1. Windsor, Ontario
    Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    13 Dec '11 05:42
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I agree. While I was viewing jaywill's links these other videos came up
    and I decided to look and discovered that the people agreed with me on
    those videos I watched. I did not watch all, but the following or links
    to the ones I did:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=hyKOBM8aHKU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCvBB7iA9FQ&featur ...[text shortened]... tch?v=xqLk1T9XWfE&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CxXZCfkyvU&feature=related
    hovind and ross occupy the same peg when it comes to interpreting the universe according to their biblical views.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    13 Dec '11 09:02
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    hovind and ross occupy the same peg when it comes to interpreting the universe according to their biblical views.
    My biblical view is more in line with Dr. Hovind from what little I have heard
    from him. Dr. Ross reminds me more of an evolutionist with his crazy talk.
  3. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    13 Dec '11 14:14
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I am a Young Earth Creationist because I believe what the Holy Bible says.
    That means when it says, "the evening and morning was the first day" that
    is a day equal to the other days described in the same way. And these days
    were determined by using the sun and moon just as we do today. So that
    means they are 24 hour days and not prophetic days of years ...[text shortened]... ble short gaps in the
    record, but I see no way one can turn thousands of years into billions.

    I am a Young Earth Creationist because I believe what the Holy Bible says.
    That means when it says, "the evening and morning was the first day" that
    is a day equal to the other days described in the same way. And these days
    were determined by using the sun and moon just as we do today.


    I take that to mean that you do not subscribe to a "Day Age" interpretation of the six days. I also do not, at this time, understand the days as ages.

    Now "Day Age" theory is a major part of Ross's exegisis. However, I do not have to accept "Day Age Theory" in order to believe that the age of the creation is unknown or that the universe is older than 6,000 some years.

    While I don't go along with a Day Age interpretation of Gensis 1 I do agree with Ross in a older earth than they typical YEC proposes.


    So that means they are 24 hour days and not prophetic days of years.


    Okay. But that does not insist in a 6,000 year old universe.

    And what I do appreciate about Ross is that he aptly points out that all the biblical passages on God's creation throughout the rest of the Bible have also to be considered.

    For example, Isaiah 45:18 tells us "For thus says Jehovah, Who created the heavens - He is the God Who formed the earth and made it; He established it;

    He did not create it waste, But He formed it to be inhabited ..."


    Now given all the data in the Bible I think there are two possible ways of understanding Isaiah 45:18.

    1.) God created the world "waste" but after a time He formed it to be non "waste" to be a contructive habitate for life. This understanding would be in strict conformity to Genesis 1:1 in line with YEC. That is immediately after the heavens and the earth were created was "waste" (Gen. 1:2).


    2.) God did not create the heavens and the earth waste but it became waste sometime afterwards. And then God recovered, reformed, rescued, and reconstructed something which had been damaged from the divine point of view.

    In light of the facts of the rest of the Bible, particularly the ancient history of God's enemy, Satan, I follow the second understanding.

    That does not call for a "Day Age" interpretation. But it does imply an unknown amount of ancient history. In Genesis 1:2 we are brought to the seen sometime after the earth became waste.

    YECs would call this "Gap Theory". I think I can defend some form of a "gap" or "interval" of unknown time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. But I would reference other relevant biblical passages to make that case.




    This means that mankind and other living creatures have been living on the earth only a few thousand years, not millions or billions of years. The Holy Bible makes no reference at all that would indicate the earth could be millions or billions of years old.


    Unspecified time for the earth allows for any number. If the first scene of the earth is that it is waste but God tells me that He did not create it waaste, then how long time elapsed between:

    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (v.1) AND
    "But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters." (v.2)

    Do the geologists need 1,000 years ? There's room in that gap for a possible 1,000 years. Do they need 1,000,000 years or more ? There is room in that unknown gap for that too. It is unspecified.

    While I may not go along with Ross on Day Age Theory I think he may be on to something when he says there could be gaps in the geneology. While some speculation about the number of years man has been on the earth might be appropriate, give or take a few thousand years, the age of the heavens and earth cannot be determined.

    The ancient history of God's Advasary makes more sense to me in a pre-adamic age. What makes less sense to me is the mighty cosmic war between God and Satan began within hours or days of that being's creation.

