Calypsis--I guess you cannot have one straight conversation that involves you responding to several straight up questions which you have sat and continue to disparage this conversation on the basis of your perceived doctrinal stand.
I don't intend to keep going tit-for-tat
with you. Your position is not biblical nor can you verify your claims from either science nor scripture.
This is not about truth for you, this is about your hermeneutics and your insistence the earth is or can be calculated in age by the biblical line of ascendency. The bible does not say what age the earth was, Man does.....
Don't lie to me, friend. Why in the world do you think that God gave us those ages/time frames to begin with? So people like those of your persuasion can nit-pick at them and stretch things because of popular skeptical pressure within the Christian world? What other reason would He have for giving us those ages?
But again your disrespectful interrogatives and faceless comments about me being a Darwinian ‘anything’ is absolutely absurd brother. I am just as born again as you are brother.
, not disrespectful. You just can't handle the truth of this matter so you shoot your bullets back at me as if you have really made a point or two. You haven't. You can't, because your position is wrong.
I tell you I have studied Dr. Morris and no I don't concur with you on “all” his opinions.
The man was human and he made mistakes just like everyone else has and does. But he was far closer to the truth about the age of the earth than you are.
He has published stuff in the past and left out certain information to makes his position more stable. I think he is a brilliant Christian man but not every thing he writes is trustworthy any more than Ken Ham?
I am not comparing him to Ken Ham. They were/are both good men. Stop making such comparisons between men who agreed on the approx. age of the earth.
Since I lean heavily towards a Local Flood disposition, some of the information you're throwing at me I don't ascribe to because here we go---you can't, I can't, and other well known Christian authors can’t answer some of the "real" questions about the flood. If you go to Answers in Genesis and there are many others believe the rainbow existed before, the bible does not imply this rainbow was the first occurrence....but it is put in that framework by many creationists, but that set aside, you again seem to not understand that what I proposed about the dated of C-14 testing by Christians is not some Darwinian injunction, but I asked you if those dates were correct could you live with them?
You are truly blind on this issue. It is not the existence or non-existence of the rainbow BEFORE the flood to begin with. It is God's sending the rainbow as a promise to man that He would never destroy the world (the whole world
) again. Had it been merely a local flood then He has broken His promise time and time again since Noah's age. Therefore it was a world-wide flood. Why can't you get this, friend? It's as simple as understanding 2 + 2 =4 but you clearly have a mental block on the matter.
Is this supposed to be refutation of the fact that C14 is found in coal all over the earth even though it is not supposed to be found in any of the samples...per my documentation of that fact?
That's all. I asked a rhetorical question, I didn't mull this into a doctrinal inference. So I can only conclude is that your bluntly and totally boxed into an interpretation yet you cannot answer some of the basic issues that creationists start with when it comes to the flood, the Ark, and the dispersion of animals. Well apparently your the only creationist responding on this site?
I am not boxed into anything, friend. Furthermore, most of the details you listed (i.e. like the number/aount of insects alive during the flood) is pure conjecture on your part. How can such things even be discussed without the data? I am following the evidence, both scriptural and scientific. AND....they both agree after all things considered, just like the fact that radiometric dating gives us millions of years in radioactive isotopes but yet only about 6,000 yrs of accelerated decay rates of helium.
And in response to "Well apparently your the only creationist responding on this site?"
Quote me. Where did I even suggest such a thing? The truth is however, that you are in a minority here for most of us on EFF are six-day creationists who believe God's Word about Noah and the world-wide flood as taught in Genesis 6 & 7.
Or that seems to be. It would be nice of someone else would respond with a respectable back and forth instead of insisting on what I am or who I am when you can't even do anything but regurgitate other peoples published information that is questionable in many areas.
Questionable only to you and those of your persuasion. You still haven't refuted the documented information I posted above.
Your instance on certain hermeneutics bothers me because you buy into a certain view...
Don't you mean my 'insistence'?
Do not trivialize this position as if I am the first or the 'novel' believer in a young earth & a world wide flood. Before me there was Morris. Before him was Irwin Linton, Matthew Henry, Thomas Goodwin, Calvin, Luther, etc. etc. all the way back to the 1st century Christians.
but when push comes to shove, I have well demonstrated that many creationists are using scripture to insist on a certain creationist format, but miss the truth of scripture. So no I am not Neo-Darwinian anything. I am blood bought born again Christian, your brother in Christ, and God gave me a brain and I am able to use it. If you cannot answer the questions I previously gave you many times with any level of response, then I assume this is all gobble gook? You disparage a Christian brother, because his view is different, I believe in the full counsel of Gods' Word and have literally given you a biblical basis as to why some of what you imply is in error above. You glossed over this with impunity. Your welcome to your opinions brother, but the Word of God is not just doctrine, its about practice, and it says that we are to love one another brother, I am not your enemy? I am a Christian with a brain and a different view. I believe I have well exposed some of the stuff that is perpetrated as fact in creation literature. While I certainly buy into much of Henry's stuff and Ken Hams, some of it is blatantly put in a form that is almost a Christian treatise. Frankly you should familiarize your self with the many Christian scholars that don't see it your way. THE point is if you have an argument put it out there. Mines out here for all to see. You are hiding behind the skirts of creationist publications, I challenged you with scripture and truth, you now continue disparage me and make me out by using some narrative to express who I am when you don't even know me??? I can only conclude that your judging me as a Christian, putting me in a non-Christian framework which is false. So unless you have something else to say I would appreciate a less disparaging discussion, and a little more fact. Your assumptions above are incorrect as to where my views lead. I am sorry you just don't get it, I would take the time to explain myself better, but since you can't even answer 3 or 4 or the most intriguing questions that any creationist must go to when discussing the topic...... Instead of quoting creationist literature: Where does the bible give an exact time line as to the age of the earth (6,000 years?) Please quote chapter and verse? While I absolutely believe in a young earth, just as you do, I cannot assume that it is 6,000 years.
Never mind the evidence, right? So neither the scriptures nor the scientific evidence means anything to you? Are you a convert of Hugh Ross? If so that explains everything. But tell us plainly, sir, so we will know exactly where you're coming from.
Could you as a Christian live with any other figure—say 10,000 as some believe or maybe even under 50,000 years, could you live with that?
If there were solid evidence for it but the truth is, there is none. What about the Chronologies?
In other words, all these figures fit fine with in the context of scripture. There is no halo around 6.000 years.
You won't get anything else from the scriptures...not be any honest calculation of what is given in the chronologies
. There really isn't anything you can do about it.
Given mention of death before the fall.....could you see that this does not affect spiritual death?
If another 'death' originated before the fall of Adam then tell us what it was that brought it into existence, how it happened and what were the circumstances
.If you cannot do that then you would do well to not answer this post at all.
Per the references I clearly gave you above? Given the word as I stated above, could you live with or accept that it is possible that animals ate other animals in the biosphere because God created them as such, and that while man may have ate vegetable matter, the scripture does not apply to the animal kingdom?
An answer to the previous question would obviate the answer to this.
Do you see this possibility? While I asked several question that you have not answered, again once more, were the insects on the Ark or off the Ark, if so they were off the Ark because they were not air breathers, then how did they survive the flood?
I already told you! Many if not most of your 'questions' cannot be answered because we do not have (a) the scripture to substantiate those details, or (2) science does not provide such data. In many of them it's like you're asking, "Who was the first human to get a head cold
?" ????????? How is that to be answered?
But to stress the difficulty in answering such hypothetical matters...since you believe in rainbows before the flood
: then, Reptoman
, what was the date of the very first rainbow (pre-flood) and where in our world did it occur?
I was very clear about what I believe the bible says about procreation and “being fruitful and multiplying”, in every sense of the Hebrew and Gods Word, GODs own expectation was male and female and that the offspring would be the same as the pair? Yet some believe in adaptive variation. Are you an advocate of this, if so where is your proof?
It's called 'variation within the kind'. Here is an example:
So this is just a couple of examples of what we find throughout the biological world and you won't find anything else.
Adaptive variation runs counter to the expectation of God in scripture?(?) Are you o.k. Employing that for speciation and condemn me for my views as being unbiblical????
you are suggesting that God's Word is referring to clones and that man's offspring must therefore all be clones of himself then you are wrong. 'Kind' refers most closely to 'family/order' if it is to be compared to the Linneaus classification system.
Lastly brother, I don’t have an issue that you have a different point of view, I am fine with that, I have not tried to disparage you personally, but I have challenged you to a different view with respect to scripture and science? I want to be clear as well that I could be open to a wwFlood if someone had a better answer to the Ark, by which I totally believe in the bible is a historical as well as spiritual book. I just don’t accept at face value some of the creationist inferences by my YEC brothers al the time.....[/font]
Your problem is with God's Word, not with me. I challenged you to use your calculator and do what several good men have done in yrs gone by: Henry Morris, Clarence Larken, etc. and see how you can possbily take those chronologies listed in scripture seriously SINCE.....if you arbitrarily assigned 500 yrs ages to unnamed people whom you apparently think were not included in that list of names. You did not do that. You did not even make a single suggestion as to how such a chronology could fit with what we DO HAVE in the list of names and ages. But you are clearly avoiding the bottom-line in details
in this matter just as you did with the rainbow issue
; I said that the family line of Jesus is given to us in Luke 3 and there are 77 names listed there from Christ all the way back to Adam (& of course God the Father). That family lineage MUST be legitimate according to Jewish civil law and jurisprudence in order for Jesus to be the legal heir to the throne of David. THIS is why the pharisees attacked the legitmacy of His birth in the first place, (i.e. John 8:41) because they wished to deny that He had a legal birth and it that were so they could rightfully deny
the throne of David to Him. But you ignored this and the import of it altogether. Does His family posterity and claim to that throne matter to you?
In other words, you need to realize that it's not the 'number of insects that existed in the time of Noah's flood'
that is bottom-line in importance...but the heirship of Christ to the throne of David is vital.
Brother, you need to stop being offended at Calypsis4 and do some serious reconsideration on this matter.