link

http://www.oceanlight.com/spotlight.php?img=08950

 

[laptoppop]

I agree with Mallon that the partisan bickering is silly, and I am coming to regret my thread title. Nevertheless, my point remains. YECs shouldn't think they are being called to a lower standard of accountability simply because they are posting in a forum where the other side will not be allowed to question their views (if indeed this is still the case).

Well with the new "rules" I don't think there is any place for private fellowship here anymore, so your wish is granted. It remains to be seen how this plays out. I'm not sure I'll stick around. There's also been a bunch of moderators, etc. quitting as well.

Well, they're the only ones who are good at it. Did you actually read what I quoted?

ummm, yes. Not only did I re-read the parts you posted (note that I am only responding to what *I* wrote), I wrote them, remember?

I could have quoted this, but instead I quoted this. (Watch the colors, if you didn't already get it.) Now think about it. Did I quote your strong attacks on my ways of thinking? Hardly. You claim that I have swallowed a whole cocktail of lies hook, line, and sinker, and I barely bat my eyelids. If I was really out to show that YECs are terrible hatemongering trolls, wouldn't I have quoted that and said that laptoppop does nothing but say evolution is a lie without proof?

To me, there is a huge difference between saying evolution is a lie from Satan, and saying that TEs are liars and con men. Creationists and creationist organizations are called names like that all the time. I don't see any problem with talking about the viewpoints. I do see huge problems with attacking the people. In my posts, even in the private forum, I tried to make the distinction very clear.

The reason I didn't quote that bit and ask for evidence, of course, is because you are perfectly entitled to believe that evolution etc. are all deadly lies of the devil. I too can believe that heliocentrism is a deadly lie of the devil and even if heliocentrism is scientifically true, there isn't one bit of scientific or historical evidence that will show that I am right or that I am wrong. (Nuclear holocaust is evil, no matter how scientifically plausible it is.)

fine.

But I have seen many evolutionists, from the geological greats of Cuvier and Agassiz to many members of the forum posting right now, investigate the fossil record from the point of view of a global flood, showing precisely that it just doesn't work. I have also seen and shown that many evolutionists show precisely how they detect unconformities based on chemical differences between rocks on either side of the boundary instead of arbitrarily tossing out whatever doesn't fit their theories - again, this is hardly "smiling and ignoring the ramifications".

Read my post again. It is not unconformities which are the problem - it is the paraconformities they blend into. I do not dispute unconformities. I see most of them as erosional surfaces during the flood. Depending on the conditions, floods can rip areas apart, they can gently erode, they can erode in ways that look like modern wind erosion, they can deposit lightly, they can dump material, they can settle down and let things gently settle out. The problem is, if you follow most (all?) unconformities, at some point they become paraconformities. To me this implies a continuity of deposition/erosional events quite strongly.

I couldn't care less how much you, or any other creationist, hate me or any other evolutionist (not that I am suggesting you do).

HUH? Dude - anything but. I respect you quite a bit. I think you are mistaken about some issues, but where it really counts we share a heart for the Lord. I loved (almost all ) of your recent post in the TE private area about the recent retreat you went on, and was shouting at a lot of it. Coming together humbly at the feet of Jesus, worshiping Him, seeking His will -- that's lightyears more important than anything else.

I am suggesting that blanket statements about the general incompetence of evolutionists should be dragged for examination and refuted if untrue. A statement like this:

which doesn't attach even a single example of "an unconformity which blends into a paraconformity with no visible erosional surface and only assumed to be of different ages" really isn't going to convince anyone.

Read it again. I did NOT say evolutionists are incompetent. I did suggest that the current common interpretational system has accepted certain things without following up on the ramifications, because the ramifications are drastically outside their frame of reference.

This article discusses paraconformities in some detail: http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm

An atheist can (now, apparently) run in and say "Christians are all liars", but without any examples I'm quite sure he wouldn't be very convincing either.

I very specifically declared that I am NOT saying evolutionists are liars. There is a huge difference between believing something mistakenly and lying about something. I'm mistaken about lots of things. My wife tells me about them all the time <grin>. But I make a lot of effort to not lie about things I believe to be true.