    An age of the universe before the creation of Adam the man, is what the Bible reveals. How long that economy existed is unkown. But it must have been long enough for God to allow all the foul corruption of this rebel to ferment and develop before he was expelled from the government of God.

    I do not believe that period of fermentation and exposure of Satan's rebellious nature occured over a period of six days. I think it had a long period of inception, development, exposure, with probably some time for him to repent, before he became that enemy lying to mankind in the garden of Eden in Genesis 3.

    YEC calls for Satan's history of creation and fall to exist concurrently with the economy of man's authority over the earth. YEC calls for an understanding that TWO economies were going along simultaneously during the six days of Genesis. I don't believe that there were two deputy authorities over God's creation. I believe that Satan's long history as some kind of deputy authority had long been spent before Adam was created.

    The intense hatred and envy of Satan towards this new creation, MAN, was due to an old fued between Satan and God reaching back to pre-adamic times. It was not something hatched up in a week.



    There is even scientific evidence that testify of a young earth, however Dr.
    Ross ingnores this evidence in favor of evidence that seems to indicate the
    earth is billions of years old. Why?


    Ross does not "ignore" that much, especially criticisms put forth by rival theoriests. Now you may disagree with his rebuttal. But I don't think the debate I have seen directly between Hovind and Ross show Ross "ignoring" too much.

    I will take your statement to mean that Ross's disagreement and reply to Hovind is "ignoring" Hovind.


    I do agree that we can not calculate back exactly to the creation day due to
    the way the days were recorded that indicated possible short gaps in the
    record, but I see no way one can turn thousands of years into billions.


    I simply say an unspecified interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

    Must go now. Talk latter. Jesus is God. Amen.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    13 Dec '11 17:461 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill

    I am a Young Earth Creationist because I believe what the Holy Bible says.
    That means when it says, "the evening and morning was the first day" that
    is a day equal to the other days described in the same way. And these days
    were determined by using the sun and moon just as we do today.


    I take that to mean that you do not subscribe Must go now. Talk latter. Jesus is God. Amen.
    You are right that I do not subscribe to a "Day Age" interpretation of the
    six days. They are simple 24 hour days as any Jewish Rabbi will tell you.

    Yes, of course the earth and the existence of man on it is greater than
    6000 years, but how much greater is where I disagree with Dr. Ross. He
    accepts the evolutionary theory of how old everything must be and I suppose
    you know I do not believe in evolution at all. God does not tell us He
    used evolution to create anything. He created everything that was created
    by His Word. It is true that we do not have enough information to state
    exactly when the earth or man was created due to the apparent gaps in the
    genealogy record.

    The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the
    deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
    (Genesis 1:2 NASB)

    Some translations may say "waste and empty" or something like that. This
    means at this time waters were covering all the earth and God had not yet
    formed the land mass to make it habitable for all living creatures. God did
    not create the earth to remain empty, but to make it ready for the living
    creatures. God does not say the earth became formless and void of living
    creatures, but that at that time God had not yet made it ready for the
    living creatures that He would be creating in the next few days.

    To say that there are billions of years between verse 1 and 2 is just
    speculation like evolutionist do with their theory. I can not prove your
    speculation is wrong, but I see no evidence in the Holy Bible for it, at
    this time. The only time period given is the first day starting in the
    evening or when it was dark.

    If you can believe that God is able to do all this creation that He says
    for each day of 24 hours, why would He need billions of years to create
    the heavenly angelic creatures and for some of them to begin a rebellion
    during this same time period? We could also speculate that the the
    invisible creatures were created in eternity past before the beginning
    when time and all visible things were created. There would be no need
    for long periods of time to satisfy your limited view.

    No I was not referring to Dr. Ross ignoring Dr. Hovind, which may have
    been true, but to scientific evidence that testify of a young earth.
  5. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    13 Dec '11 18:494 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You are right that I do not subscribe to a "Day Age" interpretation of the
    six days. They are simple 24 hour days as any Jewish Rabbi will tell you.

