Jump to content
IGNORED

Dino's (and others) Soft Tissue


Enoch2021

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357
Not true again- you are misrepresenting the OEC model and casting us in a false light.....again.

The OEC model is based on the word of God too. We interpret Genesis 1 different than you and we do not agree with your exegesis. Sorry.

 

No, I am not.  OEC was part of the view of those living in the age of reason, long before modern science and it was,like Evolution, based on an attempt to dmythologize the Bible.  The six day creation was rejected just like Noah's flood, the crossing the Red Sea, the miracles of Jesus, etc.

 

The OEC has no roots in the Bible.   It has been penciled into how some people read the Bible, but even the staunchest atheist is more honest about the Bible and what is says that are some Christians.   That is why atheists embrace old earth and evolutionist theories.  They provide an alternative to the Genesis account.  If Genesis or the rest of the Bible supported the claims of unbelievers that the earth is old, it would remove one of their chielf objections to the Bible.  As it stands, in the eyes of unbelievers, the old age of the earth serves as one of their chief of objections to the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

Not true again- you are misrepresenting the OEC model and casting us in a false light.....again.

The OEC model is based on the word of God too. We interpret Genesis 1 different than you and we do not agree with your exegesis. Sorry.

 

No, I am not.  OEC was part of the view of those living in the age of reason, long before modern science and it was,like Evolution, based on an attempt to dmythologize the Bible.  The six day creation was rejected just like Noah's flood, the crossing the Red Sea, the miracles of Jesus, etc.

 

The OEC has no roots in the Bible.   It has been penciled into how some people read the Bible, but even the staunchest atheist is more honest about the Bible and what is says that are some Christians.   That is why atheists embrace old earth and evolutionist theories.  They provide an alternative to the Genesis account.  If Genesis or the rest of the Bible supported the claims of unbelievers that the earth is old, it would remove one of their chielf objections to the Bible.  As it stands, in the eyes of unbelievers, the old age of the earth serves as one of their chief of objections to the Bible.

 

 

The heliocentric model is part of the view of those living in the age of reason, long before modern science, yet oddly you do not deny it.  you are not very consistent with what you blindly accept and do not blindly reject.  

 

 

As it stands, in the eyes of unbelievers, the old age of the earth serves as one of their chief of objections to the Bible.

 

 

So, would you then agree that a young age of the earth serves as one of the main issues keeping people from God?  If it is, as you said, one of their chief of objections it only stands to reason it is also what is keeping them from salvation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

 

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand. 

 

The YEC model takes God at His word that He created the earth in six days.   The OEC view is rooted in unbelief and a philosophical rejection of God's words going back before science. 

 

:bored-1: And you complain about OEC'ers being bullies for claiming that pushing YEC is harmful to seekers.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

 

Now, is there a way we can discuss things without anyone using intimidating theology or tactics on each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

 

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand. 

 

The YEC model takes God at His word that He created the earth in six days.   The OEC view is rooted in unbelief and a philosophical rejection of God's words going back before science. 

 

:bored-1: And you complain about OEC'ers being bullies for claiming that pushing YEC is harmful to seekers.

 

What I said is simply the facts.   If you go back and study, you will find that the OE view predates science and is goes back to the philosophers of the "age of reason."  Evolution needs an old earth to operate, and OEC simply latches on to the assumptions of the scientific world.  But its roots historically go back to unbelievers, not Christians trying to be faithful to God word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

What I said is simply the facts.   If you go back and study, you will find that the OE view predates science and is goes back to the philosophers of the "age of reason."  Evolution needs an old earth to operate, and OEC simply latches on to the assumptions of the scientific world.  But its roots historically go back to unbelievers, not Christians trying to be faithful to God word.

 

 

Could you please supply some evidence to support this last statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

What I said is simply the facts.   If you go back and study, you will find that the OE view predates science and is goes back to the philosophers of the "age of reason."  Evolution needs an old earth to operate, and OEC simply latches on to the assumptions of the scientific world.  But its roots historically go back to unbelievers, not Christians trying to be faithful to God word.

Could you please supply some evidence to support this last statement?

 

I agree. The statement comes across as if scientist were looking for reasons not to believe in the Bible rather than putting the pieces together and seeing what came together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  29
  • Topic Count:  593
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  55,868
  • Content Per Day:  7.55
  • Reputation:   27,620
  • Days Won:  271
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

The problem is that it is only the YECers, and only a few of them like yourself that keep suggesting that only the YEC hold that God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted.  Perhaps if you would quit implying that those that do not think like you didn't think God's word is faithful and true and can be trusted we could actually discuss the topics at hand. 

 

The YEC model takes God at His word that He created the earth in six days.   The OEC view is rooted in unbelief and a philosophical rejection of God's words going back before science. 

 

:bored-1: And you complain about OEC'ers being bullies for claiming that pushing YEC is harmful to seekers.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

 

Now, is there a way we can discuss things without anyone using intimidating theology or tactics on each other?

 

You've been here long enough to know the answer to that question......

 

Maybe some of us need a refresher bite from that tree Adam and Eve ate from....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

You've been here long enough to know the answer to that question......

