Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: America's Ruling Class and science.

Expand Messages
  • e7.abba
    Alan, I think you took my comment out of context. I was simply responding to Chris statement that It s a historical myth that YECs started any internal or
    Message 1 of 27 , Jul 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Alan,

      I think you took my comment out of context. I was simply responding to Chris' statement that "It's a historical myth that YECs started any internal or external fights over how and when". I don't think I had previously said anything about the question of 'who started'. So all I was doing is saying to Chris that I think such a question is irrelevant at this point,and that we simply need to have a more civil and respectful discussion going forward.

      The 'cultish' comment simply reflects my opinion about John Morris' statements, and I will stand by that. That's not to say that Morris is leading a cult, it just saying that those particular statments were out of line and had a cultish tone. They were stronger than Melancthon's statement about censuring Copernicus. I only mentioned it to explain the basis of my reservations about Chris' statement that ICR 'just does science'.

      For the most part I agree with your concerns about the political aspects to the debate with the secular culture. But I think that battle would be better fought from a position of unity within the believing community of Christ-followers. Unity does not have to mean uniformity. Within reasonable boundaries, Christians should be unified in the essentials, charitable in our differences.

      I think it's wonderful that you and others have come to faith in the context of accepting a YEC view of Genesis, but you have to understand that it doesn't work that way for everyone and there are many cases where the strident dogmatism and intolerance expressed by Christians on a number of issues drives people from the faith.

      It doesn't need to be that way. I'm not saying any of us has to walk away from our convictions, we just need to be more circumspect in suggesting that others do so.

      Blessings,
      Bill

      --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, steelville <steelville@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > >
      > > As for any "who started it" question, I would only say to you what I
      > > used to say to my children, "I don't care who started it, it needs to
      > > stop." Similarly, I don't care 'who started' the origins fights within
      > > the church. The public spectacle needs to stop.
      > >
      > ---
      > You're misconstruing the "who started it question". Everyone can see
      > here that you continue to carry this thing forward. It's not us that
      > started it, and it's not us that continues it. You are, and every time
      > you do this I have to defend myself against the subtlety. I never did
      > care much for subtlety.
      >
      > Besides, this list is private among just us creationists, and there was
      > no controversy or division like you're trying to conjure up with that.
      > You already talked about God taking care of his own. Call it my opinion
      > and yours if you like, but I have to trust God that the damage that the
      > OEC view and the "evolution-friendly theology" does to the witness is in
      > God's hands, and so do you.
      >
      > OEC Christians spend entirely too much time trying to get YECs to sit
      > down and be quiet, but my children are out there and I got damaged and
      > they all need to know that the Bible is true. I don't know what is wrong
      > with calm reasoned arguments for YEC, but on lists like this, there are
      > other people in the audience, so for the sake of the gospel, we all
      > should share equal respect for our views.
      >
      > That's all I asked and you keep posting this kind of insinuation on the
      > subject.
      >
      > In other words, YOU might need to stop and think a bit yourself.
      >
      > > I noticed your list did not inlcude AIG. I would like to think that
      > > was intentional, because they certainly go far beyond "just doing
      > > science". I tend to agree with you with regard CRS, and maybe ICR with
      > > reservations.
      > >
      > > Over the years, I have attended many seminars led by Wayne Friar. now
      > > a retired CRS board member. Wayne is always a joy to listen ot to talk
      > > to, but I have never heard him speak of other Cristians holding
      > > opposing views with anything less then great respect. He has always
      > > represent the 1% Club well.
      > >
      > > My reservations about ICR are based, in part, on John Morris'
      > > statments that YECism should be a test of orthodoxy and a condition of
      > > church membership. That is borderline cultish and should be soundly
      > > rejected by everyone.
      > >
      > ---
      > That's what I mean. You're making an even worse claim here. And what's
      > borderline cultish. IS that like we've heard about this sect and
      > everywhere it is spoken against? That word "cult" is like the word "k**"
      > and is meaningless. It just means the big guys don't like the little guys.
      >
      > You came in with a broad brush and painted all the YECs with your 96
      > percent pigment and you think it was verified, but that's why.
      >
      >
      > > Ulimatly however, no one "just does science". The debate is not so
      > > much about science, but about our interepretations of both science and
      > > scripture (i.e. the hermeneutical spiral). For the most part everyone
      > > is working with the same set of scientific 'facts', but putting a
      > > diffrent spin on the 'facts', in part becasuse of presuppositions.
      > >
      > > YEC's start with a presuppostion about how scripture must be
      > > interpreted, and try to make the 'facts' fit the interpretation.
      > >
      > ---
      > And that is a presupposition about all YECs that is just false in
      > numerous cases, and every one has a different story. One ICR biologist
      > was saved, still taught evolution in the Christian school where he was
      > employed, but the science just dragged him along to a YEC view. This is
      > similar to my story. This is repeated time after time and again.
      >
      > And the funny thing is, the more real science I learn the more I know it
      > testifies to the truth. That's why I much prefer talking about science
      > that defending the right of YECs to speak same as anybody.
      >
      > The science is not "irrelevant", not true science, it is a testimony.
      > The world's anti-creationist cosmologists are going just stir crazy mad
      > over the anthropic principle staring them in the face, and since they
      > know the grand unified theory won't save them from its implications,
      > from its testimony to the omnipotent almighty God, they're now going
      > into wild fantasy land like multiple universes.
      >
      > And yes, ICR is about science. Of course being also Bible believers
      > (that's what YEC is all about, whether you followed the testimony of
      > true science to get there or another path), they also believe in Mark
      > 16. (the 2nd half) Again, they have been so. AIG too, but it makes no
      > claim to be just about science, it states outright that evangelism is
      > its purpose. But its predecessor group, CRS, absolutely.
      >
      > But none of these started any fights. Chuck agrees somewhat because
      > there have been stupid arguments, but I've seen some of the stupidest
      > things said in my life from gullible believers in Darwinian myths, and
      > some real wild ones from "scientists".
      >
      > Now the devil wants to turn the OECs against YECs, and turn some of the
      > YECs against some of their own that hold some doctrines that are
      > "uncomfortable" for them but nonetheless based on the same regard for
      > Biblical truth that you claim. And since you also claim that no one has
      > a more valid interpretation than another, then what say you give them
      > the same space.
      >
      > And then point to the real danger, from which they want to use OECs' and
      > theistic evolutionists against YECs. They have already begun denying
      > secular "accreditation" to Creation institutions, forcing even OEC types
      > among Designists out of universities, making an oath of loyalty to
      > Darwinian evolution a condition for any secular science publication, and
      > courts have ruled that evidence against Darwin's theory is "not science"
      > and that Intelligent Design is a "religion".
      >
      > Those guys are the enemies, they started it, and they continue to hit
      > our children with the barrage of lies.
      >
      > Try exposing the lies in the textbooks first. Hoeckel's drawings are
      > still showing up in high school biology, couched in doublespeak captions
      > (for the Pavlov effect). Piltdown man was still a "missing link" in my
      > son's high school biology text in the late 1990s. They still mention
      > discredited Nebraska man, a concoction invented to spook the Scopes trial.
      >
      > --aec
      >
    • e7.abba
      ... It is not a statement that the Earth has to be young ... there is ... I understand that in terms of your intent. I m just saying that I ve seen many
      Message 2 of 27 , Jul 31, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
        It is not a statement that the Earth has to be young
        > to disprove naturalism but that the Earth has to be young because
        there is
        > evidence that says it has to be young.