    Yes, of course the earth and the existence of man on it is greater than
    6000 years, but how much greater is where I disagree with Dr. Ross. He
    accepts the evolutionary theory of how old everything must b Hovind, which may have
    been true, but to scientific evidence that testify of a young earth.
    Some translations may say "waste and empty" or something like that. This means at this time waters were covering all the earth and God had not yet
    formed the land mass to make it habitable for all living creatures.



    Because Christ is the center and circumference of the Bible, I believe Genesis is revealing something about Christ even in the Genesis creation account.

    The dry land rises up from the death waters on the third day (Gen. 1:9,10). It says that the dry land was made to appear. This could have happened on the 1rst, day or the 2nd or 4th day. One might ask "Why does the dry land rise up underneath the death waters on the third day ?

    I believe it is a type of Christ's resurrection on the third day. Life is not mentioned until the dry land appears out from under the death waters. In the same way, we are made alive with the divine life through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

    "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy, has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." ( 1 Peter 1:3)

    Now I call the waters there "the death waters" because the symbolism of the Bible is so strong to infer that the waters there of Genesis signify death. Notice that in the new heaven and the new earth, the revelation tells us that there shall be no more sea:

    "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and the sea is no more." (Rev. 21:1)

    For the sea to be no more goes along with death being no more - "And He will wipe away evey tear from their eyes; and death will be no more ..." (Rev. 21:4)

    So on the third day, I think rather than God operating on something benigh, in raising the dry land, He is conquering something in opposition to His perfect will. I mean I see God counteracting against a negative rather than operating on a benigh situation.

    The same is true with God's command that there be light - " ... and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light." (Gen.1:2b,3)

    Both the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John refer to this matter of God commanding the light to shine. In both instances it is not that God is operating on a benigh situation. Rather He is reacting against a negative and opposing situation:

    "Because the God who said, Out of darkness light shall shine, is the One who shined in our hearts to illuminate the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6)

    This is Paul discribing regeneration with the divine life in the heart of the fallen sinner's being.

    "All things came into being through Him ... In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it." (John 1:3a,4,5)

    Here again, the light conquering the darkness which cannot overcome it, alludes back to Genesis. For this reason I believe what is revealed in Genesis 1 is not God operating on a benigh situation but rather a situation actively contrary to His will of life and light.

    There is no more sea in the new heaven and new earth.
    There is no more death in the new heaven and new earth.
    And in the New Jerusalem, there is no more night:

    "And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon that they should shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb." (Rev.21:23) " And its gates shall by no means be shut by day, for there will be no night there." (v.25)

    Now I realize that I am mixing spiritualization with more straighfoward historical accounting. But I think it is proper to do so since Jesus Christ is the center of the whole divine revelation.

    The condition of the earth as waste and emptiness, I feel, is not an indication of the unprepared and benigh solely. I think it is an indication of actual result of judgment to forces opposed to God.

    The two words translated "waste and empty" are used together in a place in Scripture indicating God's judgment. Separately the two words are used in varied situations. But as a pair causing something akin to the expression "topsy turvy" but in Hebrew, they were used to indicate a violent overthrow of God for judgmental purposes:

    Jeremiah 4:23 - " I looked at the earth, and there is was, waste and emptiness; And at the heavens, and they had no light ..."

    Isaiah 24:1 - "Jehovah now makes the earth desolate and lays it waste; He distorts its surface and scatters its inhabitants."

    Understand my point. Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying necessarily that I know that Jeremiah 4:23 and Isaiah 24:1 are refering specifically to Genesis chapter 1. I am saying the word pair "waste and empty" used together elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible indicate a judgmental overthrow.

    I submit that the backround of the darkness, the waste and emptiness, the death waters (which will be expelled in the new heaven and new earth) are indications of a confict, a judgment, a divine reaction against opposing forces to His perfect will.

    I believe that the pre-adamic history of Satan has something to do with the condition of the earth and God's commanding dry land, light, life and a new being, man - made in the image of God.

    This is mostly theological. Now scientifically, all I would say is that of late, science seems to be to be inching closer and closer to some kind of theory of catacylsmic destruction of the earth in the past.

