You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What Do Reformed Christians Believe?
- Thread starter Aapex
- Start date
I dealt with your question.Quote from Aapex:
You still have not dealt with one fact of what I posted.
Have you run out of ideas?
You don't like the answer so instead of dealing with that, you post more and more questions with their own silly explanations.
jem threw the towel in as usual and you go punch drunk.
Typical.
You are Illogical and juvenile and now you know why it is not wroth debating with you. I purposely did not respond to your lame arguments and yet you insert yourself into one of mine.
So go ahead help out Vhehn. Quote what the bible said about the flood and prove it wrong.
Otherwise sod off.
So go ahead help out Vhehn. Quote what the bible said about the flood and prove it wrong.
Otherwise sod off.
Quote from jem:
So go ahead help out Vhehn. Quote what the bible said about the flood and prove it wrong.
Quote from vhehn:
if all mountians are a result of the flood why are the Appalachians so much more eroded that the sierras indicating a vast age difference?
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/appalach1.htm
Appalachians show evidence of earth's age
I don't see how to explain this in a global flood/young-earth scenario. It is time for young-earthers like Socrates to come explain how this fits
into a global flood. The YEC silence is deafening on these posts. Can't y'all explain them?
The Flood didn't have to cover the present Earth, but it did have to cover the pre-Flood Earth, and the Bible teaches that the Flood fully restructured the earth.
Few doctrines in Scripture are as clearly taught as the global nature of the Great Flood in Noah's day. Genesis clearly teaches that "the waters . . . increased greatly . . . and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:18-20).
Through the centuries, few Christians questioned this doctrine. The Bible said it, and that was enoughâuntil the late 1700s that is. For the first time the globe was being exploredâthe extremely lofty Himalayan Mountains were surveyed, capped by Mt. Everest at 29,035 feet in elevation. Did the waters cover them? Is there enough water on the planet to do so? The questions seemed so far-fetched that many European churchmen dismissed the idea that the Flood was global, adopting the local flood concept which still dominates Christian colleges and seminaries today. Like dominos, other doctrines soon began to fallâthe young age for the earth, the special creation of plants and animals, and the inerrancy of Scripture.
We now know, of course, that the earth has plenty of water to launch a global flood. It has been calculated that if the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet. But is there enough water to cover a 29,035 foot mountain?
The key is to remember that the Flood didn't have to cover the present Earth, but it did have to cover the pre-Flood Earth, and the Bible teaches that the Flood fully restructured the earth. "The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). It is gone forever. The earth of today was radically altered by that global event.
That Flood accomplished abundant geologic work. Eroding sediments here, redepositing them there, pushing up continents, elevating plateaus, denuding terrains, etc., so that the earth today is quite different from before. Today even mountain ranges rise high above the sea.
Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of resulting from cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.
At the end of the Flood, after thick sequences of sediments had accumulated, the Indian subcontinent evidently collided with Asia, crumpling the sediments into mountains. Today they stand as giantsâfolded and fractured layers of ocean-bottom sediments at high elevations. No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them!
Thus we find the Biblical account not only possible, but also supported by the evidence. A pre-Flood world with lessened topographic extremes could have been covered by the Great Flood. That Flood caused today's high mountains and deep oceans making such a flood impossible to repeat. This is just as God promised, back in Genesis.
Quote from Aapex:
That Flood accomplished abundant geologic work. Eroding sediments here, redepositing them there, pushing up continents, elevating plateaus, denuding terrains, etc., so that the earth today is quite different from before. Today even mountain ranges rise high above the sea.
ok we are getting somewhere. you have more courage than jem but maybe are not as smart because i am sure jem knows there could have been no global flood and that is why he refuses to be pinned down.
so, you are going to claim that the flood laid down the whole geologic column. this is not possible because we see things in the geologic record that could not have been formed during a flood.
1. fossilized dinosaur dung with evidence of dung beetle tunnels. are we to believe that during this flood that disrupted the whole earth at a dinosaur took a crap and the water did not disolve it and it laid there long enough for dung beetles to eat holes in it? here is what someone who researched this said: One of the things which disproves the global flood are the minor normal activities of life and living which are abundantly clear in the fossil record. Today we will discuss coprolites or fossilized feces.
Coprolites comes from the Greek word, kopros, meaning dung. We find lots of dung in the fossil record and it says many things about the global flood and its impossibility. First, it says that the world could not be flooded by water all the time, because the animals would not be able to find food and after about 5 days, most animals would not have anything left in their digestive tracks. This means that as the flood went on, from the time when the Cambrian strata were deposited, on up to the Permian (half way through the flood) and into the Cretaceous and Tertiary (late in the flood deposition), there should be no vertebrate dung because the world had been flooded for more than 6 months by then. To find coprolites in the later sediments of the flood, means that the animal ate within 5 days of when he eliminated.
