Why YEC leaders should not be believed without checking sources

[grmorton]

It's illogical to believe there's only one correct interpretation? I acknowledge there's a few interpretations out there, but I can guarantee either one is right or they're all wrong.

Regardless of who's right I just don't think lawsuits have any place in the debate. In a sense gmorton is an apostate if he once was a YEC. An apostate is simply somebody who renounces a belief or allegiance (in my dictionary). I know AiG has articles posted on their site saying they believe OECs are still christians.

This debate is important and can be challenging and beneficial, but if we're getting to the point where we're calling lawyers I think it's time to take a break. I can only speculate this is what Ken Ham was trying to explain to gmorton. And now we have this gossip thread going. Just the name calling in this thread alone far exceeds what gmorton is complaining about. I wonder if he's going to be consistent and rebuke some of the guys on his side.

What guys? And what authority do I have over them anyway? If someone feels aggrieved, it should be their job to complain, not mine. In the case with me and AiG, I did complain.

BTW, no one here now is threatening lawsuits, your comment is way over the top. I merely related a past event. If you can't tell past from present I suggest a good dictionary.

 

[llDayo]

I'll take a wild stab at it. The left one shows a varve-like structure. The right picture actually shows real varves.

The left is all muddled up while the right photograph has clear, distinctive lines. That's the point I think. That the creationists have tried to say that the left photograph is an example of varves being layed down en masse (therefore proving varve-dating is wrong), when they're not even varves in the first place.

I think.

Cool, thanks! That's kind of what I thought the left one looked like, like a blobby mass and nothing like the right. Makes more sense to me now.

 

[Calminian]

All Ken has to do is allow me to publish all our email correspondence.

Why should he? It was a private conversation.

Not in my opinion. I really want to change the apologetical approach Christians have taken from the dead-end YEC view and by their lie,

Why is it okay for you to call people liars and not for them to call you a compromiser or apostate? Sounds like they need to call their lawyers.

they were hindering me from talking to YECs. Several YECs said they didn't want to talk to me because AiG said I had lost my faith. I hadn't.

Oh boy! You're going to use litigation to make people like you? How many people won't listen to AiG because of things you've said?

Why would they want to call me an apostate, when I wasn't one? Did you ask yourself that question?

Obviously they felt you were. I do too in a sense. I believe anyone that tries to add millions to years to the Bible compromises the straight forward intention of the authors. Why can't they state what they believe and try to make a persuasive case?

I believe God created the world, I believe in a real Adam a real Eve, a talking snake, Jesus Christ dead, buried and resurrected in the body. I am saved by faith in him. What is heretical about that?

I didn't say you were a heretic. Did AiG say you were?

Go back and look at the picture I posted in the OP. Is it compromising to ask that my fellow Christians tell the truth about data they get from the sceintific literature? Why is that a compromise? I won't compromise on the truth as they seem to have.

I can't comment on the science, but I can say it is a compromise of the text. AiG readily admits they can't solve every piece of the data puzzle, but they feel the text can't be compromised. They're totally up front about this.

I figure it is up to God to sort us out. Our job on earth is sales, not management of other Christians. Remember, Jesus said that the wheat and the tares would grow together and be sorted out later. That is why I don't try to figure out who is and isn't a heretic.

That's not quite the case but I don't have any evidence you are a heretic. The apostles outed false teachers all the time in the N.T.. The wheat and tare parable wasn't about false doctrine but false professing believers in the church. False doctrine is always to be confronted and doctrinal debates can be quite healthy. I think your theology's a little mixed up on this.

Because after several emails asking them to remove the slander, they refused saying that it was an apt description of me. I chose to force the issue with them. I figured that a letter from a lawyer would stop them, but if not, I would have gone through with it. Fortunately, just a couple of days after I called the lawyer they gave up that error.

And you don't think calling them liars is slander?

Do you think it is right for people to call people names like heretic?

Or liars? To tell you the truth I think names are appropriate at times. It all depends on the circumstance. Did they call you a heretic? I thought you said they didn't. Have they called you a liar?