    Some 50 years ago there was not too much talk about extinctions. There may have been some. But of late I hear more about the possibility of past "killer comets" or "killer volcanoes" or "killer asteroids" or "killer gas". It seems that science more and more proposes some kind of cataclysmic calamity to befall the earth in the ancient past. And I mean apart from the flood of Noah.

    My opinion is that science is inching closer to a Destruction / Reconstruction understanding of the planet and life on it. Perhaps they are drawing closer to "But earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep." (Gen. 1:2 Recovery Version)

    Young's Literal Translation and Rotherham's Emphasized Bible both used similar wording that the earth "became" something. And more than one Hebrew language scholar has conceded that that rendering is not necessarily incorrect. It is valid.

    Excuse me. This post is long. I will perhaps continue my reply latter. You had some good points which I would not leave unaddressed.
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    13 Dec '11 20:58
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You are right that I do not subscribe to a "Day Age" interpretation of the
    six days. They are simple 24 hour days as any Jewish Rabbi will tell you.

    Yes, of course the earth and the existence of man on it is greater than
    6000 years, but how much greater is where I disagree with Dr. Ross. He
    accepts the evolutionary theory of how old everything must b ...[text shortened]... Hovind, which may have
    been true, but to scientific evidence that testify of a young earth.
    If you can believe that God is able to do all this creation that He says
    for each day of 24 hours, why would He need billions of years to create
    the heavenly angelic creatures and for some of them to begin a rebellion
    during this same time period?



    The span of time I propose is "unspecified" is not time needed for God to create. The activity of God creating may not take long.

    The time for the will of creatures to gradually turn from God to 180 degrees away from God, may have taken a considerable time.

    You have in Satan a being who decides to challenge God. Think about that. We can hardly imagine the power of a being whose intention becomes to make himself like the Most High, to usurp the authority of God.

    Since no rebellion had ever taken place like this, God, in His wisdom likely allowed the rotteness of the fruit to ripen. Otherwise the other creatures may think that He truly was a arbitrary tyrant.

    On a human level the Apostle Paul warns Timothy - "The sins of some men are openly manifest, going before to judgment; and for others, they follow after. Likewise also the good workws are openely manifest, and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden." (1 Timothy 5:24,25)

    I suggest that this is magnified many fold with an angelic being who was created perfect in wisdom from day 1. This being deceived one third of the angels of God. His sins eventually could not be hidden. But I believe that considerable time may have been used by God to allow them to ferment and eventually be manifest as totally corrupt.


    We could also speculate that the the
    invisible creatures were created in eternity past before the beginning
    when time and all visible things were created. There would be no need
    for long periods of time to satisfy your limited view.


    I don't know. But the YEC explanations I hear about the origin of Satan, I think, leave the churches enemy shrouded. They often tend to contradit two vital revelations about the history of this being in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.

    Many of the YEC approaches do not seem to appreciate the prophetic past revealed in these two portions of the Bible. They only regard the verses as refering to human personages. It seems obvious to some of us that some of the pronouncements would only be appropriate to superhuman life.

    What man was created perfect in wisdom from the day he first was created ? No man since Adam can boast of being perfect in wisdom from the moment of creation. The Anointed Cherub of Ezekiel 28, the so called "king of Tyre" was. God is giving us a glimpse of the chief rebel behind all of the worlds rebels.

    It is important that the church be clear about God the Creator of our creation. That is understood. It is equally vital that the church know the nature and history of its enemy.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    14 Dec '11 00:001 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Some translations may say "waste and empty" or something like that. This means at this time waters were covering all the earth and God had not yet
    formed the land mass to make it habitable for all living creatures.



    Because Christ is the center and circumference of the Bible, I believe Genesis is revealing something about Christ ev od points which I would not leave unaddressed.
    I do not know if this creation story was meant to be a type of Christ's
    resurrection or not. There have been other stories that others have
    suggested as being types of Christ in one way or another. But we
    were concerned about the real creation and the age of the earth and
    the age of mankind. I don't see how imagining this as another type
    of Christ in someway helps in solving that concern. We could also
    consider the creation story as an untrue story of a talking serpent that
    tricks a naive girl into doing something wrong and teaching a moral
    of some sort like the parables of Jesus. But then it would seem to me
    that any scientific knowledge gained from it can only be assumed.
    And I try to avoid assuming that the text means something other than
    what is clearly stated, if I can. So I see no way that you and I can come
    to any meeting of the minds without clearly defined rules of interpretation.

