The TRUE reason for the EvC controversy, and why it can not be resolved.

Hm. I suppose I would answer that if the transition was gradual that we are still in the transition. Seems to me that the fallen state has been accumulating ever since the Fall and never stopped and can only get worse. The only thing that opposes it is the salt and light of the people of Christ. And that's gone a long way to slowing the corruption, but it has merely slowed, not stopped. Yes, that's what I figured. I don't know what Percy meant about YEC's thinking a different science applies to the Flood.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't see this as a claim that the physical LAWS were different, just that CONDITIONS were different, and they somehow affected the speed of radiometric decay.For example: The law of gravity doesn't change just because we can create conditions that allow us to fly.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-27-2006 11:41 AM

OK, thanks. I wasn't aware of those proposals -- probably because I'm out of my depth in that context. So then Gone full circle may be saying something similar.

No.And this is off topic. If you want to start a thread, please do. I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about the headcovering issue.

How so? I think I noticed that you specified some differences at this point in a post to someone else when I was skimming through earlier, but I don't remember what point you were making. Oh, yes, the scattering of the languages. I can't see that as a change in the physical law though. I think I'll read back through your posts again, though. That's an intriguing idea I'm not yet grasping. Something to do with the introduction of death into nature? But death began with the Fall. Its effects would certainly have increased dramatically with the Flood though. Yes, I agree, but the Flood doesn't fit that description as far as I can see. A dramatic change in CONDITIONS, yes, but physical law, no, I'm not convinced. The Fall, however, could have started some such change in motion as you are suggesting, though I'm still not getting it yet. No historical event is repeatable, it doesn't have to be miraculous. And I believe nothing at all happens without God anyway, everything is fulfilling God's purposes, but a miracle is something that does violate His laws, and I don't see that in the Flood. Or in the Fall, although I can see that the Fall may have introduced a radical change in the physical laws. I'm still not sure about that, in fact I'm thinking a bit against the idea now. Such a radical change in the condition of the creation may also not violate physical laws. Even the gradual introduction of radioactivity would not violate those laws. It would be undetectable by modern science of course, who don't suspect such a radical change in conditions -- or possibly have any way of detecting it ever, but now I'm not totally convinced. They'd simply need a way to detect a certain kind of massive disortion but maybe that's not possible, and I am out of my depth on this topic. But this can be said about absolutely any event on the planet, GFC. Certainly this will always be the case, yes. But I believe in the Flood because God's word tells me it happened, not because I believe it was a miraculous event. But that's not crucial. If someone were convinced there was a flood that fits the Bible description, that would convince them of the truth of God's word, and that's plenty. And again, I think it's wrong to say God caused it in any miraculous sense. It merely LOOKS miraculous because the conditions of the time were so different from now, but there's no reason to think it didn't play out according to the laws of physics acting in those conditions of the time.

I think I would argue with most of your speculations about how it all might have happened, but I'm getting that how it all might have happened isn't really important to you, so I guess there's no point. I simply have to believe it stopped with the Fall, even if at first it might have been so gradual as to be nearly undetectable. Certainly death started then. And I'm still not getting your reasoning about the later date. I gather that "verganklike' means "corruption" or "decay" If decay is intrinsic to the laws of physics, then certainly you are right that that law wasn't in existence pre-Fall and won't be in the new heaven and new earth. Yes, that seems to be your main point. But many people do stop believing in the Bible based on what science seems to say, you know, so it is hard to just leave it at that. But a naturalist is also going to reject your reasoning about a past and future state of perfection or nondecay, because their instruments can't detect it, and they trust their reasoning and their instruments over the Bible. Well, yes, it takes the Holy Spirit to convert people, but God uses all kinds of efforts to convince people. And they claim there is no proof of a worldwide flood so if there were that would certainly end that line of their argument. Truly there is no proof at all that would convince some.If all you are saying is that there is no use for debate about these things in the work of evangelism, maybe you are right, but I'm not sure we should just abandon the effort.But really, I think I'm missing the point of what you are trying to get said here, so I don't think you need to answer this and I will drop out of the conversation at this point.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-29-2006 09:51 AM

Wow, what a typical PC violation of the Constitution. Do you think that at least we should be spared paying taxes for the public schools if we finance our own schools or are you going to bleed us from every pore?

It's simply a matter of financial practicality, crash. Nobody can afford to support two school systems. But if that is demanded of us, God will provide.