Are you smarter than God and can figure out who is saved and who isn't?

I'm not smarter than God. If one rejects the essentials of the christian faith I can safely assume they are not saved. I have not said this about you nor has AiG.

Are you even supposed to be doing that?

At times yes. So are you.

So maybe you could explain your arrogance at thinking you can do God's job after that, I will explain my immaturity.

Your immaturity is not in question. This issue of litigating your critics is silly. Your salvation I can't determine, nor have I tried. I believe you are a compriser on origins issue. I have not called you a heretic nor unbeliever. As far as I know AiG hasn't either.

 

[Donkeytron]

This is kind of like the conservative geniuses who ripped deep throat for "breaking the law."

 

[madarab]

Lots of heat, very little light.

 

[dad]

This is kind of like the conservative geniuses who ripped deep throat for "breaking the law."

I understand evos prefer to swallow a lot of things, but not everyone agrees.

 

[USincognito]

Hey Calminian - nice job derailing the thread. Any chance you could discuss the varve situation in the OP, and whether the YECs are or are not being duplicitious instead of baiting Glenn about a tangental question he was nice enough to answer.

I'd also point out that the direction you're taking your responses is close to violating CF rule #1.

 

[Calminian]

I'd also point out that the direction you're taking your responses is close to violating CF rule #1.

Wow you guys are litigation crazy.

If you look back you'll notice I didn't bring up the bit of the gossip about Ken Ham, the name calling and the lawsuits. I simply confronted it. He himself brought it up. If he didn't want feedback he should have kept it private. So I think I was within my rights. But if you think you can shut me down through legal channels by all means try.

I've been around these forums for quite a while. The critiques I read on AiG's website have never come close to the vitriol I read in these forums by theistic evolutionists. gmorton and other TEs (not all, BTW just to avoid broad brushing) will often throw out accusations of lying and intentional deceiving, then when someone has sharp criticism of him (which I think was accurate so long as it fell short of calling him a heretic) he's on the phone with his lawyer. Can you image that courtroom scene? "He called me an apostate and a compromiser! I only called him a liar! Make him pay!" I can only imagine the grin on the secular judges face.

gmorton derailed his own thread. If he wants to drop it I have nothing more to say.

 

[grmorton]

Wow you guys are litigation crazy.

If you look back you'll notice I didn't bring up the bit of the gossip about Ken Ham, the name calling and the lawsuits. I simply confronted it. He himself brought it up. If he didn't want feedback he should have kept it private. So I think I was within my rights. But if you think you can shut me down through legal channels by all means try.

I've been around these forums for quite a while. The critiques I read on AiG's website have never come close to the vitriol I read in these forums by theistic evolutionists. gmorton and other TEs (not all, BTW just to avoid broad brushing) will often throw out accusations of lying and intentional deceiving, then when someone has sharp criticism of him (which I think was accurate so long as it fell short of calling him a heretic) he's on the phone with his lawyer. Can you image that courtroom scene? "He called me an apostate and a compromiser! I only called him a liar! Make him pay!" I can only imagine the grin on the secular judges face.

gmorton derailed his own thread. If he wants to drop it I have nothing more to say.

I would always prefer to discuss the actual data. If that is the point at which you drop out, doesn't that say something about the way you handle data?

 

[Jet Black]

Could someone explain the left photograph to me? I'm not doubting anything on river varves here but I don't know enough about them to understand what I'm looking at in the left one. The right photograph is quite clear on the sedimentation but the left one isn't (at least to me).

both show sedimentation but the effects are quite different. The one on the left is formed by turbulent water, which if I am not mistaken basically mixes up the water with all the sediment in it, and when the water calms again, the sediment settles through the water. The Banded patterning occurs as you can see, but the reasoning for it is because the particles will be sorted by size and friction with the water: those which descend slower will be above those which descend more quickly. You should be able to replicate this sort of effect by shaking a bucket with some mud in it and letting it settle out.