I fail to see where any TEs have claimed that it is logically impossible for a God who uses evolution to write a historical Old Testament and be omniscient - perhaps He hasn't, but He certainly could if He wanted hard enough to. Can I not ask you to explain yourself?

Because of the location of the post, I did not include further explanation. In particular, I believe that a historical interpretation of the Old Testament is incompatible with evolutionary theory because I believe the Old Testament teaches there was a historical global flood. Such a flood would leave evidence - LOTS of evidence. Since this evidence is the same evidence used for evolution, I do not see a global flood as being compatible with evolution, so I do not believe a historical interpretation of the Old Testament is compatible with evolution.

Of course, I also see huge problems with a historical Adam made from the ground and Eve made from him, as opposed to millions of years/generations of development somehow crossing a line at some point.

(emphasis added by laptoppop) But I never said that you were "talking about the characteristics of an entire group" - never mind that you said "a historical Old Testament ... is not consistent with TE" about a group running the gamut from believing a historical Adam and Eve to believing a semi-historical David! And I never said that you were wrong to say that - that is precisely why I didn't quote it as something you should defend.

I do think you should defend your statement that folks who try to hold to conservative theology and TE experience tension stemming from an illogical position. I certainly have experienced some tension, although the more I learn the less I worry. But then there's theFijian who is convinced both of evolution and of the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy - I haven't seen any tension from him in a while, have you? There was rmwilliamsll who was probably one of the most (theologically) conservative people I knew here, he too had no problem with evolution and no strain in accepting both. There are liberal theologians here but I think that if pushed, most of us would really just say that it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

I explained above a couple of reasons I see incompatibility between a historical Old Testament and evolutionary theory. Since I see them as incompatible, I also see folks who try to hold both views as being in a state of cognitive dissonance - i.e. tension.

... of course I was quote-mining.

This is called unfair when done by creationists.

I saw many derogatory statements made about TEs

I made no such statements.

and evolutionary science

Yup -- I sure did criticize that.

which had no basis in fact, and I called them for that, not bothering about what else had been said in the thread, good or ugly.

I believe all of my statements have basis in fact.

I trust that removing context has changed nothing about the meaning of the quotes. They are as indefensible in context as they are being pulled out for public display; I pulled them out precisely because I do not believe that every word coming from the mouth of a creationist is terribly flawed and illogical.

I believed that the quotes you chose from me did not properly reflect my posts. In my posts I was very careful to separate the scientific viewpoint from the people holding those views. I consider this a crucial distinction, because I have a lot of respect for a number of TEs around here -- but I sincerely believe they are mistaken, and that the root of the error is a lie from Satan. This is harsh, I know -- but it does not mean I do not consider such folks in a good light. The Lord, little by little as I can handle it, continually shows me areas in my life I need to change as He helps me grow. If you trace the ultimate source of any of these areas, they come from lies from the father of lies. He is cunning and deceitful -- and he nabs me all the time.

[/quote]Now, creationists are supremely logical and intellectual people, and I am sure that you have counterarguments for what I presented above and numerous examples to show that, in fact, no skeptics take flood geology seriously or try it before rejecting it, all geologists grit their teeth and ignore the ramifications of unconformities, [/quote]
To make myself a little clearer -- I don't say they grit their teeth and ignore it, I say they haven't really considered and followed up on the logical conclusions, or they have and have dismissed them. All fossil formations end at some place. The vast majority do so gradually, blending into paraconformities, then blending into completely homogeneous regions.

no TEs can believe that God is omnipotent and wrote historical facts in the OT

Thats not what I said. Perhaps I could have made myself clearer by saying "a completely historical" Old Testament. I also did not say that they could not believe that, just that it was not logical. We all hold positions that are not logical all the time. Many are just fine. The love we feel for other people is not "logical" -- it does not follow logic, but it is great. In this case, there is particular evidence. It can be interpreted as supporting vast timelines and evolution, or it can be interpreted as agreeing with the Scriptural story of a global flood and a literal Adam. In my opinion, other positions are not really logical, and jump through a lot of hoops to support themselves.