    P.S. The translation of the Hebrew as "the earth became" instead of
    "the earth was" is possible I guess, but I don't understand the Hebrew
    grammer like I do the Greek, so I can't really say for sure.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    14 Dec '11 00:31
    Originally posted by jaywill
    If you can believe that God is able to do all this creation that He says
    for each day of 24 hours, why would He need billions of years to create
    the heavenly angelic creatures and for some of them to begin a rebellion
    during this same time period?



    The span of time I propose is "unspecified" is not time needed for God to create. ...[text shortened]... nderstood. It is equally vital that the church know the nature and history of its enemy.
    But like you said before, the "king of Tyre" may be a type of Satan, but
    not the real Satan. This is like the idea of Joseph being a type of Christ,
    but obviously, not the real Christ. The Holy Bible gives no explanation
    of any great length of time, like billions of years after the earth is
    created, that is needed for Satan to begin rebelling against God. So I
    am not willing to turn imaginations into fact.
  9. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    14 Dec '11 01:257 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    But like you said before, the "king of Tyre" may be a type of Satan, but
    not the real Satan. This is like the idea of Joseph being a type of Christ,
    but obviously, not the real Christ. The Holy Bible gives no explanation
    of any great length of time, like billions of years after the earth is
    created, that is needed for Satan to begin rebelling against God. So I
    am not willing to turn imaginations into fact.
    But like you said before, the "king of Tyre" may be a type of Satan, but not the real Satan. This is like the idea of Joseph being a type of Christ,
    but obviously, not the real Christ. The Holy Bible gives no explanation
    of any great length of time, like billions of years after the earth is
    created, that is needed for Satan to begin rebelling against God. So I
    am not willing to turn imaginations into fact.


    You are very concerned with the length of time of any pre-Adamic age. That is a second priority to me as far as the theological importance is concerned. You have only heard me mention mostly "unspecified interval" or something like that.

    My main concern as a Christian is not with millions or billions. It is with the exposure of the church's enemy as to his ancient hatred and opposition to God's eternal purpose.

    From Genesis 1:1 man's world is the focus. Man is what is important to God. So there is little or nearly nothing mentioned in Genesis 1 - 3 which is focused on God's economy with man. The temptation of a lying enemy in the garden is recorded because it has direct bearing on God's economy with man.

    Whether it was actually billions or millions of man's years, I do not know. It does not bother me if it was. Let me explain why.

    It is by faith that we understand the significance of man in the universe in relation to space and time. It is by faith we comprehend that man is important to the eternal plan of God. If we consider only what we see, we are so dwarfed by the immensity of space we easily lose sense of man's place in the creation. The same is true with respect to time. If we consider the immensity of either time or space we naturally feel that man is insignificant.

    This feeling is expressed in a Psalm about God's creation and man's purpose in it. That is Psalm 8. As the Psalmist contemplates the vastness of the universe he writes:

    "When I see your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars which You have ordained, What is mortal man, that You should remember him, and the son of man that You visit him ? " (v.3,4)

    Even a couple of millennia ago, when God's people look up at the creation, man seems so insignificant. "How could God even be concerned for us?" The same is true with the possible immensity of time. When we consider a billion years with nothing there specifically for humans to do, we have a sense of such insignificance that there could not be such a large amount of time.

    This sense of insignificance was true in David's day. How much more it is true with the discoveries of modern science. My opinion is that it is this incredible vastness of both time and space that so dwarfs our sense of ourselves, that we have a reaction to make creation more "man-like". "Since we have only been here thousands of years, how could creation be without us for billions?"

    "What is man, that You visit him ?"

    But it is by faith that understand God as the Creator (Hebrews 11:3) . It is also by faith that we understand that nothing shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Rom.8:38,39)

    "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels ... nor HEIGHT nor DEPTH nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

    I would add "nor length of time, either millions of years or billions of years". I am saying that man, in Christ, is inseparable from the God's love and the eternal purpose of God. The immensity of time or space has no effect to diminish this.