The one on the right though is different, this forms because during summer, there are lots of living organisms in the water, and when they die, they settle out along with whatever non-seasonally dependent stuff happens to be in the water, but over winter there are less organisms, so the only sediment present is the non seasonal stuff, so you get a colour difference. now what the authors were claiming is that the two sorts of banding by these two different methods are identical. which is clearly nonsense - the sorts of banding observed are totally different both from simple observation and from their chemical makeup. What they are trying to do is say "all bands are the same" and when they convince their followers of this, then congratulations to them, the average IQ of the planet drops a little.

 

[llDayo]

Ah, even clearer now JB, thanks! I never really read up on river varves, I only knew that they existed and had distinct layers that helped scientists to track timelines. Maybe I should read some of the links I have saved in my favorites now that have to do with this?

 

[USincognito]

I'm going to state up front that grmorton is a big boy and can defend himself just fine, but I won't stand to see someone I respect despite our differences of conclusion be baited about his personal beliefs.

Wow you guys are litigation crazy.

Crazy? I need to recalibrate my irony meter. I mention that your continued baiting of Glenn in this thread is - if it hasn't already crossed the line of CF Rule 1 and you somehow equivocate that to my suggesting a lawsuit? I realize some of the peanut gallery might find your wild extrapolations worthy of back slapping, but here in the trenches it just won't wash.

Have you actually read Rule 1? Do you comprehend why I suggested your baiting might transgress it? You do understand that CF does have rules and all forum members must abide them right?

In contrast to your wild extrapolations for rhetorical "value," I'll cut right to the chase.

- If I PMed a female CF member saying she looked cute in her profile photo and she publically accused me of stalking her here, I complain, but only put her on ignore.
- If a member of the CF mod staff said I was a Satanist because I'm an atheist, I would complain to higher staff, and perhaps put a protest in my sig line or in my user title.
- If I were a high profile atheist, and Internet Infidels posted that I was a communist because I disagreed with them over some issue - I would first request that they cease their slander, then recommend that they do so or I will persue leagal action and finally resort to legal action to clear my good name.

My hypotheticals are imperfect analogies, but Glenn was being slandered by AiG on a high profile website in a way that could effect him professionaly and definately effected him personally. He was well justified in threatening legal action.

If you look back you'll notice I didn't bring up the bit of the gossip about Ken Ham, the name calling and the lawsuits. I simply confronted it. He himself brought it up.

That is either a lie, or you weren't actually paying attention to the course of the thread. Matthew777 brought up the issue in post #10 and Glenn merely - as I already pointed out above - responded to a question about his personal beliefs in a post tengental from the OP. If I, or anyone else honestly looks back over the last few pages, we see you taking him being nice enough to reply to Matthew's question and running with it in an attempt to bismirtch him.

If he didn't want feedback he should have kept it private. So I think I was within my rights. But if you think you can shut me down through legal channels by all means try.

Oh shut up! And no, I don't mean because you'll be sued, but because if you continue with your baiting/martyr schtick you'll just continue to look like an ***. The people reading this thread aren't stupid. You saw an opportunity to try and trash Glenn for not being a YEC while still holding on to all of the Nicean Creed (Rule 1 again) and more literalism than most TEs who post to this forum. Good for you. You propigated slander against a fellow brother in Christ. Not that that chastizement will mean anything coming from a non-believer, but I think your fellow Rule 1 Christians will see my point.

{snip blather}

gmorton derailed his own thread. If he wants to drop it I have nothing more to say.

Well, you didn't have anything "more" to say from your first response. You just tried to trash him based on previous slander posted on AiG, etc. And no, your - to paraphase Mad Magazine - "What, me wrong" handwaving doesn't cut it. You knew Glenn's feelings about his Christianity in light of how he's been attacked would bait a response... and that's the jugular you went for.

Now can you address the OP or do you just want to continue to attack Glenn ad hominem?

 

[Calminian]

I would always prefer to discuss the actual data. If that is the point at which you drop out, doesn't that say something about the way you handle data?

