If I wanted to compromise I would not be an OEC ! [Archive]

Dee Dee Warren

March 31st 2004, 07:43 AM

Yet again we have threads on the age of the earth and christianity and science.

Can I just say one thing.

I really get sick and tired of being called a "compromiser" and every other name that goes along with that.

I am not. I believe genesis to be historically accurate, I just think the YEC is reading it wrong. Can the YEC's please get that through your heads.

If I wanted to compromise with science I would be a theistic evolutionist. But I am not.

So could you drop the compromiser label it is getting tedious.

Jason

Jason I do not use the comprimiser label at every drop of the hat. I agree it issued many times in a overly inflammatory manner. However, just as you claim it is your sincere belief that the YEC wording is wrong, it is the sincere belief of others that such a position is a comprimise with wordliness whether conscious or subsconscious. You cannot force someone not to say what they think. Rules can force a person to say it in a way that will not overly disrupt a conversation, but to tell someone to be silent is a sort of theological political correctness. I believe persons take a nonpreterist reading of the Olivet Discourse cause they don't like what the reading really says. I don't say that every time I speak with a futurist but that is my position, no matter how many times they tell me that they just think my readin is wrong. People think readings are wrong for a reason, and sorry I do not think you can say with a straight face that scientitific considerations do n ot come into play in your reading. I am notsaysing that is wrong per se, I am simply sayng it is a fact. And that fact is interpretred as comprimising the text. Do not play thought police on those that disagree.

A Beautiful Truth

March 31st 2004, 01:32 PM

Having polite discourse on a non-essential debatable topics is one thing, but working insults into the discussion is quite another.

I tell you what, I am grateful that there are moderators on this board. I've been on boards where there are none--what a difference that makes for having meaningful discourse.

suffer for joy

April 2nd 2004, 07:45 PM

Hm, although I would not label you (Satan is the accuser of the brethren), I'd need a more detailed explanation of your beliefs before labelling you with that which you wish not to be labelled. :nc: Perhaps, in your defense, you should point out a thread (or more) where this unjust labelling has occurred so that we can come to a conclusion on whether you truly are "conceding to science and/or other secular views in their disagreement with the Bible" or not.

Anyway, whats wrong with 'comp*******'? Would 'Bible-Raper' be a more PC term? :grin:

sfj

Beef_Cream

April 2nd 2004, 08:02 PM

I see no problem with the OEC interpretation. I think both are viable. In which case they must be judged on their merits.

In the book by the Zacharias Trust 100 tough questions about faith they present a brief but perfectly plausible view for the OEC stand point.

By the way, I'm an ID, what does that make me?

A comprimiser, a bible raper

Or even a bible comprimised raper? :tongue:

The last title sounds more important!

Dee Dee Warren

April 4th 2004, 12:33 PM

For the record I have pled for the dropping of the "churchian" label.

Tickle Me Goody

April 4th 2004, 01:33 PM

For the record I have pled for the dropping of the "churchian" label.
You can command -- not plead.

If others start calling YECs "Genesisians" or "Genesisites", would you object? How about "naive literalists", or "bibliologists"? You are in a position to eliminate all derogratory descriptors from YEC and non-YEC alike.

If you do not, are not all the non-YECs entitled to make up derogatory names also?

I am confused by the one sided outlook that your recent posts have been showing.

goody

Dee Dee Warren

April 4th 2004, 01:41 PM

You can command -- not plead.

If others start calling YECs "Genesisians" or "Genesisites", would you object?

Not as a poster I cannot. I am speaking here as a poster. My "pleading" was an in-house YEC issue. As one YEC to others, I plead for the cease of that term. As a moderator, we do not overly babysit here. If the term is not used disruptively and repitively it may in reviewing the thread be allowed to reamin (I am referring to "churchian") - if you wish to use those retarded examples above, be my guest. It is your reputation not mine.

You really should be more familiar with comments I have made in my moderating capacity before making comments like these. I have censored Hammite and Rossite equally.

How about "naive literalists",

How much have you read here? Are you aware that is often used and not censored? Please be a little more familiar with what you are criticizing before posting.

or "bibliologists"? You are in a position to eliminate all derogratory descriptors from YEC and non-YEC alike.

Some derogatory descriptions have legitimate place in debate. We do not overly moderate. Some do not care for that, and if so, there are other boards that do. We don't. For example, I just called your examples above "retarded." That is derogatory. But it was not gratuituous. It had a legitimate place in debate.