, and that conservative Christians who accept evolution are illogical and will experience discomfort for it.

Yes, in this particular area. Again, we all have this in differing degrees in lots of different areas. This tension is healthy and God uses it to improve us. For example, recently I realized I wasn't spending enough time reading the Bible -- and that that was not logical considering that I consider the Bible to be important revelation from God to me

I am also sure that mark kennedy will be able to demonstrate that most TEs think that the whole Bible should never be interpreted literally,

I cannot speak for others, and will not try to do so. I will say that in these forums, it seems like more TEs use what I would call a "liberal" interpretation of Genesis than a "conservative" one. That's a far distance from your words into Mark's mouth.

and that archie will be able to demonstrate that TEs lack truth and hate God - and that Project86 will be able to show that TEs mostly use poor arguments and utter nonsense, in the latest post in that thread.

Words in their mouth - not real fair,is it? You seem very angry, bro. In any case I can't speak for them, only myself. I get myself in enough trouble as it is.

But until then, I have every right to wonder if walling off the Creationist forum does you creationists any good.

"walling off the Creationist forum" -- thats an expression with a lot of negative connotations. Having a separate area was the only thing that kept some people around here. Other creationists have left because of the personal attacks from various TEs (I'm not saying you). Wouldn't you consider it better for folks to hang around where they can learn and develop more accurate opinions than to hold an immature position?

In any case - you have your wish. With the new rules allowing non-Christians into this forum, I don't see how the subforum rules can apply anymore. I'm waiting to see how it plays out, but I don't have a lot of hope for this forum right now.

 

[shernren]

To me, there is a huge difference between saying evolution is a lie from Satan, and saying that TEs are liars and con men. Creationists and creationist organizations are called names like that all the time. I don't see any problem with talking about the viewpoints. I do see huge problems with attacking the people. In my posts, even in the private forum, I tried to make the distinction very clear.

Which is why I *didn't* say what I could've in the OP, and I think I've tried exceedingly hard to make that clear in my ensuing comments, haven't I? And quite frankly, the only recent memory I have of anything close to "liars and conmen" being used of creationists is where KerrMetric said that misusing the term "uniformitarianism" might be a con-job - and I showed there that it was indeed a logical possibility. I don't see any problem with talking about the viewpoints, which is why I didn't single out that part for comments.

Read my post again. It is not unconformities which are the problem - it is the paraconformities they blend into. I do not dispute unconformities. I see most of them as erosional surfaces during the flood. Depending on the conditions, floods can rip areas apart, they can gently erode, they can erode in ways that look like modern wind erosion, they can deposit lightly, they can dump material, they can settle down and let things gently settle out. The problem is, if you follow most (all?) unconformities, at some point they become paraconformities. To me this implies a continuity of deposition/erosional events quite strongly.

You're right, I was careless with my terminology in my previous reply. Having said that, you jump right on to another unsupported statement: most unconformities ... at some point ... become paraconformities. I'm assuming that you have evidence for that? Even the Roth article you put forth mentions exactly three paraconformities. That's hardly "most unconformities", is it?

Besides, the Flood can't explain paraconformities. For example, take a look at an article exploring the Marshall paraconformity: http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/181_SR/207/207.htm ... the part to note is this:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Marshall Paraconformity that separates the lower Miocene sediments from the lower Oligocene sediments spans ~12 m.y., based on calcareous nannofossil (sic) and magnetostratigraphic datums[/FONT] ...
​

Now pray tell, how does a Flood cause both nanofossil and magnetic gaps in a sedimentation record, and correlating gaps at that? After all, in a catastrophic model nanofossil deposition (essentially dust settling through water) must be causally independent of magnetic fluctuations? And again: http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/53/2/533 ...