Too bad you never stick to the data and feel you have to continually slander YECs. I don't have the background to discuss the technical aspects of the varve debate. I’ll leave that to the scientists. I usually chime in the TEs try to read evolution into the text. Or when they make silly claims about their naturalistic assumptions being objective. (Or when they start into their gossip sessions) The debate is and always has been about the text and philosophical presuppositions.

 

[Calminian]

I'm going to state up front that grmorton is a big boy and can defend himself just fine, but I won't stand to see someone I respect despite our differences of conclusion be baited about his personal beliefs.

Oh please! You sit by while he slanders those you don't like, then get mad when someone confronts him. If you sat by when he dished it, you should sit by when he takes it.

I mention that your continued baiting of Glenn in this thread is - if it hasn't already crossed the line of CF Rule 1

I was responding directly to Glenn’s comments. Show me the rule that says I can’t do this.

I- If I PMed a female CF member saying she looked cute in her profile photo and she publically accused me of stalking her here, I complain, but only put her on ignore.
- If a member of the CF mod staff said I was a Satanist because I'm an atheist, I would complain to higher staff, and perhaps put a protest in my sig line or in my user title.
- If I were a high profile atheist, and Internet Infidels posted that I was a communist because I disagreed with them over some issue - I would first request that they cease their slander, then recommend that they do so or I will persue leagal action and finally resort to legal action to clear my good name.

What the heck is this guy talking about?

My hypotheticals are imperfect analogies, but Glenn was being slandered by AiG on a high profile website in a way that could effect him professionaly and definately effected him personally. He was well justified in threatening legal action.

Pure bologna. How has being called a compromiser harmed him professionally. Did he not get invited to YEC parties?

That is either a lie, or you weren't actually paying attention to the course of the thread. Matthew777 brought up the issue in post #10 and Glenn merely - as I already pointed out above - responded to a question about his personal beliefs in a post tengental from the OP.

I stated that I did not bring up the subject. You say I lied. You guys just love throwing that word around. Prove that I lied. It was brought up by a TE and then Glenn enjoyed taking his backhand shots at Ken Ham. Perhaps you need to read the thread.

If I, or anyone else honestly looks back over the last few pages, we see you taking him being nice enough to reply to Matthew's question and running with it in an attempt to bismirtch him.

Ah yes he’s just a saint being nice enough to share some juicy gossip. And he didn’t even have to, he just did it out of the kindness of his heart because someone asked.

Oh shut up!

I’m sure that’s illegal. Any internet lawyers out there doing pro bono work?

And no, I don't mean because you'll be sued, but because if you continue with your baiting/martyr schtick you'll just continue to look like an ***. The people reading this thread aren't stupid. You saw an opportunity to try and trash Glenn for not being a YEC

I trashed him for being a YEC?? Even he knows that’s ridiculous. Your losing credibility fast.

while still holding on to all of the Nicean Creed (Rule 1 again) and more literalism than most TEs who post to this forum. Good for you. You propigated slander against a fellow brother in Christ.

And you’re propagating nonsense. You haven’t read the thread. That’s unfortunate.

Not that that chastizement will mean anything coming from a non-believer, but I think your fellow Rule 1 Christians will see my point.

Don’t get your hopes up.

Well, you didn't have anything "more" to say from your first response. You just tried to trash him based on previous slander posted on AiG, etc. And no, your - to paraphase Mad Magazine - "What, me wrong" handwaving doesn't cut it. You knew Glenn's feelings about his Christianity in light of how he's been attacked would bait a response... and that's the jugular you went for.

Read the posts. Nobody questioned his christianity. Even AiG didn’t do this.

Do me a favor. If I ever need defending, don’t volunteer.

 

[grmorton]

Too bad you never stick to the data and feel you have to continually slander YECs.

You are the one who said you would drop out when data was discussed.

I don't have the background to discuss the technical aspects of the varve debate. I’ll leave that to the scientists.

Well the scientists tell you that the varves indicate that the earth is old, and you reject it

I usually chime in the TEs try to read evolution into the text. Or when they make silly claims about their naturalistic assumptions being objective.