If you do not, are not all the non-YECs entitled to make up derogatory names also?

You are speakng from ignorance. If you wish to complain about my decision as a moderator, please do so in the Locker Room.

I am confused by the one sided outlook that your recent posts have been showing.

goody

Because as a poster I am one-sided. I am solidly YEC. I post as one and with the point of view of one. I don't pretend to be otherwise. You are confusing roles here, easy to do, but now I have clarified it to for you. If you have an issue with my posts, report them. If you have an issue with me as a moderator, take it upin the Locker Room, but please don't mix the roles. I am a YEC participant in this thread. I can make obserrvations on what the forum has already ruled on just like any other poster, but I am not a moderator in this thread. If youwish to take issues on my personal views here, go for it. Official views, again, you know where to take them.

Tickle Me Goody

April 4th 2004, 04:55 PM

Not as a poster I cannot. I am speaking here as a poster. My "pleading" was an in-house YEC issue. As one YEC to others, I plead for the cease of that term. As a moderator, we do not overly babysit here. If the term is not used disruptively and repitively it may in reviewing the thread be allowed to reamin (I am referring to "churchian") - if you wish to use those retarded examples above, be my guest. It is your reputation not mine.

You really should be more familiar with comments I have made in my moderating capacity before making comments like these. I have censored Hammite and Rossite equally.

How much have you read here? Are you aware that is often used and not censored? Please be a little more familiar with what you are criticizing before posting.

Some derogatory descriptions have legitimate place in debate. We do not overly moderate. Some do not care for that, and if so, there are other boards that do. We don't. For example, I just called your examples above "retarded." That is derogatory. But it was not gratuituous. It had a legitimate place in debate.

You are speakng from ignorance. If you wish to complain about my decision as a moderator, please do so in the Locker Room.

Because as a poster I am one-sided. I am solidly YEC. I post as one and with the point of view of one. I don't pretend to be otherwise. You are confusing roles here, easy to do, but now I have clarified it to for you. If you have an issue with my posts, report them. If you have an issue with me as a moderator, take it upin the Locker Room, but please don't mix the roles. I am a YEC participant in this thread. I can make obserrvations on what the forum has already ruled on just like any other poster, but I am not a moderator in this thread. If youwish to take issues on my personal views here, go for it. Official views, again, you know where to take them.:shrug:

I am new to Tweb and did not understand your dual role as poster and moderator. So I will instead direct my comments to you as a poster.

I think that the term "Compromising Christian" is insulting and is used is a substitute for thinking. It is garbage and only demonstates the ignorance of the poster -- including you on the "infrequent" times that you use it. It is more than just an opinion; it is a judgment of the intellectual and moral character of another Christian. It is the opposite of anything that Jesus ever had to say about how a Christian should behave towards another believer. I have a friend who says that "Every time you point a finger at someone, there 3 fingers pointing back at you." (Point your finger and see.) Every time you use the term "Compromising Christian", you are a "Judgemental Christian", which is worse IMO.

BTW, I think that YEC is a silly concept that requires that a person go to AiG and substitute intelligent thinking with an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of a few Biblical verses --- in order to completely ignore the testimony of God's physical creation. I also think that any Christain who believes that silly notion (a YEC) is a Christian to be loved, respected and not be subjected to name calling.

goody

Dee Dee Warren

April 5th 2004, 12:57 AM

:shrug:

I am new to Tweb and did not understand your dual role as poster and moderator. So I will instead direct my comments to you as a poster.

I am glad I was able to explain that to you. Most of the time, moderating comments are in red. Moderators generally do not moderate threads they are entrenched in but will call in someone else.

I think that the term "Compromising Christian" is insulting and is used is a substitute for thinking. It is garbage and only demonstates the ignorance of the poster -- including you on the "infrequent" times that you use it.

Nice hurl there, but you have yet to prove your statement. I notice that you have no issue being insulting. Can anyone say..... hippo.....

It is more than just an opinion; it is a judgment of the intellectual and moral character of another Christian.

Really? I think you owe it conversation to at least partially allow a person to define their own intent.

It is the opposite of anything that Jesus ever had to say about how a Christian should behave towards another believer.

Hmmm Paul.... O Foolish Galatians and numerous other bad, bad, bad, nasty comments to believers.

I have a friend who says that "Every time you point a finger at someone, there 3 fingers pointing back at you." (Point your finger and see.) Every time you use the term "Compromising Christian", you are a "Judgemental Christian", which is worse IMO.

