The Stumbling Block

grmorton · Apr 27, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
now if someone can describe a form of evolution that doesn't involve death i'm interested in hearing more

If someone can describe a form of embryonic development which doesn't involve cellular death, I would be interested in hearing that as well.

Vance · Apr 27, 2005

Another problem with the "lions were vegetarians before the Fall" approach is the amount of evolutionary change that would be needed to change a vegetarian into a meat eater in a VERY short period of time. What is the first reference to a meat-eating lion in Scripture? What is the earliest references to meat-eating lions in historical records from Sumeria, Egypt, etc? Think of the degree of evolution needed to change the jaw, teeth, digestion, etc.

Also, think of all the meat-eating dinosaurs. Why do we ONLY have fossils of them in their meat-eating form, and none at all that look like T-Rex's with plant-eating teeth and jaws? Should we not have at least as many of one as the other?

This simply doesn't work on dozens of levels.

And all based on a theological analysis and no direct Scripture and no physical evidence.

Remus · Apr 27, 2005

Vance said:
But then why a Garden, really? After they were kicked out, the place was guarded like Fort Knox. Sounds like something very different and special. Maybe a place without death, unlike the rest of the earth?

Why a Garden? *shrugs* Why not a Garden? Besides, what made the Garden special was the Tree of Life and it was this that was guarded.

My point here is that Adam lived outside the Garden first, then was placed inside the Garden.

I think "lived" isn't the right word to use here. After all, we are talking about something that happened within a day's time.

If you want to read the Garden as a literal place on the earth, then this confirms that it was a distinct place, separate from the rest of the earth. A special place. A place that once they were to suffer death (whether physical or spiritual) they could not stay. They had to go out into the wide world, instead. Maybe a place where that physical death existed all along?

Well... that's really interesting and all, I guess. But I don't believe that location had anything to do with ... well, anything. Had the Tree of Life been placed in the Parking Lot of Wal-Mart, then we'd be asking "why a parking lot?"

Sinai · Apr 27, 2005

Vance said:
But then why a Garden, really? After they were kicked out, the place was guarded like Fort Knox.

Wow! How about that?
The government has hired cherubim (complete with flaming sword) to guard Fort Knox.

Cool......

Fineous_Reese · Apr 27, 2005

grmorton said:
I love the implied logic here. If atheists like it, it can't be divinely inspired. Thus it shouldn't be in the Bible, and thus we can ignore it. What kind of liberal logic is that? Are you picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you want to believe? I thought that was the charge y'all made against TEs and everyone else with whom YECs disagree. Aren't you being a bit inconsistent here?

why do you love it? who says it's not divinely inspired? who is ignoring it? why are you putting words in my mouth?

inconsistent? sure, if i actually said or even implied any of the things you mentioned. however, i did not. thanks.

grmorton said:
If you look at the definition lists, it does include moral evil. Now you are relying upon the translator's choice of words to try to determine what the verse means. That is always a bit iffy. The translator himself might be biased and pick a word that suites his theological position. Face it, you are ignoring the definitions I presented like this one from BDB

1j) bad, evil, wicked (ethically)

Why is it that YEC can't stand unless they ignore data?

what you need to face is if god is ethically evil and wicked then all those folks who left the faith you were teaching were on the right track. now on the other hand, since i'm almost certain we both believe God is neither ethically evil nor wicked then why would we even consider the definitions that paint Him so? in the realm of science when you have two pieces of data and one obviously doesn't fit why are you still considering it?

ChiefOfBackEnd · Apr 28, 2005

A really bad argument? You've got to be kidding. Or maybe, I just don't understand Creation all that well.

Without studies in geologic time, how would exploration of natual resources have possible?

Genetics would have been a difficult field of study considering spontaneous generation.

Literally, nothing in the observable universe works in the Creationists universe. I guess I don't see how Galileo could have brought himself to look through his lense if he thought that what he saw would be impossible.

SBG · Apr 28, 2005

grmorton said:
I will be on a trip to the United States for a week, so I will be scarce here. I will try to get online when I can.

Be safe and have a good time!

grmorton said:
You know, this is entirely irrelevant to me. I don't really care what his listeners felt or thought about that statement. When he said it he didn't pull out a knife, carve off his thumb and offer it to the crowd for a yummy meal. I bet most people went home thinking, "That was weird". But that is all.

