Didn't think we would be communicating so soon!
Bill Payne wrote:
> I have a personal affinity for YEC, partly I guess because I like to buck
> the flow......
It is hard to kick against the pricks!
> and primarily because I feel more comfortable drawing the
> scripture through the YEC timeframe. I guess the key verse that swings
> me into the YEC grid is Jude 14: "Enoch, the seventh from Adam,...." As
> was recently pointed out, there may be some generations missing, but the
> thrust of the verse (in my mind) is that Adam was a real person in the
> not too distant past.
>
> I thirst for the truth, and therefore don't mind learning about anything
> regardless of what model it seems to support. I will freely grant you
> that there are what I consider, given my limited scope of knowledge, very
> good arguments supporting OEC.
>
> In the meantime, and this will really drive some of our
> friends here nuts, I have no problem accepting Gosse's idea of creation
> with the appearance of age.
Which form of Gosse do you accept? The strong form (Gosse's original) which
holds to a complete appearance of apparent age (down to in situ tree roots,
healed scars on fossils, and trails complete with where the trilobite tripped
over its own feet)? Or the weak form (a la John Whitcomb) where the apparent
age is only superficial?
How do you relate and balance flood geology with Gosse? As I see it, the
persistence of flood geology is a tacit acknowledgement that Gosse is
unsatisfying. Conversely, if we seriously hold with Gosse, then who needs
flood geology?
How do these factors work out as you approach an outcrop? In the reports you
write for work? This is where the rubber meets the road as Christian
geologists, in how we work to the glory of God and the benefit of humanity.
> One thing I do know, it's EASTER and He is Risen!
He is risen indeed!
> God bless you all,
>
> Bill
You also
Jonathan