Hmmm.... did you just point a finger at me? Funny how that works.

BTW, I think that YEC is a silly concept that requires that a person go to AiG and substitute intelligent thinking with an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of a few Biblical verses --- in order to completely ignore the testimony of God's physical creation. I also think that any Christain who believes that silly notion (a YEC) is a Christian to be loved, respected and not be subjected to name calling.

Is your post to me an example of love and respect (as you define)?

I am not going to have a personal spat with you I don't frankly have the time.

goody[/QUOTE]

kuboes1831

April 5th 2004, 02:03 AM

Wise comments from Goody goody.

I await something from the YEC stable I can respect. But I have waited 33 years since I read the Genesis Flood

Tickle Me Goody

April 5th 2004, 04:31 AM

Is your post to me an example of love and respect (as you define)?

I am not going to have a personal spat with you I don't frankly have the time.

goody[/QUOTE]
It was a failed attempt to get you to see how certain "know-it-all" attitudes foster unwarrented division among Christians. I see that you not only condone it but quote scripture to justify it. I've seen that in others on TWeb also. That certainly is a-typical of the Christians in my church. (They must be Galatians by your standards.)

Since I have friends who are YECs, I did not believe that that there were YECs (outside of AiG) who were hostile and rude to other Christains and called them down as apostates in the presentation of their ideas. I was directed to TWeb so that I could see for myself.

I came; I saw; I threw up. :sad:

But I also see respectful people. It is sad that the atheists are more respectful than the YEC Christians on this list. I guess I need to gauge if this is a typical attitude for YECs ---- or just an abberation of TWeb.

I don't desire any "personal spats" with you or any other TWebbers, so don't worry about my intending to consume any of your time.

goody

Dee Dee Warren

April 5th 2004, 06:18 AM

It was a failed attempt to get you to see how certain "know-it-all" attitudes foster unwarrented division among Christians.

Again the irony meter is off the scales. You seem pretty certian that you "knnow it all" when it comes to the incorrectness of YEC. Ironically you have chosen to go after (and the OEC here will generally back me up on this) someone (myself) who is very tolerant of the OEC view. I think this goes back to your admission that you are new and have not read much here. Before really gunning for someone you should take the time to know more about them in practice. There are others who would be more appropriate subjects of your ire if you must express such ire.

[qupte]
I see that you not only condone it but quote scripture to justify it.[/quote]

I see that you cannot refute that the Bible does not condemn strong words from believers to each other. That was my sole point - that you were presented a lopsided view.

I've seen that in others on TWeb also. That certainly is a-typical of the Christians in my church. (They must be Galatians by your standards.)

I would ask that before you get all lathered up that you take a breath and try understand where the post you are responding to is coming from. I can understand doing this for I often do that myself - respond first, think later. Now, if my post was unclear, I was not claling anyone a Galatian. I was using that phrase to show that Paul called fellow beleivers "foolish" amongst other and sundry uncomplimentary ephitets. I was not calling anyone a Galatian. Please stop trying so hard to be offended by someone who is not trying to offend you.

Since I have friends who are YECs, I did not believe that that there were YECs (outside of AiG) who were hostile and rude to other Christains and called them down as apostates in the presentation of their ideas. I was directed to TWeb so that I could see for myself.

Sorry but it seems you found in all YEC here what you expected to find. The OEC here will tell you that you are gunning forthewrong target, so perhaps if you remove the chip you will see a bit more clearly.

You may have the last word. I still suggest that you try to know people's history and actual views to make sure they are the demon you are hunting before firing.

Tickle Me Goody

April 5th 2004, 07:18 AM

Again the irony meter is off the scales. You seem pretty certian that you "knnow it all" when it comes to the incorrectness of YEC. Ironically you have chosen to go after (and the OEC here will generally back me up on this) someone (myself) who is very tolerant of the OEC view. I think this goes back to your admission that you are new and have not read much here. Before really gunning for someone you should take the time to know more about them in practice. There are others who would be more appropriate subjects of your ire if you must express such ire.

[qupte]
I see that you not only condone it but quote scripture to justify it.I see that you cannot refute that the Bible does not condemn strong words from believers to each other. That was my sole point - that you were presented a lopsided view.

I would ask that before you get all lathered up that you take a breath and try understand where the post you are responding to is coming from. I can understand doing this for I often do that myself - respond first, think later. Now, if my post was unclear, I was not claling anyone a Galatian. I was using that phrase to show that Paul called fellow beleivers "foolish" amongst other and sundry uncomplimentary ephitets. I was not calling anyone a Galatian. Please stop trying so hard to be offended by someone who is not trying to offend you.

Sorry but it seems you found in all YEC here what you expected to find. The OEC here will tell you that you are gunning forthewrong target, so perhaps if you remove the chip you will see a bit more clearly.

You may have the last word. I still suggest that you try to know people's history and actual views to make sure they are the demon you are hunting before firing.[/QUOTE]
I can't even the text in correctly

I only formed an opinion based upon what I have seen posted. Obviously, I got the wrong impression and do not know why. I guess I shall either leave or not post until I have observed more.

My last word is that I am sorry.

Goody

Dee Dee Warren

April 5th 2004, 08:03 AM

Tickle Me Goody

April 5th 2004, 09:44 AM

Goody I for one do not wish you to leave. How about we just go from here? It is a common error on forums to jump in prematurely before knowing people as people rather than opinion-containers. Why do I say this? Because I do it all the time and end up feelng really bad. So let's just move on from here okay?

And here is some rep for your apology. It's all good.

Thanks Dee Dee. Evidently the posters on TWeb get to know each other somewhat personally -- which seems somewhat unusual. Also people seem to :poke: each other around and then :cheers: toast to it.

I'll be more cautious and learn with time.

Thanks again.

Goody

Acanthostega

April 5th 2004, 01:31 PM

I await something from the YEC stable I can respect. But I have waited 33 years since I read the Genesis Flood

May I ask whether you've read any of the following (which I regard as among the best YEC books):

Brand L. Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by Intelligent Design. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press; 1997. ISBN 1-883925-15-0.

Roth AA. Origins: Linking Science and Scripture. Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing Association; 1998. ISBN 0-8280-1328-4.

Tyler DJ. The Guide: Creation - Chance or Design? Darlington: Evangelical Press; 2003. ISBN 0-85234-544-5.

Wise KP. Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers; 2002. ISBN 0-8054-2462-8.

Wood TC, Murray MJ. Understanding the Pattern of Life: Origins and Organization of the Species. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers; 2003. ISBN 0-8054-2714-7.

kuboes1831

April 5th 2004, 03:38 PM

I am familiar with Tyler's book. If that is the best YEC book then it point.

I have read stuff by Wise which is nonsense
ditto on Roth

Acanthostega

April 6th 2004, 04:12 AM

I am familiar with Tyler's book. If that is the best YEC book then it point.

I have read stuff by Wise which is nonsense
ditto on Roth

Why do you feel the need to be so dismissive and denigrating of anyone who holds a view different to your own? I'm a YEC but I can read and appreciate books and papers by those who are not YEC. I've really enjoyed and benefited from reading books by Richard Fortey, Simon Conway Morris, and Stephen Jay Gould, for example. Your dogmatic refusal to think that you can learn anything from YEC scientists is worrying.

My suspicion is that only books that support your own theistic evolutionary position would earn your "respect". Perhaps you ought to make an effort to read the best YEC literature with an open mind, in order to better understand an alternative point of view. Oh, and you might also want to try selected papers from the various Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism.

How about it? Or will you refuse to make the effort but carry on telling everyone that it's all nonsense whether you've read it or not?

Dee Dee Warren

April 6th 2004, 06:01 AM

Why do you feel the need to be so dismissive and denigrating of anyone who holds a view different to your own? I'm a YEC but I can read and appreciate books and papers by those who are not YEC. I've really enjoyed and benefited from reading books by Richard Fortey, Simon Conway Morris, and Stephen Jay Gould, for example. Your dogmatic refusal to think that you can learn anything from YEC scientists is worrying.

My suspicion is that only books that support your own theistic evolutionary position would earn your "respect". Perhaps you ought to make an effort to read the best YEC literature with an open mind, in order to better understand an alternative point of view. Oh, and you might also want to try selected papers from the various Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism.

How about it? Or will you refuse to make the effort but carry on telling everyone that it's all nonsense whether you've read it or not?
I don'tthink Kuboes is Theistic Evolutionary in outlook. If so, cosmogony would be restricted to him.. I get confused sometimes with so many posters, but I think he is just straight OEC not TE.

Acanthostega

April 6th 2004, 06:18 AM

I don'tthink Kuboes is Theistic Evolutionary in outlook. If so, cosmogony would be restricted to him.. I get confused sometimes with so many posters, but I think he is just straight OEC not TE.

