Question for this forum [Archive]

brett

April 9th 2005, 03:52 AM

I am curious at how little the young-earthers post here any more. I am wondering why. Have people left the young-earth position? Have they gone elsewhere in order to avoid any data contrary to their position. Any ideas?

I see a lot more YECs in other forums. A while back there were quite a few YECs here, but they all seemed to have left right about the time Soc left. To me the dialog seemed to go downhill after that. I can only speculate why they left and therefore won't bother. But I think it's safe to say they've left T-Web, not their position. As far as the data, I see the same arguments here as everywhere else. I don't think that's the problem.

Has anyone changed their position by reading the posts here over the past 2 years?

It's very unlikely you'll find people who have converted from OEC (OEC in the general sense including TE) positions. That's not because the evidence is so great on the OEC side, but because YEC is the straight forward reading of the text. No one picks up Genesis and then immediately says, "Wow millions of years, a local flood, an allegorical garden, etc.!" Virtually everyone starts as a YEC and either stays there or is persuaded to the other side. In fact I would think OECs would be nothing but converts. The only converts to YEC would be someone like me that has gone full circle. I started a YEC naturally, then went to Gap, then to Day-Age then back to YEC once I realized the text wasn't compatible with anything else (IMHO). But that's going to be very rare.

dizzle

April 9th 2005, 07:28 AM

I remain YEC but don't even have time to discuss preterism lately which is my favourite topic generally speaking.

Meh_Gerbil

April 9th 2005, 07:34 AM

I remain YEC but don't even have time to discuss preterism lately which is my favourite topic generally speaking.

wOOt - two YEC's remain :highfive:

...but none of 'em wanna talk about it. :blush:

grmorton chased 'em all into hiding. :fight:

jason

April 9th 2005, 07:35 AM

I am curious at how little the young-earthers post here any more. I am wondering why. Have people left the young-earth position? Have they gone elsewhere in order to avoid any data contrary to their position. Any ideas?
Maybe they just got tired of the endless abuse and name calling. Its gets old to be berated by people who talk down to you all the time and treat you like a toddler.

Has anyone changed their position by reading the posts here over the past 2 years?
Some of my positions have moved a bit.

Although I realised, I don't care that much about the issue anymore. I'm just waiting for the old guard to die so science can get back on track :wink:

Jason

dizzle

April 9th 2005, 07:53 AM

wOOt - two YEC's remain :highfive:

...but none of 'em wanna talk about it. :blush:

grmorton chased 'em all into hiding. :fight:

I never talked about it much ever.

kuboes1831

April 9th 2005, 08:16 AM

Maybe they just got tired of the endless abuse and name calling. Its gets old to be berated by people who talk down to you all the time and treat you like a toddler.

Some of my positions have moved a bit.

Although I realised, I don't care that much about the issue anymore. I'm just waiting for the old guard to die so science can get back on track :wink:

Jason

No, the problem is quite simple;

1. YECs dont understand the Bible and twist it

2. They misunderstand science

3. When they do try to present their case, many resort to misquotation and distortion. HMM is full of it and loads of others

4. They dont like being challenge in their false arguments.

As it science is on track (except fro Dawkins and a few athesitic nutters) and so called YEC science is just a load of rubbish, it is as off-tracj as one can get.

Meh_Gerbil

April 9th 2005, 08:27 AM

No, the problem is quite simple;

1. YECs dont understand the Bible and twist it

2. They misunderstand science

3. When they do try to present their case, many resort to misquotation and distortion. HMM is full of it and loads of others

4. They dont like being challenge in their false arguments.

As it science is on track (except fro Dawkins and a few athesitic nutters) and so called YEC science is just a load of rubbish, it is as off-tracj as one can get.

That response to Jason kinda proved his point about the name calling....

jason

April 9th 2005, 08:31 AM

No, the problem is quite simple;

You are aware I am not a YEC.

Jason

Barry Desborough

April 9th 2005, 08:42 AM

I see a lot more YECs in other forums.

What forums? Lemme attem!

Barry

dizzle

April 9th 2005, 08:44 AM

Typical kuboes

grmorton

April 9th 2005, 09:02 AM

wOOt - two YEC's remain :highfive:

...but none of 'em wanna talk about it. :blush:

grmorton chased 'em all into hiding. :fight:

I appreciate all the responses. I guess I am kind of amazed by that last statement. When I beleive something, even when I was a YEC, I fight for it. I argued for YEC even in the oil company I was working for back in the 1970s and it cost me dearly but because I believed at that time I was right, I didn't care. What amazes me is the way most young-earthers' disappear when anyone shows them data they don't like. And then they claim things like 'too busy' or 'its not important' etc. When someone believes something they should fight for it. In spite of the fact that Soc had the personalilty of a wounded, cornered badger, at least he fought for his position.

kuboes1831

April 9th 2005, 09:06 AM

That response to Jason kinda proved his point about the name calling....

OK then try this.

HM Morris Scientific Creationism 1974
p95 The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating events ("exactly" os omitted here)is furnished by fossils.

That little word "exactly" makes all the difference.

p95Vertebrate paleontologists have relied upon "stage of -evolution" as the criteria for determining the chronologic relationship of faunas.

Morris cites this so as to apply through all geological time, whereas Evernden (1964) was dealing with a limited group of mammals in the Tertiary. It is immoral to use an argument for what it was not intended.

p 147 HMM misquotes researchers on Hawaian dates, failing to state that this work was largely tests to see what types of lavas could be used to provide meaning ful dates.

Lots more here and in other books.

Another example is the AIG tract VOICE OF THE VOLCANO

It gives the usual YEC parody of "uniformitarian" geology insisting on slow erosion and deposition, which is false reporting. Then more misrepresentation on fossil forests in Yellowstone. If you read Lyell the alleged father of uniformitariansim you will find that he accepted such "catastrophic " events as occured at Mt St Helens.

Actually to itemise all the misquotation I have found would fill a book or ten. Accurately identifying misquotation and calling others' attention to it is not name calling.

Now Jason will you apologise or do you think it permissible for Chrsitans to break the 9th commandment.

Meh_Gerbil

April 9th 2005, 09:14 AM

I appreciate all the responses. I guess I am kind of amazed by that last statement. When I beleive something, even when I was a YEC, I fight for it. I argued for YEC even in the oil company I was working for back in the 1970s and it cost me dearly but because I believed at that time I was right, I didn't care. What amazes me is the way most young-earthers' disappear when anyone shows them data they don't like. And then they claim things like 'too busy' or 'its not important' etc. When someone believes something they should fight for it. In spite of the fact that Soc had the personalilty of a wounded, cornered badger, at least he fought for his position.

I absolutely adore the YEC/Evolution debate, but there are a couple of problems:

1: I'm kinda burned out on it (spent a couple of years on it).
2: You are a geologist - so I'd use you as a sounding board for ideas and not presume to 'debate' you. (1)
3: I don't consider the issue to be terribly relevant to every day life and I'm more interested in immediate concerns.

The kind of thing that I would find interesting is having you, as a geologist, share those things that you find do speak of a young earth -- if such a thing exists -- even though you believe the earth to be old.

---------------------
NOTES:
1: Plus, all geologists are brainwashed tools of teh deval.

Meh_Gerbil

April 9th 2005, 09:15 AM

What forums? Lemme attem!

Barry

Hahahaha....

*feeds Barry live chickens instead*

foahchon

April 9th 2005, 09:20 AM

Hi,

I don't post much on this forum, but I thought this thread would give me the opportunity to ask a few questions that have been bugging me as of late.

First of all, I agree with what jason said, about the attitude of the people who oppose YEC-ism. I'm not sure whether it's because they're arrogant, or whether they're just annoyed, it could be both. Either way, their attitude is a big turn-off, and they do come across as a bunch of smug so-and-so's. grmorton would be one exception. As for me, I don't take it personally, I'm just more concerned with their arguments, and whether or not their view is objectively true.

Over the past year I've read debates between the two opposing sides, it's clear that the old-earthers have the upper hand, and it has convinced me to switch from young-earther to old-earther, even though I consider the issue of the earth's age to be of lesser importance.

Personally, I do believe Genesis to be an allegory, or at least I think it's pretty clear it's not a literal historical narrative (hope I'm using the right words here, not experienced in discussing this, just reading discussions about it). It's just too "good" not to be an allegory. All the right elements are there. The tempting (fruit), the tempter (serpent), naivety, paradise, and the resulting shame from giving into temptation, therefore rejecting God. It's just too perfect.

The only problem is with the genealogies. When do they stop with supposedly fictional people and start with real, historical people?

I also wanted to direct another question to grmorton: Why do you suppose God created an evolutionary life system? And, why do you suppose the the universe was created about 10 billion years before the earth?

Thanks.

Berean Todd

April 9th 2005, 09:45 AM

Barry Desborough

April 9th 2005, 10:34 AM

Hi,

The only problem is with the genealogies. When do they stop with supposedly fictional people and start with real, historical people?

I also wanted to direct another question to grmorton: Why do you suppose God created an evolutionary life system? And, why do you suppose the the universe was created about 10 billion years before the earth?

Thanks.

For quick responses to your questions, (sorry to butt in gr) -

Genealogies. I would expect you get a shading from mythical people, lengendary people (who may have been real people or composites of people who fulfilled similar roles) and real people. Kings are likely to be real. You may have a sprinkling of fictional people throughout. I don't understand why this is a problem.

An evolutionary life system is highly adaptable. If we had the technology to create something like life, and we wanted to maximise its chances of surviving long term, we'd have to build in the capacity to adapt to changes in the environment. (I'm leaving aside the origins question here.)

The universe. It took a few billion years to fuse hydrogen into heavier elements in the earliest stars. Earth and life could not exist without the heavier elements produced by these first stars. We are stardust. There couldn't have been anyone around to ask your questions before heavier elements were created.

grmorton

April 9th 2005, 01:42 PM

OK then try this.

HM Morris Scientific Creationism 1974
p95 The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating events ("exactly" os omitted here)is furnished by fossils.

That little word "exactly" makes all the difference.

p95Vertebrate paleontologists have relied upon "stage of -evolution" as the criteria for determining the chronologic relationship of faunas.

Morris cites this so as to apply through all geological time, whereas Evernden (1964) was dealing with a limited group of mammals in the Tertiary. It is immoral to use an argument for what it was not intended.

p 147 HMM misquotes researchers on Hawaian dates, failing to state that this work was largely tests to see what types of lavas could be used to provide meaning ful dates.

Lots more here and in other books.

Another example is the AIG tract VOICE OF THE VOLCANO

It gives the usual YEC parody of "uniformitarian" geology insisting on slow erosion and deposition, which is false reporting. Then more misrepresentation on fossil forests in Yellowstone. If you read Lyell the alleged father of uniformitariansim you will find that he accepted such "catastrophic " events as occured at Mt St Helens.

Actually to itemise all the misquotation I have found would fill a book or ten. Accurately identifying misquotation and calling others' attention to it is not name calling.

Now Jason will you apologise or do you think it permissible for Chrsitans to break the 9th commandment.

I would add to Kuboes comments with this example. I won't call it anything but will let the reader decide the ethics of this example.

"Not only do the fossils contained int he sedimentary strata demonstrate the necessity of catastrophic deposition, but the very strata themselves indicate this. As already noted, most of the earth's surface is covered with sediments or sedimentary rocks, originally deposited under moving water. This in itself is prima facie evidence that powerful waters once covered the earth. Furthermore, even under modern conditions most sedimentary deposits are the result of brief, intense periods of flood run-off, rather than slow, uniform silting."

"Laboratory evidence that a typical sedimentary deposit may form quite rapidly is found in the work of Alan Jopling at Harvard, who made a long series of studies on delta-type deposition in a laboratory flume and then applied the results to the analysis of a small delta outwash deposit, supposedly formed about 13,000 years ago. He conclusion was as follows: "It may be concluded therefore that the time required for the deposition of the entire delta deposit amounted to several days....Based on the computed rate of delta advance and the thickness of individual laminae, the average time for the deposition of a lamina must have been several minutes."

"The fact that many sedimentary formations in the stratigraphic column consist of gravel or conglomerate, or even boulders, is further testimony to hydraulic activity of high intensity, as is the frequent occurence of 'cross-bedding' phenomena, indicating rapidly changing current directions."

The elipses are Henry's.

He said the same thing in a practically self-plagiarized passage from a 1970 book:

(5) Phenomena of Stratification. Not only do the fossils contained in the sedimentary strata demonstrate the necessity of catastrophic deposition, but the very strata themselves indicate this. As already noted, most of the earth's surface is covered with sediments or sedimentary rocks, originally deposited under moving water. This in itself is prima facie evidence that powerful waters once covered the earth. Furthermore, as already mentioned, even under modern conditions most sedimentary deposits are the result of brief, intense periods of flood run off, rather than slow uniform silting."