        I understand that in terms of your intent. I'm just saying that I've
        seen many statements by YECs that leave the impression that proving a
        young earth is seen as a sort of 'holy grail' to disprove evolution.


        > What are you talking about? It was a simple statement of fact.


        It may be a fact, but my point was that it is irrelevant to the
        contemporary discussion.


        > > I'm not saying it is what you intended, but it does infer another
        > > logical fallacy. The metaphysical beliefs of a scientist do not
        > > validate or invalidate his/her theories about the physical
        > > universe. We can certainly consider those beliefs in trying to
        > > understand how the scientist interprets the data, but not to the
        > > point of dismissing the theory on that alone.
        > > I find this sort of rhetoric common with AIG and others. I
        > > think it provides legitimate fodder for the critics and isn't
        fitting
        > > for the 1% Club.
        >
        > You really have a knack for reading into stuff things that aren't
        there.
        > References to the naturalistic nature of old Earth theories is not
        about
        > dismissing the theory on that alone, but understanding how the data is
        > interpreted. Once you realize that a scientist is working from a
        purely
        > naturalistic view point, it is obvious that he would not see a miracle
        or
        > other form of supernatural event in the evidence no mater how strong
        it was.
        > I have seen this even outside the origins debate.


        I agree, but I don't think this conflicts with what I said.

        >

        > It is clear that you have missed the point of creation science. It's
        not
        > about integrating "science and scripture based on the latest and
        greatest
        > scientific facts" but about science from a Biblical perspective.


        It's essntially the same thing. You do science from your biblical
        pespective, Hugh Ross does science from his biblical perspective,
        Francis Collins does science from his biblical perspective. Doing
        science from a 'biblical perspective' ulimately has the goal of
        integrating, correlating (or however you want to describe it) the
        scientific 'facts' with our 'biblical perspective'. Since everyone has a
        different interpretation of the 'scientific facts' and a differing
        views of the the 'biblical perspective' it is inevitable that uniformity
        will be impossible to achieve. (that's evident even within this group,
        apart from me the oddball).

        >
        >
        since Walton's view is more
        > literal than progressive creation; no major accomplishment.
        >
        No idea what you mean here. Walton does consider his interpretation to
        be a very literal interpretation. To say it is' no major accomlishment'
        is to much too dismissive. I think it reflects a poor understanding of
        Walton's very thorough analysis of the subject.

        >
        > What do you mean by "a temporal hobby"? I'm looking forward to
        > scientifically studying heaven when I get there, followed by the New
        Heaven
        > and, New Earth.
        >
        I'm certainly looking forward to a much clearer understanding of these
        things, in the spirit of I Cor. 13., but it remains to be seen how that
        revelation plays out. I was just saying that I think there is a
        temptation for those of us who love science to be obsessed with
        interpreting Gen1 through a modern foundationalist lens. Ultimately, if
        John Walton is right, the revelation may be that we're just chasing a
        bunch of rabbit trails because we have ignored the cultural context of
        the author of Genesis.

        Blessings,

        Bill
        >

        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • steelville
        ... You re the one that said the young earth is irrelevant in the debate with metaphysical materialists, and he only pointed out how very relevant it was, so
        Message 3 of 27 , Jul 31, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          >
          > Chuck, Fine, I understand. My observation was not intened to presume
          > what you meant,so much as to point out how the rhetoric comes across.
          >
          ---
          You're the one that said the young earth is irrelevant in the debate
          with metaphysical materialists, and he only pointed out how very
          relevant it was, so you jumped in another direction, and simply said
          even their years are not enough. But then your own argument how even
          billions is not enough proves Chuck's point. Stay within the thread and
          context of the conversation and we won't have to repeat ourselves to you.
          >
          > I can just tell you that when I listen to some of AIG's rhetoric about
          > 'thousands, not billions" it clearly sounds that way, and I've noticed
          > others making the same observation.
          >
          ---
          What you think about it doesn't make it less true, and makes it also no
          less true that the Creation ("thousands not billions") being a testimony
          to the Bible is a fabulous witness against atheists and materialists.
          (Besides being true, true, true).

          > Statements like "it is a historical fact that Old Earth geology was
          > founded on metaphysical naturalism, so the two do go hand and hand"
          > tend to reinfrorce this impression. I'm not saying it is what you
          > intended, but it does infer another logical fallacy. The metaphysical
          > beliefs of a scientist do not validate or invalidate his/her theories
          > about the physical universe. We can certainly consider those beliefs
          > in trying to understand how the scientist interprets the data, but not
          > to the point of dismissing the theory on that alone. I find this sort
          > of rhetoric common with AIG and others. I think it provides legitimate
          > fodder for the critics and isn't fitting for the 1% Club.
          >
          ---
          First Chuck didn't say we should base it on "that alone"!! You have to
          stop twisting what somebody said into what nobody said! It wastes time
          and energy and does no good for your credibility.

          And it doesn't "provide[] legitimate fodder for the critics" because it
          is "illegitimate --that's ILlegitimate-- fodder for the critics".

          And it is indeed a valid argument, as history shows. Thomas Huxley got
          upset with Charles Darwin for even allowing for any falsification of his
          theory, like pointing to the fossils as an argument against it. Stephen
          Gould blew the cover off their "trade secret of paleontology", that the
          fossils are a stronger argument than ever.

          It is consistent with their constant blatant censorship against Biblical
          creation views, and even Designist views, and has everything to do with
          helping people get free from the bondage of accepting the word of
          scientism priests over the truth.