Structures and textures which could be preserved in the rock record to indicate this paraconformity include: 1) stairstep erosional surfaces where weakly cemented older eolianite has been differentially eroded along bedding planes, 2) sand-filled polygonal cracks apparently formed by compaction, 3) local encrustation of the older eolianite's surface by algae and/or incipient calichification, 4) small solution pits, 5) wind-scour marks, and 6) a variety of pseudoburrow structures formed by vegetation, ants, and dissolution.
​

This shows that this paraconformity isn't just assumed by geologists but is indicated by far more than simple gaps in the fossil record, objective evidence that shows deposition records - moreover, as far as I know, water doesn't differentially erode along bedding planes, although I could certainly be wrong.

HUH? Dude - anything but. I respect you quite a bit. I think you are mistaken about some issues, but where it really counts we share a heart for the Lord. I loved (almost all ) of your recent post in the TE private area about the recent retreat you went on, and was shouting at a lot of it. Coming together humbly at the feet of Jesus, worshiping Him, seeking His will -- that's lightyears more important than anything else.

... I couldn't care less how much you, or any other creationist, hate me or any other evolutionist (not that I am suggesting you do).

Read it again. I did NOT say evolutionists are incompetent. I did suggest that the current common interpretational system has accepted certain things without following up on the ramifications, because the ramifications are drastically outside their frame of reference.

This article discusses paraconformities in some detail: http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm

As a (future, God willing) scientist, if I were told (without proof at that!) that I was assuming something about a system that I or others had not actually observed about it, I would consider that incompetence. Scientists don't get by on assumptions, and incorrect assumptions are always trumped by data. In fact, Roth himself shows in his quotations that scientists don't assume that paraconformities have easy explanations! Neither, of course, do they have easy explanations from a Flood, as the correlation of magnetic data with fossil data at the Marshall paraconformity shows.

I very specifically declared that I am NOT saying evolutionists are liars. There is a huge difference between believing something mistakenly and lying about something. I'm mistaken about lots of things. My wife tells me about them all the time <grin>. But I make a lot of effort to not lie about things I believe to be true.

It was just the first analogical example that came to mind. Probably a bad one too.

Because of the location of the post, I did not include further explanation. In particular, I believe that a historical interpretation of the Old Testament is incompatible with evolutionary theory because I believe the Old Testament teaches there was a historical global flood. Such a flood would leave evidence - LOTS of evidence. Since this evidence is the same evidence used for evolution, I do not see a global flood as being compatible with evolution, so I do not believe a historical interpretation of the Old Testament is compatible with evolution.

Of course, I also see huge problems with a historical Adam made from the ground and Eve made from him, as opposed to millions of years/generations of development somehow crossing a line at some point.

I explained above a couple of reasons I see incompatibility between a historical Old Testament and evolutionary theory. Since I see them as incompatible, I also see folks who try to hold both views as being in a state of cognitive dissonance - i.e. tension.

I didn't know that the Old Testament has only 11 chapters. Or do you think that a TE Bible jumps straight from Genesis 11 to Matthew 1?

Blanket statements like yours give the impression that all TEs throw more than half the Bible out the window. Don't you agree that in your earlier statement it would have been far more accurate for you to say "a historical interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis ... " instead?

This is called unfair when done by creationists.

I asked for specific statements to be evidenced. As I showed, if I really wanted to quote-mine effectively, there were far more inflammatory things said which I could have pointed to, but chose not to. I'm quite sure that what I did post had the exact same meaning in context of the whole post as compared to when I quoted them in isolation. If you think they don't, feel free to show how.

I made no such statements [derogatory statements about TEs].

Didn't others?

I believe all of my statements have basis in fact.

And I only asked for those bases to be demonstrated.

I believed that the quotes you chose from me did not properly reflect my posts. In my posts I was very careful to separate the scientific viewpoint from the people holding those views. I consider this a crucial distinction, because I have a lot of respect for a number of TEs around here -- but I sincerely believe they are mistaken, and that the root of the error is a lie from Satan. This is harsh, I know -- but it does not mean I do not consider such folks in a good light. The Lord, little by little as I can handle it, continually shows me areas in my life I need to change as He helps me grow. If you trace the ultimate source of any of these areas, they come from lies from the father of lies. He is cunning and deceitful -- and he nabs me all the time.