Naturalistic assumptions are used everyday in life.

Just because you can't deal with reality is no reason to claim that my data isont objective. Here is an observational datapoint which brings truth (or do you not think so?). I see a snake bite 5 guys and they all die in front of me.

Should I draw the positive conclusion that if that snake bites me, I will probably die? Or should I go up and pet it?

Let's play this game again. I see a guy fall from a skyscrapper. He hits the ground and bounces a floor before falling again and finally stopping.

Should I draw the conclusion that the human body has a bit of elasticity to it? Should I draw the conclusion that the sudden stop when he hit the pavement, killed him? Or should I go jump off the building? What would you do?

I see four mountain lion's footprints in sand. In between the paw prints is a still warm puddle of urine. Should I draw the positive conclusion that a lionwalked by there recently? Or should I have a care-free day while I picnic? Should I draw the obvious conclusion that this is a male? Or should I look for cubs?

Observational data allows very certain conclusion,and this is what 'naturalism' is all about, my friend. The fact that you want to take Christianity out of reality is a real problem for Christianity. If Christianity isn't grounded in the real, observable (and concludabel) bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, then it is not a religion worth having. Paul said this. By avoiding observational reality, you deny the resurrection.

The debate is and always has been about the text and philosophical presuppositions.

No, the debate is about truth, and truth involves both what the Bible says and what nature says.

 

[USincognito]

Glenn, I'm sorry for taking the bait, but I just can't help myself.

Oh please! You sit by while he slanders...

You're really amazing. How about you explain how him explaining how others have tried to tarnish him constitutes slander on his part??? Tell me. Do you think the readers of this thread are illiterate or stupid?

I was responding directly to Glenn’s comments. Show me the rule that says I can’t do this.

http://www.christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_no-flame

1.1 You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within the site. This includes, but is not limited to:
a. Directly calling another member “cultist”, “heretic” or “bigot” as these are personal attacks and are not conducive to civil discussion.

Emphasis mine. And further:

1.5You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.

And I made a mistake about hijacking this thread away from the OP, it was under Rule 2.
http://www.christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_no_troll

2.4 You will not post replies in threads that are off-topic to the original post. That is considered “thread hijacking” and staff may intervene to bring threads back on-topic.

I stated that I did not bring up the subject. You say I lied. You guys just love throwing that word around. Prove that I lied.

And as I said, you just love gross exaggerations of straw men to make your "point."

He himself brought it up.

Like I said you were either lying when you stated that he brought it up, or you weren't paying attention to the thread since Matthew777 brought it up.

I trashed him for being a YEC?? Even he knows that’s ridiculous. Your losing credibility fast.

Man you're a piece of work... I'll just say the physician heal himself...

Perhaps you need to read the thread.

You saw an opportunity to try and trash Glenn for not being a YEC

Any chance you can get back to the OP and actually address the fact that YEC organizations are claiming that "varve like" sediments are the same as "varves?" You've had 4 pages to do so, why haven't you yet?

 

[Calminian]

You are the one who said you would drop out when data was discussed.

Sorry, never used the word data. I generally stick to the biblical testimonial data.

Well the scientists tell you that the varves indicate that the earth is old, and you reject it

That's because they're starting with faulty assumptions. Miracles and methodological naturalism don't mix. The Resurrection can't be supported nor falsified through science either.

Naturalistic assumptions are used everyday in life.

I use them myself. I believe God created an ordered world and only intervenes rarely.

Just because you can't deal with reality

Conflating reality with naturalism. This is typical.

is no reason to claim that my data isont objective. Here is an observational datapoint which brings truth (or do you not think so?). I see a snake bite 5 guys and they all die in front of me.

Origins is not something we have observed. We have testimonial evidence (from a source we both trust) and we have naturalistic theories. The source we both trust speaks of an intervening God.

Should I draw the positive conclusion that if that snake bites me, I will probably die? Or should I go up and pet it?

You should believe it will kill you. That doesn't mean we should believe the apostle Paul was never bitten by a deadly snaked and miraculously lived.