You think they were only thinking His statements were weird, and thats all? Odd. The Text says the Jews argued sharply amongst themselves; His disciples grumbled about this and many of them left. If they only thought it was weird, would there have been so much opposition? I don't think there would have been, not that much as there was.

grmorton said:
Since prophets are not prophets if they don't tell the truth and are supposed to be stoned if they prophecy falsly, I would consider the fellow a false prophet, but I wouldn't be the one throwing rocks.

Often prophets said things that others thought was false, that was why they were killed by the Jews, after all. They predicted what was in the future, they told of what will happen. People who heard could not *understand* so they deemed them false prophets and killed them.

You rely on what you see and take that above what is taught to believe. You seem to like to include myself with those who teach a yec view of science, but I am not a scientists nor do I care what science has to say on this subject matter. God's Word is above all that, for me.

So, with your statement, above, I am lead to believe that if a prophet told you that God created in six days, evolution is not true, and a global flood did happen, you would call them a false prophet because it conflicts with what you see. Correct? Even if this prophet was truly from God, you wouldn't know other than the prophet saying so, and you thus you wouldn't believe him anyways. Even if others did say he was a prophet. Right?

The extreme minority believed Jesus was the Son of God. Most all people thought He was a blasphemer, of the devil, a false prophet. Even when Jesus told them who He was, they wouldn't believe.

grmorton said:
NO. The evidence is so much against your view point that you just saying such nonsense would make me think you mad. However, if you came up with an explanation of the data which made the data fit a young-earth, I probably would believe you.

If I could convince you with your eyes, you would believe? But if I convinced you with the Word of God, would you believe? Even if you couldn't see it with your actual eyes?

grmorton said:
I believe supernatural and you can find my statement in the thread Intelligent Design. But it wasn't done the way you seem to think.

It is not according to what *I think* it is according to what God says. I am just passing on the message, not making the message.

grmorton said:
If it was supernatural, then God had to arrange everything miraculously and you YECs can stop talking about how science supports your views. If it wasn't miraculous but was a natural phenomenon, then the evidence disproves that kind of flood. But, if God arranged things miraculously, it means he made footprints and desciccation cracks which are not footprints and desciccation cracks.

If it was supernatural, God can do however He wishes. I haven't turned to science in our discussion to use it as my support. I don't care about what science says, I care about what God says.

There theological craters in your argument for a local flood.

God does what God does, and He is not subjected to mans authority. For if we don't know or don't understand, we don't then hold God in contempt.

It just might be that man is not as smart as he would like to think he is. It just might be that man has built up so much pride within himself that has caused man to go astray.

grmorton said:
Interpretations come from logic. You are wrong. Do you actually practice a science? Are you a scientist? If not, how would you know other than the nonsense you read in the creationist rags?

I don't actually practice science. I have been around it for quite sometime and do read about it here and there. Not enough to be considered anything.

Interpretations do come from logic, I don't disagree with you. But there is more behind that logic. Logic is about arguments, setting up good ones and distinguishing from bad ones. It is about reasoning. All of these will be based upon ones view point. You and I can both present opposite sides, logically and still both be wrong. Logic has nothing to do with a *right* argument, but rather a good argument. This good is meant as a way to be persuasive. The devil is very persuasive and uses logical reasoning, but he does so for an evil purpose. I use him as an example that he too can base his teachings off of logic and still be completely wrong.

Scientists are upholding their view point of what they believe. They will then interpret the evidence according to what they believe, using logic.

Logic is just a method. Not a determinant of what is right or wrong.

Again, don't assume I spend my time on science or reading creation science. I don't. I spend that time rather reading the Word of God, because that Word will carry me into God's presense, where I want to be.

Frankly grmorton, I am convinced as the Ecclesiastes writer was, that anything that doesn't focus on God, is a waste of time. I was made to fellowship with God and with God I desire to fellowship.

Please don't think I am saying others are wrong for whatever they do. I am just speaking for myself, only.

grmorton said:
No, nonsense like, there are no overthrusts, nonsense like all the geologic column was deposited in a one year flood, nonsense like there was a vapor canopy, nonsense like there were huge caves beneath the crust of the earth which held the flood waters. That is what I am talking about.

