Dendrochronology: Getting at the root of the problem with a young earth

[Dee Dee Warren]

Except in some obvious cases, "inappropriate behaviour" is often a matter of perspective.

I agree.

I've often asked for proof of a single instance where I ignore or deliberately misrepresent ANY data. Still waiting ...

I think we all have times in our zealousness have misrepresented things.

MN is part of a Naturalistic metaphysic and I do not share that world view. Simple enough.

Me either. I think it is quite frankly satanic.

You are ("sure")? Okay, wow!

Yes I am sure. I am an owner here and see the moderator reports that come in, and I am sure I have seen instances of it. But I am not here to attack you, I leave those things to you and Christ at this point, okay?

For some odd reason many people have a very hard time understanding that simple fact. Those not with God are against God.
God (not people) doesn't allow a "neutral" position regarding their relationship with Him. They are either for Him or against - period!
Personally, I believe that it's not that they don't understand it ... they willingly refuse to accept the fact so as to remain "neutral".
What they can't see is that God, not them, is calling the shots here. So they are in fact self-deluded regarding their "neutral" status.

I agree with you. There is no neutral position. One either loves God or hates Him.

Correct you are and the fact is that I do not bring it up often in debates except maybe as a general comment.

I was guessing there - we once had a very zealous and knowledgeable YEC poster here who flung that term around way too much - I think he used "misotheist."

I do not so I do not have cause for "shame".

I am glad to here it.

Weren't you, DX, going to start something on that with me? What do you mean when you say that I'm a "futurist"?

My ambitions exceed my time most of the time. You have made decidedly futurist statements before - what I mean by futurist is this, let me ask you several questions, okay?

1. Do you believe the "Great Tribulation" is in our future?
2. Do you believe that the Book of Revelation deals primarily with the future?

If you answered yes to either or both of those questions, you are a futurist, as are most of American Christians. I answer definitive NOs to bother of those questions. In short because of the timing statements, much like Genesis 1. Jesus says that He was to come in judgment before the generation He was speaking to would die. Revelation says that the events therein were "soon" "near" and "at hand."

Please, don't do as these people often do and attempt to define my full position based on a few posts.

The eschatological statements you made were unambigious I think, but I look forward to the answers to the two questions posed above. And before you get nervous, I do believe in a future bodily return of Christ and a future bodily resurrection. I just don't believe that the main subject of Revelation is about those events, and the Great Tribulation has nothing to do with those events directly.

Actually, my mom did a fine job of raising her kids to be very polite. If I happen to speak boldly and every now-n-then
insert a much-needed (or much-deserved) 'spanking' into my words, that should not be confused with a lack of politeness.

Jorge, you obviously don't read a lot of my posts. I haven't been dubbed Tertulina the Flame-Thrower for nothing. However, I am learning to cool my jets, and sometimes we can lose the war while arguing over the battle over whether or not our "boldness" was in fact "rudeness." Paul said to become all things to all people, and if a little bit more sugar in the tea helps the point go down, we should do so for the glory of Christ. And those words for me point right back at me with the rebuke of Physician heal thyself.

Amen! We all have much to work on and (s)he that says otherwise is either totally ignorant or a certified liar. I believe and practice that.

Jorge

I look forward to talking with you more as one YEC to another.

[Jorge]

Hi Jorge, I have to stand by my opinion right now that I think at times you speak to other christians inappropriately, but since I don't have a specific example here in front of me, if I have your permission, I will ask you about it the next time I see it occuring. Would that be alright?

Perfectly!

I am not so sure that YEC versus OEC is the dangerous issue you think it is.

I get that a lot. Here's the point that I've noticed most people miss : it is impossible to separate -- to compartmentalize -- one aspect of Christian beliefs from others. Obvious examples would be to say that the virgin birth is not 'critical' to salvation or that the bodily resurrection of Christ versus a spirit-only resurrection is not 'critical' to salvation (I'm sure you've heard "Christian" groups -- quotes intentional -- speak such words).

See, there it's obvious -- to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is, in essence, to rewrite Scripture ... to promote a gospel other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nowhere near as obvious is that to introduce billions of years into God's own account of the creation amounts to the same thing : rewriting Scripture and thus promoting s 'different gospel'.

However, whereas I believe that the former example (bodily resurrection) is a very serious infraction against God and His Word, believing / promoting OEC may not be as serious an infraction. Note : it could be just as serious. In any event, there are other issues that are serious. Lengthy, difficult subject.