Let's play this game again. I see a guy fall from a skyscrapper. He hits the ground and bounces a floor before falling again and finally stopping.

Should I draw the conclusion that the human body has a bit of elasticity to it? Should I draw the conclusion that the sudden stop when he hit the pavement, killed him? Or should I go jump off the building? What would you do?

You do realize that many use this reasoning to deny biblical miracles. Paul was stoned and miraculously got up, brushed himself off and went back to work. So generally I agree with you that falling off a building or getting stoned will result in death. But I'm not going to allow that to shake my faith in biblical miracles.

I see four mountain lion's footprints in sand. In between the paw prints is a still warm puddle of urine. Should I draw the positive conclusion that a lionwalked by there recently? Or should I have a care-free day while I picnic? Should I draw the obvious conclusion that this is a male? Or should I look for cubs?

Of course. Christians believe in an ordered world of natural processes. This doesn't mean all christians should deny biblical miracles.

Observational data allows very certain conclusion,and this is what 'naturalism' is all about, my friend. The fact that you want to take Christianity out of reality is a real problem for Christianity. If Christianity isn't grounded in the real, observable (and concludabel) bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, then it is not a religion worth having. Paul said this. By avoiding observational reality, you deny the resurrection.

You are being inconsistent. You believe the miracle of the Resurrection, not because you observed it, but because you looked at the testimonial historical evidence of those who did. Yet you reject the biblical testimony of the miracles of Genesis.

No, the debate is about truth, and truth involves both what the Bible says and what nature says.

Obviously this is not the case for you. In the case of origins, natural theories override the text. And obviously in the case of the Resurrection, the text overrides what we observe today in medical science. You compromise the text in the former, and compromise naturalism in the latter.

 

[grmorton]

Sorry, never used the word data. I generally stick to the biblical testimonial data.



That's because they're starting with faulty assumptions. Miracles and methodological naturalism don't mix. The Resurrection can't be supported nor falsified through science either.

No, but at heart, science is observation. If the disciples couldn't OBSERVE that the body was gone and then DRAW THE LOGICAL conclusion that either the body was stolen or it resurrected, then Christianity isn't real. Remember, at the heart of Christianity is observation--the same thing we use in science.

I use them myself. I believe God created an ordered world and only intervenes rarely.

Then in that case, you should have no problem in wondering why God made it appear as if naturalistic assumptions work when we observe the natural world.

Conflating reality with naturalism. This is typical.

It isn't conflation, it is that nature IS part of reality. You are making reality only from your interpretation of scripture and are leaving out half the pie.

Origins is not something we have observed. We have testimonial evidence (from a source we both trust) and we have naturalistic theories. The source we both trust speaks of an intervening God.

But we also have testimonial evidence from what God created. Why isn't that a source we can trust as well?

You should believe it will kill you. That doesn't mean we should believe the apostle Paul was never bitten by a deadly snaked and miraculously lived.

You are a naturalist. You believe the snake would kill you. So do I. And we both agree that miracles occur, but that miracle didn't occur by God merely making bite marks magically appear on Pauls hand, while the snake really didn't bite it. One could look at Pauls hand and determine past events--the snake bit Paul. THere was evidence on his hand of past events---naturalistically interpreted, as fang marks. The problem with the YEC approach is that you all want all fang marks to be miraculously placed rather than as evidence of a real historical event.

You do realize that many use this reasoning to deny biblical miracles. Paul was stoned and miraculously got up, brushed himself off and went back to work. So generally I agree with you that falling off a building or getting stoned will result in death. But I'm not going to allow that to shake my faith in biblical miracles.

But, the bible doesn't say that Paul didn't have bruises, or analoguous to what the YECs do, the bible didn't say that there was no stoning event but Paul got the bruises anyway. See, by saying that all the evidence for an ancient age is illusory, it is equivalent to saying that the bruises Paul received didn't come from stones.

Of course. Christians believe in an ordered world of natural processes. This doesn't mean all christians should deny biblical miracles.