OK, that's fair enough. Maybe I should have said OEC - I certainly don't want to misrepresent anyone. Perhaps kuboes1831 can clarify?

Dee Dee Warren

April 6th 2004, 06:20 AM

OK, that's fair enough. Maybe I should have said OEC - I certainly don't want to misrepresent anyone. Perhaps kuboes1831 can clarify?
Yes I don't want to be misrepping either, but I do think (in another thread as a moderator) I clarified he was OEC, but my memory gets buggy. Not enough sleep.

kuboes1831

April 6th 2004, 05:03 PM

I do not respect books which consistently get things wrong as YEC writers always do.

YECs should ensure that they get their facts right and don't twist what others say.
I read widely from a range of prespectives.

$cirisme

April 6th 2004, 05:15 PM

Are you an OEC or a TE?

kuboes1831

April 7th 2004, 02:07 AM

Cirisme, were your ancestors in the Spanish Inquisition?
I object to people who doubt my theistic and creationist belief.

Acanthostega

April 7th 2004, 04:28 AM

I do not respect books which consistently get things wrong as YEC writers always do.

Now, now. What would you say if a YEC made such a sweeping generalisation about OEC/TE writers?

YECs should ensure that they get their facts right and don't twist what others say.

It's not just YEC writers who need to do this - it's everybody! There is carelessness on all sides of the creation/evolution issue - I'm sure I've been guilty of it myself - but to write off every single YEC as you seem to, regardless of whether you've actually read them or not, seems a trifle unfair.

I read widely from a range of prespectives.

Then I'd encourage you to read the books I mentioned. I'd be interested in your (considered) opinion on them sometime.

Dee Dee Warren

April 7th 2004, 07:36 AM

Cirisme, were your ancestors in the Spanish Inquisition?
I object to people who doubt my theistic and creationist belief.
Actually though his words were not in red, I am sure part of his curiousity was as an owner of this site. If you do not wish to post in public, you could send him a PM. I had thought you and I went over this before, but I cannot totally remember. So I ask that you either PM me or Cirisme with the answer to that so I can keep things straight.

Socrates

May 8th 2004, 10:04 AM

I do not respect books which consistently get things wrong as YEC writers always do.
:shoot: I do not respect people who consistently utter ipse dixits as anti-YEC compromisers always do.

YECs should ensure that they get their facts right and don't twist what others say.
Anti-YECs should practice what they preach! :whip:

Socrates

May 8th 2004, 10:17 AM

If I wanted to compromise with science I would be a theistic evolutionist. But I am not.
Of course, neither evolution nor long ages has anything to do with REAL science! :whip:

But theistic evolution is a compromise with both biological evolution and geological/astronomical evolution/uniformitarianism. OEC is just a compromise with the latter, so one might call it a partial compromise. But compromise it is -- you just cannot get millions of years and a local flood from the Bible alone -- invariably it comes from reading these outside "scientific" ideas into the text. And so often, once the compromise starts with kowtowing to "science" on geology, it leads to kowtowing to "science" in biology as well, e.g. Lamoureux and Morton.

So could you drop the compromiser label it is getting tedious.
Why should we? But just for you, I'll commute the label to "partial compromiser" :teeth: AiG is right to declare 2004 a year of "Refuting Compromise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0104lead.asp)". After all, it was Lyell's geological evolution that paved the way for Darwin's biological evolutionism. Yet OECs are wanting to return to the compromise that failed in Darwin's day.

I also find it hypocritical of Jason to whinge, when he was happy to insinuate that YECs are "heretics" -- see http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13703 Ross has also done that, e.g. calling YECs "gnostic" and comparing them to the Galatian Judaizers. Recently Ross even cited the scientifically and ethically discredited God-hating Bible-mocker Ian Plimer with approval on YECs, such is Ross' desperation.

Socrates

May 8th 2004, 11:49 AM

May I ask whether you've read any of the following (which I regard as among the best YEC books):
Actually, the AiG-produced ones are better still. They cover the biblical, philosophical and scientific angles, and the books AiG recommends in their online storefront (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/) are
The Answers Book—Revised & Expanded (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/409cfdca0039066b2719ccfd844c06a4/Product/View/10-2-001)
The Lie: Evolution (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/409cfe02001b9931271accfd844c0679/Product/View/10-2-030)
Refuting Evolution (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/409cfe02001b9931271accfd844c0679/Product/View/10-2-110)
Refuting Evolution 2 (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/409cfe02001b9931271accfd844c0679/Product/View/10-2-150)
Refuting Compromise (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/409cfe9f001e38eb271accfd844c06df/Product/View/10-2-164)
Brand L. Faith, Reason, and Earth History: A Paradigm of Earth and Biological Origins by Intelligent Design. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press; 1997. ISBN 1-883925-15-0.