I think YEC/OEC versus theistic evolution is.

Agreed and, again, I've never found a way of compartmentalizing these issues.

And quite honestloy I think hand-waving away the clear eschatological time statements of the New Testament are {it is one of the number one reasons that sceptics reject Christ - they claim He was a false prophet - and correct me if I am wrong, but you do not accept the timing statements of the NT at the same face value that you do of the "days" of Genesis 1]

I'd have to see specific instances before I could say.

However, there are true Christians who have come to different conclusions, and I think we need to be careful on how we are treating the brethren.

We need to treat all people, not just brethren, appropriately. This does not exclude correction or 'harsh' words. Need I remind you that Christ Himself spoke 'harsh' words to His own disciples when called for? People often forget these things.

And that of course is also very strongly directed at the nonYEC Christians who ally themselves completely inappropriately with those who reject Christ - which is the far more important issue. Christ's blood will cover whatever our peculiar creation heresies are, but He will divide the sheep from the goats, and those who reject Him are in for a terrible future.

Absolutely true. It saddens me deeply to see how willingly many Christians ally themselves with God-haters
not realizing the the damage that they are causing to the Church as well as to their own person.

I appreciate that you openly declare your a priori to be the Scriptures. It is mine as well. And if so-called science contradicts the Bible, it is science that is most definitely in error on that particular issue.

Everyone has an a priori starting point --- whether they realize it or not (and most people do not know this). Materialistic Atheists have "all-encompassing matter and energy" as their a priori position. Christians should have God's Word - the Bible - as ours.

Yet, and here's where it gets ugly, many Christians have willingly handed that authority to the 'scientific' establishment, holding the edicts of said establishment over-and-above what Scripture says. Thus, if 'science' says A and Scripture says B then these Christians side with A and conclude that Scripture must be re-interpreted (or worse) in order to uphold A (since 'science' "cannot be wrong"). Truly these people know not what they do.

Jorge

[Dee Dee Warren]

Perfectly!

I get that a lot. Here's the point that I've noticed most people miss : it is impossible to separate -- to compartmentalize -- one aspect of Christian beliefs from others. Obvious examples would be to say that the virgin birth is not 'critical' to salvation or that the bodily resurrection of Christ versus a spirit-only resurrection is not 'critical' to salvation (I'm sure you've heard "Christian" groups -- quotes intentional -- speak such words).

I agree, see my signature, which I will reproduce here:

"I had learned slowly but surely that Biblical Faith is a seamless garment. Moreover, a surrender on any point soon becomes a surrender at all points. It is no pleasure being disliked, resented, and maligned, but it is better than living a lie by far. It is God's responsibility to judge how far these people can go without turning Christianity into an alien religion, not mine, and I am more than content to leave the judgment to Him, but it is my duty to call attention to the discrepancies." ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law Vol. III: The Intent of the Law, 162.

See, there it's obvious -- to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is, in essence, to rewrite Scripture ... to promote a gospel other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nowhere near as obvious is that to introduce billions of years into God's own account of the creation amounts to the same thing : rewriting Scripture and thus promoting s 'different gospel'.

I can't agree with you there Jorge, or I would have to say that you as a futurist are promoting a different Gospel by rewriting Jesus' words. Gospel has a very specific meaning and when we start making the "Gospel" a creation issue or other secondary issue, it is US who are rewriting the Gospel. Be careful Jorge that you are not doing what you condemn.

However, whereas I believe that the former example (bodily resurrection) is a very serious infraction against God and His Word, believing / promoting OEC may not be as serious an infraction. Note : it could be just as serious. In any event, there are other issues that are serious. Lengthy, difficult subject.

I agree with the above. There are levels of error, but we must tread carefully before we elevate it to the Gospel.

I'd have to see specific instances before I could say.

Do you feel comfortable answering the two eschatological questions I posed?

[and "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer, you won't find me chastising you for being undecided]

We need to treat all people, not just brethren, appropriately. This does not exclude correction or 'harsh' words. Need I remind you that Christ Himself spoke 'harsh' words to His own disciples when called for? People often forget these things.

I believe we have a higher burden to the brethren.

"Be good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith."

Absolutely true. It saddens me deeply to see how willingly many Christians ally themselves with God-haters
not realizing the the damage that they are causing to the Church as well as to their own person.

Amen. One cannot sleep with the enemy without waking up with a spiritual veneral disease.

Everyone has an a priori starting point --- whether they realize it or not (and most people do not know this). Materialistic Atheists have "all-encompassing matter and energy" as their a priori position. Christians should have God's Word - the Bible - as ours.

Agreed.

Yet, and here's where it gets ugly, many Christians have willingly handed that authority to the 'scientific' establishment, holding the edicts of said establishment over-and-above what Scripture says. Thus, if 'science' says A and Scripture says B then these Christians side with A and conclude that Scripture must be re-interpreted (or worse) in order to uphold A (since 'science' "cannot be wrong"). Truly these people know not what they do.

Jorge, things are not so clear-cut as that. There are many many Christians who believe that they are interpreting Scripture properly and there is nothing wrong with having our personal experiences and knowledge cause us to look at our interpretations anew, as long as we are willing to submit our experiences to the Scriptures. If we don't allow reason in to the picture we are simple fideists.

[Jorge]

I agree, see my signature, which I will reproduce here:

"I had learned slowly but surely that Biblical Faith is a seamless garment. Moreover, a surrender on any point soon becomes a surrender at all points. It is no pleasure being disliked, resented, and maligned, but it is better than living a lie by far. It is God's responsibility to judge how far these people can go without turning Christianity into an alien religion, not mine, and I am more than content to leave the judgment to Him, but it is my duty to call attention to the discrepancies." ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law Vol. III: The Intent of the Law, 162.

My sentiment, almost exactly. Sometimes what we perceive as a "discrepancy" is not that at all but is actually a faulty interpretation of ours.

I can't agree with you there Jorge, or I would have to say that you as a futurist are promoting a different Gospel by rewriting Jesus' words. Gospel has a very specific meaning and when we start making the "Gospel" a creation issue or other secondary issue, it is US who are rewriting the Gospel. Be careful Jorge that you are not doing what you condemn.

I'm always careful -- very careful -- of not doing what is wrong before God's eyes.

Now that I know what you mean by 'futurist', I must admit that it's concerning to me that you hold the opposite view.
I'd heard before of those beliefs and, frankly, after due study I dismissed them long ago. Here's what you wrote / asked :

1. Do you believe the "Great Tribulation" is in our future?
2. Do you believe that the Book of Revelation deals primarily with the future?

If you answered yes to either or both of those questions, you are a futurist, as are most of American Christians. I answer definitive NOs to bother of those questions. In short because of the timing statements, much like Genesis 1. Jesus says that He was to come in judgment before the generation He was speaking to would die. Revelation says that the events therein were "soon" "near" and "at hand."

The Great Tribulation is definitely an event yet to occur. The Book of Revelation is definitely a Book mostly about a future yet to come.

Logically you are correct -- your position would see me as "writing a different gospel" and hence your warning
(not to do that which I condemn) is valid. I would guess that you've done a lot of study on this topic (probably more
than I have since I concluded long ago that it was as clear-cut as is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ).

That being said, what I mean when I say "write / promote a different gospel than that of Jesus Christ" is that the Word of God is 'distorted'
(and by this I mean 'adding to', 'deleting from', 'interpreting in ad hoc ways', 'mythologizing', and / or other similar actions).

Thus, for example, OECs do things like introduce soul-less protohumans prior to Adam or make the Flood a "local" flood.
I see absolutely no room in God's Word for such actions.

I agree with the above. There are levels of error, but we must tread carefully before we elevate it to the Gospel.

Yes, but don't forget the connection aspect (your sig).

I believe we have a higher burden to the brethren.

I agree to a point. The problem is that often times -- especially in forums such as these -- we do not know who truly is a brethren.
In cases where I'm not reasonably certain what I do is apply the principle that 'God makes no exception of persons'.

"Be good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith."

Agreed.

Amen. One cannot sleep with the enemy without waking up with a spiritual veneral disease.

Isn't it amazing how people think that they can get away with it ... that they may become only "a little pregnant"?

Jorge, things are not so clear-cut as that. There are many many Christians who believe that they are interpreting Scripture properly and there is nothing wrong with having our personal experiences and knowledge cause us to look at our interpretations anew, as long as we are willing to submit our experiences to the Scriptures. If we don't allow reason in to the picture we are simple fideists.

Off the bat I'd have to say that, for a Christian, knowledge does, in fact, depend upon a fundamental act of faith (the definition of fideism).

Setting that aside for now, I do believe that things are "as clear-cut as that". I'm not saying that we don't re-examine our beliefs based on our experience, etc ... etc. -- we all do this. But there has to be that "seamless" aspect that Rushdoony speaks about. Our experience cannot override God's Word.

What we see is that in order to uphold many of those modern interpretations that are ever-so-popular, Christians create 'tears' into the seamless Gospel and, worse yet, add patchwork or delete from the 'fabric' -- whatever it takes so that their 'gospel version' isn't self-contradictory.

I see it as an intellectual exercise. They work very hard at making a logically-consistent version and in many ways succeed. Yet, in so doing, the original version (God's!) is distorted/corrupted and turned into some man-made false gospel. The soul-less protohumans are an example of this.


[This could turn into an unwieldly exchange. How about selecting one point for time's sake (?).]

Jorge

[Dee Dee Warren]

Now that I know what you mean by 'futurist', I must admit that it's concerning to me that you hold the opposite view.

I am glad that I was correct in noting that you were a futurist [i.e. I didn't misunderstand your statements] - I am a preterist.

The Great Tribulation is definitely an event yet to occur. The Book of Revelation is definitely a Book mostly about a future yet to come.

(probably more
than I have since I concluded long ago that it was as clear-cut as is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ).

It is my primary source of study so it is certain I have studied more than you as you have obviously studied creationism more than I.

[This could turn into an unwieldly exchange. How about selecting one point for time's sake (?).]

Jorge

Since I promised to discuss the eschatology issue with you before, are you interested in perhaps having a friendly debate discussion on whether or not the Great Tribulation is future?

[Jorge]

Since I promised to discuss the eschatology issue with you before, are you interested in perhaps having a friendly debate discussion on whether or not the Great Tribulation is future?

More than a 'discussion', I'd like to educate myself well on your position. The first thing I'll do is get the latest info via books and websites.
Please give me a bit of time for this. Also, I've got a trip coming up but I should be able to get some time for this at my stops.

Thanks for understanding and I'll get back to you soon enough.


Jorge

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay. And you may not know but I have spent years writing a very thorough commentary on the Olivet Discourse. You can save yourself a lot of time by perusing it (and spare yourself from heretical sites - I do not believe what is taught by Preterist Archive, Planet Preterist or any score of heretical preterist sites that deny the future Coming of Christ and our bodily resurrection.

My website is
http://www.preteristsite.com

and the commentary is at
http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

[rogue06]

Rogue06, via PM, brought to my attention what he calls "Darth Xena's defense of Jorge".

I appreciate your kind words and effort on my behalf, DX. Let me also say that it saddens me that you see in some of my words "treating other Christians wrong". A parent that punishes a child may be seen by some as "treating her / his child wrong" but we know better, don't we.

The fact of the mattter is that these people -- many Christians included -- do not have a proper understanding of these things yet they dogmatically state that any Christian position except YEC is scientifically based. I mean, nowhere that I know of are OEC, TE, PC attacked on a purely scientific basis as YEC is. This alone proves that there is no understanding by these people of what's going on here.

In a nutshell, what these fine brethren of ours miss is that the matter is, at its core, ideological, not scientific. Furthermore, amongst Christians, the fundamental issue is that of Biblical authority. YEC versus OEC are related issues certainly linked to the issue of authority but not the driving force. I've found that many Christians are willing to capitulate under the pressure of what the secular 'scientific' community proclaims "must be so". As many God-fearing people have done in the past, they have no idea of the damage that they are causing.

Hi Jorge. Wanted to give you and DX a little time to converse before I added my thoughts. I disagee with you that YECs are the only group of Cristians being attacked on scientific grounds. Dawkins and those like him don't single out YECs as an exclusive target by any means. Still, I think YEC draws a lion's share of criticism due in large part to their continued proclamations that their religious beliefs are also supported scientifically and should be presented as science in the classroom. I think this insistence is what makes you guys such a big target and why you on occassion get picked on specifically.

[shunyadragon]

Rogue I have a couple of questions:

So there are trees that are allegedly 10,000 years old or am I misunderstanding something.

Second question - there was some general sceptical mocking of this statement:

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

You don't believe that? I believe that you in fact do - your disagreement is on the proper interpretation of the Bible. As a Christian my unabashed a priori is the Scriptures. Jorge is absolutely right in his insistance on that a priori, and while I am sure he and I would disagree on a great many things, I am ashamed that other Christians join in the general mockery of him in that area. Jorge, thank you for your committment to the defense of the faith - you might be wrong, but I really am beginning to think that the way you are treated at times by other Christians is just plain wrong. I expect the sceptics to mock. I don't expect that consistently from other Christians. You may be guilty of treating other Christians wrong too, I am not claiming you are not. I also am not claiming that in my pet areas I haven't been an inappropriate mocker as well, and God is working on my attitude in that area. But I scan these threads and I see the derision that comes at you simply because you have no problem with accepting that the Bible is our foundation. I am a YEC because right now I believe that is what the Scripture teaches. But I find non-YEC getting into bed inappropriately with God-deniers to mock such statements, and I believe that the principle of that statement is something that all Christians agree to, whether YEC or not.

The ridicule of Jorge and other YEC clowns at AIG is not for their 'unabashed a priori is the Scriptures,', but for their dishonest 'unabashed abuse of science.'

Those that staunchly stand by an 'a priori is the Scriptures,' may very well chose a fideist approach without resorting to the dishonest abuse of science.

[grmorton]

My favorite line:

However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.

Whatever happened to following the data wherever it goes?

Those were the days.

Oh, Cyrus, YECs only follow the data if it is going in the direction the YECs want it to go.

[oxmixmudd]

Perfectly!

I get that a lot. Here's the point that I've noticed most people miss : it is impossible to separate -- to compartmentalize -- one aspect of Christian beliefs from others. Obvious examples would be to say that the virgin birth is not 'critical' to salvation or that the bodily resurrection of Christ versus a spirit-only resurrection is not 'critical' to salvation (I'm sure you've heard "Christian" groups -- quotes intentional -- speak such words).

See, there it's obvious -- to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is, in essence, to rewrite Scripture ... to promote a gospel other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nowhere near as obvious is that to introduce billions of years into God's own account of the creation amounts to the same thing : rewriting Scripture and thus promoting s 'different gospel'.

However, whereas I believe that the former example (bodily resurrection) is a very serious infraction against God and His Word, believing / promoting OEC may not be as serious an infraction. Note : it could be just as serious. In any event, there are other issues that are serious. Lengthy, difficult subject.


Agreed and, again, I've never found a way of compartmentalizing these issues.


I'd have to see specific instances before I could say.


We need to treat all people, not just brethren, appropriately. This does not exclude correction or 'harsh' words. Need I remind you that Christ Himself spoke 'harsh' words to His own disciples when called for? People often forget these things.

Absolutely true. It saddens me deeply to see how willingly many Christians ally themselves with God-haters
not realizing the the damage that they are causing to the Church as well as to their own person.


Everyone has an a priori starting point --- whether they realize it or not (and most people do not know this). Materialistic Atheists have "all-encompassing matter and energy" as their a priori position. Christians should have God's Word - the Bible - as ours.

Yet, and here's where it gets ugly, many Christians have willingly handed that authority to the 'scientific' establishment, holding the edicts of said establishment over-and-above what Scripture says. Thus, if 'science' says A and Scripture says B then these Christians side with A and conclude that Scripture must be re-interpreted (or worse) in order to uphold A (since 'science' "cannot be wrong"). Truly these people know not what they do.

Jorge

I make this statement:

All sdes take their cues driving their interpretation from science (extra-biblical information).


And here is my support for this claim:

Jorge - and all YEC's who think YEC is an issue of Biblical authority - There is sufficient vagueness in Genesis 1 that men of God, without the resources of modern science, have asked themselfves "are the days of Genesis 24 hours or not". It falls out quite simply from the text in psalms 90:4:

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night ...

The context is creation.

Again in 2 peter 3:8:

A thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years.

The context the 'soon' return of Christ.

Next - what a day might be in days 1-3 is vague - there is no sun.

Finally, it is also clear that in Genesis 1, the most straightforward reading of Genesis 1:6-8 leads to an invalid understanding of the structure of the universe. All modern Christians interpret Genesis 1:6-8 in some way symbolically based on extra-Biblical information.

Therefore, the conclusion that there is more than 1 possible understanding of the text of Genesis 1 is obvious, and trivial to sustain. The YEC POV has its particular take on what is 'correct'. But what is 'correct' can not be gleaned with 100% or even 90% certainty from the text alone.

My personal belief is that the text is vague enough one MUST apply the testimony of nature to arbitrate the possibilities. Indeed, ALL argumentation on these points eventually finds itself OUTSIDE the text! If one brings in "But billlions of years opens the door to evolution" when faced with the vagaries of days 1-3, you are not arbitrating this text based on the text alone, but what science says about what happened in that long period of time. If you say "but it is clear from SN1987a the universe is at least 167,000 years old", you are not arbitrarting the text based on the text alone either, but what science says about how long those days must have been. Both sides arbitrate this text based on 'opinion' about what the most likely best reading is coupled with outside, primarily scientific, influences that drive them to one side or the other.

In both cases, this arbitrating process (deciding the 'most likely' best reading and understanding what nature is saying) are subject to the limitations of human knowledge

So please - stop making the YE/OE issue an issue of faithfulness to God. It is not.

And please - take a look in the mirror and recognize the weaknesses in your own position and the uncertainty each position holds before pointing the finger at the other.

"A kindom divided against itself can not stand."

"The foot can not say to the hand, 'I have no need of thee'"


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I see it as an intellectual exercise. They work very hard at making a logically-consistent version and in many ways succeed. Yet, in so doing, the original version (God's!) is distorted/corrupted and turned into some man-made false gospel. The soul-less protohumans are an example of this.
Jorge

No one - not Hugh Ross, not myself, not Glenn Morton, not Rogue06, Not NeilUnreal, not Steadele NO ONE has ever said the Bible speaks of soul-less protohumans. soul-less protohuman is just a classification of animals more similar in form and capability to man than apes but not man. We have the bones of such creatures all around us. Some believe these creatures were man. Others believe they were not man.

There are millions things we know of in this universe, or speculate about being the logical consequences of the state of this universe, that are not mentioned in the Bible. No where else do we worry about the fact those things are not in the Bible, or think that we are somehow violating the text of the Bible by understanding those things must exist.

No Jorge - this is a dishonest and twisted tactic you have to try to build the case that those who do not see Genesis as you do are unbiblical - not faithful Christians. I really hope others (espically those leaning to the YEC side) on this site can see it for what it is and will call you on it.


Jim

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh, Cyrus, YECs only follow the data if it is going in the direction the YECs want it to go.

Great work Glenn, considering the efforts at unity I have made in this thread, that was an incredibly petty and destructive pot-shot to take. I am not going to argue with you about it, I ask the readers to go back where I mentioned this post of Cyrus' and how some Christians will be purposefully condenscending and divisive and bite one another, and then read Glenn's statement for a perfect example.

Thanks for the discussion Jorge, please let me know when we can continue on the eschatology discussion.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The ridicule of Jorge and other YEC clowns at AIG is not for their 'unabashed a priori is the Scriptures,', but for their dishonest 'unabashed abuse of science.'

Those that staunchly stand by an 'a priori is the Scriptures,' may very well chose a fideist approach without resorting to the dishonest abuse of science.

I am discussing this issue with other Christians. If you don't know the difference between presuppositionalism and fideism please educate yourself before making ignorant comments.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hold on a second there Jim:

No one - not Hugh Ross, not myself, not Glenn Morton, not Rogue06, Not NeilUnreal, not Steadele NO ONE has ever said the Bible speaks of soul-less protohumans. soul-less protohuman is just a classification of animals more similar in form and capability to man than apes but not man. We have the bones of such creatures all around us. Some believe these creatures were man. Others believe they were not man.

You have just accused a fellow brother of being a liar. I would think that carries a much harsher condemnation of calling him "racca" [fool].

This is what Jorge actually said:

Thus, for example, OECs do things like introduce soul-less protohumans prior to Adam or make the Flood a "local" flood.
I see absolutely no room in God's Word for such actions.

So please tell me where Jorge said what you represented he said which is:

No one - not Hugh Ross, not myself, not Glenn Morton, not Rogue06, Not NeilUnreal, not Steadele NO ONE has ever said the Bible speaks of soul-less protohumans.

and Right after that you turned around and admitted that what is believed IS what Jorge said

Please have more evidence and clarity before accusing a brother of a damnable sin. Liars shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, so lest tread carefully before we make such judgment on other.

You guys don't have to like Jorge or award him Mr. Personality of the Year, but these sorts of attacks are unconscionable, and I have come more and more to believe that the constant pairing off of Christians with those who deny God against other Christians is an extraordinarily wicked practice.