Acts/facts had a article on Japanese lake varves which touched on other subjects by Jake Hebert(Mar)
They were taking on four points Biologos presented to argue for a old earth.
I offer a idea on salt deposits within sedimentary rock. They say the salt comes when water has been removed that held the salt. As today in salt deposits. i think the yEC answer is AMEN.
The sedimentary layers were instantly turned to stone from a deposition from water flows moving sediment deposits. so when it settled the crushing weight above, that turned the sediment instantly into stone, ALSO squeezed all water away leaving the salt. Simple. in fact the salt in the sed layers is good evidence for a instant creation and not the slow ideas otherwise they push.
Different layers in Grand canyon etc just mean different depositions. So why not quick ones over weeks/months?! In fact it would be that way with great water flows pushede about by the great pressure from the separating continents.
The sequence of fossils also would be from a sudden deposition event. YEC needs to see the K- line as the flood year however.
Indeed varves only need be accelerated deposition events.
anyways YEC has better answers.
Robert Byers said:
Lou means fossils are possible before a LOCAL flood as recorded in the bible.
Of course Lou believes fossils are possible before a local flood. But the scale and scope and widespread distribution of fossils. on every continent, on mountain tops, and in the depths of canyons, and in deep strata CANNOT be accounted for by a Local Flood, and they cannot be explained in the context of YEC as having been formed any time since Creation - even if you date the creation event at 20,000 years ago. You must add time to the Bible to have any explanation for the strata and the trillions of fossils.
Then he adds there are other options for the world wide fossils found.
Where? When has this brother ever given an explanation for the world-wide fossils?
No one is questioning whether those who reject the Flood are evangelicals. All of us here who are part of the CC family certainly consider such persons as fellow-believers. The problem though is that they do not have the same view of biblical interpretation and the authority of God's revelation in the narrative passages of Scripture.
Here in this small phrase is the biggest issues with some YEC brothers:
The problem though is that they do not have the same view of biblical interpretation and the authority of God's revelation in the narrative passages of Scripture.
When you come to realize that a vast majority of Christians believe in the same inspiration and authority that you do, you cannot separate me from Christian grace or that my view is somehow less superior than yours. I am lead of the HolY Spirit to seek the righteousness and leading of God in all things brother, including creationism. The narrative passages in sciurpture have also been inferred to mean something to you personally, yet scholars for centuries, bible expositors, and language experts do not line up. A prime example is the clear historical teaching of Psalms 104 and others. You don't seem to get that there has been no time in history that trillions of fossils in the form of live biologic entities existed at onetime. It has never happened, and again Creationists challenged Dr. Morris on this and he admitted he could not explain it away with flood geology? Frankly in an academic discussion there is all kinds of room for different ideas brother! Don't you agree? Yes we do not have the same biblical view of some of the passages, that does not lessen the fact we are both Brothers hwo share the blood of Christ, for the gospel is Jesus and nothing else!
Never said that evangelicals do not believe in biblical authority. But this sort of allegation is the only response the brother can give. I said that they do not have the same view of biblical authority. The poster here in particular has repeatedly expressed the misguided notion that the interpretation of Scripture must be SUBSERVIENT to "science" - and by that he means the fallible opinions of men. But still Scripture is not subject to science. The SPECIAL REVELATION of Scripture is the means by which we ascertaion the proper sense of the GENERAL REVELATION of "science" or of our observation of the created world.
Our opponent (the opponent of what CC stands for) does not accept this approach to the authority of Scripture. AND as he as admitted plainly again, this is what he "has issues with." The dear brother somehow thinks that we must subject our interpretation of the Scripture to the "LOGIC" of assured facts of "science." AND HE WILL still continue to argue in favor of this mixed up approach in future responses to this comment.
Our opponent also has the misguided notion that the only acceptable interpretation is his own (the very thing he accuses us of). And he thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is questioning the presence of God in Him. He has just now argued that we think we are listening to the Holy Spirit and that others with another view are not. Of course this is not the case. We are simply saying that their interpretation is incorrect...
Oh, and the correct interpretation of any passage of Scripture is never a matter of consensus opinion, or some vote of the majority.
If that were the case then we would need to give up the virgin birth and the resurrection and the truth of SPECIAL CREATION in thousands not billions of years. DOES OUR OPPONENT recognize that the majority of expositors who reject the global flood ALSO reject the truth or recent special creation. SO PLEASE can we stop with the appeal to the majority consensus as some sort of basis for interpretive authority?
Lou Hamby said these silly things - which imply that he is accusing us of maintaining these uncharitable attitudes. WHY does he always accusing those who show the error of his interpretation as questioning his salvation and blood-bought status? WHY?:
you cannot separate me from Christian grace
NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING that would in any way separate flood deniers from Christians Grace. BUT I do think they KNOW that a similar unsound approach to passages in the Gospels about the Cross and the Resurrection, or a similar compromise approach to passages on grace and justification by faith - if these core doctrines were treated in the same light way that they treat the FLOOD, they would indeed be devoid of genuine faith. SO AGAIN, the issue is not whether or not those who reject the historicity of the Flood are saved or not - NOT AT ALL. They only thing we have endeavored to point out is the unsoundness of their faulty approach to SCRIPTURE about the Flood. Thank GOD the misguided fellow does not have this faulty approach to the Gospel of Christ!
or that my view is somehow less superior than yours.
In spite of the odd language here, it is not about whose view is more or less superior. It is simply a matter of what is the narrative declaring, and what does the rest of the Scripture affirm. It is not about who is superior. Our view is not superior. Rather our view, espoused in the statement of faith is simply CORRECT. Our view of the resurrection of Christ is correct. Our view of the six days of creation is correct. Our view that ALL things were created in six days is also correct. And our view (as stated in our Statement of Faith) about the Flood is also CORRECT : "The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect." "The Genesis Flood was a significant geological and global event."
Then Lou says: I am lead of the HolY Spirit to seek the righteousness and leading of God in all things brother, including creationism.
By saying this our opponent is suggesting that we are questioning the presence of the Holy Spirit in his life. This also is simply not the case. When anyone challenges his errors he insists on taking it as an affront to his faith. So sorry, but being in error does not mean we lack the Spirit of God. OR SHOULD WE RESPOND by saying that our opponent is accusing us of not listening to the Holy Spirit? Wait, he already did that in an earlier post when he said that HE IS LISTENING TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, and HE has come to know the truth, - implying that we are not.
The narrative passages in sciurpture have also been inferred to mean something to you personally, yet scholars for centuries, bible expositors, and language experts do not line up.
This seems to me to be an assertion that Creationists who affirm the global flood are not Hebrew Scholars (I happen to be quite at home in the Hebrew Bible, and I can read it without the help of a dictionary - and I have taught Hebrew for more than 40 years). And he also is suggesting that WE are not good Bible expositors. No, that is beside the point. Able scholars have different views - but the differences do not diminish their scholarship. THE POINT REMAINS someone is wrong or both are wrong. BUT STILL there is A RIGHT AND CORRECT VIEW OF THE FLOOD - and it is confirmed by science and affirmed by the rest of the Bible - the WORLD (cosmos) that then was PERISHED (was fully destroyed), being overflowed with water - and this refers to the whole of the bio-system reference as the created "heavens and earth" (Gen. 1:1 w. 2 Pet. 3:4-7), and the same heavens and earth that will soon be destroyed by fire.
A prime example is the clear historical teaching of Psalms 104 and others.
Ps. 104 is not a historical teaching. Genesis 1 through 11 is. Ps. 104 is poetry. It is not describing the creation week. It is describing the present condition of the fallen earth under the providential care of God - full of people who are sinful. Our beloved opponent is misguided as to the view of Ps 104 that is held by the Scholars he constantly cites. In another post we have examined his misguided claims and shown one-by-one that these scholars do not assert that Psalm 104 is all about the work of the Creation Week. AND even many of those he cites also AFFIRM WITH CERTAINTY the global extent of the Flood. Admittedly some do not - but these also deny the truth of special creation. Why doesn't our beloved opponent endeavor to get us to accept this opinion of the majority of "reliable Christian expositors"???? Hmmm?
The expositors he cites are asserting that the Psalm is about the providence of God in caring for the Created WORLD. NO ONE, NOT ONE asserts that the entire Psalm is a recounting of God's WORK OF CREATION DURING THE SIX DAYS of Genesis One. NOT ONE>
Yes we do not have the same biblical view of some of the passages, that does not lessen the fact we are both Brothers hwo share the blood of Christ, for the gospel is Jesus and nothing else!
Why does the dear opponent seem to keep repeating this worried idea that the fact that we are blood bought brothers is lessened. DOES HE FEEL GUILTY THAT HE IS DOING THIS TO US? We certainly do not think he is any less Christian. NO, not at all. He is just wrong about Genesis Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine. AND he is also wrong about Genesis One verse two, and about origin, the beginning and foundation of the mountains and all forms of the dry land (Gen. 1:9-10). Being wrong about Genesis doesn't make you any less a born-again believer. It just makes you wrong about Creation and the Flood.