Modern examples of the speed of digestion are many. Take a cow. His digestion time takes 5 days (120 hours) (http://www.producer.com/articles/20...010201ls02.html). Humans can move food through the system in 12-72 hours depending on the food. In smaller animals, like mice, birds etc. the need for large inputs of food energy means short times in the digestive tract and thus there are shorter times between eating and excreting. The reason I am discussing how long it takes to move food through the digestive tracts is to time the last meal by the animals who left coprolites in the fossil record. Clearly, it is a matter of days between the last meal and the time when excretion of the dung became necessary.
Creationists have ignored this aspect of coprolite formation. They have tried to claim that if not for rapid burial, the coprolites would not be preserved. Daniel Woolley, in âFish preservation, fish coprolites and the Green River Formationâ TJ 15(1):105â11, 2001 said:
2. we find fossilized insect burrows in deep layers of the geologic record that would have taken years to build. how could insects burrow through rock during a flood? "Where the A is, is where the mammal tried digging into the nest. The T marks the termite nest. And all this was going on during the raging global flood which was supposedly dumping 50-100 feet of sediment each day on top of these hapless animals who didn't know that, and who continued digging even when under 100 feet of sediment!!!!! Believing the global flood stuff is simply illogical
While the flood was supposedly raging, the termites, as I said, were blithely digging their tunnels and going about their business, apparently unaware that there was such a global catastrophe going on. But then so were the dinosaurs. Above the termite mounds were some dinosaur tracks. My friend gave me some pictures showing one of them. "(see pictures) http://home.entouch.net/dmd/termites.htm
3. we find perfect insect fossils deep in the geologic column. the flood was so violent that it rearranged mountians yet we find perfect insects deep in the rock?
:"One of the things I really don't understand about the global flood. It was supposed to be so turbulent and erosive that it scoured the preflood world, yet it doesn't seem to have hurt delicate animals which became fossilized. This simply doesn't make sense. Erosiveness which can scour a continent clean to the granite and fast moving water carrying loads of sand which will act like sand paper, didn't hurt the insects below. I took these pictures in a museum in Singapore last August. They are ultimately of Malaysian origin (Malaysia is only about 10 miles north of the museum). Anyway, can any YECs explain why such delicate features could survive the sandblasting waters of the global flood?" (see pictures)http://home.entouch.net/dmd/insect.htm
Quote from jem:
Your logic sucks right now. You claim the flood did not happen. I said quote what the bible said about a flood and prove it wrong. you are saying I need to be a geologist.
Reminds me of zzz favorite-- non sequitor.
i know where you are trying to go with your games. it does not matter that you think that the flood may not have been global because the majority of churchs claim that the bible says it was, so that is what we will debate.
On this subject it does not matter what people believe, it matters what the bible says. I am sure you can prove, lots of commentators wrong. I could care less. Your statement was you could prove the bible wrong because it got the flood story wrong.
Frankly, I do not even know exactly what the flood story says regarding the global flood. When I read that some hebrew experts say that a proper translation of the words does not equal global flood, I realize that I would have to study the hebrew before I even could get to the next step with you.
So, quote the bible, define what it says and then explain why it is wrong. Until then you and everyone else is pissing into the wind.
Now if you want to debate the meaning of John chapter 6 starting around verse 53, I will have a debate you. I have studied what Protestants, Catholics and scholars have to say about the meaning and the translatons. I have studied many other areas.
I recently read one of your posts and then made a post that science has proven that athiesm is faith.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1032370&highlight=faith#post1032370
you might want to debate that.
But, you cant prove the bible wrong if you do not even quote what it says.
Frankly, I do not even know exactly what the flood story says regarding the global flood. When I read that some hebrew experts say that a proper translation of the words does not equal global flood, I realize that I would have to study the hebrew before I even could get to the next step with you.
So, quote the bible, define what it says and then explain why it is wrong. Until then you and everyone else is pissing into the wind.
Now if you want to debate the meaning of John chapter 6 starting around verse 53, I will have a debate you. I have studied what Protestants, Catholics and scholars have to say about the meaning and the translatons. I have studied many other areas.
I recently read one of your posts and then made a post that science has proven that athiesm is faith.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1032370&highlight=faith#post1032370
you might want to debate that.
But, you cant prove the bible wrong if you do not even quote what it says.
Quote from vhehn:
so, you are going to claim that the flood laid down the whole geologic column. this is not possible because we see things in the geologic record that could not have been formed during a flood.
Scientific Reasons
Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstones, shales, limestones, etc.). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources.
The assigned "ages" of the sedimentary beds (which comprise the bulk of the "geologic column") have been deduced from their assemblages of fossils. Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidlyâeven catastrophicallyâand more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view.
Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a time when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various "ages" supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were all formed in essentially the same brief time period.
The fossil sequences in the sedimentary rocks do not constitute a legitimate exception to this rule, for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age. That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution, which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being." Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial.
Most fossils occur in huge fossil graveyards where things from different habitats are mixed together in a watery grave.
Fossils have been frequently cited as the main evidence for evolution. The evolution/uniformitarian worldview postulates that the slow and gradual processes we see operating today are responsible not only for the death and extinction of plant and animal types but their burial in sediments which will eventually harden into sedimentary rocks. Uniformityâs slogan, âthe present is the key to the past,â reflects their view of the origin of the fea- tures in the rock and fossil record. I think the great Flood of Noahâs day is a better explanation.
First note that very few fossils are forming today and then only in the case of rapid burial by water. For instance what happens to a fish when it dies? It either floats to the surface or sinks to the bottom where it decays and is eaten by scavengers. Yet many fish fossils are so exquisitely preserved that even the scales and organs are preserved. Obviously there was no time for decay and bacterial action. We can certainly say that something extraordinary happened to form the fossils.
Furthermore, most fossils occur in huge fossil graveyards where things from different habitats are mixed together in a watery grave. The predominant type of fossil is that of marine invertebrates but these are found on the continents within catastrophically deposited rock units.
Of the several different kinds of fossils, each one requires rapid burial and circumstances which are seldom, if ever, at work today. Processes of fossilization include:
Mineralization: This happens by partial or entire replacement of an organism by minerals, usually one molecule at a time as the organism decays. Time is involved but not time before burial. Petrification occurs when the replacing mineral is silica.
Carbonization: Living things consist of high carbon content, and under extraordinary circumstances only the carbon remains. This includes the thick coal bands as well as thin carbon residues left in the host rock. Rapid isolation and heating is required.
Impressions: These common fossils occur when the entire organism is replaced by the same material as the host rock leaving only the form of an organism. The detail preserved indicates no time for decay.
Ephemeral markings: These common markings include worm burrows, animal tracks, coprolites, and rain-drop impressions. All are extremely fragile and need rapid lithification to be preserved.
Hard parts: Bones and shells are found but these are usually broken. For instance, limbs ripped from dinosaurs, found in fossil graveyards, are the rule.
Soft parts: Obviously these will only last for a very short time without rapid burial. These include flesh, feathers, skin, scales, plant tissue, color, and even smell.
Frozen parts: These imply extremely low temperatures which trapped and froze the organisms quickly. Certainly this is not happening now on any scale.
These fossil types (and other subcategories could be mentioned) require extraordinary circumstances of a rapid and catastrophic nature. The great Flood of Noahâs day which destroyed a world full of life is the best explanation.
There is dull power in structure as a result of energy expended. There is residual value in a constructed argument as a result of the time and energy spent in building that argument. One fellow could attack another with the Gospel of Barney the Purple Dinosaur, if he felt so inclined, and the other fellow would--or could, if he allowed himself--feel the intellectual brunt of it.
Consider that somewhere, out there, there is a highly intelligent scientologist. If this highly intelligent scientologist were led to this board, and so motivated to explain what he believed, he could fill this board with pages and pages of why the scientology view is correct.
Consider also that somewhere, out there, there is a highly intelligent Mormon who could achieve the same thing. In fact, you can pretty much fill in the blank. Any faith or philosophical belief system which has gained enough traction to be generally recognized on a message board probably has at least a handful of highly intelligent folks believing in it.
So, for the purpose of argument, let us imagine a gentleman named Earnest. Earnest fervently believes in 'X', where 'X' is a variable that stands in for any faith or philosophical belief system which has been around for sufficient length of time to amass an impressive body of texts and talking points.
The point is that all that is required for Earnest to kick up a fuss is that he, Earnest, devotes enough time and energy to creating and maintaining an argument structure for X through a series of posts and threads. And, of course, that y'all elite trader readers respond to these Earnest efforts (pun intended).
My deeper point, if I have one--and I may not, I am just rambling here on a quick lunch break--is that a hefty body of argument should not be impressive in itself, even if that body of argument appears to be internally consistent and rigorously defended. Why do I say this? Simple: supply and demand.
Lots of reasonably intelligent folk who believe in all kinds of wacky versions of 'X'--be it Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, or some pseudo-economic political faith like Socialism, Fascism, Utilitarianism, Eco-Utopia, etc--all these believers who fall under subset A, where A represents 'ability to argue,' have the ability, by definition, to present nominally consistent arguments. Or at least, to present arguments that are so reasoned and nuanced and detailed that they appear to be consistent on the surface level, and are defensible on the weak points (with sufficient supply of dogged determination).
So: back to supply and demand. If one can get access to a shiny and impressive argument for just about any faith or philosophical belief system they choose... and furthermore, if one can get access to this spiritual smorgasbord through a few keystrokes typed in Google... well then, what can the "fair value" of shiny and energetic arguments be? Pretty close to fuck-all I dare say, pardon the french and what not.
This isn't to directly criticize the contents of any single argument. If 'X' is expanded to include all possible variants of all metaphsyical belief systems, then at least one variant of X has to be correct, or more correct than the others. But it is to point out that:
a) the willful presentation of one flavor of X, that is to say, a big heaping hunk of arguments for one belief system, really doesn't mean jack on its own
b) because there are so many possible variants of X, the odds of a proselytizer's view of X being 'the' correct one are pretty damn low, all the more so if the view is actively shopped and presented on sale
c) internal consistency is an admirable thing, and lack of internal consistency is a sign of flaw, BUT presence of internal consistency doesn't mean a whole lot in a vacuum--as it is possible to start with a handful of wrong assumptions and build a house where all the premises appear to line up
Last thought: I hope those of you who are arguing here are doing so for your personal enjoyment... the presenter of this particular belief system (reformed evangelical Christianity) has a motive of his own (brownie points awarded in heaven, the warm glow of righteous service here and now) which makes the expenditure of time and energy worth his while. Those of you who are arguing with him for argument's sake, I assume, do not have visions of some eternal reward to compensate for your time and energy spent.
I don't have much excuse for popping in either, other than I find personal interest in these little sociological run-ins, and perhaps that goes for others here too. But man oh man, life would be dull indeed if one's prime kicks were found on a message board.
back to your regularly scheduled program
cheers all
Consider that somewhere, out there, there is a highly intelligent scientologist. If this highly intelligent scientologist were led to this board, and so motivated to explain what he believed, he could fill this board with pages and pages of why the scientology view is correct.
Consider also that somewhere, out there, there is a highly intelligent Mormon who could achieve the same thing. In fact, you can pretty much fill in the blank. Any faith or philosophical belief system which has gained enough traction to be generally recognized on a message board probably has at least a handful of highly intelligent folks believing in it.
So, for the purpose of argument, let us imagine a gentleman named Earnest. Earnest fervently believes in 'X', where 'X' is a variable that stands in for any faith or philosophical belief system which has been around for sufficient length of time to amass an impressive body of texts and talking points.
The point is that all that is required for Earnest to kick up a fuss is that he, Earnest, devotes enough time and energy to creating and maintaining an argument structure for X through a series of posts and threads. And, of course, that y'all elite trader readers respond to these Earnest efforts (pun intended).
My deeper point, if I have one--and I may not, I am just rambling here on a quick lunch break--is that a hefty body of argument should not be impressive in itself, even if that body of argument appears to be internally consistent and rigorously defended. Why do I say this? Simple: supply and demand.
Lots of reasonably intelligent folk who believe in all kinds of wacky versions of 'X'--be it Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, or some pseudo-economic political faith like Socialism, Fascism, Utilitarianism, Eco-Utopia, etc--all these believers who fall under subset A, where A represents 'ability to argue,' have the ability, by definition, to present nominally consistent arguments. Or at least, to present arguments that are so reasoned and nuanced and detailed that they appear to be consistent on the surface level, and are defensible on the weak points (with sufficient supply of dogged determination).
So: back to supply and demand. If one can get access to a shiny and impressive argument for just about any faith or philosophical belief system they choose... and furthermore, if one can get access to this spiritual smorgasbord through a few keystrokes typed in Google... well then, what can the "fair value" of shiny and energetic arguments be? Pretty close to fuck-all I dare say, pardon the french and what not.
This isn't to directly criticize the contents of any single argument. If 'X' is expanded to include all possible variants of all metaphsyical belief systems, then at least one variant of X has to be correct, or more correct than the others. But it is to point out that:
a) the willful presentation of one flavor of X, that is to say, a big heaping hunk of arguments for one belief system, really doesn't mean jack on its own
b) because there are so many possible variants of X, the odds of a proselytizer's view of X being 'the' correct one are pretty damn low, all the more so if the view is actively shopped and presented on sale
c) internal consistency is an admirable thing, and lack of internal consistency is a sign of flaw, BUT presence of internal consistency doesn't mean a whole lot in a vacuum--as it is possible to start with a handful of wrong assumptions and build a house where all the premises appear to line up
Last thought: I hope those of you who are arguing here are doing so for your personal enjoyment... the presenter of this particular belief system (reformed evangelical Christianity) has a motive of his own (brownie points awarded in heaven, the warm glow of righteous service here and now) which makes the expenditure of time and energy worth his while. Those of you who are arguing with him for argument's sake, I assume, do not have visions of some eternal reward to compensate for your time and energy spent.
I don't have much excuse for popping in either, other than I find personal interest in these little sociological run-ins, and perhaps that goes for others here too. But man oh man, life would be dull indeed if one's prime kicks were found on a message board.
back to your regularly scheduled program
cheers all