I am certainly not denying miracles. But if I follow your path in how you treat evidence in this world, Paul was neither stoned, nor bit by a snake. He just had bruises and fang marks without stones or snakes.

You are being inconsistent. You believe the miracle of the Resurrection, not because you observed it, but because you looked at the testimonial historical evidence of those who did. Yet you reject the biblical testimony of the miracles of Genesis.

No, I don't reject the miracles of Genesis. I beleive it is a huge miracle that the universe was created. I believe that it took a huge intelligence to plan a world which would be capable of giving rise to man. But you reject what the Bible clearly says.

"And God said, Earth, bring forth vegetation..."

"And God said, Water bring forth swarms of living creatures"

"And God said, Earth bring forth living creatures."

The 'Let" is really not there in the Hebrew. The tense of the verb is a command, a command for the earth and water to do something. You don't beleive that God commanded the earth to do something which the Bible clearly says He did.

I had writte: "No, the debate is about truth, and truth involves both what the Bible says and what nature says."

You replied:

Obviously this is not the case for you. In the case of origins, natural theories override the text. And obviously in the case of the Resurrection, the text overrides what we observe today in medical science. You compromise the text in the former, and compromise naturalism in the latter.

How on earth do you get from what I say to what you said I said?????

I said, BOTH what the Bible says and what Nature says. You then interpret that as me saying "Nature over the Bible." Please tell me, is English your second language? What part of 'BOTH' Do you not understand?????

I don't compromise the text, I believe the text. YOu don't believe what the text says. God said, "Earth bring forth living creatures". It is a COMMAND for the EARTH to do something.

Also, you read into the Bible something that isn't there in the text. No where can you find a verse which says:

ANIMALS give rise to ANIMALS according to their kind.

By this I mean a sentence where ANIMALS is both subject and object of the sentence. If the Bible said that sentence, then it would rule out change and speciation in animals and thus rule out evolution. But you can't find that statement anywhere in Scripture. What the scripture says is that the EARTH (subject--active party) is to bring forth living animals (object--thing acted upon) according to their kind (of various types). That is what Scripture says.

When you YECs actually believe Scripture you will come to your senses.

By the way, do you like cheeseburgers?

 

[USincognito]

To comment on the OP, I think it's part Elmer Gantryism combined with "skepticism" being a bad word for many literalists/fundamentalists that approach the Creation/Evolution debate with a bias in favor of science, but only towards scientifically sounding arguments that validate their Weltanschauung.

When one has the bias that a "man of God" wouldn't bear false witness or mislead you on anything, then obviously, when such men of God say varves actually validate a Young Earth and not an at least hundreds of millenia old Earth, they should be taken at face value.

The general idea of skepticism is under assualt in America these days too. I would differentiate between cynicism based on prejudice and asking "where's the beef," and note the blame some atheist organizations and individuals share in turning skepticism into an a priori position rather than a process. But the flip side is a happy embrace of anything that validates ones biases while rejecting out of hand anything that challenges it.

The way the "skeptical" Arab street responds to anything that disparages Israel or Jews for example.

I think if more people would judiciously exercise skepticism and check out that e-mail or Creationist website and see if the actual data holds up under investigation skepticism might eventually winnow it's way into American culture again (and hopefully that would mean less Nigerian Spam - at the least) while fundamentalist Christians could shed their image as rubes who'll believe anything as long as a fellow Christian told them it.

 

[grmorton]

When one has the bias that a "man of God" wouldn't bear false witness or mislead you on anything, then obviously, when such men of God say varves actually validate a Young Earth and not an at least hundreds of millenia old Earth, they should be taken at face value.

This is a huge problem. Add to it the fact that they seem to think that the man of God couldn't simply be wrong and you have a trifecta. No lies, no misleading and no error! Just about covers it all.

Sadly in this thread to many YECs have avoided the real issue that at the very least the OP shows that the YEC leaders were in error. With Steve Austin, however, since he has a Ph. D. in Geology, he certainly should have known better than to think those sediments are equivalent. I find little excuse for him.