"Laboratory evidence that a typical sedimentary deposit may form quite rapidly is found in the work of Alan Jopling at Harvard, who made a long series of studies on delta type deposition in a laboratory flume and then applied the results to the analysis of a small delta outwash deposit supposedly formed about 13,000 years ago. His conclusion was as follows:

"It may be concluded therefore that the time required for the deposition of the entire delta deposit amounted to several days. . . Based on the computed rate of delta advance and the thickness of the individual laminae, the average time for the deposition of a lamina must have been several minutes."

Now, Henry leaves the impression that deltas, like the Nile, or Mississippi can be deposited in a very short time. But here is what Jopling studied.

"The thickness of the deposit ranges from 12 to 16 inches depending on the irregularities of the basin floor." p. 17

It was 20 feet long p. 17

"Potter and Pettijohn (1962) would probably classify the deposit as
microdelta." p. 17
~ Alan V. Jopling, "Some Principles and their techniques used in Reconstructing the Hydraulic Parameters of a Paleo flow Regime," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology , 36:1, 1966, p. 5-49

Of course, Henry fails to tell his readers the size of the delta. It would be laughable if it this sort of thing didn't happen so often and if this sort of thing were not so influential.

Is this the right thing to do?

grmorton

April 9th 2005, 01:48 PM

I absolutely adore the YEC/Evolution debate, but there are a couple of problems:

1: I'm kinda burned out on it (spent a couple of years on it).
2: You are a geologist - so I'd use you as a sounding board for ideas and not presume to 'debate' you. (1)
3: I don't consider the issue to be terribly relevant to every day life and I'm more interested in immediate concerns.

The kind of thing that I would find interesting is having you, as a geologist, share those things that you find do speak of a young earth -- if such a thing exists -- even though you believe the earth to be old.

---------------------
NOTES:
1: Plus, all geologists are brainwashed tools of teh deval.

A question. Why are you only interested in things I would find evidence of a young-earth? Shouldn't you be interested in both directions? When I was about to leave YEC in the early 90s, I went through every single age of the earth argument looking for one argument which could save my YEC position. I wanted something absolutely firm. What I found was that every single argument was based upon misinformation, misunderstanding, and like my example of Jopling's delta above, totally false. When I could find no argument which would act as a peg point for YEC, I left. Today, I know of no argument which indicates a young earth which I find credible or more importantly, informed.

BtW, I have spent now something like 40 years on YEC and science/bible issues. Everytime I leave it I find myself irresistably drawn back to it again.

kuboes1831

April 9th 2005, 01:53 PM

Is this the right thing to do?

Come on everyone. Is it the right thing to do or not? Is it honest or not?

grmorton

April 9th 2005, 02:04 PM

Either way, their attitude is a big turn-off, and they do come across as a bunch of smug so-and-so's. grmorton would be one exception.

I can assure you that there are some people who would say precisely the opposite about me.

Over the past year I've read debates between the two opposing sides, it's clear that the old-earthers have the upper hand, and it has convinced me to switch from young-earther to old-earther, even though I consider the issue of the earth's age to be of lesser importance.

Was it painful to do that?

I also wanted to direct another question to grmorton: Why do you suppose God created an evolutionary life system? And, why do you suppose the the universe was created about 10 billion years before the earth?

Thanks.

If you look at the equations which govern the universe, they look like a beautiful mathematical crystal. There is symmetry. (you can see this in this post: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=811317&postcount=1 )

Now, my view, and I certainly wouldn't claim my interpretation is inspired as many YECs seem to for their views, is that God has created a huge, self-consistent, logically consistent system in which one part neatly fits into another part in very surprising ways. Because of this, I beleive that design is to be found in a system which evolves us. The fine tuning of the constants of nature is only useful IF you are an evolutionist. The ID folk try to use it but the entire point of the fine tuning is it creates conditions which makes evolution possible. And unlike Gould, who believed that if you played back the tape of nature everything would be different, I believe you would get something quite similar to us with a replay of history. This is the view espoused by Simon Conway Morris, one the the leading experts in the Cambrian explosion.

The sad thing is that Christians are missing the most exquisite evidence of design by being anti-evolution. I would recommend a book called The God Hypothesis. It is a bit philosophical but overall quite good. He, like I, holds to an evolutionary design position.

Thus, after the long ramble, the reason the universe was created 14 billion years ago is so that evolution could occur. To avoid this conclusion, as I point out in the metaphysical casino thread, atheists have to posit unobserved things. We postulate God, they postulate an infinitude of unobserved universes. That doesn't sound to me to be any more scientific than what we do.

I will be offline for most of the next week so don't expect replies from me for a while.

grmorton

April 9th 2005, 02:06 PM

I never really posted here about this topic, but I have on other sites. I don't take up the cause anymore because it's not a salvific issue, and neither side will convince the other. However, if I can win some to Christ, then I can trust that God will lead him/her to the truth. So I'm more bothered over more pertinent apologetic issues myself.

Are you bothered if our apologetical arguments actually drive people away from the faith? As I have noted here recently a YEC asked me to leave Christianity about a week ago on this forum. And I know lots and lots of atheists who used to be YEC. Would that bother you enough to try to fix it?

Amazing Rando

April 9th 2005, 02:11 PM

foahchon

April 9th 2005, 05:37 PM

I can assure you that there are some people who would say precisely the opposite about me.

I don't see why.

Was it painful to do that?

Not really. It was sort of gradual, and I didn't realize I had "converted" until I thought about my position on the issue was.

If you look at the equations which govern the universe, they look like a beautiful mathematical crystal. There is symmetry. (you can see this in this post: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=811317&postcount=1 (showpost.php?p=811317&postcount=1) )

Read that, loved it. You raised a very important point about how atheists are no better off than we are when taking guesses as to the origins of the universe.

Genealogies. I would expect you get a shading from mythical people, lengendary people (who may have been real people or composites of people who fulfilled similar roles) and real people. Kings are likely to be real. You may have a sprinkling of fictional people throughout. I don't understand why this is a problem.

Well, as far as I can see, the purpose of the bloodline is to sort of prove Jesus' lineage, or proof that God kept His promise to Abraham. I wouldn't expect that sort of thing to be tampered with, especially when the Bible goes to great lengths to record the names of these people that we only see once.

The universe. It took a few billion years to fuse hydrogen into heavier elements in the earliest stars. Earth and life could not exist without the heavier elements produced by these first stars. We are stardust. There couldn't have been anyone around to ask your questions before heavier elements were created.

Well, that assumes that God created sort of a machine that would run and fuel itself, like grmorton suggests. I guess I just never thought of it that way.

markporter

April 9th 2005, 06:02 PM

lee_merrill

April 9th 2005, 07:55 PM

Hi everyone,

The sad thing is that Christians are missing the most exquisite evidence of design by being anti-evolution.

Not that I can interact on this level either, but I read of Hugh Ross (though perhaps Mr. Morton doesn't care much for Hugh) saying that the young-earth folks are actually ardent evolutionists! It's rather ironic.

For in order to get to the number of species on earth today, extraordinary rates of evolution are proposed, with, for example, 350,000 species of beetles, 10,000 species of birds, all coming from the pairs in the ark in about 5,000 years. Millions of species, oops, I checked further, billions of species, at a rate that's way outside the edge of the envelope...

Thus they sign up for evolution at a rate even the Darwinists would refuse...

As an interesting side note, I read a young-earth author saying that the oldest trees are all less than 5,000 years old, which confirms the young-earth view. Do all trees die underwater? Don't know. But that's a great idea! That would be a pretty solid lower bound on the age of the earth, to count up the rings on a tree.

If you're interested, Google for "oldest trees"...

Blessings,
Lee

Perry

April 10th 2005, 12:54 AM

bhukkadakota

April 10th 2005, 08:19 AM

rogero

April 10th 2005, 12:29 PM

I'm happy to say that Rogero and GMorton are helping with my education, and stregnthening my position as a YEC (which I, from the relative comfort of the stench within my shroud of ignorance didn't even know was a term). I love the accusations from Glenn about how I'm hurting the faith by my position. In fact it's quite the opposite for me, raised a Christian but rejecting my faith as a youngster when I realized the Bible was mostly fairy tales BECAUSE science had pretty much disproven anything you really want to take literally (it is at this point where Glenn slams his keyboard and claims to be quite A literalist who's changed opinions due to factual data.....TRANSLATION: New life developement:Must negate God's judgement in my decveptive mind or repent. I'll go with the former and start by disproving evidence of prior judgemnenet iethe flood). When I came back around "full circle", I was really amazed and somewhat freaked out and humbled, and am glad I've been led to the sacred abuse altar of TWEB where I can be freely ridiculed anytime I want to for embracing the common sense I was graciously given (though somewhat sheilded by my stinky shroud of ignorance).

I still haven't abandoned my idea that Glenn is really still YEC and his mission is to do exacly what he's doing to my YEC position.

What's so scary about you, Perry, is that there are most likely many many Christians (possibly the majority) that are operating on the same level of knowledge and reason as you do. It's very clear that either you have no idea or don't understand what any of the scientifc arguments are for old Earth and evolution.

Perry, ignorance does stink figuratively (and eventually literally as the modern health and sanitary conveniences depend ultimately on knowledge of nature) -- but this is not unique to you. The problem is that folks equally as ignorant as you vote and raise children. If you are any example of a typical Fundamentalist Christian, the future is certainly bleak. Of course, there is the hope of an imminent Rapture -- that's probably your eschatological stance aided and abetted by the judgmental aspect of the Flood and the hope that all but True Christians like you will roast in the Lake o' Fah?

I'm glad I've had the opportunity to make your acquaintance, if only to see the sad state of Fundamentalism and to thank the good Lord that I'm not in that brain-washed mind control cult any longer.

Your bolded sentence needs some explanation. You were freaked out and humbled by what exactly? Did you see some data that supported a global Deluge over and above the overwhelming load of physical evidence that contradicts it? Or are you just blowing some hot air again?

Berean Todd

April 10th 2005, 02:20 PM

Are you bothered if our apologetical arguments actually drive people away from the faith? As I have noted here recently a YEC asked me to leave Christianity about a week ago on this forum. And I know lots and lots of atheists who used to be YEC. Would that bother you enough to try to fix it?

If people are being abrasive and pushing people away from the faith, then their methods are wrong, and they are sinning in what they are doing. The Bible says that we should always be ready with a defense/reason (literally apologetic) to anyone who asks the reason for the hope we have, but we are told to do so in gentleness and respect.

I spent 20 years of my life as an agnostic/atheist (I flitted from camp to camp at times), so I know what it is to be pushed away from the faith by abrassive idiots, I was myself for yeras. It saddens me that there are unwise Christians doing so.

If you want my opinion on the YEC question, I would say this. I do believe that the preponderance of the evidence points to YEC to me, but I do not stand on that, and I do not argue/debate from that point of view, nor in my witnessing/apologetics. The Bible record is perfectly open to interpretation from an Old Earth point of view. It's simply not a salvific issue.

That said, on the flip side I will stand against evolution which I feel is a giant crock, which even many secular scientists admit to have huge problems. Will I push someone away over it? No, for if I can lead them to Christ, then I trust God to lead them into all truth, but I will give a defense/argument against evolution.

rogero

April 10th 2005, 03:52 PM

If people are being abrasive and pushing people away from the faith, then their methods are wrong, and they are sinning in what they are doing. The Bible says that we should always be ready with a defense/reason (literally apologetic) to anyone who asks the reason for the hope we have, but we are told to do so in gentleness and respect.

This is a really sticky issue with me. It's been my experience here on TWeb and in my classroom and in conversations with people in the church, that the YEC/OEC/anti-evolutionary POV is held due to ignorance and fear. Very few people I've spoken with have the foggiest idea what the evidence is for the scientific consensus on age of Earth and Cosmos nor about the unity and diversity of life and common ancestry (biological "evolution").

In view of this fear and ignorance, what is the proper tack in arguing against that view? In particular, how is one not to be abrasive and offend, if in fact these facts are held to be foundational by these honest Christian brothers and sisters? How are we evolutionary creationists supposed to argue for scientific (and scriptural!) integrity when the (mostly) scientifically-limited laymen think we're apostate -- i.e., they've already made up their minds and we are wrong and dangerous to the kingdom.

I spent 20 years of my life as an agnostic/atheist (I flitted from camp to camp at times), so I know what it is to be pushed away from the faith by abrassive idiots, I was myself for yeras. It saddens me that there are unwise Christians doing so.

I certainly hope and pray you do not hold to the incorrect idea that evolutionary theory is equivalent to atheism? I'm curious as to what kind of "abrassive idiots" pushed you away from the faith? I hope these were not Christians who felt strongly about the need to reconcile faith and reason? FYI, the kind of Christians who tend to push me away from the faith are the fideistic Fundamentalist variety who reject out-of-hand the overwhelming evidence of old Earth and Cosmos and the commonality of the history of the biosphere in deference to a particular interpretation of Scripture. I will not accept an interpretation that makes God a liar.

If you want my opinion on the YEC question, I would say this. I do believe that the preponderance of the evidence points to YEC to me, but I do not stand on that, and I do not argue/debate from that point of view, nor in my witnessing/apologetics. The Bible record is perfectly open to interpretation from an Old Earth point of view. It's simply not a salvific issue.

I'm very curious to see what you mean by the "preponderance of evidence points to YEC"? What kind of evidence? Presumably, a textual hermeneutic, since I see no evidence at all from nature that supports YEC.

I agree it's not a "salvific" issue, at least not a priori so, but by pushing the scientifically untenable YEC view (especially as proported by the professional "ministries") you are closing the door of Heaven in the faces of people who have scientific training and understand the evidence for the history of Earth and Cosmos. You are forcing such a person into a fideistc position -- ignore the evidence in Creation in view of a particular (and by no means universal) interpretation of Scripture. I would adjure you to very careful in this approach, as you certainly will run across a scientifically literate seeking non-believer in your ministry -- and they deserve the saving grace of Christ as well.

That said, on the flip side I will stand against evolution which I feel is a giant crock, which even many secular scientists admit to have huge problems. Will I push someone away over it? No, for if I can lead them to Christ, then I trust God to lead them into all truth, but I will give a defense/argument against evolution.

I'm glad you said "feel". Secular scientists do not admit "huge" problems. There are many unanswered questions, which is true of any scientific pursuit. I really coution you against making a defense/argument against evolution in your attempt to lead one to Christ. I believe you are making a huge mistake here and that you contradict what you said about the origins debate not being a salvific issue. You will do much more harm than good with this tack. "It's hard to kick against the pricks."

brett

April 10th 2005, 05:07 PM

rogero

April 10th 2005, 06:02 PM

Hi Perry, I get this a lot too. This seems to be the TE mantra. Belief in a literal last Adam is very important, but believe in the first Adam and you're somehow hurting christians. Makes me wonder about the skeptics out there being asked to believe in the second Adam only, while the preacher himself believes the first Adam is a myth.

Interesting. I didn't get saved until I was an adult, but I remember reading Genesis as a child and it contradicting was the scientists were saying about dinosaurs. It wasn't until I was a young adult until I starting looking at the Bible as a reliable source of truth.

Yes, Brett -- you and Perry have a lot in common, that's frightening --- and a shame.

grmorton

April 10th 2005, 06:11 PM

I guess partly Glenn it's because you're something of an expert and us non-experts really can't begin to talk to you on the level of a lot of your posts (I'm a TE too before you start getting any ideas :tongue:). With Socrates the debate was quite easy because it was at a very popular level.

One must remember, that there was a time when I was not knowledgeable in these fields. It was partly why I became YEC. I will explain anything to anybody if they really want to understand the issue. So I would prefer people not be shy about asking. Unfortunately, too many of the posters, too often, say to the effect, "I have not studied the issue but I know you are wrong". There isn't much one can do to help that kind of approach.

I dunno, maybe that's part of the reason anyway, in any case it's still good to have you here and read some of your posts even if I don't always understand everything that you're saying or feel competent to interact with it.

Ask me on anything you don't understand. It is important to me that readers understand as much as I can get across. And anything which makes my writing better is good for me.

markporter

April 10th 2005, 06:27 PM

Unfortunately, too many of the posters, too often, say to the effect, "I have not studied the issue but I know you are wrong". There isn't much one can do to help that kind of approach.
mm, ok.

Thanks for the rest of the post, it's cool :smile: It's been good reading your views since you've been here (and in fact before), I don't entirely agree with them, but I have a huge respect for what you write,

grmorton

April 10th 2005, 06:51 PM

Hi everyone,

Not that I can interact on this level either, but I read of Hugh Ross (though perhaps Mr. Morton doesn't care much for Hugh) saying that the young-earth folks are actually ardent evolutionists! It's rather ironic.

Let me clarify my position on Hugh. His astronomy is excellent. I agree with what he says in that field. That is an area he is expert in. What I disagree with is 1. his tendency to quote papers referencing certain facts which are not to be found in the papers referenced. 2. his abysmally bad anthropological views, in which he writes utter nonsense. 3. His abysmal view of biology in which he has God creating absolutely every single variety of life on earth (not necessarily related to speciation), and 4. his denial that speciation actually occurs today.

One should always applaud truth and fight untruth, no matter who the author is or how widely read he is.

For in order to get to the number of species on earth today, extraordinary rates of evolution are proposed, with, for example, 350,000 species of beetles, 10,000 species of birds, all coming from the pairs in the ark in about 5,000 years. Millions of species, oops, I checked further, billions of species, at a rate that's way outside the edge of the envelope...

Thus they sign up for evolution at a rate even the Darwinists would refuse...

In this both you and Hugh are correct, although this is not an argument which originated with Hugh.

As an interesting side note, I read a young-earth author saying that the oldest trees are all less than 5,000 years old, which confirms the young-earth view. Do all trees die underwater? Don't know. But that's a great idea! That would be a pretty solid lower bound on the age of the earth, to count up the rings on a tree.

If you're interested, Google for "oldest trees"...

Blessings,
Lee

Gerald Aardsma counted the tree rings. He worked for Institute of Creation Research. He came to the conclusion that the earth was at least 12,000 years old. Henry had to send out a letter telling everyone that ICR had not started questioning the age of the earth. Shortly after that Aardsma left ICR.

But there are plants older than the oldest trees.

There is the King Clone Creosote plant from Victorville California which is 11,000 years old:
http://www.uark.edu/misc/ents/species/sp_threads/creosote.htm

There is Lomatia tasmanica

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/veg/lomatia/lomatia.html which is 43,000 years old.

grmorton

April 10th 2005, 06:55 PM

The Bible says that we should always be ready with a defense/reason (literally apologetic) to anyone who asks the reason for the hope we have, but we are told to do so in gentleness and respect.

So why do yecs always respond with silence to the geologic data I present. Or that the atheists present. It seems that the YEC apologetic is no good at actually giving people reasons with which to respond!

That said, on the flip side I will stand against evolution which I feel is a giant crock, which even many secular scientists admit to have huge problems. Will I push someone away over it? No, for if I can lead them to Christ, then I trust God to lead them into all truth, but I will give a defense/argument against evolution.

I don't think there is that large a group of secular scientists who hold that there are problems of such a degree that one would reject the theory. Remember, problems are relative in all of lifes affairs. One doesn't reject a wife for her having minor problems, nor a husband similarly. Often the YECs take minor problems and try to blow them up.

grmorton

April 10th 2005, 06:59 PM

Hi Perry, I get this a lot too. This seems to be the TE mantra. Belief in a literal last Adam is very important, but believe in the first Adam and you're somehow hurting christians.

Brett, I believe in the first Adam. He was real, he was created by God. And I know that evolution happened as well. It isn't belief in the first Adam that is the problem. It is denying what one can actually see. It would be like denying that a cat is 1.5 feet in front of me sitting on my printer. That is the problem and you need to understand that before you make others think that YEC is tied totally to Christianity.

Makes me wonder about the skeptics out there being asked to believe in the second Adam only, while the preacher himself believes the first Adam is a myth.

Please cease that approach. Lots of TEs beleive in the first Adam. But, like my cat, you refuse to see that she is there.

grmorton

April 10th 2005, 07:12 PM

mm, ok.

Thanks for the rest of the post, it's cool :smile: It's been good reading your views since you've been here (and in fact before), I don't entirely agree with them, but I have a huge respect for what you write,

I don't always entirely agree with myself, but thank you for the kind words.

grmorton

April 10th 2005, 07:15 PM

Constantine

April 11th 2005, 12:14 AM

In view of this fear and ignorance, what is the proper tack in arguing against that view? In particular, how is one not to be abrasive and offend, if in fact these facts are held to be foundational by these honest Christian brothers and sisters? How are we evolutionary creationists supposed to argue for scientific (and scriptural!) integrity when the (mostly) scientifically-limited laymen think we're apostate -- i.e., they've already made up their minds and we are wrong and dangerous to the kingdom.

Rogero:

I was once on the YEC side, and it was the humility and patience I found on the TE side that got me thinking about who was more likely to be standing with Christ. I agree that YEC's can try my tolerance for being nice, but I think we should try to anyway.

It is one thing to have an opinion that is offensive or abrasive to another persons opinion. It is an entirely different thing to present that opinion offensively or abrasively.

Changing world views is a painful process. Finding out the truth, that what you believe about ALL OF HISTORY prior to about 2,000 years ago is wrong is not easy. But when debating YEC's we should try to be a consoling friend telling another friend that something terrible has happened. Yes they won't like it and they might get offended and defensive and all that, but if we approach them with love and kindess as best as we can it will be that much less painful a journey.

YEC's and fundie's are people to be pitied, not looked down upon.

brett

April 11th 2005, 02:23 AM

Brett, I believe in the first Adam. He was real, he was created by God. And I know that evolution happened as well. It isn't belief in the first Adam that is the problem. It is denying what one can actually see. It would be like denying that a cat is 1.5 feet in front of me sitting on my printer. That is the problem and you need to understand that before you make others think that YEC is tied totally to Christianity.

Please cease that approach. Lots of TEs beleive in the first Adam. But, like my cat, you refuse to see that she is there.

Yes I know. I was not speaking of you in particular (had rogero in mind actually). While many TEs do believe in a literal Adam, most don't as I'm sure you know just from this forum alone. I have other disagreements with you and other OECs, but that's not one of them.

kuboes1831

April 11th 2005, 03:04 AM

To All, I only have a few hours before I will disappear to Beijing. I did want to say that I am a bit disappointed that no one seemed to answer my question about Henry's citation of Alan Jopling and the 20 inch delta. Was it wrong to do that? Ethical questions should be easy to answer, at least occasionally.

see msg 22 in this thread.

Now Glenn can you name for me which YEC reckoned it was ok to lie for the kingdom?

shunyadragon

April 11th 2005, 10:46 AM

That said, on the flip side I will stand against evolution which I feel is a giant crock, which even many secular scientists admit to have huge problems. Will I push someone away over it? No, for if I can lead them to Christ, then I trust God to lead them into all truth, but I will give a defense/argument against evolution.

As a scientist it is difficult to debate a person on the point of view of I believe, but I thought it is worth correcting you on one very serious misunderstanding that many Christians particularly apologetic fundamentalists have about scientists.

The reality is 'many' secular scientists DO NOT have serious problems with evolution. Even scientists from strong religious backgrouds overwhelmingly support evolution, but take a TE or possible ID theological belief in the cause. My belief is TE, and find no problem as scientist.

Recent polls have shown that more than 95% of ALL scientists support evolution, and more than 99% of scientists in related fields support evolution. The serious questions scientist have are concerning the details of how evolution takes place and not the concept of evolution as the history of life on earth.

It is interesting to note that such a united worldview of the authorities towards evolution, exists in very few other disciplines and religion concerning other issues or theological issues. The same polls indicated that the less educated people are the more likely they will reject evolution.

Solly

April 11th 2005, 11:06 AM

It ceased to be entertaining with the departure of Socrates. No more slanderous accusations of "Compromising Churchian (:flaming:)!"

Now the debates are all serious. A total bummer to read. Oh for the days of the compromising churchians! :bawl:

I know AR is being funny - you are being funny, right? - but I don't get involved for the opposite reason.

I got dragged into the argument - and it was an argument in the end - for other reasons that the debate itself. i was, and am, YEC by default, but probably a lot less YEC than I was then; I don't hold to the view that one must be YEC to be a Christian, and I tend to the view that Genesis probably doesn't address origins in that way, which means my YEC will eventually fall by the wayside. But since a lot of it seems to involve learning scientific stuff, and I am a preacher first, I passed on getting into all that stuff.
For me, the attitude of some wrecked my interest in the subject. The attitude of others helped me to at least learn something. I still read the threads from time to time.
I also know some might be disappointed in the position I take.

A Beautiful Truth

April 11th 2005, 05:09 PM

I also know some might be disappointed in the position I take.

Only because you could offer much to the discussion. It takes more than science to figure this stuff out. So you may not be strong in the science, but you are strong in theology. We need both in order to get a proper understanding.

But to each his own.

~Charleen

Meh_Gerbil

April 11th 2005, 05:18 PM

To All, I only have a few hours before I will disappear to Beijing. I did want to say that I am a bit disappointed that no one seemed to answer my question about Henry's citation of Alan Jopling and the 20 inch delta. Was it wrong to do that? Ethical questions should be easy to answer, at least occasionally.

see msg 22 in this thread.

I doubt Morris intentionally misused the citation; however, as an 'evangelist' interesting in selling an idea he likely allowed himself to read into the quote something that wasn't there.

This is pretty common with the YEC crowd, unfortunately.

kuboes1831

April 11th 2005, 05:56 PM

I doubt Morris intentionally misused the citation; however, as an 'evangelist' interesting in selling an idea he likely allowed himself to read into the quote something that wasn't there.

This is pretty common with the YEC crowd, unfortunately.

What I have difficulty with Morris is the sheer number of times he has misused citations and continues to do so when others correct him?

At what point do you say it is deliberate miscitation?

bpayne

July 7th 2005, 11:51 PM

I am curious at how little the young-earthers post here any more. I am wondering why. Have people left the young-earth position? Have they gone elsewhere in order to avoid any data contrary to their position. Any ideas?

Has anyone changed their position by reading the posts here over the past 2 years?

As a graduate geologist I'm well familiar with the types of arguments you post, Glenn, and I certainly enjoy reading your stuff and studying the photos you provide. You argue your case very well.

I have noticed a shift in my thinking recently, basically as a result of two things - neither of which relate to OEC arguments. First, I read two books which have had an effect on me:

Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, and
Can a Smart Person Believe in God? by Michael Guillen
Pearcey basically says that Truth is a total package, that we shouldn't have our religion in one box and our science or worldview in another.

Guillen says we have two eyes so we can perceive depth. By analogy, we have spiritual "eyes" and scientific "eyes" so we can better perceive truth. We should keep both eyes open and not favor one over the other.

The second thing came as a bit of a surprise to me. On another list I had asked Glenn, who had responded to someone else that the Bibical geneologies were incomplete, if Enoch was the seventh from Adam as Jude 14 says ("It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied...."). I don't think Glenn ever replied to my question, but I also asked my YEC PCA pastor. He pointed out that the Hebrew words for father and grandfather are identical, and by comparing geneologies in the Bible we can see that the writers left out some generations to make their numbers come out right. I asked him how many years he thought there were between Adam and Noah. He said he leaned toward 25 to 30 thousand years, or about 3 times what I had expected him to say. After picking my jaw up off the floor I asked him what he thought was the maximum time there could be between Adam and Noah. He grimaced/grinned, shook his head and said he didn't know. He also said he didn't see the need for long ages. I thought - yeah, but you're not a geologist.

The net result of the two books and the conversation with my pastor is that I feel more relaxed in dealing with the data, knowing I don't have to prove one view or the other, and knowing that God has it all figured out. In view of I Corinthians 1:20, I can't help thinking we may all be a bit surprised when we no longer "see through a glass darkly".

Bill

rogero

July 8th 2005, 12:16 AM

...

The net result of the two books and the conversation with my pastor is that I feel more relaxed in dealing with the data, knowing I don't have to prove one view or the other, and knowing that God has it all figured out. In view of I Corinthians 1:20, I can't help thinking we may all be a bit surprised when we no longer "see through a glass darkly".

Bill

Bill, I'm glad that you admit the possibility that you could surprised as well. Perhaps you wouldn't be surprised if you opened your mind and looked at the historical geological data carefully. I'm clueless as to how you could come to the conclusions you do based on the available evidence. Perhaps you'd like to hash out the same with "real" geologists?

BTW, Bill -- you're a good and honest man. I concur with Glennn's earlier statement attesting to your character.

Roger

grmorton

July 10th 2005, 05:59 AM

As a graduate geologist I'm well familiar with the types of arguments you post, Glenn, and I certainly enjoy reading your stuff and studying the photos you provide. You argue your case very well.

THank you.

On another list I had asked Glenn, who had responded to someone else that the Bibical geneologies were incomplete, if Enoch was the seventh from Adam as Jude 14 says ("It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied...."). I don't think Glenn ever replied to my question,

My apologies if I failed to answer an important question for you. I get so busy sometimes that i can't get to everything. If anyone feels I didn't answer something important, please ask again.

but I also asked my YEC PCA pastor. He pointed out that the Hebrew words for father and grandfather are identical, and by comparing geneologies in the Bible we can see that the writers left out some generations to make their numbers come out right. I asked him how many years he thought there were between Adam and Noah. He said he leaned toward 25 to 30 thousand years, or about 3 times what I had expected him to say. After picking my jaw up off the floor I asked him what he thought was the maximum time there could be between Adam and Noah. He grimaced/grinned, shook his head and said he didn't know. He also said he didn't see the need for long ages. I thought - yeah, but you're not a geologist.

The net result of the two books and the conversation with my pastor is that I feel more relaxed in dealing with the data, knowing I don't have to prove one view or the other, and knowing that God has it all figured out. In view of I Corinthians 1:20, I can't help thinking we may all be a bit surprised when we no longer "see through a glass darkly".

Bill

Bill, it was largely this revelation, from the scripture that the word 'ben' not only is used of father and grandfather, but also many other and more distant paternal relationships, that I finally, like you, realized that the Bible simple doesn't teach that the earth is a particular age. Once I knew that, I also knew in my heart that my days as a YEC were numbered. How could I argue strongly for YEC when I knew that the Bible itself didn't argue for it? And I further knew that the belief in the global flood would go away also. Why? Because the only reason to stand and fight for a global flood was if one didn't have much time to explain the geology. You, like I, know the geological problems that face the YEC. I could no longer be a double-minded man, believing in a young-earth/global flood on the weekends and realizing how little it explained during my working hours and acting like it there was no global flood. I was forced to unify my belief systems. I did it in the best way I could.

Higon

July 11th 2005, 08:52 AM

No, the problem is quite simple;

1. YECs dont understand the Bible and twist it

2. They misunderstand science

3. When they do try to present their case, many resort to misquotation and distortion. HMM is full of it and loads of others

4. They dont like being challenge in their false arguments.

As it science is on track (except fro Dawkins and a few athesitic nutters) and so called YEC science is just a load of rubbish, it is as off-tracj as one can get.

There you have it. You can get the picture why we don´t lose our time here anymore... (not that I ever did with such dilligence)

Instead of posting, I just read the information and research the opposite position in the subject, thus, avoiding unwarranted flame wars.

grmorton

July 11th 2005, 10:08 AM

There you have it. You can get the picture why we don´t lose our time here anymore... (not that I ever did with such dilligence)

Instead of posting, I just read the information and research the opposite position in the subject, thus, avoiding unwarranted flame wars.

I didn't see him flame you. What I see is you avoiding those with whom you disagree. Are you that insecure?

Higon

July 11th 2005, 01:34 PM

I didn't see him flame you.

C´mon Morton... :ahem: My position was stated so clearly that even a Christ Myther could get it.

What I see is you avoiding those with whom you disagree.

I believe you know far more about my life than myself I guess. So you assume I´m avoiding those with whom I disagree? Ok... Let´s see: Do you have a hotlink to God so you can ask Him what I´m doing? Or are you stalking me? Do you know all the boards I post into, the persons I talk to and their positions in this subject? Do you know what I read, wich websites or books I´m at right now?

Let´s assume that none of the above is true (at least I hope so). You have no information whatsoever to what issues I avoid or not (or if I do, why) except the posts I make here at Tweb. So, let´s narrow it down: Let´s assume that I´m "avoiding those with whom I disagree" only here at Tweb.

The only form to validate your claim is to assume that I don´t read any of the posts from the YEC-bashers here. It´s quite a hard task ´cause I visit this board both from home and work, some times without logging in and have a dinamic IP, thus, you can´t "track my steps" so to speak to see wich posts i read or not. (The simple fact that I´ve posted a followup In this topic proves your assertive wrong anyway). Even if you track my steps, I can visit a topic without reading it, or reading selectively. Can you prove it then? I don´t think so.

You can also assume that If I read a post, I must post something. If I don´t post, it means that I´ve avoided the issue. It´s a probability, but not a certainty. There´s also a high probability that the post in question is such a nonsense that´s not worth my time or effort; or that my position was covered by someone else (or a "been there, done that" case), therefore there´s no need to reinvent the wheel, or that I simply don´t fell like posting. So, can you prove wich one is the case? Absolutelly not.

It´s clear you have no clue what you are talking about here. But hey, thanks for the cheap psychological evaluation, Mr. Freud.

Are you that insecure?

I fell secure enough in my position that I don´t need to open post after post bragging how much reasonable my position is and how stupid, coward or insecure are those who oppose my position. I find It far more interesting (and productive) to analise different positions by myself reading both sides without resorting to open debates. I used to lose my time in other boards debating, and then I noticed that it was a waste of time - time that I could spend learning instead of trading insults (it´s interesting how usually it ended with someone cursing God and calling me a stupid catholic, although I do not follow the catholic tradition). I have no need to "show off".

That´s why I´m at Tweb right now, we have all kinds of different worldviews being presented freely. I have both sides in a whole range of topics being presented the best way they can - it makes things easy to research. It´s also interesting ´cause I´m not obsessed about OEC/Evolution x YEC debate after all, as it´s not crucial to salvation anyway, so I can choose different topics and enjoy the reading.

So, it seems like we have different ways to approuch the forum issue, isn´t it? You don´t like it? You think I should spend my time arguing and exchanging insults at Cosmogony instead of reading/learning? I couldn´t care less. Too bad I´m not here to give you the attention you so desesperatelly seek. :wink: But hey, If it´s gonna make you fell better, I can post a "Hey Grmorton, I´ve read your post!" every time you post something new. But even then you can´t assume I´ve read your post anyway... :tongue:

rogero

July 11th 2005, 02:12 PM

C´mon Morton... :ahem: My position was stated so clearly that even a Christ Myther could get it.

Your position on what? On origins?

...

I believe you know far more about my life than myself I guess. So you assume I´m avoiding those with whom I disagree? Ok... Let´s see: Do you have a hotlink to God so you can ask Him what I´m doing? Or are you stalking me? Do you know all the boards I post into, the persons I talk to and their positions in this subject? Do you know what I read, wich websites or books I´m at right now?

Do any of these books or websites contain information that answers Glenn's geological questions? If so, perhaps you could present that information to counter Glenn's and get a good conversation going for once. That's a good way to learn.

Let´s assume that none of the above is true (at least I hope so). You have no information whatsoever to what issues I avoid or not (or if I do, why) except the posts I make here at Tweb. So, let´s narrow it down: Let´s assume that I´m "avoiding those with whom I disagree" only here at Tweb.

The only form to validate your claim is to assume that I don´t read any of the posts from the YEC-bashers here. It´s quite a hard task ´cause I visit this board both from home and work, some times without logging in and have a dinamic IP, thus, you can´t "track my steps" so to speak to see wich posts i read or not. (The simple fact that I´ve posted a followup In this topic proves your assertive wrong anyway). Even if you track my steps, I can visit a topic without reading it, or reading selectively. Can you prove it then? I don´t think so.

Did it ever occur to you that "YEC-bashers" may be bashing for good reason?

You can also assume that If I read a post, I must post something. If I don´t post, it means that I´ve avoided the issue. It´s a probability, but not a certainty. There´s also a high probability that the post in question is such a nonsense that´s not worth my time or effort; or that my position was covered by someone else (or a "been there, done that" case), therefore there´s no need to reinvent the wheel, or that I simply don´t fell like posting. So, can you prove wich one is the case? Absolutelly not.

I've seen very few if any YEC answers to Glenn's questions, so it's not a "been there, done that" case -- that's one of Jorge's favorite tricks. If there is no YEC answer to a particular question, then perhaps you and others will start to realize that the YEC position is weak scientifically.

...

I fell secure enough in my position that I don´t need to open post after post bragging how much reasonable my position is and how stupid, coward or insecure are those who oppose my position.

Again -- what position is that? YEC? You really think YEC is reasonable scientifically? If so, then why can't you find information in the YEC literature to counter Glenn's geological concerns.

I find It far more interesting (and productive) to analise different positions by myself reading both sides without resorting to open debates. I used to lose my time in other boards debating, and then I noticed that it was a waste of time - time that I could spend learning instead of trading insults (it´s interesting how usually it ended with someone cursing God and calling me a stupid catholic, although I do not follow the catholic tradition). I have no need to "show off".

What does it mean to be a Catholic (RC?) and not follow the Catholic tradition? I thought Church tradition is an essential tenet of Roman Catholicism.

That´s why I´m at Tweb right now, we have all kinds of different worldviews being presented freely. I have both sides in a whole range of topics being presented the best way they can - it makes things easy to research. It´s also interesting ´cause I´m not obsessed about OEC/Evolution x YEC debate after all, as it´s not crucial to salvation anyway, so I can choose different topics and enjoy the reading.

So, you are YEC then? The origins issue is certainly not "salvational" in the usual sense, but it certainly can affect a person's view of Christianity, from the inside or outside. There is a pastor posting here recently who mentioned the YEC ministries' message bringing people to Christ. What if that convert later realizes how scientifically untenable YEC is? What effect will scientifically risible YEC arguments have on non-Christian seekers of truth? I can't believe it can do other than turn these people away. Also, some YEC ministries themselves assert that any other position is comprimising and inerrant Bible and just about come right out and say that YEC is a "salvational" issue -- basically rejecting YEC is a "slippery slope" style position.

So, it seems like we have different ways to approuch the forum issue, isn´t it? You don´t like it? You think I should spend my time arguing and exchanging insults at Cosmogony instead of reading/learning? I couldn´t care less. Too bad I´m not here to give you the attention you so desesperatelly seek. :wink: But hey, If it´s gonna make you fell better, I can post a "Hey Grmorton, I´ve read your post!" every time you post something new. But even then you can´t assume I´ve read your post anyway... :tongue:

Nobody's forcing you to do anything. But, I would like to see YECs come and try to answer Glenn's questions, which certainly look like lead-pipe-to-the-noggin arguments against YEC.

Higon

July 11th 2005, 04:28 PM

Your position on what? On origins?

No good friend. Read the topic again here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1108259&postcount=56

It´s my ilustrated position on why I don´t post on Cosmogony or Natural Sciences.

Do any of these books or websites contain information that answers Glenn's geological questions? If so, perhaps you could present that information to counter Glenn's and get a good conversation going for once. That's a good way to learn.

Some do, some don´t. I could present, I couldn´t. What if I do? What if I don´t? I don´t need to debate in order to learn, I can acquire information without arguing, just putting author against author - actually, as I pointed out, in my case it works better this way. I see no need to get a conversation going - specially in cosmogony or natural sciences for causes mentioned above, and I´m sure I´m not the only one. I hope you can respect and live with it.

Did it ever occur to you that "YEC-bashers" may be bashing for good reason?

Indeed, nobody is perfect. You get stupid arguments from both sides. Sometimes I agree with the OEC/Evolution position, what doesn´t means that I´ll post just to say "Hey! Super! I agree with you, let´s all celebrate!".

I've seen very few if any YEC answers to Glenn's questions, so it's not a "been there, done that" case -- that's one of Jorge's favorite tricks. If there is no YEC answer to a particular question, then perhaps you and others will start to realize that the YEC position is weak scientifically.

Does it means that if there´s no OEC/Evolution answer to a particular question, or better yet, if it wasn´t presented here at Tweb where you can find it, then perhaps you and others will start to realize that the OEC/Evolution position is weak scientifically? I certainly don´t think so.

Again -- what position is that? YEC? You really think YEC is reasonable scientifically? If so, then why can't you find information in the YEC literature to counter Glenn's geological concerns.

That´s not the same position I stated up there, hope you have noticed. And sorry If I haven´t seen the 11th commandment: "Thou shall find information to counter Glenn's geological concerns". I´ve failed as a Christian, Father forgive me! Just as a side note: I can´t find? What if I find and don´t post? Does it means I haven´t found it or that I haven´t posted? It´s still a free board, and I own you nothing, much less information.

What does it mean to be a Catholic (RC?) and not follow the Catholic tradition? I thought Church tradition is an essential tenet of Roman Catholicism.

Don´t know. Is it some kind of enigma? Who said that?

What if that convert later realizes how scientifically untenable YEC is?

If he leave christianity due to it, then he had built his foundation in the wrong place to begin with. Jesus died and ressurected whether the YEC position is right or not. RUN TO THE CROSS FORREST!

What effect will scientifically risible YEC arguments have on non-Christian seekers of truth? I can't believe it can do other than turn these people away.

I was a non-christian seeker of truth and were convinced by the "scientifically risible" YEC argument. Actually, it was what started the ball rolling to me - what gave me interest to study the Bible and then accept Jesus.

Also, some YEC ministries themselves assert that any other position is comprimising and inerrant Bible and just about come right out and say that YEC is a "salvational" issue -- basically rejecting YEC is a "slippery slope" style position.

And I disagree with them. So do you I suppose. We should tap each other´s back now?

Nobody's forcing you to do anything. But, I would like to see YECs come and try to answer Glenn's questions, which certainly look like lead-pipe-to-the-noggin arguments against YEC.

I´d like a new bass - a fretless one, but hey, none of us gonna have what they want. Perhaps if you ask a YEC geologist you can have some answers - I´m not sure if any of the 5 posts here, (ha! see?? An OEC joke!) or if any of them have Morton´s arguments in such a high praise that it demand refuting asap. You can of course interpret it that they are insecure cowards and that they have no answers at all - they say it´s a battle of axioms, isn´t it?

Nobody's forcing you to do anything, but if you are really looking for answers, use "teh internets", google around, perhaps you can find what you are looking for outside Tweb.

rogero

July 11th 2005, 05:05 PM

No good friend. Read the topic again here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1108259&postcount=56

It´s my ilustrated position on why I don´t post on Cosmogony or Natural Sciences.

So, you don't post because the OECs are just too rude? As a lifelong Christian and a former YEC with degrees in science and maths, I can understand the frustration that leads to rudeness. In fact, as you've probably kened from my 1600 or posts so far, I can be quite rude at times as well. It's a truly special person who can see truth being trampled so egregiously and doesn't respond with acridity.

I am glad you find me a good friend -- really. :wink:

Some do, some don´t. I could present, I couldn´t. What if I do? What if I don´t?

To help out seekers like moi. If you have counter-data or alternative explanations for Glenn's data, then it behooves you and everyone else here to present such.

I don´t need to debate in order to learn, I can acquire information without arguing, just putting author against author - actually, as I pointed out, in my case it works better this way. I see no need to get a conversation going - specially in cosmogony or natural sciences for causes mentioned above, and I´m sure I´m not the only one. I hope you can respect and live with it.

That's fine, Bro. You want to learn from the debate/interaction on TWeb on the origins issue but not contribute to it (modulo the occasional snipe). I respect that. But, why do you attack Glenn so harshly here? He wasn't speaking to you in particular, but all YECs in general -- including those who supposedly have a modicum of science background and who might be able to address his questions?

Indeed, nobody is perfect. You get stupid arguments from both sides. Sometimes I agree with the OEC/Evolution position, what doesn´t means that I´ll post just to say "Hey! Super! I agree with you, let´s all celebrate!".

I'd be curious to see what you deem to be a stupid argument from the OEC/TE side? You appear to be advocating a principle of equivalence, like both sides of this debate have equally viable arguments simply because they present them.

Does it means that if there´s no OEC/Evolution answer to a particular question, or better yet, if it wasn´t presented here at Tweb where you can find it, then perhaps you and others will start to realize that the OEC/Evolution position is weak scientifically? I certainly don´t think so.

Not sure what you mean. Do have an example of such a question?

That´s not the same position I stated up there, hope you have noticed. And sorry If I haven´t seen the 11th commandment: "Thou shall find information to counter Glenn's geological concerns". I´ve failed as a Christian, Father forgive me! Just as a side note: I can´t find? What if I find and don´t post? Does it means I haven´t found it or that I haven´t posted? It´s still a free board, and I own you nothing, much less information.

Again, I don't believe he was talking to you, Higon, in particular, but all YECs in general. Methinks there is a plentitude of YECs that are either members or lurkers on this board.

Information and opinions are what these boards are about. I don't think I'm outside the bounds of protocol to request information from you. Of course, it's your right not to answer.

Don´t know. Is it some kind of enigma? Who said that?

You're being very cryptic here. I thought my question about being a Catholic and not adhering to Catholic tradition to be a simple, clear, and reasonable one. Why would you avoid it? Oh, yes -- it's your right not to answer.

If he leave christianity due to it, then he had built his foundation in the wrong place to begin with. Jesus died and ressurected whether the YEC position is right or not. RUN TO THE CROSS FORREST!

That's right -- YEC is the wrong place to build a foundation. So, why then do many Fundamentalist pastor and the YEC "ministries" use this as a hook?

But wait... you explain further...

I was a non-christian seeker of truth and were convinced by the "scientifically risible" YEC argument. Actually, it was what started the ball rolling to me - what gave me interest to study the Bible and then accept Jesus.

I'm glad you haven't lost your faith yet -- but then you think that YEC has compelling scientific arguments. I suppose it's an "end justifies the means" argument. But what if you come to realize eventually that YEC is scientifically untenable and is pushed by purveyors in "ministries" who are either completely uninformed of the big picture scientifically or are wordsmithing rhetoricians who focus their verbal wares on uninformed laypersons? I hope and pray that your faith in Christ is strong enough to withstand that awakening. For many folks, this was not the case.

And I disagree with them. So do you I suppose. We should tap each other´s back now?

Yes, by all means! It's refreshing to agree on something.

I´d like a new bass - a fretless one, but hey, none of us gonna have what they want.

Yes, if wishes were fishes, we'd never be hungry (except for Vegans!).

Perhaps if you ask a YEC geologist you can have some answers - I´m not sure if any of the 5 posts here, (ha! see?? An OEC joke!)

Not really a joke -- it's too close to the truth.
or if any of them have Morton´s arguments in such a high praise that it demand refuting asap. You can of course interpret it that they are insecure cowards and that they have no answers at all - they say it´s a battle of axioms, isn´t it?

I wouldn't say they were cowards, just that they can't refute Glenn's arguments. Or at least refute them in consistent non ad hoc manner. Are you aware that Glenn has had plentous correspondence and conversation with YEC geologists? Of course you are aware that Glenn was a long-time publishing YEC? You are aware that Glenn takes a very high view of scripture -- in particular looks for a strong concordance of the Genesis text with physical reality, vis-a-vis a more metaphorical/allegorical approach like many TEs?

Nobody's forcing you to do anything, but if you are really looking for answers, use "teh internets", google around, perhaps you can find what you are looking for outside Tweb.

I see most/all of the YEC arguments already, thank you. I was a member of the Creation Reseach Society for a few years in graduate school. I really wanted YEC to be correct. The problem is that it isn't.

What I'm looking for here on TWeb is engagement with truth-seeking YECs on how they can defend their views against the hard physical data. I not asking you or anyone else to abrogate her/his freewill -- but when you do choose to post, I'd like to see an offering of explanation.

R

grmorton

July 11th 2005, 06:28 PM

C´mon Morton... :ahem: My position was stated so clearly that even a Christ Myther could get it.

I believe you know far more about my life than myself I guess. So you assume I´m avoiding those with whom I disagree? Ok... Let´s see: Do you have a hotlink to God so you can ask Him what I´m doing? Or are you stalking me? Do you know all the boards I post into, the persons I talk to and their positions in this subject? Do you know what I read, wich websites or books I´m at right now?

My my...don't we over react a bit. I said, what I see. And that IS what I see. I don't need to be a cyberstalker to characterize what I see someone doing.

Let´s assume that none of the above is true (at least I hope so). You have no information whatsoever to what issues I avoid or not (or if I do, why) except the posts I make here at Tweb. So, let´s narrow it down: Let´s assume that I´m "avoiding those with whom I disagree" only here at Tweb.

The only form to validate your claim is to assume that I don´t read any of the posts from the YEC-bashers here. It´s quite a hard task ´cause I visit this board both from home and work, some times without logging in and have a dinamic IP, thus, you can´t "track my steps" so to speak to see wich posts i read or not. (The simple fact that I´ve posted a followup In this topic proves your assertive wrong anyway). Even if you track my steps, I can visit a topic without reading it, or reading selectively. Can you prove it then? I don´t think so. [quote]

touchy touchy. You seem hypersensitive to me. I didn't see you get flamed but you seem to think you were. You say you are trying to avoid getting flamed so I have a question. Do you think is is a flame to tell you that you are wrong? I don't think that is flaming, and that is what I think I see you avoiding. No one flamed you that I saw.

[quote]You can also assume that If I read a post, I must post something. If I don´t post, it means that I´ve avoided the issue. It´s a probability, but not a certainty. There´s also a high probability that the post in question is such a nonsense that´s not worth my time or effort; or that my position was covered by someone else (or a "been there, done that" case), therefore there´s no need to reinvent the wheel, or that I simply don´t fell like posting. So, can you prove wich one is the case? Absolutelly not.

This isn't about absolute proof here. This isn't mathematics class. But, you did post here and you posted that you want to avoid unnecessary flames. You could have posted something substantive rather than that. So I still think you are avoiding anyone telling you you are wrong. You can prove me wrong by starting an actual conversation using evidence rather than posting that you don't want to post.

It´s clear you have no clue what you are talking about here. But hey, thanks for the cheap psychological evaluation, Mr. Freud.

No, it isn't a psychological evaluation, Mr. Hypersensitive, it is my observation. I don't know what is going on in your head. I see behavior, I don't see your thoughts. [twilight zone music on]

I fell secure enough in my position that I don´t need to open post after post bragging how much reasonable my position is and how stupid, coward or insecure are those who oppose my position.

No, you seem to feel the need to post stuff like this explaining why you won't post.

I find It far more interesting (and productive) to analise different positions by myself reading both sides without resorting to open debates. I used to lose my time in other boards debating, and then I noticed that it was a waste of time - time that I could spend learning instead of trading insults (it´s interesting how usually it ended with someone cursing God and calling me a stupid catholic, although I do not follow the catholic tradition). I have no need to "show off".

So posting why you won't post, and having a big discussion about why you won't post is a useful use of your time? Wow.

That´s why I´m at Tweb right now, we have all kinds of different worldviews being presented freely. I have both sides in a whole range of topics being presented the best way they can - it makes things easy to research. It´s also interesting ´cause I´m not obsessed about OEC/Evolution x YEC debate after all, as it´s not crucial to salvation anyway, so I can choose different topics and enjoy the reading.

So, it seems like we have different ways to approuch the forum issue, isn´t it? You don´t like it?

I neither like nor dislike the approach you are describing. The problem is, that you are not following the approach you are describing. Instead of a life of quiet contemplation of various ideas you are out there posting why you won't post on such threads. Have you ever thought that the reason that one of your threads ended up in cursing is that you are just a wee bit sensitive? A wee bit too easily triggered?

You think I should spend my time arguing and exchanging insults at Cosmogony instead of reading/learning? I couldn´t care less. Too bad I´m not here to give you the attention you so desesperatelly seek. :wink: But hey, If it´s gonna make you fell better, I can post a "Hey Grmorton, I´ve read your post!" every time you post something new. But even then you can´t assume I´ve read your post anyway... :tongue:

So why are you haveing THIS conversation? For a guy who 'couldn't care less' you seem to have a lot of passion about it.

grmorton

July 11th 2005, 06:34 PM

Perhaps if you ask a YEC geologist you can have some answers - I´m not sure if any of the 5 posts here, (ha! see?? An OEC joke!) or if any of them have Morton´s arguments in such a high praise that it demand refuting asap. You can of course interpret it that they are insecure cowards and that they have no answers at all - they say it´s a battle of axioms, isn´t it?

You know, the interesting thing is that none of the YEC geologists actually stick their heads out of their YEC meetings and institutions. The problem with them is that they never ever publish answers to criticisms that I have presented. The trouble with them is that I have challenged every one of them, any and all to a public debate about geological evidence. They never seem to take up the challenge.

Now, I know Steve Austin personally. I have corresponded with Walker and Snelling. They don't seem to ever want to leave their very controlled circumstances and actually debate the issues with anyone. They let you guys do that in effect letting you take the heat for their silly ideas. They play you guys for fools.

rogero

July 11th 2005, 06:45 PM

Glennn,

I see you met Shunyadragon. Cool! Thanks for posting the picture. Sheesh, I thought he would have three heads or something, being a heathen Ba'hai and all. :wink:

Maybe one of these years I'll get to meet him when and if I get to visit my brother who lives in Taiyuan, ShanXi province.

R

P.S. Are you short and Shuny average height, or are you average height and is Shuny really tall? Or perhaps Shuny is standing on a box?

grmorton

July 12th 2005, 09:43 AM

Glennn,

I see you met Shunyadragon. Cool! Thanks for posting the picture. Sheesh, I thought he would have three heads or something, being a heathen Ba'hai and all. :wink:

He won't see this because he is teaching some geology courses somewhere near the Great Wall or something like that, but he does have 3 heads. He made me promise to use photoshop to edit off the other two ugly ones. He looks much better this way. :lol:

Maybe one of these years I'll get to meet him when and if I get to visit my brother who lives in Taiyuan, ShanXi province.

I am not quite sure where ShanXi is, but I think it is in a different direction.

R

P.S. Are you short and Shuny average height, or are you average height and is Shuny really tall? Or perhaps Shuny is standing on a box?

I am 5'9" Shuny is definitely above average in height. If he got conservative, he could be president. I couldn't. I am too short.

Edited to add: Last night when I and Shunyadragon had dinner, for the first time in my life I ate dog. He is my witness. It is a sweet meat and very very good. Thus I add another animal to those I have consumed.

Perry

July 12th 2005, 09:55 AM

No, it isn't a psychological evaluation, Mr. Hypersensitive, it is my observation. I don't know what is going on in your head. I see behavior, I don't see your thoughts. [twilight zone music on]

your cat is eying you hungrily

Higon

July 12th 2005, 02:05 PM

So, you don't post because the OECs are just too rude? As a lifelong Christian and a former YEC with degrees in science and maths, I can understand the frustration that leads to rudeness. In fact, as you've probably kened from my 1600 or posts so far, I can be quite rude at times as well. It's a truly special person who can see truth being trampled so egregiously and doesn't respond with acridity.

I am glad you find me a good friend -- really. :wink:

No, wrong there. Not just because the OECs are too rude. The OECs are too rude, the YECs are too rude, the apostates are too rude. You can hardly find a respectfull conversation here anymore. Acridity is not the same as disrespect. And I surely think you are a good friend, and I think we should treat each others that way - after all, in the end we re all gonna spend eternity in the same place; you, me, Morton, the AIG crew, the ICR crew, the Reasons to Believe crew, perhaps even some Mormons, who know...

To help out seekers like moi. If you have counter-data or alternative explanations for Glenn's data, then it behooves you and everyone else here to present such.

It might be apropriate, but not necessary.

That's fine, Bro. You want to learn from the debate/interaction on TWeb on the origins issue but not contribute to it (modulo the occasional snipe). I respect that. But, why do you attack Glenn so harshly here? He wasn't speaking to you in particular, but all YECs in general -- including those who supposedly have a modicum of science background and who might be able to address his questions?

Oh! So I missrepresented his position then... I thought that by quoting my post and impling that I´m so insecure that I need to avoid those who oppose me he was attacking me in particular. Isn´t it the case? If not, then I humbly apologize for it Grmorton, really. But if not, then I keep my word.

I'd be curious to see what you deem to be a stupid argument from the OEC/TE side? You appear to be advocating a principle of equivalence, like both sides of this debate have equally viable arguments simply because they present them.

I propose no such thing as far as I know. Every argument have a merit of it´s own. That´s why I told you there are stupid arguments from both sides.

Not sure what you mean. Do have an example of such a question?

I believe I meant the same you meant in the piece I quoted.

You're being very cryptic here. I thought my question about being a Catholic and not adhering to Catholic tradition to be a simple, clear, and reasonable one. Why would you avoid it? Oh, yes -- it's your right not to answer.

Tehehehe sorry, I should have added a bit of context there. I meant by "calling me a stupid catholic although I don´t follow the catholic tradition" was to stress how missinformed about my position were those I used to argue with. What is the difference between a catholic and a lutheran christian? As you pointed out, it´s the tradition they follow. Thus, if I´m a christian and don´t follow the catholic tradition, then I´m not a catholic. Therefore, those who used to call me a "stupid catholic" had no clue what was my position and were so missinformed about christianity they assumed that just because I´m a christian then I must be a catholic. (happens a lot here in Brazil, A LOT!)

But what if you come to realize eventually that YEC is scientifically untenable and is pushed by purveyors in "ministries" who are either completely uninformed of the big picture scientifically or are wordsmithing rhetoricians who focus their verbal wares on uninformed laypersons? I hope and pray that your faith in Christ is strong enough to withstand that awakening.

Oh yeah, it is. I don´t trust institutions or doctrine, or what I think is the right or wrong interpretation of doctrine, ´cause those can change. My house was built in stone. But hey, the same can be said of OEC. Someone may very well think that God is not necessary anymore ´cause everything came about through evolution and such. The doctrine is not the problem, but the way you approuch it and how you use it.

Not really a joke -- it's too close to the truth.

C´mon, let´s be fair now. It´s not that low. We must have at least... hmmmmm... 10 geologists? :teeth:

I wouldn't say they were cowards, just that they can't refute Glenn's arguments. Or at least refute them in consistent non ad hoc manner. Are you aware that Glenn has had plentous correspondence and conversation with YEC geologists? Of course you are aware that Glenn was a long-time publishing YEC? You are aware that Glenn takes a very high view of scripture -- in particular looks for a strong concordance of the Genesis text with physical reality, vis-a-vis a more metaphorical/allegorical approach like many TEs?

You yeah, I am. The "DMD Publishing Co." webpage is bookmarked here. I´ve read some of his articles, but not all of them since geology is not my main interest - although he have articles in the most varied spectrum of subjects - let´s say that right now those subjects are not a high priority in my learning scheme, I´m into historical evidence for christianity now.

I know you wouldn´t say they are cowards, that I´m sure. But, as I pointed out up there, Morton did when he implied that I´m so insecure that I need to avoid those who oppose me. And as I said, it it´s not the case, I apologize.

What I'm looking for here on TWeb is engagement with truth-seeking YECs on how they can defend their views against the hard physical data. I not asking you or anyone else to abrogate her/his freewill -- but when you do choose to post, I'd like to see an offering of explanation.

And I can assure that you will. But don´t hold your breath, it´s not a priority in my life right now.

Good to hear from you! Hope I had been clear in my explanation.

Higon

July 12th 2005, 03:02 PM

My my...don't we over react a bit. I said, what I see. And that IS what I see. I don't need to be a cyberstalker to characterize what I see someone doing.

It´s good to scream a bit to clean up the lungs. :teeth: But no friend, as I pointed out, you said what you thought you had seen, not what you see. =P

This isn't about absolute proof here. This isn't mathematics class. But, you did post here and you posted that you want to avoid unnecessary flames. You could have posted something substantive rather than that. So I still think you are avoiding anyone telling you you are wrong. You can prove me wrong by starting an actual conversation using evidence rather than posting that you don't want to post.

No it´s not mathematics, it´s logic. But oh! Sorry! What was the topic again? Let me see: "Question for this forum" - why we don´t post here anymore. You don´t think my quote ilustrating the flame war was substantive enough as an answer to why I don´t post here anymore? Why so? Jason gave the same response (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=989288&postcount=8), so why didn´t you take issue on him as well?

No, it isn't a psychological evaluation, Mr. Hypersensitive, it is my observation. I don't know what is going on in your head. I see behavior, I don't see your thoughts. [twilight zone music on]

Exactly, you don´t know. And as I pointed out, trying to evaluate my behavior given only the meager evidence you have here at Tweb is jumping to conclusions. The data you have here about my behavior is so meager that you can´t formulate a water-tight conclusion, unless of course you can see my toughts. :stunned: [twilight zone music goes louder]

We can also test your hypothesis: According to your evaluation, I shouldn´t be posting here (perhaps at home, crying and hiding under my bed). This post is not supposed to exist, I guess.

No, you seem to feel the need to post stuff like this explaining why you won't post.

And you feel the need to ask why we don´t. Anyway, it´s loss-loss situation now: if I post, It´s because I feel the need to answer. If I don´t, it´s because I´m so insecure I need to hide under my bed ´cause Grmorton scares me. Not fair. :(

So posting why you won't post, and having a big discussion about why you won't post is a useful use of your time? Wow.

You are starting to get it uncle Morton! You have been more successfull in explaining my position than myself! See, I´ve not planned to be stuck here arguing trivialities with you, but what it takes is only a quote and a two liner and BAM! you are stuck at Cosmogy arguing on why you don´t wan´t to argue - if you don´t do so, it must be because you are a insecure coward. Sounds like something directly from Monty Python. I´m happy you agree with me that it´s a waste of time.

Instead of a life of quiet contemplation of various ideas you are out there posting why you won't post on such threads.

And curse be on me! It´s the loss-loss situation again. :eek:

Have you ever thought that the reason that one of your threads ended up in cursing is that you are just a wee bit sensitive? A wee bit too easily triggered?

Actually, we have two different positions in my psyche now: yours, and Rogero´s. He says that the psyche of a "truly special person who can see truth being trampled so egregiously and doesn't respond with acridity" And you think I´m "a wee bit too easily triggered". Hmmmmmmmm...

Anyway, the thread I mentioned that ended in cursing happened in the end of the 3rd day of debate in wich the apostate said he wasn´t willing to debate me anymore and took some cheap shots while leaving, Billy the Kid style. He hadn´t triggered me at all - actually he was the one pm-ing me for a debate ´cause I´ve gored some of his sacred cows.

So why are you haveing THIS conversation? For a guy who 'couldn't care less' you seem to have a lot of passion about it.

Right friend, I haven´t. But you´ve put me in a sticky situation: I had to defend myself or be labelled as an insecure coward. I´ve chosen the former in this thread. Now, if you allow me, I´ll be back to my tomb.

Ps: I know that, in the depths of your heart, you love me with every piece of your tired body. God be with you. :eek:

Higon

July 12th 2005, 03:12 PM

You know, the interesting thing is that none of the YEC geologists actually stick their heads out of their YEC meetings and institutions. The problem with them is that they never ever publish answers to criticisms that I have presented. The trouble with them is that I have challenged every one of them, any and all to a public debate about geological evidence. They never seem to take up the challenge.

Now, I know Steve Austin personally. I have corresponded with Walker and Snelling. They don't seem to ever want to leave their very controlled circumstances and actually debate the issues with anyone. They let you guys do that in effect letting you take the heat for their silly ideas. They play you guys for fools.

I hear you, it´s a bummer when it happens... I wish you luck in trying to book future engagements. There´s gonna be that huge "Creation Conference" in 5 days. (I´m sure you are aware of it) Perhaps if you are not too busy you can try to go there and ask them for a debate. I´ve heard that John Baumgardner, Terry Mortenson and Tas Walker are gonna be there - it´s a good start I guess.

(Now I know why you guys have such a huge number of posts).

rogero

July 12th 2005, 03:17 PM

No, wrong there. Not just because the OECs are too rude. The OECs are too rude, the YECs are too rude, the apostates are too rude. You can hardly find a respectfull conversation here anymore. Acridity is not the same as disrespect. And I surely think you are a good friend, and I think we should treat each others that way - after all, in the end we re all gonna spend eternity in the same place; you, me, Morton, the AIG crew, the ICR crew, the Reasons to Believe crew, perhaps even some Mormons, who know...

Oh no -- not the Mormons! :lol: I think we will all be surprised who we will meet in der suessen Ewigkeit. :wink:

Forgive me, Bro, but I ofttimes have disrespected a poster or two here on ol' TWeb. If I disrespect someone, I do it for what I believe to be good reason.

There have few, if any, atheists that I have disrepected here. Firstly, I tend to agree with their scientific and logical reasoning, secondly, IMHO it's much more important to correct fellow Christians on the facts and their interpretation on the origins issue. I agree with the latter that "God did it", and I agree with the former on "how". We need to bring the scientific and theological views together somehow and stop having Christians here (and elsewhere) banging each other about the ears with hermeneutical and interpretive details.

Oh! So I missrepresented his position then... I thought that by quoting my post and impling that I´m so insecure that I need to avoid those who oppose me he was attacking me in particular. Isn´t it the case? If not, then I humbly apologize for it Grmorton, really. But if not, then I keep my word.

Ok, I see your squawk now -- you're referring to post #57. To keep things in context though, you were reacting to Kuboes' post on the general untenablility of the YEC apologetic. Glennn reacted to your comment. Was he out of line? Who knows? IMHO, given his battle scars with YEC defenders both professional and amateur, I would certainly not fault him for reacting the way he did. Apparently you feel differently...

I propose no such thing as far as I know. Every argument have a merit of it´s own. That´s why I told you there are stupid arguments from both sides.

[quote]
I believe I meant the same you meant in the piece I quoted.

Guess I missed sumtin'. What is an example of stupid argument that OECs make?

Tehehehe sorry, I should have added a bit of context there. I meant by "calling me a stupid catholic although I don´t follow the catholic tradition" was to stress how missinformed about my position were those I used to argue with. What is the difference between a catholic and a lutheran christian? As you pointed out, it´s the tradition they follow. Thus, if I´m a christian and don´t follow the catholic tradition, then I´m not a catholic. Therefore, those who used to call me a "stupid catholic" had no clue what was my position and were so missinformed about christianity they assumed that just because I´m a christian then I must be a catholic. (happens a lot here in Brazil, A LOT!)

Gotcha. In Brazil, Christian = Catholic. You write very good English for a "furriner". :wink:

Oh yeah, it is. I don´t trust institutions or doctrine, or what I think is the right or wrong interpretation of doctrine, ´cause those can change. My house was built in stone. But hey, the same can be said of OEC. Someone may very well think that God is not necessary anymore ´cause everything came about through evolution and such. The doctrine is not the problem, but the way you approuch it and how you use it.

Well, I think I understand you. But I think you're confusing mechanisms ("how" God creates) with teleology ("why" God creates). The former can IMHO be ascertained from the record of creation itself, ergo, I don't believe the Creator deceives in creation. The latter is dependent on one's worldview. If, as a Christian, you base your faith on the risen Christ, then it shouldn't matter how God creates, and in fact should enjoy learning about the specifics of creation.

That the "how" of creation is also compatible with the physical view of the skeptics should generate no problem for the believer, at least IMHO. However, a totally unsupported and scientifically laughable interpretation of Genesis that is pushed as conditio sine qua non for a "true" Biblical faith can (and should IMHO) generate the distinct possibility of doubt, especially in the believer who was converted using that hook.

C´mon, let´s be fair now. It´s not that low. We must have at least... hmmmmm... 10 geologists? :teeth:

Mebbe you're right. Perhaps Chris Groese (aka "TrueCreation") will set us all straight when he gets his Ph.D. :wink:

You yeah, I am. The "DMD Publishing Co." webpage is bookmarked here. I´ve read some of his articles, but not all of them since geology is not my main interest - although he have articles in the most varied spectrum of subjects - let´s say that right now those subjects are not a high priority in my learning scheme, I´m into historical evidence for christianity now.

Good for you -- keep on learning stuff. IMHO, geology gives the most compelling and irrefutable evidence for OEC.

I know you wouldn´t say they are cowards, that I´m sure. But, as I pointed out up there, Morton did when he implied that I´m so insecure that I need to avoid those who oppose me. And as I said, it it´s not the case, I apologize.

No need to apologize for my sake -- again, I think Glennn was just blowing off some steam.

And I can assure that you will. But don´t hold your breath, it´s not a priority in my life right now.

Good to hear from you! Hope I had been clear in my explanation.

Ok. Enjoy your studies, and yes -- your explanation was quite clear.

R

rogero

July 12th 2005, 03:35 PM

grmorton

July 12th 2005, 06:02 PM

I hear you, it´s a bummer when it happens... I wish you luck in trying to book future engagements. There´s gonna be that huge "Creation Conference" in 5 days. (I´m sure you are aware of it) Perhaps if you are not too busy you can try to go there and ask them for a debate. I´ve heard that John Baumgardner, Terry Mortenson and Tas Walker are gonna be there - it´s a good start I guess.

(Now I know why you guys have such a huge number of posts).

Just for your info, I gave a paper at the first International Conference on Creationism in 1986. In general the papers at that conference were substandard, contradictory to each other and they avoided facts which easily contradicted them. I was in the process of changing from my YEC views at the time and I am amazed that they let me talk. I showed the geologic problems one has with a global flood and that paper advocated a 14 million year old earth. I tell you this just to let you know that I have been to such conferences (in a capacity that I doubt you will ever attend in) and to tell you that the papers ignore so much geologic data as to be intellectually useless.

As to Baumgardner, I have known him for 30 years. At one point he and I actually were playing with the very same solution to the geological problems, but he has remained stuck in an imaginary world in which his physics tells him that his runaway subduction generates so much heat that the earth would melt but his religion tells him this couldn't happen so he appeals to God to absorb the heat. The problem with this is why does he go to the problem of having a naturalistic explanation for the movement of the continents and then a miraculous explanation for the heat. Why not just have a miraculous explanation for everything?

As to Mortensen, he is sneaky and I have a couple of articles debunking what he says about the people he claims were good, mainstream 19th century geologists. ONe of those guys beleived the earth was hollow. What a hoot!

see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/murray.htm
and http://home.entouch.net/dmd/replymortenson.htm

I will be gone for a few days to South China so it will be a while before I can reply

Perry

July 12th 2005, 08:02 PM

rogero

July 12th 2005, 10:20 PM

ok girls, quit meowing so viciously at each other. I think it's safe to say that you're all friends, grmorton is beyond qualified at something, and rogero's extremely smart and reveres him. Friends, that is, as long as you don't mind rogero and morton's childish attacks. Better go, been away and need to find a few jorge posts to lurk...

A very reasoned analysis from a scientifically informed lurker -- HI * Perry!

R

----------------
* Check out Perry's posting history for an explanation.

grmorton

July 14th 2005, 10:21 AM

ok girls, quit meowing so viciously at each other. I think it's safe to say that you're all friends, grmorton is beyond qualified at something, and rogero's extremely smart and reveres him. Friends, that is, as long as you don't mind rogero and morton's childish attacks. Better go, been away and need to find a few jorge posts to lurk...

And your messages which are utterly without any relevance to the topic show exactly what about you?

Barry Desborough

July 14th 2005, 10:35 AM

ok girls, quit meowing so viciously at each other. I think it's safe to say that you're all friends, grmorton is beyond qualified at something, and rogero's extremely smart and reveres him. Friends, that is, as long as you don't mind rogero and morton's childish attacks. Better go, been away and need to find a few jorge posts to lurk...

Try http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57383

Jorge could do with some help. There's a rabid pack of ID critics all around him. Still, he did hold up a juicy piece of bait for us.

This area is for Christians only.

shunyadragon

July 17th 2005, 10:15 AM

He won't see this because he is teaching some geology courses somewhere near the Great Wall or something like that, but he does have 3 heads. He made me promise to use photoshop to edit off the other two ugly ones. He looks much better this way. :lol:

I am not quite sure where ShanXi is, but I think it is in a different direction.

I am 5'9" Shuny is definitely above average in height. If he got conservative, he could be president. I couldn't. I am too short.

Edited to add: Last night when I and Shunyadragon had dinner, for the first time in my life I ate dog. He is my witness. It is a sweet meat and very very good. Thus I add another animal to those I have consumed.

I saw it! I had to duck my left head to get in the picture. I do get out to the internet on occasion. Yes, Glen ate dog. I had to remind him on his pronunciation of dog when ordering though. You see Chinese has 4 or 5 tones, and words like 'ma' can mean refer to your mother or a horse. 'gou' third tone refers to dog, but, ah . . . gou mispronounced may refer to a less impolite term for manure, 'goushi', and you must be sure which sweet tasting soup you wish to order.

I am usually a lurker on these threads trying to understand the various evolution/creation disputes, taking an occasional annoying poke.

A little 'off-topic' pun to lighten the moment.

Snoring is like religion. It is the others that bother you, and you do not listen to yourself.

By the way, China comes with sort of with a warning lable.

Stay in China long enough and you will likely be willing to consort with all kinds of unsavory folk.

AllDay

December 25th 2005, 02:44 PM

I am curious at how little the young-earthers post here any more. I am wondering why. Have people left the young-earth position?

I would say that I have all but done that. There are no (or at least very little) scientific reasons to doubt that the earth is billions of years old, and that common descent occurred. It is also very likely the evolution is the mechanism of Creation.

This would have been the view I held until I was "scared straight" by AiG and the like with their "if Genesis is not literally true, then you're saying the Bible is a lie, and choosing man over God" duelistic challenge. It's also not necessary to treat adults like children by associating everything bad to evolution in order to get people to oppose it. It's also not necessary to try and manipulate everyone into believing that if you accept evolution (not metaphysical naturalist evolution, of course) as a Creative means then you are opening the door to doubting the Life and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Honestly, the "either/or " suggestion/proposition by certain creationist groups bothers me quite a bit.

I started to move away from that view once I became aware of the creationists' tactics. Quote mining, fact-bending, manipulation, evolution = atheism, etc. If Genesis is a scientific account, then it should not take all the shadiness to illustrate it. Once looking at it with neutrality, it's obvious where all the evidence points to.

At this point I am leaning toward Genesis being allegory, with an understanding that the Bible's primary purpose is to posit spiritual/theological truths. That said, does not mean that there was not a literal Adam, and a literal Eve. Just seems to me that the whole account of Man made instantly from dust, woman from man's rib, perfect garden of Eden, Magical Fruit, Talking Serpent, etc ... highly suggest allegory over literalism. I also understand that there is sin leading to spiritual death. Seems like that could also be sin in the forming of turning away from God and not necessarily biting into a forbidden fruit, at the suggestion of the serpent.

I also understand that it is also possible for Noah's flood to be universal, without being global. I haven't really dug into that deal a whole lot outside of reading Woodmrappe's book and quite a bit from Glenn and some discussion with Miller.

Have they gone elsewhere in order to avoid any data contrary to their position. Any ideas?

Well, I definately stopped getting my "evolution information" from AiG, and turned to reading Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology text. Asking AiG for accurate info on evolution is like asking an atheist to "tell me about Jesus", and expecting to get a balanced account.

I have also been fortunate to read Miller's book (convincing) and have some e-mail correspondence with him. Also read Haught's book (theology), and quite a bit from Murphy.

Has anyone changed their position by reading the posts here over the past 2 years?

Again, I would say that I have all but changed my mind. I am, right now, consciously "undecided", though I am leaning heavily toward being a bonafide TE viewing Genesis as allegory. I am currently exploring/studying differing views on Adam, Eve, Original Sin, etc (why I arrived here ... cosmogony). While it seems unlikely, if there is not a reasonable way to deal with the topics in Genesis in a way that keeps the Word of God inerrant, then I would revert/stay with a YEC view. I would be a YEC for theological reasons only. I realize everything in science points to an old-earth, non-creation view.

At that point, given a YEC theological stance, there ain't a whole lot to talk about. I would propose that's why few YEC's speak about it. Combine that with the condescending tones that the YEC's get, and it's amazing they post at all.

I also agree w/ Mag Gerbil that, after a while, there comes a point when this issue becomes less important than daily issues or even other theological issues. Once you take a stance or lean heavily in one direction, it's time to move on and focus on how one can be a better Christian.

geochron

December 25th 2005, 09:00 PM

Maybe they just got tired of the endless abuse and name calling. Its gets old to be berated by people who talk down to you all the time and treat you like a toddler.

Christianity isn't just meek and mild milksoppery. There's a limit to how long one can treat as adults people who act like toddlers. People who hold to idiotic beliefs sometimes need shocking out of them.

That's what it says here in my bootleg copy of the Conservative Christian playbook.

:wink:

rogero

December 25th 2005, 11:03 PM

...
Again, I would say that I have all but changed my mind. I am, right now, consciously "undecided", though I am leaning heavily toward being a bonafide TE viewing Genesis as allegory. I am currently exploring/studying differing views on Adam, Eve, Original Sin, etc (why I arrived here ... cosmogony). While it seems unlikely, if there is not a reasonable way to deal with the topics in Genesis in a way that keeps the Word of God inerrant, then I would revert/stay with a YEC view. I would be a YEC for theological reasons only. I realize everything in science points to an old-earth, non-creation view.

At that point, given a YEC theological stance, there ain't a whole lot to talk about. I would propose that's why few YEC's speak about it. Combine that with the condescending tones that the YEC's get, and it's amazing they post at all.

I also agree w/ Mag Gerbil that, after a while, there comes a point when this issue becomes less important than daily issues or even other theological issues. Once you take a stance or lean heavily in one direction, it's time to move on and focus on how one can be a better Christian.

Thanks for your honesty. I find your view very depressing, but honest.

I do have some difficulties with your theological points. Word of God (capital "W" -- when referring to a book, not to Christ), Inerrancy, Original Sin -- where are those terms used in scripture? These are parts of cultural tradition. Why elevate these to necessity for your faith?

Also, Glenn Morton is a TE who holds a quite "literal" view of Genesis.

Again, your post was depressing to me.

A pox on Aig and other of these lying YEC "ministries" and prayer for those caught in the web of a brittle view of Christian theology.

R

grmorton

December 25th 2005, 11:49 PM

Thanks for your honesty. I find your view very depressing, but honest.

I too appreciate the honesty of Allday. The pain upon leaving YEC is great and that is one reason I think few do it. My hat is off to Allday

I do have some difficulties with your theological points. Word of God (capital "W" -- when referring to a book, not to Christ), Inerrancy, Original Sin -- where are those terms used in scripture? These are parts of cultural tradition. Why elevate these to necessity for your faith?

Also, Glenn Morton is a TE who holds a quite "literal" view of Genesis.

Again, your post was depressing to me.

I didn't take it as depressing. I took it as evidence that we are having an impact for our Lord by being here.

A pox on Aig and other of these lying YEC "ministries" and prayer for those caught in the web of a brittle view of Christian theology.

R

Absolutely agree. God will hold them accountable for their actions and words.

One thing Allday said was interesting to me.

I also agree w/ Mag Gerbil that, after a while, there comes a point when this issue becomes less important than daily issues or even other theological issues. Once you take a stance or lean heavily in one direction, it's time to move on and focus on how one can be a better Christian.

The reason I keep going is that for my entire life I have felt called to this area. Everytime I try to leave it and disappear for a few months, I am irresistably drawn back to it. I am fortunate to have found my calling early. I misinterpreted it while I was a YEC. After I changed, I became aware of what it was I was really supposed to do--attempt to change the Church's view on YEC. Clearly I have not been successful, but I am not responsible to God for the results. I am responsible for my faithfulness at my task.

AllDay

December 26th 2005, 01:51 AM

I didn't take it as depressing. I took it as evidence that we are having an impact for our Lord by being here.

I don't find it depressing either. More like a very interesting search (and research). I am not arrogant enough to assume that the concerns I have haven't been debated for centuries, so I am looking into the ideas of others. I am no expert in any field, so that is my option.

Rogero, would you care to describe what it is that you find depressing in my post?

The reason I keep going is that for my entire life I have felt called to this area. Everytime I try to leave it and disappear for a few months, I am irresistably drawn back to it. I am fortunate to have found my calling early. I misinterpreted it while I was a YEC. After I changed, I became aware of what it was I was really supposed to do--attempt to change the Church's view on YEC. Clearly I have not been successful, but I am not responsible to God for the results. I am responsible for my faithfulness at my task.

Granted, in this case I was referring to the "everyday guy" that does not have expertise in a field to debate in-depth topics or anything like that. For the average guy, overkill time spent researching/debating details at the expense of doing & living can be an easy trap to get into (at least for me).

============================

Rogero,

I do have some difficulties with your theological points. Word of God (capital "W" -- when referring to a book, not to Christ), Inerrancy, Original Sin -- where are those terms used in scripture? These are parts of cultural tradition. Why elevate these to necessity for your faith?

These are not faith-determining issues for me. My faith hinges on Christ.

I have read Glenn's Days of Proclaimation view, and I have read a "Days of Revelation" view (the 6-days Creation is explained as the days God revealed to man what He did), and a wide variety of views by "TE's". I am just trying to see where my views on the subject line up.

I did not intend to paint a bleak picture.

grmorton

December 26th 2005, 01:43 PM

I started to move away from that view once I became aware of the creationists' tactics. Quote mining, fact-bending, manipulation, evolution = atheism, etc. If Genesis is a scientific account, then it should not take all the shadiness to illustrate it. Once looking at it with neutrality, it's obvious where all the evidence points to..

I have one more question in relation to this. My own leaving of the YEC fold was in large measure because I saw the same thing. And no one seemed to be interested in dealing with the problems I was finding. Indeed, many denied that they exist. Eventually I could no longer reconcile my ethical beliefs with the way I and my fellow YECs were behaving.

What would be your advice to the YECs now that you have changed?

AllDay

December 26th 2005, 03:41 PM

What would be your advice to the YECs now that you have changed?

The first thing I would explain to them is to stop describing themselves as YEC's for scientific reasons. Science does not point to a YEC view. There are not simply "two interpretations of the facts", and science is not "presenting a big lie" and "everyone's in on it". That was a big heads up to me. Science does not equate atheism. [If would help if Dawkins and Dennett weren't so darn quotable in their atheistic views]

Secondly, I would advise them to do what I am doing, and that is look at the views of Genesis throughout history. Turns out there have been a variety of views, by church leaders, for a long time. THe one mandatory view or the whole thing is false is simply not accurate.

Thirdly, YEC's have got to read something outside of a Creationist's view. Too many are getting their information from one source, and they're getting unchecked tabloid-style facts. I, myself, have repeated many of the arguments and look back now and giggle.

There is something shady when an organization/viewpoint jumps all over science when it supports their view, but runs away from it when the majority of science does not. It reminds me of two guys fighting over a girl. When the girls says good things about you and bad things about him, she's "right on" and "knows what's going on". But, when she turns to saying good things about him and bad things about you, then "she's a liar" and "can't be trusted".

Again, for me, a science major in college, I didn't have a problem with an old Earth or God using evolution. As I mentioned, I was scared straight by friends and AiG, b/c I wanted to be a "true" Christian and did not want to undermine the whole Bible, or (my favorite) "choose man over God".

===============================

Earlier, I misrepresented my thoughts. What I am looking at now, and trying to get more informed on is trying to understand Genesis as the intended audience would have. In other words, how would those that used ancient hebrew every day have understood the passage. Was Adam a real created being, and Eve, and did they literally live in the Garden, and eat the Forbidden Fruit after being tempted by satan, etc ... or ... Is it an allegory explaining that God created us and set us up in spiritual paradise, but we are tempted by satan and do things that God has told us not to do, which displeases God, and causes us the need for repentence.

I have lots of questions about that, and what effect it has on things.

AllDay

December 26th 2005, 06:24 PM

Glenn,

Thinking about this some more (while I was swimming, of all things).

YEC's need to get past the propogandal assumptions of [1] evolution = atheism, and [2] science = metaphysical naturalism.

Certain creationist groups/organizations have done a fantastic (in terms of persuasiveness) job in creating the idea that evolution is an athiestic idea (and use Gould, Dennett, Lewontin, Dawkins, etc) quotes as examples. Religious people will stand against evolution no matter what the evidence if they believe evolution = atheism.

IMO, the Christian "evolutionists" like Miller, (perhaps yourself), etc that testify in the legal hearings, author books, websites, etc that are showing one can be a devout Christian, an evolutionist, and a good person are going a long way towards combating #1. But, the YEC has to first be open to the idea. Turning the dorrknob of a door that'[s welded shut has no effect.

Secondly, the idea that "scientists have drank the 'Naturalism Kool-Aid' is also highly effective. This permits the "Bible-believing" person to ignore all scientific evidence b/c it's just a naturalistic philosophy anyway, and the scientists have been brainwashed or submerged in atheistic dogma.

I find it to be dishonest at best, mind control at worst ... but regardless, it is highly effective. It reminds me of a political election, if you can't beat your opponent by merit, experience, facts, issues, etc ... slander them like hell so that no one will want to associate with them.

Dave G

December 26th 2005, 06:53 PM

I changed my mind over a couple of arguments that Glenn made that I understood. I've since forgotten what they were, because the topic wasn't major for me...I saw why YEC couldn't be true, I changed my view, no biggie. One of the evidences was ancient riverbeds in deep strata. Unlike some, I've found Glenn to be polite and quite unlike, say, Socrates. Thanks for taking the time to educate those of us who are not scientists.

rogero

December 26th 2005, 07:51 PM

I don't find it depressing either. More like a very interesting search (and research). I am not arrogant enough to assume that the concerns I have haven't been debated for centuries, so I am looking into the ideas of others. I am no expert in any field, so that is my option.

Rogero, would you care to describe what it is that you find depressing in my post?

I guess I misunderstood you in your earlier post:

...
Again, I would say that I have all but changed my mind. I am, right now, consciously "undecided", though I am leaning heavily toward being a bonafide TE viewing Genesis as allegory. I am currently exploring/studying differing views on Adam, Eve, Original Sin, etc (why I arrived here ... cosmogony). While it seems unlikely, if there is not a reasonable way to deal with the topics in Genesis in a way that keeps the Word of God inerrant, then I would revert/stay with a YEC view. I would be a YEC for theological reasons only. I realize everything in science points to an old-earth, non-creation view.

At that point, given a YEC theological stance, there ain't a whole lot to talk about. I would propose that's why few YEC's speak about it. Combine that with the condescending tones that the YEC's get, and it's amazing they post at all.

...

I interpreted your view as vacillating between YEC and modern science, and that you would be willing to give up what you know of modern science if you couldn't find an interpretation of Genesis that would reconcile modern science with Christian orthodoxy, in other words, you would be willing to retreat to YEC if necessary. This would be fideism of the Jorgesque "Though He slay me, yet I will trust Him" variety and would subsume some sort of Omphalos view if need be.

You did imply that you need the Word of God to be "inerrant", and I questioned both of these terms from Christian tradition. Forgive me if this seems to be at odds with what you've said about some of your theological studies on TE (Miller, Murphy, etc.).

I guess it was a misunderstanding on my part in view of your later posts. Sorry about the confusion, and I'm glad to see you've been willing to consider the scientific evidence of the history of the Cosmos (Creation!).

Your assessment of the views of most other YECs who stick to YEC for merely theological reasons is really depressing. And what's much more depressing (and blood-boiling maddening) is the propagandizing of the ignorant layman by these despicable pseudo-scientific YEC "ministries" like AiG, ICR, CRS, Dr. Dino, etc. If it's all a theological issue, would they please keep their lying yaps shut on the pseudoscience? The fact that you, as an educated individual, were "scared straight" by AiG is very very depressing.

Also,

I also agree w/ Mag Gerbil that, after a while, there comes a point when this issue becomes less important than daily issues or even other theological issues. Once you take a stance or lean heavily in one direction, it's time to move on and focus on how one can be a better Christian.

Mad Gerbil and I have gone around a few times. Perhaps he should take your advice and stick to spiritual issues instead of attacking the "high priesthood of evolution" or whatever contentless rhetoric he spews occasionally in science areas of TWeb. He's made it clear that no amount of scientific evidence will convince him to relinquish YEC. This is depressing as well... :sigh:

...
Rogero,

These are not faith-determining issues for me. My faith hinges on Christ.

I have read Glenn's Days of Proclaimation view, and I have read a "Days of Revelation" view (the 6-days Creation is explained as the days God revealed to man what He did), and a wide variety of views by "TE's". I am just trying to see where my views on the subject line up.

I did not intend to paint a bleak picture.

Thank you, this last part of your post clarifies things alot for me. This is different from what I inferred from your first post.

God bless you in your search for truth...

R

P.S. Have you checked out Dick Fischer's (http://genesisproclaimed.org/home.asp) views on Adam? I don't necessarily endorse them, but they are an interesting historical-theological alternative to a purely allegorical view and a "literal" view.