 

Maybe some of us need a refresher bite from that tree Adam and Eve ate from....

 

I think, rather, we need a dousing of love.

 

We're so busy "being right" that none of us are putting love first.

 

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

 

What I said is simply the facts.   If you go back and study, you will find that the OE view predates science and is goes back to the philosophers of the "age of reason."  Evolution needs an old earth to operate, and OEC simply latches on to the assumptions of the scientific world.  But its roots historically go back to unbelievers, not Christians trying to be faithful to God word.

 

 

Could you please supply some evidence to support this last statement?

 

It's kinda long, but here something:

 

IV. Philosophical developments

As a prelude to this Genesis-geology controversy, the eighteenth century also witnessed the spread of two competing but largely similar worldviews: deism and atheism. These two worldviews flowed out of the Enlightenment, in which human reason was elevated to the place of supreme authority for determining truth. This enthroning of human reason not only challenged the authority of the church in society, but also led to all kinds of anti-supernatural attacks on the Bible, undermining its authority as a source of historical, as well as moral and theological truth. Deism and atheism were slightly different ways of packaging an anti-supernatural view of history.

 

Apart from the deists’ belief in a rather vaguely defined Creator God and a supernatural beginning to the creation, they were indistinguishable from atheists in their views of Scripture and the physical reality. In deism, as in atheism, the Bible is merely a human book, containing errors, and not the inspired Word of God, and the history and function of the creation can be totally explained by the properties of matter and the ‘inviolable laws of nature’ in operation over a long period of time. Deists and atheists often disguised their true views, especially in England where they were not culturally acceptable. Many of them gained influential positions in the scientific establishment of Europe and America, where they subtly and effectively promoted what is today called naturalism. Brooke comments on the subtle influence of deistic forms of naturalism when he writes,

 

 

Without additional clarification, it is not always clear to the historian (and was not always clear to contemporaries) whether proponents of design were arguing a Christian or deistic thesis. The ambiguity itself could be useful. By cloaking potentially subversive discoveries in the language of natural theology, scientists could appear more orthodox than they were, but without the discomfort of duplicity if their inclinations were more in line with deism.
28

 

 

But the effects of deistic and atheistic philosophy on biblical studies and Christian theology also became widespread on the European continent in the late eighteenth century and in Britain and America by the middle of the nineteenth century. As Reventlow concluded in his massive study,

 

We cannot overestimate the influence exercised by Deistic thought, and by the principles of the Humanist world-view which the Deists made the criterion of their biblical criticism, on the historical-critical exegesis of the nineteenth century; the consequences extend right down to the present. At that time a series of almost unshakeable presuppositions were decisively shifted in a different direction.
29

 

 

 

So the biblical worldview, which had dominated the Western nations for centuries, was rapidly being replaced by a naturalistic worldview. And it was into the midst of these revolutions in worldview and the reinterpretation of the phenomena of nature and the Bible that the scriptural geologists expressed their opposition to old-earth geology in the first half of the nineteenth century.

 

In summary, deism (which is a slightly theologized form of naturalism) flourished briefly in the early eighteenth century and then went underground as it spread into liberal biblical scholarship and in the nineteenth century into science. Atheism (naked naturalism) became increasingly popular and aggressive in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, especially on the European continent. So, naturalism first affected astronomy and geology and then only later did it gain control of biology. Many old-earth geologists (e.g., Sedgwick) vigorously opposed Darwin’s theory in 1859. But they failed to realize that Darwin simply applied the same naturalistic thinking to his theory of the origin of living creatures that the geologists had applied to their theories about the origin of the earth and geological record of strata and fossils. Their naturalistic geological theories laid the foundation for naturalistic biology.

 

Clearly, Buffon’s theory that the earth was the result of a collision of a comet and the sun and then cooled from a molten state over at least 75,000 years was a naturalistic theory. His deism led him to try to separate science from religious and metaphysical ideas and to reject teleological reasoning and the idea of any supernatural, divine intervention in nature. It is therefore no surprise that he firmly rejected the biblical Flood (along with its implications for the history and age of the earth).30 Laplace’s nebular hypothesis for the origin of the solar system over much more than 75,000 years (which became the seedbed of the big bang theory) was atheistic and therefore naturalistic. So was Werner’s deistic geological theory of a slowly receding ocean producing the geological record over one million years. So were Hutton’s and Lyell’s deistic uniformitarian theories. William Smith’s and Georges Cuvier’s deistic catastrophist theories were also quite naturalistic in that they too ignored Scripture and considered only natural causes for the geological record (though they had a supernaturalistic view of the origin of biological life).

http://creation.com/philosophical-naturalism-and-the-age-of-the-earth-are-they-related

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Kind of long and does not answer the question at all.  But hey, nice try though.

 

Let's make it a bit simpler for you.  OEC in its most basic form is the belief that the "days" in Genesis 1 are not 24 hour periods.   The debate over the meaning of the days of Genesis goes back to at least the 1st century, so if you want to show that OEC has it roots in anti-biblical thought you would need to go back at least that far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...