Note from Staff

[mark kennedy]

Mark, this is not what staff is trying to do. We are trying to keep the debates, refutations and other unwelcome posts out of the creationist forum.

Look at the next two posts, they just jump right back in and continue to press their points

Look, I come on here to debate, no two ways about that. Creationists simply are not interested in doing that a lot of the time. They come on here and see this thread and a bunch of others just like it and they don't come back. I get tired of it because with the traffic that comes through here I would like a chance to at a conversation with them.

If a TE wants to refute something he/she has read in here then they are more than welcome to start a thread about it in OT. They are even welcome to hotlink to the topic or particular post...in the OT thread...

Frankly, I don't appreciate their hotlinks, I'm not interested in their questions. I respect their subforum and I don't even read most of the stuff on there, that's between them. I don't know why they can't just mind their own business about what gets posted in here.

But refutations are not welcome in the creationist area...any more than a creationist is welcome to go into the TE area and post "G-d did it...that's all you need to know"

I don't post 'God did it', I simply don't believe that way. I'm not interested in posting to the TE subforum and I don't know of very many Creationists who would be.

While I understand the passions on both the Creationists (YEC & OEC) and the TE's ...*this* particular forum is for creationists to *share* their ideas, their research, their science, their findings, their beliefs .... without the debate (corrections) from TE's...

It's supposed to be but they are not going to leave it be, they can't. I don't know why but they are determined to confront every Creationist they find as strongly as they can. I appreciate your hard work and optimism but I have serious doubts about this situation improving significantly.

That's pretty simple and clear..

If a TE wants to say good morning fine...

If a TE wants to ask a question fine...

It's clear and questioned repeatedly in this thread. I don't recall any casual chit chat from TEs in here and I don't like the tone of their questions. I hate to be difficult but I have some very deep concerns about what is happening here and I don't think it can be stopped.

BUT...just as with the congregational forums...the questions are where it ends. No refutations, No debate, No corrections. Ask the question, accept the answer.

You do what you think it right and I will support it unconditionally. If they stayed out of here I would have no problem with them but they won't, because they can't.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I can assure you the Theology Staff Team wants to straighten this out as much as Creationists want their forum for just Creationists.

We are working on it...

I appreciate your support Mark, as I know the rest of the Team does.

 

[Floodnut]

I can assure you the Theology Staff Team wants to straighten this out as much as Creationists want their forum for just Creationists.

We are working on it...

I appreciate your support Mark, as I know the rest of the Team does.

We certainly do appreciate your dogged efforts to reserve this section for creationists. I have seen several threads now that have been effectively policed. As you have requested, I am no longer reporting interlopers and their mockery. I just ignore their posts and maintain the thread of the OP as if the interference had never occurred.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Report away, it helps us see the problem more clearly

And helps us to find the offending posts and deal with them.

I'm trying to remember when I said that But I most certainly must have mis-spoken...

We can't be here 24/7 and rely heavily on the membership to report problems

Sorry

 

[Floodnut]

Report away, it helps us see the problem more clearly

And helps us to find the offending posts and deal with them.

I'm trying to remember when I said that But I most certainly must have mis-spoken...

We can't be here 24/7 and rely heavily on the membership to report problems

Sorry

"Please do not continue to report OECs for debating in this forum, as they are well within their rights to do so."
This was stated in the OP of this thread. I was reporting posts that were cases of Evolutionists mocking and ridiculing creationism. Sometimes the position of poster is more evident from what is POSTED, than from the acronym that the poster CLAIMS. I have seen people who ID themselves as OEC, who maintain positions that are identical to TE views. OEC means, to them, God used EVOLUTION over a period of millions and billions of years to bring about all that is.

 

[Gwenyfur]

ah...gotcha...

report TE's

Theistic Evolution is NOT synonymous with OEC

Please keep reporting TE posts if you find them...

 

[FallingWaters]

Bottom line: Creationists are not allowed to have a place to discuss questions about creationism, without the constant mockery and intrusion of those who do not believe in Creation. Anyone can claim to believe in "CREATION," under their definition that God used evolution over a period of MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of years. That person is now a "creationist." They can mock, ridicule, and depreciate our creationist faith with the full permission of the Christian Forums.

This is how I feel about it, too.

I believe the Young Earthers should have their own sub-forum.

Young earth vs old earth appears to be the simplest dividing line.

 

[keyarch]

This is how I feel about it, too.

I believe the Young Earthers should have their own sub-forum.

Young earth vs old earth appears to be the simplest dividing line.

I think before this line is drawn (so it doesn't exclude me), a distinction should be made regarding what is meant by "earth".

In other words, why does the universe, the planet earth, and all of biology have to be lumped together into one age?

One can interpret Genesis 1:1-2 as the upper heavens and the planet earth being "created" from the "beginning" as "old" and yet the events of the "creation week" starting with light shining on the pre-existing planet and subsequent events as being some 6,180 years ago.

We both have the same literal view of Genesis, and believe absolutely in Creation, but have a slightly different understanding about the age of the universe.

I can't call myself a YEC for the above reasons, but I feel that everything else is the same. Yet, I would be excluded from the sub-forum.

Maybe the current sub-forums would work if one was prevented from posting unless they had "permissions" set up in their profile ahead of time.

 

[FallingWaters]

I think before this line is drawn (so it doesn't exclude me), a distinction should be made regarding what is meant by "earth".

In other words, why does the universe, the planet earth, and all of biology have to be lumped together into one age?

One can interpret Genesis 1:1-2 as the upper heavens and the planet earth being "created" from the "beginning" as "old" and yet the events of the "creation week" starting with light shining on the pre-existing planet and subsequent events as being some 6,180 years ago.

We both have the same literal view of Genesis, and believe absolutely in Creation, but have a slightly different understanding about the age of the universe.

I can't call myself a YEC for the above reasons, but I feel that everything else is the same. Yet, I would be excluded from the sub-forum.

Maybe the current sub-forums would work if one was prevented from posting unless they had "permissions" set up in their profile ahead of time.

I mean no disrespect to you,
in fact I have very high regard for your opinions and intelligence,
and I don't understand all the intricacies of the model you support,
but it seems to me that that model is just another way of compromising with evolution theory.
Isn't it?

 

[Letalis]

I will not support a forum that separates YEC from OEC. It is an unnecessary divide.

 

[keyarch]

I mean no disrespect to you,
in fact I have very high regard for your opinions and intelligence,
and I don't understand all the intricacies of the model you support,
but it seems to me that that model is just another way of compromising with evolution theory.
Isn't it?

Definately not! The YBC model is the same as the YEC one with regard to all the biology on earth being young and created fully formed in their "kinds". Again, it is a literal reading of Genesis and ALL the creation events. There is absolutely NO compromise to accomodate any evolutionary theory.

 

[FallingWaters]

Definitely not! The YBC model is the same as the YEC one with regard to all the biology on earth being young and created fully formed in their "kinds". Again, it is a literal reading of Genesis and ALL the creation events. There is absolutely NO compromise to accommodate any evolutionary theory.

Ok. Thanks.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I will not support a forum that separates YEC from OEC. It is an unnecessary divide.

Letalis:

No one here truly believes that's a line of demarkation...

the line exists between G-d creating the earth and it's "kinds" as they are now...
__________________________________________________________________
that G-d created the protoplasm and let life evolve from there...


that is the line of difference

 

[FallingWaters]

Letalis:

No one here truly believes that's a line of demarkation...

the line exists between G-d creating the earth and it's "kinds" as they are now...
__________________________________________________________________
that G-d created the protoplasm and let life evolve from there...


that is the line of difference

Except me, since I am the one who said it.
I was not joking.
This has been my position for a long time.

 

[Gwenyfur]

The problem is that we can't create a sub forum for each position and police it as a "this only" sub forum...

The lines of creationism are just too blurred...Just as keyarch has been so effectively demonstrating with his helpful posts of definitions and descriptions.

 

[mark kennedy]

Definately not! The YBC model is the same as the YEC one with regard to all the biology on earth being young and created fully formed in their "kinds". Again, it is a literal reading of Genesis and ALL the creation events. There is absolutely NO compromise to accomodate any evolutionary theory.

The way I understand it the YBC is not just some but all life begins at Creation. It makes perfect sense to me because 'darkness was upon the face of the deep' and the land would appear later. This satisfies my primary condition that Adam is our first parent in accordance with the New Testament witness regarding Adam, original sin and the immutability (not derived from previous species and cannot speciate) of the human species. Of course the originally created kinds would have been a much smaller number of distinct species then we have today but nevertheless the primary parents were specially created, fully formed and marked by limits beyond which they cannot evolve.

I'm not a young earth creationist because any doctrine is effected but because the evidence used by secular scientists does not warrant a choice between young and old earth creation. It does not concern me in the least how old you think the earth is or the universe. The Scriptures are not entirely silent but the age of the earth is not tied to any doctrine I consider essential.

To be totally honest I don't see a dimes worth of difference between a young earth creationist and an young biological creationist, I never did.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Letalis]

Please see announcement:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5093517