>What a bizarre question. Are non-Christians not allowed to speak?
>> Let me rephrase that. Why do you choose to be a non-Christian?
>Sorry, Dick, this is not about my religious beliefs, it is about your
unwarranted
>and viscious attack on the integrity of Art Chadwick. Opinion seems to be
pretty
>unanimous that the only one in this situation who is showing a lack of
integrity
>here is you. Perhaps you should give some thought to "thou shalt not bear
false
>witness".
You see, this is typical of a sloppy conclusion. "Opinion ...unanimous
that I am
showing a lack of integrity"? Who, besides you, said that? Or are you
exhibiting
a lack of integrity so we can recognize a lack of integrity when we see one?
Frivolity aside, almost anyone on this list can witness to you about making a
commitment to Christ based not upon faith alone, but on data and evidence.
Unfortunately, there are those who distort and deny scientific evidence
because of
their religious beliefs. Many choose not to become Christians on the
mistaken
idea that since the science is dreadful their religious beliefs must be
too, and so
they never become followers of Christ. And if they die in that condition,
well, you
know the rest - fire and brimstone, and all that. I'm not saying this to
scare you,
brother, I'm just laying it on the table. There is a war for the hearts
and souls of us
all waged by the forces of evil against God. You are in it whether you
choose to
be or not.
How many millions rest secure in their worldly knowledge and pass through
that
"wide gate" to destruction is impossible to tally. But if we Christians
were united
in a method of apology that did not cause our brothers to stumble, I
contend, we
would not lose so many, Ed. That is important to me. And should be of
greater
importance to those Christians on this list than what I say or how I say it.
But since you apparently read the Bible yourself (you did quote from it),
look at
II Peter. Notice that the apostle declares that "we have not followed
cunningly
devised fables ..." (II Peter 1:16). Flood geology, Ed, is exactly that.
An
argument to discredit an historical flood we can substantiate, and substitute
something that cannot be believed, making the Bible look foolish in the
process.
Frankly, YEC and flood geology is a deceit. A satanically-inspired deception
using duped human instigators to discredit the creation God did make, for a
"fable"
that cannot be believed. Net result - we lose lives.
If you remember what got us here, coral growth at Eniwetok requires over
160,000
years of growing to produce the column of coral extracted, which measured
4,610
feet. Plus, we know it couldn't have grown non stop, because there were at
least
three times the island had been above water in the distant past.
Art said this: "Note that the fastest rates for reefs9 and for
framebuilders10 do
allow for the (g)rowth of the Eniwetok reef, which has a thickness of 1,405
meters,
in less than 3,400 years. These fastest rates for reefs are based on
soundings,
which are the most direct and simple measurements and are probably more
reliable than the less-direct methods that give slower growth rates."
In the last 100 years that we have been observing Eniwetok it hasn't grown
at all.
So to suggest that we could get 1,405 meters of vertical coral growth in 3400
years is rubbish.
Plus, ancient buried coral reefs have been found in oil fields in Alberta,
Canada.
Some of these atolls measure 800 feet, and are covered by more than 4,000
feet of
sedimentary rock. Obviously, during the first few months of Noah's flood,
the coral
took off like a rocket and soared 800 feet before the later months of the
flood
covered it with four-fifths of a mile of sedimentation, and oh by the way,
leaving an
olive tree rather unscathed in the vicinity of the ark (Gen. 8:11). In
short, flood
geology is a "devised fable," Ed, cunningly designed to discredit biblical
truth.
And what else does the Apostle Peter say? "But there were false prophets
also
among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who
privily
shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and
bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their
pernicious
ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of" (II Peter
2:1-2).
In my estimation, Peter singled out for condemnation the very behavior
demonstrated by the one you defend. Not that he is alone. But he is a
teacher of
this philosophy, which places him among the instigators.
Still, if I have been guilty of being judgmental, Glenn, let him clarify
himself on this
issue so that I can properly apologize if he is not as he appears to be.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."