How do you this is nonsense? Do you honestly think you have all the knowledge and have seen everything to know that what you say is true? Do you believe there will never be *anything* that can explain what you see with a global flood? How about God?

grmorton said:
I don't know what you are talking about and I don't think you do either.

On February 18, 2005, Protsch was forced to retire in disgrace after a Frankfurt University panel ruled he had fabricated data and plagiarized the work of his colleagues (see Anthropologist Resigns in Dating Disaster, 2005).

Sometimes I know what I am talking about.

The university noted: The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years (Anthropologist Resigns).

grmorton said:
But if it is illogical the view is entirely incorrect. YEC is illogical!

So is walking on water. So is manna falling from the sky. So is a burning bush that does not burn.

We are not talking about natural events, but God at work.

If God seems illogical to some, is that a reason to reject God?

grmorton said:
As a Christian, I don't deny this. Why are you raising this?

I didn't think you denied this, sorry if that is how it came across. I was just clarifying it for the readers who do come that are not Christian.

We have to teach Jesus Christ in everything we do.

grmorton said:
They are saying this because you guys are teaching such obviously crazy ideas with YEC.

No. They are saying this about *ALL* Christians. Me and You. For if you believe Jesus Christ and all He did, then you are included as one who should be destroyed. This is the perspective of the author.

Unless you don't believe in Jesus Christ, you are apart of what the author wants destroyed.

grmorton said:
You obviously can't follow an argument. I brought it up because they, like you, deny observational data. If you didn't deny observation, you couldn't be compared with them.

If we have been conversing, then I have been following. If you want to accuse of this, then that is fine.

I see. The Bible speaks nothing of a flat-earth. The Bible speaks of a six day creation and a global flood. I firmly believe what the Bible says. But because I don't trust the men of science - like the one above who lied for 30 years giving false data to support his world view - I am just like someone else.

Shall I make the same claim of you? Shall I lump you with atheists as you have lump me with the flat-earthes? Shall I compare you and them? Just because of similiarities? I think that is rather unfair, grmorton.

grmorton said:
The bible clearly says that the earth brought forth life. The subject of that phrase is 'earth', not 'God'. God delegated the job to the earth, the bible says it and you don't beleive it. Shame on you!

Would you believe me if I told what God's Word says?

What verse would you like to use as an example? Genesis 1:20 or Genesis 1:24?

Genesis 1:20
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

Genesis 1:24
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

I assume these are the two verses you are referring to, right? And who said I didn't believe these verses, literally? I didn't.

I am curious, have you read the verses that follow these?

Genesis 1:21
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."

Genesis 1:25
"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good."

In Genesis 1:20 and 1:24, you refer to let ***** bring forth. (1:20 its waters and 1:24 its the earth) Do you know what this phrase means in Hebrew?

I am not sure if you do or not, so let me explain. In Hebrew the phrase 'bring forth abundantly' (1:20) means to teem or multiple. This is what is suppose to happen in the water, when God creates (1:21) those animals. If the water was to be the one that actually made the original, verse 1:21 wouldn't need to be there, for God had already called the water to do so. But verse 1:21 is there, showing that God did in fact create the first of animals, not the water.

Verse 1:24's phrase 'bring forth' means to go forth. This is what is suppose to happen when God creates those animals, they are to go forth from the earth. It doesn't say the earth created them, for in Verse 1:25 we see God created them.

I understand where you are coming from and in saying, look the waters and the earth played a part in the creation of living things. I agree they did. Adam was created from the dust of the earth. But, these were all done in single days, not millions of years, hence evolution is *not* the process.

God's Word, in calling these living things into existence, is the process.

grmorton said:
I can assure you that I am quite the literalist.

I know that you are. I was speaking of TE's. I don't think you fit in the TE category, because you don't allegorize Genesis to make it fit with what you believe.

Grmorton, I believe you are trying to be honest with your approach, more honest than any TE here. I think you also have a chip on your shoulder, one which I can understand being there. Your world must be a tough one, being in the middle of yec's and naturalist scientists, both who don't trust you. You have my compassion.

You have a unique opportunity before you, whether you see it or not. Don't burn the bridges, mend them so that God's Word can reach a greater capacity amongst those in the scientific field. Don't discount what is said, because you don't see it. You don't see God, but you believe. These events were supernatural, and there exists a truthful answer to the questions posed. You have the opportunity to find them, ones that have not ever been presented before by science.

Don't miss this, because you have animosity towards those who have hurt you and backstabbed you.

grmorton said:
And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures

Why do you not believe that the earth brought forth living creatures? Why don't you believe the Bible? You are the liberal, not me.

My thoughts are above. That is the first time I have ever been called a liberal, that is funny!!

grmorton said:
You have not worked geology like I have. There is zero, nada, leeng (mandarin) evidence of a global flood. You are wrong.

Thanks for the Mandarin word, I will have to remember that. Are you learning much of the language, while you are there?

Oh, and I am fine with you or another believing I am wrong.

grmorton said:
No, I admit that YEC is a stupid teaching. I was a YEC. I was stupid then. Now I am smarter. BTW, I thought you were forgetting the C/E debate in this post. Seems that you forgot that.

A lot of people think that. A lot of people think Jesus raising from the dead is a stupid teaching. I can live with my believe in 'stupid teachings.'

I guess I forgot that, just wanted to respond to what you commented on. Sorry about that.

SBG · Apr 28, 2005

grmorton said:
I worked really hard for 20 years trying to see the global flood. All of my Creation Research Society Quarterly articles were an attempt to explain geology in light of a global flood. I finally had to admit that there was no global flood.

That simply isn't true in my life. I was a YEC for 24 years. I really wanted evolution to be wrong. It wasn't. Here are my YEC publications.

see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/publi.htm and scroll to the bottom to see my 30 young-earth articles. I really really wanted YEC to be true. It isn't.

I know you worked hard. And I know you want evolution to be wrong and have a hard time grasping with it.

I will take a look at your articles.

The Bible is true, even the hard parts that present difficulties in believing.

grmorton said:
I became a TE only after 24 years trying to deny it.

I just don't see you as a TE, it is this Genesis reading that keeps me from view you as one. You are in the middle of a TE and YEC. Near YEC because of your reading of the Bible. TE for your believe in science.

Honestly, with your position, I don't have a problem with. I disagree with you, but that makes no difference. I would have problem if you went around and preached to people telling them the Bible says something it does not. A lot of TE's here, I have seen, do this. They do more harm than yec can do with science, for the Bible is the ultimate truth, not science. To preach that the Bible really isn't saying something, when it is, is more damaging than someone saying science says something it is not. For we are saved by what God sees in our hearts, not what our mouths have said about science.

Fineous_Reese · Apr 28, 2005

grmorton said:
If someone can describe a form of embryonic development which doesn't involve cellular death, I would be interested in hearing that as well.

i have to agree, there has been, afaik, no embryonic development without cellular death.

Neither Adam nor Eve went through embryonic development and they didn't have Cain and Abel until after the Fall. I don't know the length of time that went on between the Creation and the Fall, but if Adam and Eve hadn't yet conceived it's conceivable (heheh ) that the other creatures hadn't either. After the Fall death entered into creation and cellular death of all kinds, including that during embryonic development, began. Since death was now part of creation the need for the creatures to REcreate became part of the system.

Marshall Janzen · Apr 28, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
After the Fall death entered into creation and cellular death of all kinds, including that during embryonic development, began. Since death was now part of creation the need for the creatures to REcreate became part of the system.

Based on this, do you interpret Genesis 1:28 ("Be fruitful and increase in number...") as being a post-Fall command?

What about Genesis 1:11 which speaks of vegetation "with seed in it" and Genesis 1:22 where God blesses the birds and fish and commands them to "be fruitful and increase in number..."? Are these post-Fall events as well?

grmorton · Apr 28, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
why do you love it? who says it's not divinely inspired? who is ignoring it? why are you putting words in my mouth?

I can't figure a single reason for you to state that this was a favorite verse of atheists unless you meant to provide an excellent example of the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

what you need to face is if god is ethically evil and wicked then all those folks who left the faith you were teaching were on the right track. now on the other hand, since i'm almost certain we both believe God is neither ethically evil nor wicked then why would we even consider the definitions that paint Him so? in the realm of science when you have two pieces of data and one obviously doesn't fit why are you still considering it?

YEC makes God ethically evil by fooling everyone to believe in an old earth contrary to what HE says according to the YECs.

grmorton · Apr 28, 2005

SBG said:
[/font][/size]I know you worked hard. And I know you want evolution to be wrong and have a hard time grasping with it.

I no longer desire it to be wrong. If it is shown wrong, with evidence then so be it, but frankly I think the snowball in hades has a better shot.

To preach that the Bible really isn't saying something, when it is, is more damaging than someone saying science says something it is not. For we are saved by what God sees in our hearts, not what our mouths have said about science.

Then why do YECs constantly demean those with whom they disagree? I have had several people ask me to leave the faith. They think Christianity would be better if I weren't one.

grmorton · Apr 28, 2005

Fineous_Reese said:
i have to agree, there has been, afaik, no embryonic development without cellular death.

Neither Adam nor Eve went through embryonic development and they didn't have Cain and Abel until after the Fall. I don't know the length of time that went on between the Creation and the Fall, but if Adam and Eve hadn't yet conceived it's conceivable (heheh ) that the other creatures hadn't either. After the Fall death entered into creation and cellular death of all kinds, including that during embryonic development, began. Since death was now part of creation the need for the creatures to REcreate became part of the system.

You seem to overlook the simple fact that the animals were told to reproduce BEFORE the fall.

Biliskner · Apr 29, 2005

grmorton said:
INstead of saying that one should get a new interpretation the YECs set people up to leave the faith. Yes, I am upset at that. You don't have any idea of the number of young science students who have contacted me for help over the years because what they were taught at their churches wasn't being verified in what they personally saw when studying science. And I am not talking about what they read in books. I am speaking of what they actually see. Having gone through that experience myself, I can assure you that it is quite disconcerting when you realize that your Christian brother is teaching you nonsense about the visible world. It makes one wonder if what they say about the invisible world is worth listening to. And why wouldn't it?

i am self-taught, for one thing.
you haven't asked, but i'm telling you just to set the record straight.
I've got 6 weeks till I graduate at The University of Melbourne.
I'm a BSc. student, Bachelor of Science.
I've done 101 Genetics, Zoology, ComSci, Optics, Maths, Astronomy and Physics.
My majors are Botany and History and Philosophy of Science (HPS).
As you can see my disciplines have nothing to do with the School of Earth Sciences and Geology.
Therefore my Christian brother or sister is not teaching me anything. Most of my friends are BSc/Eng double degrees, and some believe in TE, while others don't. But we don't bag each other when we're hanging out or at Church. it is an unresolved issue, one that we've decided to set apart for the sake of unity and those at our church without the scientific training we've had (which might i add is a secular training not a theological one) - we don't call each other morons or worms or idiots or <insert less-than-swear-word-insult here> of whatever genre.

AiG provides a ministry that says to people:
" it is just an interpretation of the evidence that one says "this is 1 MYO, or this is 100 YO" that makes scientists as they are. You don't need to give up your faith because it is just interpretive data. "

Now if you don't agree then I can't help you (not that you would want it yes?); in the matters of biology and genetics and astronomy and physics however, i will defend YECs, even from the front line if i have to.

I have been blessed to have good theological training and been blessed to have scientific training. However, it is so much more evident that God's hand was in this because in my HPS training, my atheist lecturer/co-ordinator for that department is one of the most unbaised AND honest people around. He will admit flaws and he will admit strenghts, whether that be creation pros or evolution cons, and that is a blessing through an unrepentant soul.

grmorton said:
I know of only one or two YEC authored science papers which had anything to do with YEC. Tell me this amazing list of publications made by these YEC authors you speak of.

This amazing list of authors I am speaking of work in the secular world (at uni for different science departments and in the secular world). I doubt very much you'd know them since they're not journalists and do not publish articles.

Again, my point is that i know YECs who take Creation literally and have no problem gene spicing, cutting up insects, breeding drosophlia, making GM plants for food, work as a doctor, work in chemical industries, making fake teeth, make better fillings for teeth. etc. etc. etc. etc.

(For the record, most of these guys did this work for 10-15 years then left and worked for various churches around victoria - so if you're looking for publications you'll be disappointed - as evident in their actions, they've given up secular carrers and lots of $$$ to be a servant for the spreading of the Gospel of Christ and have thus "settled" for 1/3 - 1/4 of their usual salary; now that is God's Spirit in work in their lives.)

Biliskner · Apr 29, 2005

and they are all great witnesses to my spirituality (and those around them.)

SBG · Apr 29, 2005

grmorton said:
I no longer desire it to be wrong. If it is shown wrong, with evidence then so be it, but frankly I think the snowball in hades has a better shot.

Would you present evidence to falsify it?

grmorton said:
Then why do YECs constantly demean those with whom they disagree? I have had several people ask me to leave the faith. They think Christianity would be better if I weren't one.

Anyone who asks you to leave the faith, is wrong. We are told to call people into the faith, not to leave it. If I heard or saw someone telling you to leave the faith, I *would* argue against them, supporting you.

Yec's are not without their faults. We make mistakes, we know we aren't even close to being perfect. I apologize for my own actions that have not been nice, but I cannot apologize for my words of what I believe. I cannot apologize for speaking out against those who call God a god of death, pain and sorrow.

Once, I was asked by a Christian to participate in a debate with him and some atheists. I accepted, and I was ridiculed on every post, with words of saying I am an idiot, stupid, dumb, ignorant, better dead than alive, etc. This Christian participated in these attacks against me.

My point is not about me being attacked, I can handle that fine and don't really care about it. The point is, it is not just the YEC's who do this. It is also TE's, OEC, etc.

It is hard to maintain the peace within this forum, when Christians come on here and call God a liar if... God is god of death, destruction, pain, and sorrow. This goes against every teaching in the Bible about God.

God extends mercy, grace, forgiveness and love. Now, if someone wants to condemn me because I have stood up and told the truth, I will praise God. If someone here wants to call me a liar, as I have been, because I do not agree with their views of God, I will praise God.

Because God has shown me the truth about Himself, through His Word, through His Son. And God is not a god of what so many here want everyone else to believe and then accept.

Biliskner · Apr 29, 2005

oh yeah, just in case God's like "where my due glory?"; praise God for providing me with Christian friends who seek to see his face everyday, and pursue his holy righteousness, and for strength to continue in ministry despite finances, lack of sleep, and their depeted energies, ministering to their respective wives etc. for they know that God is their strength, their source of everything, and that in their weakness, the Almighty LORD God's strength is perfected.

grmorton · Apr 29, 2005

Biliskner said:
i am self-taught, for one thing.
you haven't asked, but i'm telling you just to set the record straight.
I've got 6 weeks till I graduate at The University of Melbourne.

The above sounds contradictory. If you are about to graduate, then surely you had at least one professor teach you something and thus you are not self-taught.

[/quote]
I'm a BSc. student, Bachelor of Science.
I've done 101 Genetics, Zoology, ComSci, Optics, Maths, Astronomy and Physics.
My majors are Botany and History and Philosophy of Science (HPS).
As you can see my disciplines have nothing to do with the School of Earth Sciences and Geology.
Therefore my Christian brother or sister is not teaching me anything. [/quote]

Some try to teach you that there are limits to how much differentiation can occur in evolution. Many try to teach you that evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics. Many try to teach you a theory which would require angiosperms on earth during the precambrian. Many try to tell you that the coal beds are the result of the burial of one preflood biosphere, when the plants found in successively stacked coal beds are entirely different from one another (Cretaceous coals don't have lycopods but Pennsylvanian coals do). So, I don't know how on earth you can make such a claim.

Most of my friends are BSc/Eng double degrees, and some believe in TE, while others don't. But we don't bag each other when we're hanging out or at Church. it is an unresolved issue, one that we've decided to set apart for the sake of unity and those at our church without the scientific training we've had (which might i add is a secular training not a theological one) - we don't call each other morons or worms or idiots or <insert less-than-swear-word-insult here> of whatever genre.

AiG provides a ministry that says to people:
" it is just an interpretation of the evidence that one says "this is 1 MYO, or this is 100 YO" that makes scientists as they are. You don't need to give up your faith because it is just interpretive data. "

Interpretation is logic applied to observation. If what AIG offers is illogical, it isn't a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of illogic and that is why I oppose AIG.

Now if you don't agree then I can't help you (not that you would want it yes?); in the matters of biology and genetics and astronomy and physics however, i will defend YECs, even from the front line if i have to. [/quote]

So you defend the concept of animals leaving trails and tracks on thousands of different layers during the global flood? What were they doing walking around when the world had been flooded for 6 months?

This amazing list of authors I am speaking of work in the secular world (at uni for different science departments and in the secular world). I doubt very much you'd know them since they're not journalists and do not publish articles.

As I understood what you claimed was that these guys are using YEC in their endeavors. They aren't I know a few YECs in the oil business, but they never use YEC at work. It is an after work hobby. That was also the way I did it when I was a YEC>

Again, my point is that i know YECs who take Creation literally and have no problem gene spicing, cutting up insects, breeding drosophlia, making GM plants for food, work as a doctor, work in chemical industries, making fake teeth, make better fillings for teeth. etc. etc. etc. etc.

(For the record, most of these guys did this work for 10-15 years then left and worked for various churches around victoria - so if you're looking for publications you'll be disappointed - as evident in their actions, they've given up secular carrers and lots of $$$ to be a servant for the spreading of the Gospel of Christ and have thus "settled" for 1/3 - 1/4 of their usual salary; now that is God's Spirit in work in their lives.)

But if one is looking for evidence of them using YEC at work, they aren't. Just because they believe YEC doesn't mean they are actually doing YEC science.

grmorton · Apr 29, 2005

SBG said:
Would you present evidence to falsify it?

If I found it, yes. It would make me famous and rich. But, I know of no evidence which contradicts evolution. I know much evidence which contradicts YEC/global flood ideas. Would you ever present any evidence which contradicts a global flood or anti-evolutionary paradigm?

Anyone who asks you to leave the faith, is wrong. We are told to call people into the faith, not to leave it. If I heard or saw someone telling you to leave the faith, I *would* argue against them, supporting you.

Thank you. One of the people who asked me this was Philip Johnson. He asked me why I just didn't go on and become an atheist.

Yec's are not without their faults. We make mistakes, we know we aren't even close to being perfect. I apologize for my own actions that have not been nice, but I cannot apologize for my words of what I believe. I cannot apologize for speaking out against those who call God a god of death, pain and sorrow.

You can't apologize for others. It is impossible. But thanks for the thought.

Once, I was asked by a Christian to participate in a debate with him and some atheists. I accepted, and I was ridiculed on every post, with words of saying I am an idiot, stupid, dumb, ignorant, better dead than alive, etc. This Christian participated in these attacks against me.

My point is not about me being attacked, I can handle that fine and don't really care about it. The point is, it is not just the YEC's who do this. It is also TE's, OEC, etc.

It is hard to maintain the peace within this forum, when Christians come on here and call God a liar if... God is god of death, destruction, pain, and sorrow. This goes against every teaching in the Bible about God.

It is the YEC paradigm which places God in the position of having lied. That is the theological problem with YEC. Everything we see must be a mirage. The distance to the stars must be a mirage for example.

God extends mercy, grace, forgiveness and love. Now, if someone wants to condemn me because I have stood up and told the truth, I will praise God. If someone here wants to call me a liar, as I have been, because I do not agree with their views of God, I will praise God.

Few will criticise you for that. They will criticize you if you say that salt in the geologic column is not an evaporative mineral. There is too much evidence against that idea.

]

Fineous_Reese · Apr 29, 2005

MercuryMJ said:
Based on this, do you interpret Genesis 1:28 ("Be fruitful and increase in number...") as being a post-Fall command?

What about Genesis 1:11 which speaks of vegetation "with seed in it" and Genesis 1:22 where God blesses the birds and fish and commands them to "be fruitful and increase in number..."? Are these post-Fall events as well?

yep, i realized that last night when i was re-reading gen 1 but didn't get to come on here and edit.

The Stumbling Block

Senior Member

Contributor

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Formerly known as Mercury

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Striving to be like the men of Issachar

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency