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

[RTB Discussion Group] Re: The Book of Nature

Expand Messages
  • yecreationist
    ... find your delete button works well... ... your brain! Why are all dinosaur remains many layers ... Mark: I wouldn t have to keep asking why Ross lied about
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, charleenlohman
      <charleenlohman@y...> wrote:
      > Be prepared for a barrage of endless insulting posts. You will
      find your delete button works well...
      >
      > aigsfavoriteperson <aigsfavoriteperson@y...> wrote:Come on, engage
      your brain! Why are all dinosaur remains many layers
      > below human remains? Why are humans and all human artifacts
      > (including large heavy iron objects) at the very top of a flood
      > deposit?


      Mark: I wouldn't have to keep asking why Ross lied about Christian
      history if one of you that claim to support him would either show me
      where he has recanted this belief. Of course since you can't,
      bnecause I suspect he hasn't, you have to send this nonsensical and
      diversionary insult warning instead of actual support.

      I would think that the mere definition of 'science' itself would be
      enough to explain why the idea that Dinosaurs found many layers
      below humans would be enough to refute this notion that this
      automatically means they are much older.


      Neither one of you have answered my original question (in typical
      diversionary fashion). Does the fact that humans have been found in
      strata lower than dinosaurs mean that humans evolved into dinoaurs
      and if not why not? By your definition of 'science' it should mean
      exactly that.

      Besides, hasn't the fact that the Coelecanth has been found in the
      lowest layers and yet is still alive today (on top of the fact that
      humans have been found in strata below dinosaurs) disprove your
      uniformitarian assumptions that led you to ask the question in the
      first place?
    • aigsfavoriteperson
      ... No. Again this comes from discredited reports from the likes of Baugh and Hovind. Even if you could find this, I can tell you how the layers would be
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "yecreationist"
        <krinks@v...> wrote:
        > Mark: I should ask you to engage your brain. Haven't there been man
        > found beneath layers in which Dinosaurs were found?

        No.

        Again this comes from discredited reports from the likes of Baugh and
        Hovind.

        Even if you could find this, I can tell you how the layers would be
        found... They would be found upside down due to geologic disturbance.

        The proof is in that they are in exactly the reverse order. Further
        proof is that marine fossils in these layers are deposited upside
        down - they even have tracks and footprints laid upside down.

        So - SHOW US YOUR CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF MAN BEFORE DINOSAUR!!!!!!!
      • yecreationist
        ... man ... and ... be ... disturbance. Mark: This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Thank you for proving my point. Facts that do not fit the predetermined
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "aigsfavoriteperson"
          <aigsfavoriteperson@y...> wrote:
          > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "yecreationist"
          > <krinks@v...> wrote:
          > > Mark: I should ask you to engage your brain. Haven't there been
          man
          > > found beneath layers in which Dinosaurs were found?
          >
          > No.
          >
          > Again this comes from discredited reports from the likes of Baugh
          and
          > Hovind.
          >
          > Even if you could find this, I can tell you how the layers would
          be
          > found... They would be found upside down due to geologic
          disturbance.



          Mark: This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Thank you for
          proving my point. Facts that do not fit the predetermined paradigm
          are automatically written off as from a spurious source and
          explained away ever before I posted it's source and this even before
          you knoe its source. You have proven beyond all doubt that your
          OEC/Rossite views are philosophical in nature and not scientific by
          any stretch. Thanks for the confirmation. I will leave you with thr
          words of Paul that a good Baptist friend reminded me of the other
          day...

          2 Corinthians 6:11-18

          11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is
          enlarged. 12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in
          your own bowels. 13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as
          unto my children,) be ye also enlarged. 14 Be ye not unequally yoked
          together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness
          with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
          15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he
          that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the
          temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God;
          as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will
          be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out
          from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not
          the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father
          unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord
          Almighty.


          *** If you think for even a second that the scriptures can not be
          properly understood in thier true context until "scientists" such as
          Hugh Ross tell you what they should mean and say (even though he is
          a proven documented liar on the subject) then Christ does not reign
          supreme over your life and Christ's word is not supreme in your
          heart. Christ shares a place with secular man, which if you'd ever
          taken the time to read up on the error of Baal I mentioned so very
          many times, you'd know our Lord has NEVER accepted. You here surely
          walk in darkness and I have no place amongst darkness.
        • astronut82
          Astronut: Can you guys not address the points I raised? I answer your objections and all you did was obfuscate. Follow closely: 1. Never did I say that the
          Message 4 of 17 , Apr 6, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Astronut: Can you guys not address the points I raised? I answer
            your objections and all you did was obfuscate.

            Follow closely:
            1. Never did I say that the wisdom of this world is needed to
            understand scripture or the gospel.
            2. Never did I say that nature must interpret scripture.
            3. Never did I say that nature can lead one to salvation apart from
            the scripture.

            You guys fail to see the point -- nature and scripture are on equal
            footing in terms of truthfulness, but not on specifics of content.
            The two revelations contain different, but equally truthful and
            complementary, factual information sent from God to man. That is what
            the Bible clearly teaches.

            Now what about my quote from J.I. Packer? Are you going to label him
            a compromiser? If you will read carefully, that quote came from his
            book entitled "Fundamentalism."

            For the record, when you talk about the fallen mind interpreting
            fallen nature, you are setting up an unbiblical test. That paradigm
            is impressed on scripture by those who want to say that the curse
            changed the revelation of God (in nature) to a lie. But it is
            internally inconsistent.

            Yes I believe there were millions of years of extinct species before
            God created man and called His creation "very good." The creation was
            not a cake-baking contest where He was shooting for a blue ribbon.
            His creation was perfectly suited to His perfect plan and hence was
            "very good."

            --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, astronut82
            <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > You guys get a lot of mileage out of the Berkhof and Kuyper quotes. I
            > guess since these guys are infallible, that settles it. But note that
            > you do not quote the bible to support your argument -- these are
            > presuppositional statements. They assume that a very good world would
            > not have anything like tornadoes or toothaches, so therefore Paul had
            > to be talking about the fall (Romans 8:19-22) causing everything that
            > I don't like about this world. But this argument fails to recognize
            > that nature must be an inerrant revelation or else how could God hold
            > men accountable when they reject its truth?
            >
            > Since we are throwing around quotes, try this one on for size:
            >
            > Instead of assuming the theologians are right and nature is not
            > trustworthy, here is what J.I. Packer says:
            > "It is tempting…to deny the problem, either by discounting one or
            > other set of facts, or by locking them into separate compartments in
            > our minds….The truth is that the facts of nature yield positive help
            > in many ways for interpreting Scripture statements correctly, and the
            > discipline of wrestling with the problem of relating the two sets of
            > facts, natural and biblical, leads to a greatly enriched understanding
            > of both."
            >
            > J. I. Packer, "'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God," I.V.F., 1958,
            > pg. 135.
            >
            > And Kyle, one more thing. The bible does not interpret the natural
            > world -- see Romans 1:19,20. That revelation has been given since the
            > creation which was before the bible was written. All men are held
            > accountable, not just those who have the bible to correct the
            > interpretation and still disbelieve. In fact, if they needed to have
            > a bible to filter the facts about God seen in nature, then those
            > without a bible would have a basis for appeal. But the bible says
            > they are without excuse.
            >
            > Astronut.
            >
            > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, kurtstreutker
            > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > > The same way these quotes are used. In context!
            > >
            > > "…Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather true
            > > knowledge about God from His general revelation only if he studies it
            > > in the light of Scripture, in which the elements of God's original
            > > self-revelation, which were obscured and perverted by the blight of
            > > sin, are republished, corrected, and interpreted."
            > >
            > > "Some are inclined to speak of God's general revelation as a second
            > > source; but this is hardly correct in view of the fact that nature
            > > can come into consideration here only as interpreted in the light of
            > > Scripture."
            > >
            > > Louis Berkhof pgs.60,96
            > > Introductory volume to Systematic theology
            > >
            > > He (Calvin) saw himself placed before two works of God, the one in
            > > creation, the other in Christ, and in both he adored that majesty of
            > > Almighty God, which transported his soul into ecstasy. In this light
            > > it is deserving of notice that our best Calvinistic Confessions speak
            > > of two means whereby we know God, viz., the Scriptures and Nature.
            > > And still more remarkable it is that Calvin, instead of simply
            > > treating Nature as an accessorial item as so many Theologians were
            > > inclined to do, was accustomed to compare the Scriptures to a pair of
            > > spectacles, enabling us to decipher again the divine Thoughts,
            > > written by God's Hand in the book of Nature, which had become
            > > obliterated in consequence of the curse.
            > >
            > > Abraham Kuyper, "Lectures on Calvinism" pg.120
            > >
            > > The BIBLE interprets the world not the natural world interprets the
            > > Bible. EG: Is it possible to raise the dead?
            > > How do you know?
          • yecreationist
            ... before ... was ... Mark: Sorry but this is heresy. God throughout scripture declared death as the last enemy and creation as cursed. To deny these is to
            Message 5 of 17 , Apr 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              > Yes I believe there were millions of years of extinct species
              before
              > God created man and called His creation "very good." The creation
              was
              > not a cake-baking contest where He was shooting for a blue ribbon.
              > His creation was perfectly suited to His perfect plan and hence was
              > "very good."




              Mark: Sorry but this is heresy. God throughout scripture declared
              death as the last enemy and creation as cursed. To deny these is to
              rip large sections out of sthe gospel and replace them with your own
              philosophy found outside of scripture and factored in. This is
              Gnostic Heresy revisited.
            • astronut82
              Astronut: Sorry, but it isn t heresy. The bible says that physical death of humans is the last enemy. Can you not see that there is a distinction between
              Message 6 of 17 , Apr 6, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Astronut: Sorry, but it isn't heresy. The bible says that physical
                death of humans is the last enemy. Can you not see that there is a
                distinction between animal death and human death in all of your proof
                texts? I'm not ripping out large sections of the bible. You cannot
                even find a small section of the bible that says sin brought about
                animal death. It is a conjecture derived from your preconceived
                notion of what God had to mean when He said "very good." You are
                filtering the bible through your worldview.

                You are going to have to stop saying that I'm injecting worldy wisdom
                or gnostic philosoply and start showing me where the bible explicitly
                states what your proof text theology asserts.

                --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "yecreationist"
                <krinks@v...> wrote:
                > > Yes I believe there were millions of years of extinct species
                > before
                > > God created man and called His creation "very good." The creation
                > was
                > > not a cake-baking contest where He was shooting for a blue ribbon.
                > > His creation was perfectly suited to His perfect plan and hence was
                > > "very good."
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Mark: Sorry but this is heresy. God throughout scripture declared
                > death as the last enemy and creation as cursed. To deny these is to
                > rip large sections out of sthe gospel and replace them with your own
                > philosophy found outside of scripture and factored in. This is
                > Gnostic Heresy revisited.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.