But your statement about paraconformities, in context or not, implies that anybody who honestly investigates paraconformities will conclude that they cannot be explained by a conventional geological model, and that geologists only assume a conventional geological model when it doesn't explain evidence (which if it were leveled against me would certainly sound like a charge of incompetence). Do you not agree?

To make myself a little clearer -- I don't say they grit their teeth and ignore it, I say they haven't really considered and followed up on the logical conclusions, or they have and have dismissed them. All fossil formations end at some place. The vast majority do so gradually, blending into paraconformities, then blending into completely homogeneous regions.

You didn't say they grit their teeth and ignore - you said everyone smiles and ignores the ramifications. What a chasm between gritting teeth and smiling.

Thats not what I said. Perhaps I could have made myself clearer by saying "a completely historical" Old Testament. I also did not say that they could not believe that, just that it was not logical. We all hold positions that are not logical all the time. Many are just fine. The love we feel for other people is not "logical" -- it does not follow logic, but it is great. In this case, there is particular evidence. It can be interpreted as supporting vast timelines and evolution, or it can be interpreted as agreeing with the Scriptural story of a global flood and a literal Adam. In my opinion, other positions are not really logical, and jump through a lot of hoops to support themselves.

But you are still saying an omnipotent God and a historical OT is fundamentally incoherent with TEism. Were you not?

Yes, in this particular area. Again, we all have this in differing degrees in lots of different areas. This tension is healthy and God uses it to improve us. For example, recently I realized I wasn't spending enough time reading the Bible -- and that that was not logical considering that I consider the Bible to be important revelation from God to me.

Except that, you know, there are many conservative Christians who don't experience the tension you say they would.

I cannot speak for others, and will not try to do so. I will say that in these forums, it seems like more TEs use what I would call a "liberal" interpretation of Genesis than a "conservative" one. That's a far distance from your words into Mark's mouth.

I said: ... that most TEs think that the whole Bible should never be interpreted literally,
Mark said: ... they rail against a literal interpretation of Scripture and I am convinced for the most part apply this to the Bible as a whole.

I am only rearranging the words he said, and wouldn't you agree that "Genesis" is not "the Bible as a whole"?

Words in their mouth - not real fair,is it? You seem very angry, bro. In any case I can't speak for them, only myself. I get myself in enough trouble as it is.

Words in their mouth?

I said: ... demonstrate that TEs lack truth and hate God
archie said: ... they hate us because they hate him. / ... they are just proving that they do not have the truth.

I said: ... that TEs mostly use poor arguments and utter nonsense
Project86: ... Poor arguments, attacks on Christians and just utter nonsense showed me that error of the TEC view.

I haven't done anything besides tidy up their words. And shouldn't I be angry? Tell me something, brother. What, for the love of God - literally! - do you think I should do when fellow brothers accuse me and a crowd of dear friends of hating Jesus, lacking truth, and using poor arguments and utter nonsense? It's impossible for me to not be angry. I can only obey Paul and Jesus: "in your anger ... do not sin."

"walling off the Creationist forum" -- thats an expression with a lot of negative connotations. Having a separate area was the only thing that kept some people around here. Other creationists have left because of the personal attacks from various TEs (I'm not saying you). Wouldn't you consider it better for folks to hang around where they can learn and develop more accurate opinions than to hold an immature position?

Oh, it certainly keeps certain folks hanging around. But forgive me if I doubt that any who hang around because there is a safehouse have learned anything from their experiences there.

In any case - you have your wish. With the new rules allowing non-Christians into this forum, I don't see how the subforum rules can apply anymore. I'm waiting to see how it plays out, but I don't have a lot of hope for this forum right now.

Neither do I.

 

[laptoppop]

Which is why I *didn't* say what I could've in the OP, and I think I've tried exceedingly hard to make that clear in my ensuing comments, haven't I? And quite frankly, the only recent memory I have of anything close to "liars and conmen" being used of creationists is where KerrMetric said that misusing the term "uniformitarianism" might be a con-job - and I showed there that it was indeed a logical possibility. I don't see any problem with talking about the viewpoints, which is why I didn't single out that part for comments.

You're right, I was careless with my terminology in my previous reply. Having said that, you jump right on to another unsupported statement: most unconformities ... at some point ... become paraconformities. I'm assuming that you have evidence for that? Even the Roth article you put forth mentions exactly three paraconformities. That's hardly "most unconformities", is it?

Fair enough. I'll do more research and give you links, probably in a different thread. However, fossil layers have finite dimensions, and most end gradually, not abruptly. I'll get more evidence for you, probably mostly from Geology 101 classes.

Besides, the Flood can't explain paraconformities. For example, take a look at an article exploring the Marshall paraconformity: http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/181_SR/207/207.htm ... the part to note is this:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Marshall Paraconformity that separates the lower Miocene sediments from the lower Oligocene sediments spans ~12 m.y., based on calcareous nannofossil (sic) and magnetostratigraphic datums[/FONT] ...
​

Now pray tell, how does a Flood cause both nanofossil and magnetic gaps in a sedimentation record, and correlating gaps at that? After all, in a catastrophic model nanofossil deposition (essentially dust settling through water) must be causally independent of magnetic fluctuations? And again: http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/53/2/533 ...

Structures and textures which could be preserved in the rock record to indicate this paraconformity include: 1) stairstep erosional surfaces where weakly cemented older eolianite has been differentially eroded along bedding planes, 2) sand-filled polygonal cracks apparently formed by compaction, 3) local encrustation of the older eolianite's surface by algae and/or incipient calichification, 4) small solution pits, 5) wind-scour marks, and 6) a variety of pseudoburrow structures formed by vegetation, ants, and dissolution.
​

This shows that this paraconformity isn't just assumed by geologists but is indicated by far more than simple gaps in the fossil record, objective evidence that shows deposition records - moreover, as far as I know, water doesn't differentially erode along bedding planes, although I could certainly be wrong.

Actually - these quotes and you are making some assumptions. For example, nanofossils must settle out of still water. To me, it is reasonable that deposition conditions could affect what is deposited, as well as the magnetic properties. I don't see any problem with that. As I've stated previously - water can also erode. I've linked in the past to some articles discussing how certain types of water erosion can be confused with wind erosion - and the evidence that it really is water, not wind. Of course, this must be painstakingly examined site by site.

Note that your second quote says "could" be preserved to indicate...
The whole reasons people talk about paraconformities is because of the lack of erosional surfaces, etc.

I couldn't care less how much you, or any other creationist, hate me or any other evolutionist (not that I am suggesting you do).

On the one hand, that seems very healthy. Of course this very thread suggests you do care. It bugs me that some people think poorly of me because I'm YEC -- but I can't change anyone else.

As a (future, God willing) scientist, if I were told (without proof at that!) that I was assuming something about a system that I or others had not actually observed about it, I would consider that incompetence. Scientists don't get by on assumptions, and incorrect assumptions are always trumped by data. In fact, Roth himself shows in his quotations that scientists don't assume that paraconformities have easy explanations! Neither, of course, do they have easy explanations from a Flood, as the correlation of magnetic data with fossil data at the Marshall paraconformity shows.

All systems have presumptions. Even the scientific method has huge presumptions which limit it (properly, as long as you understand it) to purely natural events, and excludes God. The system of conventional geology/evolution has built itself up over many many years, layer upon layer, and has a number of assumptions. Go into a typical geology class and talk about a catastrophic global flood. You'll be treated like someone talking about a perpetual motion machine in a physics class. That's because of the accepted interpretational system.

I didn't know that the Old Testament has only 11 chapters. Or do you think that a TE Bible jumps straight from Genesis 11 to Matthew 1?

Blanket statements like yours give the impression that all TEs throw more than half the Bible out the window. Don't you agree that in your earlier statement it would have been far more accurate for you to say "a historical interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis ... " instead?

Perhaps. On the other hand, most (not all) people who discount the historicity of the first 11 chapters use methods of Biblical interpretation (such as higher criticism) that, if applied logically throughout Scripture, destroys much of the historicity of the rest of the OT as well. Its considered "unimportant" because we only really care about the "spiritual message". To me, the fact that God worked through real history, in creation, the flood, babel, Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, Elijah, Daniel, on and on, is important for many reasons, not the least of which is that He can work in MY personal history. Look at the comments we've had about messianic prophecies. To me, that's challenging the Old Testament in many ways.

I asked for specific statements to be evidenced. As I showed, if I really wanted to quote-mine effectively, there were far more inflammatory things said which I could have pointed to, but chose not to. I'm quite sure that what I did post had the exact same meaning in context of the whole post as compared to when I quoted them in isolation. If you think they don't, feel free to show how.

I believe the quotes from me in particular (the only thing I'm addressing) did not convey the care I had taken to separate my concerns about the intellectual paradigm of evolution from the people who accept it. Again, I'll gather more data for you and present it later.

But your statement about paraconformities, in context or not, implies that anybody who honestly investigates paraconformities will conclude that they cannot be explained by a conventional geological model, and that geologists only assume a conventional geological model when it doesn't explain evidence (which if it were leveled against me would certainly sound like a charge of incompetence). Do you not agree?

No. I do feel that they represent a challenge to the conventional interpretational model that has not been fully addressed. I have never charged people with incompetence. All systems have presuppositions. It is crucial for us to recognize them and be careful about them. I would suggest that most research doesn't go around challenging and reexamining things that are commonly accepted -- just like in High School one does not reexamine 2+2=4. I would also suggest that such reexamination is a primary difference between YEC and conventional interpretations. The two differ at a primary level in providing a framework to examine the evidence.

You didn't say they grit their teeth and ignore - you said everyone smiles and ignores the ramifications. What a chasm between gritting teeth and smiling.

Fair enough. Ignore was the wrong word and I apologize. It is not that the ramifications are ignored - rather that they are not recognized and examined.

But you are still saying an omnipotent God and a historical OT is fundamentally incoherent with TEism. Were you not?

No - I'm saying that I believe an omniscient God and a historical OT revealed by Him (yes, especially the first 11 chapters which I believe establish a foundation for the rest of the entire book) is inconsistent with TEism.

Except that, you know, there are many conservative Christians who don't experience the tension you say they would.

Argumentum ad hominem. Also, God deals with each of us according to what we can handle. Compared to exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit in our lives and to our families, all of this stuff pales in comparison.

I haven't done anything besides tidy up their words. And shouldn't I be angry? Tell me something, brother. What, for the love of God - literally! - do you think I should do when fellow brothers accuse me and a crowd of dear friends of hating Jesus, lacking truth, and using poor arguments and utter nonsense? It's impossible for me to not be angry. I can only obey Paul and Jesus: "in your anger ... do not sin."

1) again, I'm only responding to and for my own comments. I have specifically stated many times that I do not consider TEs as hating Jesus, etc. I have stated that one can be a totally Godly Christian and be mistaken in this area.
2) I understand your anger. Some TEs have lobbed similar comments towards YEC -- and continue to do so. I think neither is right or good. I think in both cases slander is being done against good Christian people. However, I would say that accusing YEC organizations/scientists of deliberate lying/conning/deceiving is much more prevalent than talking about TE organizations. It really bugs me when people talk about people that way -- when they have never met the people involved! -- just because they disagree.

I do think that there are theological implications to evolution that are dangerous. You know the arguments, I'm not going to repeat them now. But then again, nobodies theology is perfect (except mine, of course ).

Oh, it certainly keeps certain folks hanging around. But forgive me if I doubt that any who hang around because there is a safehouse have learned anything from their experiences there.

You should see my private messages, bro.

 

[SNPete]

Let's just please drop the partisan quibbling, folks.



. Pull up your socks and get along as Christians.

Sadly these folks are acting all to much like "Christians"