          > Let me say also that I noted your comment "I prefer the science". I
          > think your said earlier that you have an advanced degree in Physics.
          > (I'm curious to know if you are a professional scientist and your area
          > of work.) I'm not a credentialed scientist. I've just had a life long
          > interest in science. This in part has fed my interest in the origins
          > debate since my teen years (a long time ago). That, along with my
          > passion for debate (I'm sure that's a surprise to you :)) put me on
          > the bandwagon of trying to 'prove' Genesis One with scientific
          > arguments. I was very intent on this, mostly as a YEC, for much of my
          > life). I think it is a very natural instinct for folks like us who
          > love science, and see it as a way of appreciating God's creation, to
          > want to integrate science and scripture based on the latest and
          > greatest scientific 'facts'.
          >
          ---
          So where did you study, to get your mind undone? ;)

          > It's only been in very recent years that I have become increasingly
          > convinced that all of these attempts to integrate contemporary science
          > with scripture are most likely a bunch of rabbit trails. They reflect
          > a foundationalist modernity view of scripture that is just as much
          > rooted in the enlightenment as the views they critisize, and betray a
          > poor understanding of how God revealed himself to the ancient Hebrews.
          > I think folks like John Walton are worth listening to and probably
          > have a better handle on the 'literal meaning' of Genesis than Ken Ham,
          > John Morris, Hugh Ross, etc.
          >
          ---
          That shows such a poor understanding of whatever you think YE is, that
          it's very hard to conceive that you understood it properly. And all of
          your comments in this forum also show a very poor understanding of how
          YEC's think.

          And using the word "bandwagon" for your stint at trying to "prove"
          Genesis One with scientific arguments, and putting "prove" in quotes,
          speaks volumes about not only your approach to Genesis, but it also
          speaks volumes about your current attitude.

          And your slip of the tongue, "to want to integrate science and scripture
          based on the latest and greatest scientific 'facts'.", also let slip a
          bit of yourself.

          You're still wanting to "integrate science and scripture based on the
          latest and greatest scientific 'facts'."

          Your repeated references to "the 1% club" is also telling.

          > It's' been a little disconcerting for me, because it removes one of my
          > earthly passions (science) from the discussion, and now I have no one
          > to argue with but brothers in the faith like you, temlakos, Alan, etc.
          > who still hold onto the views I used ot hold. But as a rsult I believe
          > i have been able to focus more effectively on the core mission of the
          > church ... the Great Commission.
          >
          ---
          I doubt much you used to hold on to our views, as my aforementioned
          comments show.

          > So, when you say you 'prefer the science' just make sure you're not
          > being driven by your love of a temporal hobby. Blessings, Bill
          >
          ---
          Why assume everyone else's faith in Genesis One was just as squishy as
          yours?

          And the meaning of Genesis does not depend on John Morris, or Ken Ham,
          and whoa nelly you put Hugh Ross in their too, which sounds ominously
          worse than I thought...

          --aec


          > --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
          > <mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
          > <mailto:CreationTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
          > >
          > > On Behalf Of e7.abba
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > I certainly agree that there is plenty of fault to go around.
          > > > It is never my intent to be direspectful to anyone, so you
          > > > can always call me on it if you think I am.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > I agree that creationists blatantly attacking each other are
          > > anti-productive. That doesn't mean we don't discuss other positions
          > and give
          > > our reasons for disagreeing with them. Frankly I prefer ignoring OEC
          > views
          > > as much as possible, because I prefer the science.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > I would like to comment on your statement, "First of all a
          > > > young Earth has to be of a supernatural origin and as such
          > > > evidence for a young Earth is evidence against
          > > > metaphysical naturalism. A naturalistic theory of Earth
          > > > geology has to have an Earth billions of years old." This
          > > > betrays what I have long thought is a logical fallacy in the
          > > > YEC position.
          > > >
          > > > You basically said the earth has to be young because it
          > > > would disprove meta-physical naturalism.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > That is not what I said nor did I mean any thing like that.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > My only point was that evidence for a Young Earth is by definition
          > evidence
          > > against meta-physical naturalism. I was not saying that the Earth
          > has to by
          > > young because of that, I was simply pointing out the relevance of
          > the age of
          > > the Earth to the argument, nothing more.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > That rationale is often stated by YECs, but it is clearly a
          > > > logical fallacy.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > I agree and that is not what I was saying.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > Just because naturalism needs a long time, does not mean
          > > > that long tiome proves naturalism.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > You're the one that made the fallacy, buy assuming I was inferring
          > something
          > > I was not. I never said that a long time proves naturalism, nor was
          > it my
          > > intent to suggest it.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > However it is a historical fact that Old Earth geology was founded on
          > > metaphysical naturalism, so the two do go hand and hand. The fact is
          > that
          > > most OEC's simply try to plug God into these naturalistic theories. You
          > > could make a far better case for separating and old Earth from
          > metaphysical
          > > naturalism by presenting an old Earth geological theory not founded on
          > > metaphysical naturalism. To the best of my knowledge no such theory
          > exists.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > This sort of logic, especially from AIG, often comes across
          > > > as a very shallow way of saying, 'let's prove a young earth
          > > > so we can disprove naturalism'. Wrong approach!!
          > >
          > > I don't see that attitude with AIG, but given how badly you miss
          > understood
          > > what I was saying it likely you did the same with them.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > And it's an unnecessary argument.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > This is were we clearly disagree. The truth is NEVER an unnecessary
          > > argument. I am a YEC not just because I believe the Bible teaches
          > it, but
          > > also because it is a scientifically supportable position. I ague for it,
          > > study it, and present it, because I believe it is the truth. It's that
          > > simple.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > > I think any valid statistical analysis shows
          > > > that random unfguided evolution would
          > > > require far more tha 4.5b years.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > True, 100 goggle years (10^102 years) would not suffice for random
          > unguided
          > > evolution. Frankly I don't think eternity could suffice for random
          > unguided
          > > evolution. However the issue is about more than random unguided
          > evolution.
          > > It is about more than biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology are all
          > > major factors as well.
          >
        • steelville
          ... I already commented on material I found written by this John Walton, and just came across another that says it all at
          Message 4 of 27 , Jul 31, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            > It's only been in very recent years that I have become increasingly
            > convinced that all of these attempts to integrate contemporary science
            > with scripture are most likely a bunch of rabbit trails. They reflect
            > a foundationalist modernity view of scripture that is just as much
            > rooted in the enlightenment as the views they critisize, and betray a
            > poor understanding of how God revealed himself to the ancient Hebrews.
            > I think folks like John Walton are worth listening to and probably
            > have a better handle on the 'literal meaning' of Genesis than Ken Ham,
            > John Morris, Hugh Ross, etc.
            >
            ---
            I already commented on material I found written by this John Walton, and
            just came across another that says it all at
            http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/genesis-jw.htm, as follows:

            John Walton says, "We should not expect the Bible to answer the
            questions that arise from our own time and culture. Genesis was written
            to Israelites and addressed human origins in light of the questions they
            would have had. We should not try to make modern science out of the
            information that we are given, but should try to understand the
            affirmations that the text is making in its own context." (quoted from
            /The Creation of Humankind in the Ancient Near East/

            It is wrong to say "we cannot expect the Bible to answer the questions
            that arise form our own time and culture", because that's too broad.
            First of all, the origins question is nothing new, it's an old one.
            Second, we learn from history that the Bible was always right, and the
            "questions they would have had" were answered by the prophets in their
            time, including Genesis.

            And nobody is "making modern science out of the information that we are
            given", but history demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible
            has always been true about everything it says without any exceptions,
            and man's wisdom is utter base foolishness.

            It is the /Bible-deniers/ that have tried to make modern science out of
            ancient pagan myths, including material cosmologies and pantheistic
            cosmologies and Darwinian origins of life myths. Jeremiah 2:27.

            ++++

            In a nutshell, the guy says the cosmos is like the temple, and that for
            them the "temple and the cosmos are blended into one" because that's
            "where God rests, that's where the gods rest, in the ancient world". The
            next juicy morsel is is to say the temple was to them like the Oval
            Office, and the seventh day, when God rested was like the president
            moving into the Oval Office to start doing things, and that's when God
            started doing things.

            So he flips the day when God rested into the day when God went to work.

            First of all, the OT saints and Jews had absolutely no trouble
            understanding the difference between cosmos and temple. They know what
            "evening and morning" means, "first day", "second day", "six days". How
            in the world can anybody say they didn't understand these terms as they
            are said. It's hard to argue against somebody that just simply insists
            that it says something it obviously does not, and the only reasonable
            conclusion is that they just simply can't let go of man's opinions on it
            but don't want to deny the Bible either.

            To me, the guy looked intelligent enough in that youtube snip, but then
            the stuff coming out of his mouth did not match the level of his
            apparent intelligence, which would suggest more sinister motivations.
            (Sometimes known as "nobody can be that stupid!")

            And they guy also shows he doesn't know his Bible.

            Isaiah 66:1 ¶Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the
            earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and
            where is the place of my rest?

            Acts 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house
            will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

            What, in God's name, is Wheaton College --a "Christian" college!!--
            doing with such a man teaching such nonsense to its children, not to say
            heresies, and pouring spiked drinks into minds like Bill's, a mind
            otherwise capable of intelligent thinking?

            ---Alan
          • Chuck
            From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of e7.abba ... While it is true that proving a young earth does disprove evolution the ultimate benefit of proving
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 1, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
              On Behalf Of e7.abba

              > Chuck
              >> It is not a statement that the Earth has to be young
              >> to disprove naturalism but that the Earth has to be
              >> young because there is evidence that says it has to
              >> be young.

              > I understand that in terms of your intent. I'm just
              > saying that I've seen many statements by YECs
              > that leave the impression that proving a young earth
              > is seen as a sort of 'holy grail' to disprove evolution.



              While it is true that proving a young earth does disprove evolution the
              ultimate benefit of proving a young Earth is that a young Earth is uniquely
              Biblical. In outer words proving a young Earth not only disproves evolution
              but proves the Biblical account as well. Simply demonetarizing the need for
              a creator does not necessarily point one to the Bible or Christ; which is
              the ultimate goal. Proving the existence of a creator without being able to
              show that He is the God of the Bible could mean that the creator was Allah,
              Oaden, Vishnu, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter.



              That said I have never gotten such an impression as you suggest above, I
              suspect that you are reading into things because of the influence of OEC
              material you have been reading. You seem to have a tendency to see stuff in
              written texts that are not there. Not only does this show up in the
              impressions you get from sources like AIG but what I have written here as
              well. I don't know how many times I have had to correct you for claiming I
              said something I did not say.



              >> What are you talking about? It was a simple

              >> statement of fact.

              > It may be a fact, but my point was that it is

              > irrelevant to the contemporary discussion.



              It is NOT irrelevant to the contemporary discussion because the purely
              naturalistic nature of old Earth geological theories make their adherents
              incapable of seeing any evidenced for supernatural events like Creation and
              the Flood in the data.



              Assuming for the sake of argument that YEC is correct then both Creation and
              the Flood were purely supernatural events that occurred about 6,000 and
              4,400 years ago. If one tries to then interpret what he sees in the rocks
              based on a purely naturalistic geological theory he will inevitably
              concludes that the Earth is many of orders of magnitude older than it really
              is. Which is exactly what we see in establishment geology.



              The point is that the purely naturalistic nature of old Earth geological
              theories affects how data is interpreted, that fact make it essential to the
              contemporary discussion.


              >> It is clear that you have missed the point of creation
              >> science. It's not about integrating "science and
              >> scripture based on the latest and greatest scientific
              >> facts" but about science from a Biblical perspective.
              >
              > It's essntially the same thing. You do science from your
              > biblical pespective, Hugh Ross does science from his
              > biblical perspective, Francis Collins does science from
              > his biblical perspective. Doing science from a 'biblical
              > perspective' ulimately has the goal of integrating,
              > correlating (or however you want to describe it) the
              > scientific 'facts' with our 'biblical perspective'. Since
              > everyone has a different interpretation of the 'scientific
              > facts' and a differing views of the the 'biblical
              > perspective' it is inevitable that uniformity will be
              > impossible to achieve.

              But why should we expect uniformity? Disagreement is part of human nature
              and Science for that mater. It is a natural result of free inquiry. The only
              way to achieve such uniformity is for it to be forced by a Ruling Class that
              punishes dissent. It requires eliminating true free inquiry. Sadly this is
              exactly what we see in the scientific establishment.

              >> since Walton's view is more literal than progressive

              >> creation; no major accomplishment.
              >
              > No idea what you mean here. Walton does consider
              > his interpretation to be a very literal interpretation. To
              > say it is' no major accomplishment' is to much too
              > dismissive. I think it reflects a poor understanding of
              > Walton's very thorough analysis of the subject.



              The remark about "no major accomplishment" was a comment against progressive
              creation NOT Walton. Progressive creation is basically one step from
              theistic evolution so having a more literal interpretation than progressive
              creation is not a major accomplishment.



              That said the fact that Walton considers his interpretation to be a very
              literal interpretation does not make it one. There are plenty of members of
              congress that call them selves conservative but the only thing their actions
              show they are interested in conserving is their job.



              That said Walton bases his interpretation on hypothetical the cultural
              context that he has no proof for and one that leave the majority of
              potential readers with an inability to properly understand God's word. Also
              if God wrote Genesis 1 to only be understood within the cultural context of
              the author then why stop there? Why not interpret other passages as only
              being understood within the cultural context of the author. In fact some
              people already do this and use it to not only allow for women preaches but
              to excuse homosexuality as well.


              >> What do you mean by "a temporal hobby"? I'm

              >> looking forward to scientifically studying heaven
              >> when I get there, followed by the New Heaven
              >> and, New Earth.
              >
              > I was just saying that I think there is a temptation
              > for those of us who love science to be obsessed
              > with interpreting Gen1 through a modern

              > foundationalist lens.



              The YEC interpretation is more than just a modern foundationalist lens; it
              is an interpretation Genesis 1 that predates all of these old Earth
              interpretations and naturalistic Geological theories. Not only can it be
              found in the works of James Ussher (1658), reformers like Martian Luther and
              John Calvin but the works of Josephus (1st century AD). The point is that
              the YEC interpretation is the historical interpretation of Genesis 1.
              Furthermore it is an interpretation that has produced scientifically
              testable theories which have been successfully tested.

              > Ultimately, if John Walton is right, the revelation

              > may be that we're just chasing a bunch of rabbit

              > trails because we have ignored the cultural

              > context of the author of Genesis.


              And ultimately you and John Walton are pushing the same basic idea that put
              the Church to sleep for 150 year, allowing atheists to gain control over
              main stream science. Sure Walton's specific theory is some what new but its
              ultimate conclusion that Christians can ignore science in understanding and
              preaching of the Bible is identical to what got us where we are today. Where
              the Church has been locked out of Politics, Education, main stream Science,
              and almost rendered entirely irrelevant on cultural issues. Projecting
              current trends forward in this area predicts a period of intense persecution
              against the Church coming to the U.S. and other western countries resulting
              in preachers and other believers being jailed and possibly even executed for
              not going along with the godless decrees of the Ruling Class and refusing to
              bow the knee to them. If that day comes I know I will not bow the knee,
              figuratively or literally and the Ruling Class will get my KJV Bible only by
              prying it out of my cold dead hands. Maybe by the grace of God we can still
              turn things around, but it won't happen by once again putting our heads in
              the scientific sand and ignoring what is happening.



              Bill it is clear that despite your claimed respect for YEC's that you
              ultimately want us to just shut and go away. Well you can just for get it. I
              sand by the truth of the Bible which is clearly YEC and I will do so until
              the Lord takes me home. You may continue to spew as much compromising OEC
              rubbish as you wish but it will not change our minds nor shut us up and we
              are definitely not going away.





              ------ Charles Creager Jr.

              Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Mission

              Online <http://store.gscim.com/> Store





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • steelville
              ... I agree with that last statement, but the point about who started it was precisely over who is it that continues to seek a fight, and it is not YECs, and
              Message 6 of 27 , Aug 1, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                > I think you took my comment out of context. I was simply responding to
                > Chris' statement that "It's a historical myth that YECs started any
                > internal or external fights over how and when". I don't think I had
                > previously said anything about the question of 'who started'. So all I
                > was doing is saying to Chris that I think such a question is
                > irrelevant at this point,and that we simply need to have a more civil
                > and respectful discussion going forward.
                >
                ---
                I agree with that last statement, but the point about "who started it"
                was precisely over who is it that continues to seek a fight, and it is
                not YECs, and more specifically the YECs that are interested in
                Bible-compatible science. So hopefully, there will be fewer negative and
                useless insinuations about 96 percent figures, and bringing up the ad
                hominem of this straw man that anti-creationists are always using to
                divert attention from the bankruptcy of their "science".


                > The 'cultish' comment simply reflects my opinion about John Morris'
                > statements, and I will stand by that. That's not to say that Morris is
                > leading a cult, it just saying that those particular statments were
                > out of line and had a cultish tone. They were stronger than
                > Melancthon's statement about censuring Copernicus. I only mentioned it
                > to explain the basis of my reservations about Chris' statement that
                > ICR 'just does science'.
                >
                ---
                They do science as much as anybody, and any "scientist" that claims that
                his statements are "aloof" to his metaphysics is just blowing in the wind.

                My point, again I say, I repeat, is about the use of the word "cult". It
                is meaningless despite some sectors' attempt to formalize its
                attributes. It's just a way to use a pejorative, and it is a useless ad
                hominem, and says nothing at all specific except for your own possibly
                jaundiced eye.

                Acts 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as
                concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.

                The "cult of man" is much more dangerous to understanding scriptural
                doctrine. "Scientism", the elevation of man's wisdom above God's word,
                is such a "cult" today, if you want a real pejorative. John Morris is
                much less guilty of this than say, an "evolutionary creationist".

                His understanding of the relationship between the practice of what we
                know as "science" and what we know as Biblical doctrine is certainly
                better than held by the all-too-numerous false shepherds in "Christian
                denominations" today.

                > For the most part I agree with your concerns about the political
                > aspects to the debate with the secular culture. But I think that
                > battle would be better fought from a position of unity within the
                > believing community of Christ-followers. Unity does not have to mean
                > uniformity. Within reasonable boundaries, Christians should be unified
                > in the essentials, charitable in our differences.
                >
                ---
                I agree with those sentiments but by being "charitable" I won't accept a
                mandate to keep quiet about the lies about origins that have done more
                damage to preaching the gospel to the lost than any other thing. And
                again, I don't know who you're preaching to with that because I have not
                sought "division", just truth, and the word of God commands us to regard
                sound doctrine as important to the extreme, albeit with longsuffering
                and kindness.

                And despite contrary insinuations, I haven't been unkind with you. At
                the very least, I have articulated specific points that answered the
                general unkindness in your initial comments.

                And a common-sense approach to Genesis, and the reliability and
                infallibility of the Bible, is an essential doctrine. Pretending that it
                does not show a six-day creation, even if you have convinced yourself of
                this, does nothing for the witness.

                Besides which, not for nothing Jesus said he came to bring division.

                In the very passage where Paul said to avoid foolish unedifying
                questions, he quickly said to clearly reject a heretic after admonishing
                him:

                Titus 3:9 ¶But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and
                contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and
                vain.
                10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
                11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being
                condemned of himself.

                > I think it's wonderful that you and others have come to faith in the
                > context of accepting a YEC view of Genesis, but you have to understand
                > that it doesn't work that way for everyone and there are many cases
                > where the strident dogmatism and intolerance expressed by Christians
                > on a number of issues drives people from the faith.
                >
                ---
                So why are you being so intolerant? You have your views on the subject,
                I have mine, we can be charitable.

                You think your approach wins more souls, please have at it. However, the
                fruits of Darwinism --and its theological hybrid offshoots-- are
                historical and undeniable. Ivory tower thinking from man's wisdom is
                proven backwards by generations of experience.

                Churches that have embraced the adulterated versions of Genesis have for
                the most part become lax in winning souls, and the ones that are more
                "evangelical" are in great confusion because their young people are
                deserting.

                > It doesn't need to be that way. I'm not saying any of us has to walk
                > away from our convictions, we just need to be more circumspect in
                > suggesting that others do so.
                >
                ---
                This is exactly what I've been trying to point out to you, that you are
                doing exactly what you are telling us we should not do.

                You are telling us that we should walk away from the conviction of the
                importance of believing Genesis, and from the conviction of its obvious
                Biblical importance to sound doctrine and to the salvation message, and
                how much of a witness true science is to the word of God.

                This is part of my own personal testimony and it would be disobedience
                to Mark 16:15 to do otherwise. Especially with others like your mentors
                in this area telling you that six-day Creation is the problem. /They/
                are the problem.

                You'll repeat again that you don't want us to give up believing in
                Genesis, but you just want us to believe it your way or consider
                changing. We already did consider, we already did change, and based on
                God's word and true science, here I am.

                I've already explained why it is six days, you're free not to believe
                it. Maybe you will someday, because from your comments I don't think you
                had a very good understanding of the science, and certainly not enough
                conviction on the truth of the narrative in Genesis.

                --Alan



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • steelville
                ... I think maybe he s the one chasing rabbit trails, in the style of Lewis Carroll. And you still haven t addressed the point that the history documented in
                Message 7 of 27 , Aug 1, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Ultimately, if John Walton is right, the revelation may be that we're
                  > just chasing a bunch of rabbit trails because we have ignored the
                  > cultural context of the author of Genesis.
                  ---
                  I think maybe he's the one chasing rabbit trails, in the style of Lewis
                  Carroll. And you still haven't addressed the point that the history
                  documented in Genesis has nothing to do with any "cultural context" of
                  "the author of Genesis".

                  Moses was "educated in all the knowledge of the Egyptians", but if you
                  compare the Pentateuch with all the writings and heiroglyphics in the
                  temples and pyramids in Egypt you will see the vast chasm that separates
                  Biblical truth from the paganism of the surrounding "ANE cosmologies".

                  The only cultural context that is relevant here is the one in the Bible.

                  > > So, when you say you 'prefer the science' just make sure you're not>
                  > being driven by your love of a temporal hobby.
                  >
                  > What do you mean by "a temporal hobby"? I'm looking forward to
                  > scientifically studying heaven when I get there, followed by the New
                  > Heaven and, New Earth.
                  ---
                  Besides, what's wrong with science as a "temporal hobby"?! Michael
                  Faraday is the guy that put electricity and magnetism together and he
                  got his start if not this discovery on his own as an amateur, without
                  any advanced formal education in it at all.

                  Forrest Sims is another example who writes an "Amateur Scientist"
                  syndicated column, accomplishes more science in his spare time than most
                  lab coats, and proved NASA wrong with his $300 home-built
                  interferometer, and them with their million-dollar satellites and
                  scientists.

                  Scientific American reluctantly un-hired him because he answered "No" to
                  "Do you believe in evolution?", but that negative decision gave them the
                  firestorm of negative PR they had tried to avoid. And their decision led
                  to a number of peer-reviewed publications since then.

                  --Alan
                • e7.abba
                  ... and ... *** It would only be too broad if you took his statement out of context. He does a very good job of applying the cultural context in very specific
                  Message 8 of 27 , Aug 1, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, steelville <steelville@...> wrote:

                    > I already commented on material I found written by this John Walton,
                    and
                    > just came across another that says it all at
                    > http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/genesis-jw.htm, as follows:
                    *** I got "webpage not found". are you sure the link is correct?

                    > It is wrong to say "we cannot expect the Bible to answer the questions
                    > that arise form our own time and culture", because that's too broad.

                    *** It would only be too broad if you took his statement out of context.
                    He does a very good job of applying the cultural context in very
                    specific situations. In the case of Genesis One, he is able to correlate
                    scripture in specific instances with ANE cosmic geography, which was
                    ubiqutious among the Israelites and their neighbors.

                    In the same sense we may write today about creation, using terms like
                    black holes, quasars, dark matter, relativity, etc. A thousand years
                    from now (if history were to continue that long) these concepts may be
                    as foreign and primitive to our descendents as we view the ANE concepts
                    today.

                    > Second, we learn from history that the Bible was always right, and the
                    > "questions they would have had" were answered by the prophets in their
                    > time, including Genesis.
                    > And nobody is "making modern science out of the information that we
                    are
                    > given", but history demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the
                    Bible
                    > has always been true about everything it says without any exceptions,
                    > and man's wisdom is utter base foolishness.
                    *** This suggests you are misunderstaning the main point. This is not
                    about questioning whether the 'bible is right'. No one here is saying
                    that. It is about 'what is the Bible really saying?"

                    > It is the /Bible-deniers/ that have tried to make modern science out
                    of
                    > ancient pagan myths, including material cosmologies and pantheistic
                    > cosmologies and Darwinian origins of life myths. Jeremiah 2:27.
                    *** Neither me or anyone I have quoted is a 'bible denier' of any sort,
                    so I'm not sure who you are referring to.

                    >
                    > In a nutshell, the guy says the cosmos is like the temple, and that
                    for
                    > them the "temple and the cosmos are blended into one" because that's
                    > "where God rests, that's where the gods rest, in the ancient world".
                    The
                    > next juicy morsel is is to say the temple was to them like the Oval
                    > Office, and the seventh day, when God rested was like the president
                    > moving into the Oval Office to start doing things, and that's when God
                    > started doing things.
                    >
                    > So he flips the day when God rested into the day when God went to
                    work.
                    *** The temple motif is very credibly supported both by scritpure and
                    the cultural context (i.e sound historrical-grammatical exegesis). It
                    rests on a compelling theological foundation. Likewise, the Sabbath is
                    a much deeper issue than the traditional interpretation you are alluding
                    to.


                    > First of all, the OT saints and Jews had absolutely no trouble
                    > understanding the difference between cosmos and temple. They know what
                    > "evening and morning" means, "first day", "second day", "six days".
                    How
                    > in the world can anybody say they didn't understand these terms as
                    they
                    > are said.

                    *** Alan, I think there is another possible conclusion here. It may well
                    be that you don't understand the terms "as they were said". If I use the
                    term "Iron Curtain" you may think I'm talking about a curtin made of
                    iron, if you aren't familiar with 20th c history. If I say "daylight
                    savings time", and you come from a culture that never heard of that, you
                    may think I have a way of saving daylight somewhere. If I use the term
                    Kent State, you may think I'm just referring to a university, unless you
                    are familiar with the event in the 60s.

                    I'm sure the OT saints and Jews did understand very well what their
                    words meant. The question for us is how did they use the words and how
                    were those usages expressing cultural concepts that alien to modern
                    thinking and are not intuitive for us.


                    > To me, the guy looked intelligent enough in that youtube snip, but
                    then
                    > the stuff coming out of his mouth did not match the level of his
                    > apparent intelligence, which would suggest more sinister motivations.
                    > (Sometimes known as "nobody can be that stupid!")

                    > And the guy also shows he doesn't know his Bible.
                    *** Shameful statements Alan ... maybe he would wonder the same about
                    you :). That's exactly the kind of ungracious rhetoric that doesn't help
                    the cause. It's pure 4% Club rhetoric!

                    >
                    > Isaiah 66:1 ¶Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the
                    > earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and
                    > where is the place of my rest?
                    >
                    > Acts 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house
                    > will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
                    *** Good for you Alan ... references supporting Walton's idea about the
                    cosmic temple! :)


                    > What, in God's name, is Wheaton College --a "Christian" college!!--
                    > doing with such a man teaching such nonsense to its children, not to
                    say
                    > heresies, and pouring spiked drinks into minds like Bill's, a mind
                    > otherwise capable of intelligent thinking?

                    *** Again, shameful, shameful! (But I do appreciate the qualified
                    compliment! :)
                    >

                    Blessings
                    Bill
                    >
                  • steelville
                    ... So now we /like/ to point to context do we? You want me to read /Walton/ in context but not Genesis! /John Walton/ is the one taking the statements of
                    Message 9 of 27 , Aug 3, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > > It is wrong to say "we cannot expect the Bible to answer the
                      > questions > that arise form our own time and culture", because that's
                      > too broad.
                      >
                      > *** It would only be too broad if you took his statement out of
                      > context. He does a very good job of applying the cultural context in
                      > very specific situations. In the case of Genesis One, he is able to
                      > correlate scripture in specific instances with ANE cosmic geography,
                      > which was ubiqutious among the Israelites and their neighbors.
                      ---
                      So now we /like/ to point to context do we? You want me to read /Walton/
                      in context but not Genesis! /John Walton/ is the one taking the
                      statements of /scripture/ out of context. I'm sorry, I'll take God's
                      word over John Walton any day.

                      Rule of thumb for understanding God's word: if you need to consult the
                      prophets of Baal and Philistine and Egyptian cosmologies to understand
                      it, then it's worth less that toilet paper. It's a preposterous heresy,
                      I'll venture to say, bigger than just the origins questions even,
                      because it elevates over God's word the paganism of the idolators who
                      sacrificed their babies to Molech.

                      Of /course/ the Israelites of the day went with those abominable beliefs
                      of the surrounding heathens, because the Bible says so. And the Bible
                      /strongly condemns/ those backsliding.

                      I already showed a verse that showed that very fact, but rather than
                      lifting it up as an example of what Genesis meant, it very clearly
                      /condemns it harshly/:

                      Jeremiah 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone,
                      Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and
                      not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise,
                      and save us.

                      > In the same sense we may write today about creation, using terms like
                      > black holes, quasars, dark matter, relativity, etc. A thousand years
                      > from now (if history were to continue that long) these concepts may be
                      > as foreign and primitive to our descendents as we view the ANE
                      > concepts today.
                      ---
                      So what? That's irrelevant to what the Bible says. I believe what Moses
                      believed about how Creation happened, and with Jesus Christ.

                      And forget about the ANE concepts already, you're talking about
                      accepting a modern synthesis of Molech theology with Baal-worship
                      cosmology and Egyptian mysticism over the Bible! This is unacceptable
                      heresy in my view!

                      It's like I tell people about the US Constitution. The country's
                      Founders are pretty clear, though there is this belief and that belief,
                      but what counts more than all that for "constitutionality" is what
                      actually went into the text.

                      And there is LESS THAN ZERO Biblical support for viewing Genesis, /in
                      ALL its contexts/ as talking about anything other than a six day creation.

                      And bringing up the /cultural context/ of ancient days makes the case
                      /much stronger/ for rejecting ALL surrounding cosmologies in the face
                      of what Genesis actually /says/.


                      > > Second, we learn from history that the Bible was always right, and
                      > the> "questions they would have had" were answered by the prophets in
                      > their > time, including Genesis.
                      > > And nobody is "making modern science out of the information that we
                      > are> given", but history demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the
                      > Bible> has always been true about everything it says without any
                      > exceptions,
                      > > and man's wisdom is utter base foolishness.
                      > *** This suggests you are misunderstaning the main point. This is not
                      > about questioning whether the 'bible is right'. No one here is saying
                      > that. It is about 'what is the Bible really saying?"
                      ---
                      Then why must one be an expert in understanding ancient cosmologies to
                      understand "what is the Bible really saying"? Everybody knows it says
                      six days, and this re-interpretation of "literal" is astounding! What is
                      so amazing is that anybody can claim it to be "literal"! I don't think
                      even Hugh Ross makes such a ridiculous claim about his own take on it!

                      Bill, I have listed not only the numerous reasons the passage itself
                      cannot be other than 6 days creation, but numerous other reasons the
                      entire Bible is based on a six-day creation.

                      Not to mention that science itself bears witness to it and scientists
                      are foolish to reject the overwhelming evidence of God's creative hand
                      in a young earth.

                      > > It is the /Bible-deniers/ that have tried to make modern science out
                      > of> ancient pagan myths, including material cosmologies and pantheistic
                      > > cosmologies and Darwinian origins of life myths. Jeremiah 2:27.
                      > *** Neither me or anyone I have quoted is a 'bible denier' of any
                      > sort, so I'm not sure who you are referring to.
                      ---
                      Jeremiah 2:27 says that if you believe the "ancient cosmologies"
                      (meaning the ancient pagan superstitions of idol-worshipers), then you
                      are denying the word of God.

                      Jeremiah 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone,
                      Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and
                      not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise,
                      and save us.

                      That's exactly why the Israelites were separate from the Egyptians while
                      there, why they went through the desert, and those "ancient cosmologies"
                      are exactly why Canaan was judged so harshly!

                      Even the money-hungry Balaam had enough sense to realize this!

                      > > In a nutshell, the guy says the cosmos is like the temple, and that
                      > for> them the "temple and the cosmos are blended into one" because
                      > that's> "where God rests, that's where the gods rest, in the ancient
                      > world".The > next juicy morsel is is to say the temple was to them
                      > like the Oval> Office, and the seventh day, when God rested was like
                      > the president> moving into the Oval Office to start doing things, and
                      > that's when God> started doing things.
                      > >> So he flips the day when God rested into the day when God went to work.
                      > *** The temple motif is very credibly supported both by scritpure and
                      > the cultural context (i.e sound historrical-grammatical exegesis). It
                      > rests on a compelling theological foundation. Likewise, the Sabbath is
                      > a much deeper issue than the traditional interpretation you are
                      > alluding to.
                      ----
                      It's not a "traditional interpretation", it's the Biblical
                      interpretation, meaning the Bible itself interprets it this way in
                      multitudes of places in scripture. Walton says it's like a new president
                      going to work in the Oval Office, that's the big one where he got
                      himself lost and looking ridiculous.

                      It says "and on the seventh day he rested", it does NOT say "on the
                      seventh day he started working". It was amazing how many points he got
                      wrong --biblically-- in just that one three-minute snippet!

                      > > First of all, the OT saints and Jews had absolutely no trouble>
                      > understanding the difference between cosmos and temple. They know
                      > what> "evening and morning" means, "first day", "second day", "six
                      > days".How> in the world can anybody say they didn't understand these
                      > terms as they> are said.
                      >
                      > *** Alan, I think there is another possible conclusion here. It may
                      > well be that you don't understand the terms "as they were said". If I
                      > use the term "Iron Curtain" you may think I'm talking about a curtin
                      > made of iron, if you aren't familiar with 20th c history. If I say
                      > "daylight savings time", and you come from a culture that never heard
                      > of that, you may think I have a way of saving daylight somewhere. If I
                      > use the term Kent State, you may think I'm just referring to a
                      > university, unless you are familiar with the event in the 60s.
                      ---
                      Well there you go. Back to CONTEXT. And the context for the Bible is the
                      Bible. Here a little there a little, and where you have such figures of
                      speech in the Bible, the meaning is made clear by the context, the words
                      are defined by the context, especially in the KJB and including all
                      those "archaic" words.

                      Geez, one will get utterly confused about the OT even if all you look at
                      is the Talmud!

                      Again. Interpreting Genesis in terms of ancient /extra-Biblical/
                      cosmologies, including the ones that backsliding Israel bought into, is
                      very clearly condemned in scripture. That was when they fed their
                      babies "through the fire to Molech".

                      > I'm sure the OT saints and Jews did understand very well what their
                      > words meant. The question for us is how did they use the words and how
                      > were those usages expressing cultural concepts that alien to modern
                      > thinking and are not intuitive for us.
                      >
                      > > To me, the guy looked intelligent enough in that youtube snip, but
                      > then > the stuff coming out of his mouth did not match the level of
                      > his > apparent intelligence, which would suggest more sinister
                      > motivations. > (Sometimes known as "nobody can be that stupid!")
                      > > And the guy also shows he doesn't know his Bible.
                      > *** Shameful statements Alan ... maybe he would wonder the same about
                      > you :). That's exactly the kind of ungracious rhetoric that doesn't
                      > help the cause. It's pure 4% Club rhetoric!
                      ---
                      You see? It is his statements that are shameful. Again, the guy's
                      apparent intelligence does not match that things coming out of his
                      mouth. And the 4% comment is pure meaninglessness.

                      You have given us no specifics as to why we should believe Genesis
                      speaks of a six day creation except to point to what the heathens and
                      pagans, and even Israel sometimes, believed in their rebellions against
                      God!


                      > > Isaiah 66:1 ¶Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the>
                      > earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and>
                      > where is the place of my rest?
                      > >
                      > > Acts 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what
                      > house> will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
                      > *** Good for you Alan ... references supporting Walton's idea about
                      > the cosmic temple! :)
                      ---
                      Did you pay attention to what the verse actually says?? Walton is saying
                      God is no more than the temple, and he said they thought in terms of the
                      temple, and he's saying this means Genesis is not about what it says
                      it's about but that it's about temple worship.

                      It says the direct opposite of Walton's pagan theology!

                      > > What, in God's name, is Wheaton College --a "Christian" college!!--
                      > > doing with such a man teaching such nonsense to its children, not to
                      > say > heresies, and pouring spiked drinks into minds like Bill's, a
                      > mind > otherwise capable of intelligent thinking?
                      >
                      > *** Again, shameful, shameful! (But I do appreciate the qualified
                      > compliment! :)> Blessings Bill>
                      ----
                      Have you read the OT? Go through it again. I've read it into Psalms.
                      It's a good education on what God thinks about "ANE cosmologies".

                      --aec



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • ad101867
                      ...
                      Message 10 of 27 , Aug 27, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- Chris Ashcraft <ashcrac@...> wrote:
                        < As a result of a recent court ruling disallowing them to operate within the state of Texas, the Institute for Creation Research Grad School recently announced that it was closing its door indefinitely. >

                        Regarding the phrase "disallowing them to operate within the state of Texas," doesn't that really just mean to operate specifically as a state-recognized degree-granting institution? In other words, the ruling wouldn't bar them from operating simply as a private religious institution with no degrees, would it? The learning/teaching by itself could still go on, couldn't it?

                        Thanks,
                        Andy
                      • ashcrac
                        ... _______________________________________ http://nwcreation.net/articles/Is_there_a_future.pdf It was the ICR grad school specifically that was ruled against
                        Message 11 of 27 , Aug 29, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "ad101867" <duxbellorum@...> wrote:
                          > Regarding the phrase "disallowing them to operate within the state of Texas," doesn't that really just mean to operate specifically as a state-recognized degree-granting institution? In other words, the ruling wouldn't bar them from operating simply as a private religious institution with no degrees, would it? The learning/teaching by itself could still go on, couldn't it?

                          _______________________________________

                          http://nwcreation.net/articles/Is_there_a_future.pdf

                          It was the ICR grad school specifically that was ruled against and their ability to offer "science" degrees. The court ruled that the classes do not qualify to be called science because it was based on creation rather than naturalism. It wont be long before the US government makes a similar ruling against the teaching of science in Christian school across the country.

                          ICR is still permitted to offer other types of degrees, and in fact they formed a School of Biblical Apologetics (SOBA) last year, which offers Masters degrees in Christian Education. SOBA will begin offering the degrees online in 2011.

                          http://www.icr.org/soba/

                          Unfortunately and surprisingly, the ICRGS science classes will not be absorbed by the SOBA program. Upon the decision by the ICR board to close the grad school, most of the ICRGS faculty was laid-off. Its a very sad turn of events.

                          Chris Ashcraft,
                          http://nwcreation.net/ashcraft/
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.