    So a billion years of pre-Adamic time in man's sense, does not bother me. So when a Ken Hovind or some other dear YEC brother protests "How could there be a million or billion years of time with man not being on the scene ?" My reply is that length of time simply does not separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. Nor does it make man insignificant.

    In the book of Job, the oldest biblical book, it is said -

    "By His Spirit the heavens became beauty; His hand pierced the fleeing serpent.

    Indeed, these are but the fringes of His ways; And how small a whisper do we hear of Him! But as for the thundering of His mightiness, who can comprehend it? " (Job 26:14)


    What man knows of what God has done in His creation is only the fringes, the outskirts of His ways. Perhaps we know some vital truths which are yet only a whisper of His entire history of activity. He has probably done things past our finding out, at least for the moment.

    " ... Who does great things that cannot be searched, Indeed, wonderful deeds that cannot be numbered." (Job 9:10)

    The possible billions of years according to our sense of years, is not a bother to me.

    That is all I can write now.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    14 Dec '11 03:30
    Originally posted by jaywill
    [quote] But like you said before, the "king of Tyre" may be a type of Satan, but not the real Satan. This is like the idea of Joseph being a type of Christ,
    but obviously, not the real Christ. The Holy Bible gives no explanation
    of any great length of time, like billions of years after the earth is
    created, that is needed for Satan to begin rebelling ...[text shortened]... s, is not a bother to me.

    That is all I can write now.
    Why toot your horn for Dr. Ross, who gives support to the view of the atheists?
    If the length of time has no interest to you, then leave the subject alone.
    Please don't give the atheist support for their theories.
  11. Windsor, Ontario
    Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    14 Dec '11 04:43
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Why toot your horn for Dr. Ross, who gives support to the view of the atheists?
    If the length of time has no interest to you, then leave the subject alone.
    Please don't give the atheist support for their theories.
    the fact that ross and many other prominent theists accept the theory of evolution is proof that evolution is not an 'atheist' theory.

    you can't help being stuck in your fundamentalist bubble of ignorance, it doesn't mean others have to be trapped in there with you.
  12. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    14 Dec '11 05:38
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    the fact that ross and many other prominent theists accept the theory of evolution is proof that evolution is not an 'atheist' theory.

    you can't help being stuck in your fundamentalist bubble of ignorance, it doesn't mean others have to be trapped in there with you.
    What makes you think I am a fundamentalist?
  13. Windsor, Ontario
    Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    14 Dec '11 07:35
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    What makes you think I am a fundamentalist?
    i'm just playing along with your satirical rhp persona. i know you're just playing a fundamentalist buffoon for the sake of levity.
  14. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    14 Dec '11 13:01
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Why toot your horn for Dr. Ross, who gives support to the view of the atheists?
    If the length of time has no interest to you, then leave the subject alone.
    Please don't give the atheist support for their theories.
    Why toot your horn for Dr. Ross, who gives support to the view of the atheists?


    Guilt by association is a weak argument.

    I could make a similar claim for you. If you agree that the first thing God made was a chaotic mess then you support ancient Greek and Roman cosmogony. The ancients going back to the poetry of 900 B.C. taught that chaos was the first thing that existed.

    So I could say you toot your horn for the mythology of ancient cosmogony.

    Guilt by association does little for the problem. Rather taking all the biblical data together and coming up with the most sound interpretation.

    Dr. Donald Barnhouse was also an Old Earth creation believer. His book "The Invisible War" was also very helpful to me in my early Christian years.



    If the length of time has no interest to you, then leave the subject alone.
    Please don't give the atheist support for their theories.


    I didn't say it has no interest. I said it did not "bother" me.

    And what stops me from asking you to please not lend your support to the ancient Greeks in their belief that a chaotic mess was the first thing in existence ?
  15. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    14 Dec '11 14:071 edit
    RJHinds,

    I'll make you a deal. I won't toot horn for Dr. Ross if you won't toot horn for Ken Hovind.

    Poor Ken Hovind is probably still in jail for instructing his employees on tax evasion. Frankly, I sometimes wonder if he worships political conservatism more than God, at times.

    I'll stop tooting for Ross if you stop tooting for the felone Hovind.
    Deal ?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree