Should you leave your church?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Ipse dixit. One day Charleen might surprise us all and find out what we really believe rather than parrot what Ross claims we believed.

Gee, Soc, I thought we went through this. I am sorry if I got this wrong. I thought I remembered that you believed that Adam would have lived forever even without the Tree of Life. (Just as the animals would have lived forever even though they were not given the Tree of Life) My point is that man was subject to the laws of nature even before the Fall, THAT IS WHY the Tree of Life, THAT IS WHY the Garden of Eden...

I do mind -- you brought it up here, and it's absurd nonsense from Ross that no exegete had ever heard of. So God told the Israelites to rest for a 24-hour seventh day in honor of a still continuing seventh day He ceased from His work and blessed? :dufus:

Do you agree that God is still on His Sabbath rest?

Do you agree that one takes their Sabbath rest on the Sabbath day?

If God is on His Sabbath rest (from His creative work week), then He is on His Sabbath day. Sabbath rest and Sabbath day are inseperable. You cannot have a Sabbath rest without a day on which to rest. It is the seventh day, that is when Sabbath rest is taken. The Scriptures are clear God is on His Sabbath rest from His creative work week (or do you believe there have been more creative days just not recorded in scripture?) God is still working on His Sabbath, Jesus made this point--He still works in our lives on His seventh day, just as we ought to do good on our Sabbath day. Do you not see the parallel?

That's right. And since creation is cursed while the Bible is not, and the Bible is propositional revelation, we should interpret creation in the framework of Scripture.

Is this how atheistic scientists figured out Darwinian evolution has fatal flaws? Did they believe Scripture first?

But Charleen twists Scripture to make it fit her limited understanding of "science".

I, of course, deny your assessment.

BTW--did science help us understand that the sun does not "rise" and "set"--meaning go around the earth?

But according to Ross, all this big bang "evidence" has not been available till the last few decades, so cannot be "general revelation".

General revelation has ALWAYS been available. And it is good of God that as knowlege increases, His witness is ALWAYS there!

Why? Geological uniformitarianism was the basis of biological evolution, so is even more entrenched.

And even those who believe in an old earth (btw--it is uniformitarianism plus catastrophes) also believe that Darwinian evolution is false. Go figure.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Good work!

But if the pastors remain dogged in their preference for "science" over Scripture, it's time to shake off the dust of your feet.

I can guessed which way you voted!

Just because one is an old earth creationist does NOT mean that one prefers "science" over Scritpure.

[bar Jonah]

Btw, I think it's worth noting that the title of the thread does not match the question of the poll.

Would I leave? Yes. Should you leave? That's not quite so simple.

[flipper]

One of the Ross guys is a geologist, and he actually claimed in front of an audience that he was completely unaware that were there polystrata fossils

It was a pretty interesting debate, although I missed Bob Enyart's opener which I think focused more on the YEC scientific side. Too many of the arguments revolved around the specific meaning/interpretation of Hebraic words for my taste; that was of linguistic interest only, but I could see why it is of crucial relevance to Christians and, to be fair, I wasn't the target demographic here.

I think the YECs did a better job of presenting their case than the OECs.

Two points: John Nicholl is actually a geophysicist, not a geologist. That seems like hairsplitting, but paeleontology is only peripherally relevant to geophysics (although complimentary in some industries like petroleum exploration). So although I was mildly surprised he hadn't heard of polystrates which were a part of geology 101 when I was at school, I'm not sure it's a grievous failure bearing in mind the different requirements of his specific discipline.

The second is this jellyfish story. I keep seeing this argument made by creationists (Bob Enyart made it) that geologists are baffled because the strata were seperated by "millions of years".

A cursory amount of research reveals this not to be the case. The geologist, Whitey Hagadorn, who wrote the paper that caused the media interest over the jellyfish while he was at Caltech, is indirectly quoted in a Geotimes article:

Because there is no unconformity between the layers, Hagadorn says, the stranding events could represent a period of time anywhere from one season to a hundred thousand years.

http://www.geotimes.org/mar02/NN_jellies.html

The article raises a number of other interesting points that I think are more problematic for flood geology than for evolution. For example, if the global flood was true and the seemingly ad hoc creationist version of hydrodynamics where soft features are preserved, why don't we find lots of jellyfish fossils?

[bar Jonah]

It was a pretty interesting debate, although I missed Bob Enyart's opener which I think focused more on the YEC scientific side. Too many of the arguments revolved around the specific meaning/interpretation of Hebraic words for my taste; that was of linguistic interest only, but I could see why it is of crucial relevance to Christians and, to be fair, I wasn't the target demographic here.

I think the YECs did a better job of presenting their case than the OECs.

Two points: John Nicholl is actually a geophysicist, not a geologist. That seems like hairsplitting, but paeleontology is only peripherally relevant to geophysics (although complimentary in some industries like petroleum exploration). So although I was mildly surprised he hadn't heard of polystrates which were a part of geology 101 when I was at school, I'm not sure it's a grievous failure bearing in mind the different requirements of his specific discipline.

The second is this jellyfish story. I keep seeing this argument made by creationists (Bob Enyart made it) that geologists are baffled because the strata were seperated by "millions of years".

A cursory amount of research reveals this not to be the case. The geologist, Whitey Hagadorn, who wrote the paper that caused the media interest over the jellyfish while he was at Caltech, is indirectly quoted in a Geotimes article:



http://www.geotimes.org/mar02/NN_jellies.html

The article raises a number of other interesting points that I think are more problematic for flood geology than for evolution. For example, if the global flood was true and the seemingly ad hoc creationist version of hydrodynamics where soft features are preserved, why don't we find lots of jellyfish fossils?

Thanks for chiming in, Flipmeister, with an obviously old-earth (tho not Creationist) view! :rithumb:

[truthman]

Charleen, I'm so glad that you 'think' I believe that the Tree of Life wasn't an actual tree. When you paint with a broad brush, it makes me not even want to read the rest of what you said, whether there's truth in it or not.

Correctly address your audience and I'll correctly apply.

It sounds here like you're talking to a bunch of YECs that I've never even met. I'll wait for them to reply.

truthman

[kuboes1831]

No Soc youmare wrong as usual, those who worked out old earth geology were catastrophists and not uniformitarian. You should get your facts straight instead of putting up a straw man of uniformitarianism. All YEC geolgy is as uniformitarian !

I suggest leave your church if the pastor is YEC, he is liable to get his bible interpretation wrong

[Abigail]

are you a creationist kuboes1831?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen, I'm so glad that you 'think' I believe that the Tree of Life wasn't an actual tree. When you paint with a broad brush, it makes me not even want to read the rest of what you said, whether there's truth in it or not.

Correctly address your audience and I'll correctly apply.

It sounds here like you're talking to a bunch of YECs that I've never even met. I'll wait for them to reply.

truthman

Very sorry, Truthman. Please excuse me clumping all YEC's together on the this issue, it is just most of the ones I've come in contact with deny that man or animal (soulish animals) would have been subject to the laws of nature (including death) before the Fall and could have died before the Fall. It pretty much makes the Tree of Life useless, unless if for some metaphoric reason...

But I do apologize for obviously offending you. I hope you accept my apology.

If you would like to better inform me of your position, I would be very happy to hear it.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Btw, I think it's worth noting that the title of the thread does not match the question of the poll.

Would I leave? Yes. Should you leave? That's not quite so simple.

I noticed that after I made the poll and asked myself if I should have changed it.

But then I thought for this purpose it would be just as well to keep it as is. If a Christian should do a thing, then they should be obedient and actually do it--that is why I left would/should interchangable.

[A Beautiful Truth]

When you paint with a broad brush, it makes me not even want to read the rest of what you said, whether there's truth in it or not.

And I understand this as well. Think about it. I've been called a "compromiser" a "churchian" and many other unfortunate names by Socrates and indeed it is hard to continue to read what he says, whether there's truth in it or not. But I don't think he writes for my benefit, but for his favored audience.

[Socrates]

Very sorry, Truthman. Please excuse me clumping all YEC's together on the this issue, it is just most of the ones I've come in contact with deny that man or animal (soulish animals) would have been subject to the laws of nature (including death) before the Fall and could have died before the Fall. It pretty much makes the Tree of Life useless, unless if for some metaphoric reason...

OIC, so Charleen's faulty accusation was based on faulty logic. What else is new? Of course, YECs do believe in no death (of nephesh chayyah, before the likes of Morton dishonestly accuse YECs of not believing in plant or cell death) before sin. For mankind, the means was the Tree of Life. Once more, it's basic theology -- God ordains the means as well as the ends.

[Socrates]

No Soc youmare wrong as usual, those who worked out old earth geology were catastrophists and not uniformitarian.

Not Hutton and Lyell!

You should get your facts straight instead of putting up a straw man of uniformitarianism. All YEC geolgy is as uniformitarian !

What nonsense. And you should be perfectly aware that there are different meanings of this word. The main point is that the old-earthers started with the premise that the only permissible explanations were processes happening today, ruling out a global Flood a priori.

I suggest leave your church if the pastor is YEC, he is liable to get his bible interpretation wrong

Why don't you prove the error in interpretation instead of spouting ipse dixits.

[Socrates]

The article raises a number of other interesting points that I think are more problematic for flood geology than for evolution. For example, if the global flood was true and the seemingly ad hoc creationist version of hydrodynamics where soft features are preserved, why don't we find lots of jellyfish fossils?

And AiG has an article based on this same Hagadorn paper, Hundreds of jellyfish fossils! which shows how they fit perfectly with catastrophic burial in a Flood that started in the sea. It is a huge problem for uniformitarian geologist.

And please don't post any more in a creationist-only area.

[kuboes1831]

Abigail, if you want to know I am a straight down the line Creationist and Theist.

For Socrates benefit, the majority of the geologists who worked out the vast age of the earth and the geoloigc column were catastrophists and not uniformitarian. Hutton was only one geologist of many in the late 18th cnetury, and Lyell came a bit too late onto the scene to redirect the way most geologists were going.

You say, "The main point is that the old-earthers started with the premise that the only permissible explanations were processes happening today, ruling out a global Flood a priori."
This is such a false statement! No what happened was that the proto-geologists of the 17 and 18th century looked at strata with originally YE and flood geology assumptions and as they found evidence which did not fit they begin to recognise that the earth was older than they thought. Old earth was a CONCLUSION not a PREMISE. Go and do some history of geology and read the original writers of the period- in French as well, but remember the 18th century french used the imperfect tense in a different way!

So remember old-earth geologists came up with an old earth after research disproved their young earth. Also note that many of the geologists who worked out the column did accept a global flood, though most came to reject it for both biblical and geological reasons.

They were also not fixed in any view that only processes observed today could have happened in the past. You misrepresent them.

Today's young earthers start with the presumption of a young earth and then twist the evidence to fit. They may have Exodus 20vs 11 on their side but not verse 16.

Finally Austin's nonsense on canyons on Mt St helens and the Grand Canyon out-lyells lyell for its extreme and flawed ultra-uniformitarianism. He makes Darwin's over uniformitarian geology seem quite catastrophist.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Dee Dee Warren

Not appropriate for this area, please take it to the Locker Room.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.