Roth AA. Origins: Linking Science and Scripture. Hagerstown, Maryland: Review and Herald Publishing Association; 1998. ISBN 0-8280-1328-4.
Those are good. The only problem is that Roth gives a sop to the soft gap sophistry (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0308soft_gap.asp) held by some of his fellow SDAs, although he seems to be a sound 6-day creationist :thumb:

Tyler DJ. The Guide: Creation - Chance or Design? Darlington: Evangelical Press; 2003. ISBN 0-85234-544-5.
Haven't read that, but the author is an able defender of the creation model, even though he supports the "European Flood Model", so it seems worthy of careful study.

Wise KP. Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers; 2002. ISBN 0-8054-2462-8.
Not too bad. Many anti-creationists have portrayed Wise as a fideist, but this book shows that this charge is light years away from the truth. It also presents a good biblical case for YEC and answers common scientific objections.

Wood TC, Murray MJ. Understanding the Pattern of Life: Origins and Organization of the Species. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers; 2003. ISBN 0-8054-2714-7.
This one is disappointing. It actually presents the crass "backwardly designed retina" as an unsolved problem, and even quotes that misotheistic bozo Dawkins as an authority on this, although he lacks qualifications in ophthalmology or physical optics. But AiG published crushing refutations of this argument by ophthalmologists many years before -- see An eye for creation: Interview with creationist eye disease researcher, Dr George Marshall (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/eye.asp) and Is our ‘inverted’ retina really ‘bad design’? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v13n1_retina.asp). So the ignorance of the authors is inexcusable. Refuting Evolution 2, published earlier, also has a section splattering this moronic argument.

kuboes1831

May 8th 2004, 02:54 PM

Actually, the AiG-produced ones are better still. They cover the biblical, philosophical and scientific angles, and the books AiG recommends in their online storefront (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/) are
The Answers Book—Revised & Expanded (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/409cfdca0039066b2719ccfd844c06a4/Product/View/10-2-001)
The Lie: Evolution (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/409cfe02001b9931271accfd844c0679/Product/View/10-2-030)
Refuting Evolution (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/409cfe02001b9931271accfd844c0679/Product/View/10-2-110)
Refuting Evolution 2 (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/409cfe02001b9931271accfd844c0679/Product/View/10-2-150)
Refuting Compromise (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/409cfe9f001e38eb271accfd844c06df/Product/View/10-2-164)
Those are good. The only problem is that Roth gives a sop to the soft gap sophistry (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0308soft_gap.asp) held by some of his fellow SDAs, although he seems to be a sound 6-day creationist :thumb:

Haven't read that, but the author is an able defender of the creation model, even though he supports the "European Flood Model", so it seems worthy of careful study.

Not too bad. Many anti-creationists have portrayed Wise as a fideist, but this book shows that this charge is light years away from the truth. It also presents a good biblical case for YEC and answers common scientific objections.

This one is disappointing. It actually presents the crass "backwardly designed retina" as an unsolved problem, and even quotes that misotheistic bozo Dawkins as an authority on this, although he lacks qualifications in ophthalmology or physical optics. But AiG published crushing refutations of this argument by ophthalmologists many years before -- see An eye for creation: Interview with creationist eye disease researcher, Dr George Marshall (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/eye.asp) and Is our ‘inverted’ retina really ‘bad design’? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v13n1_retina.asp). So the ignorance of the authors is inexcusable. Refuting Evolution 2, published earlier, also has a section splattering this moronic argument.

This is sheer entertainment!!

The day I read anything worthwhile from AIG I will open a bottle of Australian wine and celbrate.

When's Mortenson going on a basic histroy course?

Socrates

May 8th 2004, 10:21 PM

This is sheer entertainment!!

The day I read anything worthwhile from AIG I will open a bottle of Australian wine and celbrate.

When's Mortenson going on a basic histroy course?
When is Kuboes going to produce a post of substance. It's a joke that he thinks he knows history with his demonstrable ignorance of the historic Christian views on Genesis. And if he wants to whinge about Mortenson, then he should inform the people who awarded him his Ph.D. in the history of geology which extensively documented Christian interpretations of Genesis throughout the ages.

Calvinist4Him

May 8th 2004, 10:42 PM