YECs

[floo]

I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?

When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!

As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.

And your evidence to substantiate that statement is? The Bible isn't evidence.

Tlll you have tried it, you can't say that. Show us evidence and concrete proof that the bible isn't evidence. Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.

That's not evidence in the modern sense. If the Bible is evidence, then so is the Qur'an, so is the Book of Mormon, so is the Bhagavad Gita and countless others tomes.  These works are evidence of the multitudinous beliefs that humans have entertained over the years. Beliefs are not evidence.

Exactly!

[ippy]

I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?

When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!

As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.

And your evidence to substantiate that statement is? The Bible isn't evidence.

Tlll you have tried it, you can't say that. Show us evidence and concrete proof that the bible isn't evidence. Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.

That's not evidence in the modern sense. If the Bible is evidence, then so is the Qur'an, so is the Book of Mormon, so is the Bhagavad Gita and countless others tomes.  These works are evidence of the multitudinous beliefs that humans have entertained over the years. Beliefs are not evidence.

I agree with you and where I can't get my head around with most of these believers, is where they can't get it into their heads that until they can establish the veracity of their various cherished books, it's hardly worth the bother of discussing any of it, unless it's compared to something like, say a Sherlock Holmes stories debating club at least his stories are a bit more interesting. 

ippy

[Samuel]

The thing that gets me about the YEC position, is that it is profoundly cynical. Even if you start with the belief that God created the universe and everything in it, the only way to arrive at a YEC position is to defer entirely to the 'evidence' of scripture and it's supposed literal truth. This essentially labels thousands (millions?) of scientists as liars in the process and God as intentionally misleading mankind. It is a view of the world in its worst possible light. It is a miserable and shameful doctrine.

The usual apologist answer is if course that scientists are not liars... Just simply wrong. But that is disingenuous to the extreme if you ask me and a denial of the possibility of truth.

I've personally been challenged on this point before as my job involves geology and fossils etc, although I'm not a researcher or academic. One fundamental problem this particular YEC had was that if the account of creation was not literally true then the fall of Adam never really happened. And if there was no fall then there was no reason for Jesus to come. Again, I found this a small way of looking at Christianity. It seemed to substitute a universal idea about the human condition with a circumstantial one, robbing the bible of much of its potential to inspire hope.

Whatever. It's not like I give a shit anyway. Basically it's just wilful ignorance.

[Shaker]

I've personally been challenged on this point before as my job involves geology and fossils etc, although I'm not a researcher or academic. One fundamental problem this particular YEC had was that if the account of creation was not literally true then the fall of Adam never really happened. And if there was no fall then there was no reason for Jesus to come. Again, I found this a small way of looking at Christianity.

Maybe small, but this person was right. A stopped clock is right twice a day and even someone utterly clueless in other respects can stumble upon the truth accidentally. Their chain of reasoning in this case was sound. No Adam (there wasn't), no Fall (there wasn't), no sin (there isn't) ... Christianity is skinned, boned and gutted by reality.

[Samuel]

Of course. Whatever you say Shaker.

[Spud]

Shaker
The reality is, there is sin. Most visibly in Iraq and Syria these days, but present in everyone. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8

[Shaker]

Shaker
The reality is, there is sin.

That's not reality. It's just a belief some people have.

You really ought to learn the difference.

Most visibly in Iraq and Syria these days, but present in everyone. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8

Wibble.

[Spud]

I realise quite a few Christians believe in the creation story in the Bible to be factual. Out of interest how many on this forum believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old at most?

When I was a young teenager, I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church, I was unfortunate enough to attend, where dinosaurs fitted into his young earth belief. The man said that the deity had put them there as a test of faith! My faith took a serious nose dive after that ludicrous statement!

As I said God created an mature earth. He also made mature adults. At a day old Adam was a man of years.
It seems so weird how people fail to realise that the earths age physically does not represent the age by scientist.
Because the physical age was not the age it took to create it.

And your evidence to substantiate that statement is? The Bible isn't evidence.

Tlll you have tried it, you can't say that. Show us evidence and concrete proof that the bible isn't evidence. Also prove it isn't evidence that God created a mature earth.

That's not evidence in the modern sense. If the Bible is evidence, then so is the Qur'an, so is the Book of Mormon, so is the Bhagavad Gita and countless others tomes.  These works are evidence of the multitudinous beliefs that humans have entertained over the years. Beliefs are not evidence.

The New Testament, in particular, contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Christ. They passed the ultimate lie detector- persecution- so we know their testimony is true and that Creation is under Christ's authority. He claimed to be from God and vindicated that claim by doing the things God told Adam He had done, that is, creating by speaking things into being. Christ spoke and the wind died down, the paralytic stood up, etc. So Christ vindicated the creation account.

He confirmed that Adam was the first human, Abel the first martyr, and he upheld Genesis 2 as history (Mt 19:5). He claimed to have the authority to choose whether to rest on the Sabbath or to work. This suggests that He is upholding Genesis 1 where God decided to rest. His creation of mature wine from water, without grapes, vindicates Genesis 1 because it tells us he is able to create something that is already mature, and so (apart from not accepting the fact that He is in very nature God), Sassy is right.

It reminds me of the narrator at the end of Bod: "the Hippos were right. Were you?"

[Samuel]

But why? Why does creation contradict itself?

[Maeght]

The New Testament, in particular, contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Christ. They passed the ultimate lie detector- persecution- so we know their testimony is true

What persecution are you referring to Spud?

[torridon]

That's not evidence in the modern sense. If the Bible is evidence, then so is the Qur'an, so is the Book of Mormon, so is the Bhagavad Gita and countless others tomes.  These works are evidence of the multitudinous beliefs that humans have entertained over the years. Beliefs are not evidence.

The New Testament, in particular, contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Christ. They passed the ultimate lie detector- persecution- so we know their testimony is true and that Creation is under Christ's authority. He claimed to be from God and vindicated that claim by doing the things God told Adam He had done, that is, creating by speaking things into being. Christ spoke and the wind died down, the paralytic stood up, etc. So Christ vindicated the creation account.

He confirmed that Adam was the first human, Abel the first martyr, and he upheld Genesis 2 as history (Mt 19:5). He claimed to have the authority to choose whether to rest on the Sabbath or to work. This suggests that He is upholding Genesis 1 where God decided to rest. His creation of mature wine from water, without grapes, vindicates Genesis 1 because it tells us he is able to create something that is already mature, and so (apart from not accepting the fact that He is in very nature God), Sassy is right.

I'd beg to differ, Mr PotatoHead.

You might consider it evidence, but it is not evidence in the modern sense.

If you got ill and went to the doctor you'd expect a prescription for some pharmaceutical that you could fairly trust, knowing that it had been tested on animals most likely first, and then through several years of clinical trials to establish its efficacy and to identify any side effects.  That testing regime produces the evidence required by our regulatory bodies that our medicines are safe, authentic and effective; that they are not quack products.

Ancient writings do not anywhere near approach this level of verification.  If you want to believe them it is a matter of faith, not evidence. If you got ill, would you go to your doctor, or would you trust some ancient remedy found incised on a stone tablet from the Iron Age ?

[jeremyp]

The New Testament, in particular, contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Christ.

No it doesn't contain any.

They passed the ultimate lie detector- persecution- so we know their testimony is true and that Creation is under Christ's authority.

Who passed the ultimate lie detector test? The other characters in the Jesus story?

He claimed to be from God

Even if we had a recording of an interview with Jesus claiming he is God, it doesn't mean he really was.

[Gordon]

The New Testament, in particular, contains multiple eyewitness accounts of Christ.

Allegedly, Spud - how do you know they are true.?

They passed the ultimate lie detector- persecution- so we know their testimony is true

This isn't a test, and no you don't know that their testimony is true: you just want it to be true, which isn't the same thing at all.

and that Creation is under Christ's authority. He claimed to be from God and vindicated that claim by doing the things God told Adam He had done, that is, creating by speaking things into being. Christ spoke and the wind died down, the paralytic stood up, etc. So Christ vindicated the creation account.

Claims Spud: nothing more, and obviously spurious ones given the nature of the claims.

He confirmed that Adam was the first human, Abel the first martyr, and he upheld Genesis 2 as history (Mt 19:5). He claimed to have the authority to choose whether to rest on the Sabbath or to work. This suggests that He is upholding Genesis 1 where God decided to rest. His creation of mature wine from water, without grapes, vindicates Genesis 1 because it tells us he is able to create something that is already mature, and so (apart from not accepting the fact that He is in very nature God)

Then he got it wrong or lied, or of course this is all just humans being humans in a time and place where myths had more currency in the absence of knowledge. Your credulity is getting in the way of your thinking, since 'Adam' clearly wasn't the 'first human' so that all the stuff built on that myth remains just mythic: an interesting ancient tale but no more than that.

Sassy is right.

The evidence, as opposed to ancient myth, says otherwise. 

You are taking the Bible far too literally!

[Hope]

Then he got it wrong or lied, or of course this is all just humans being humans in a time and place where myths had more currency in the absence of knowledge. Your credulity is getting in the way of your thinking, ...

And your evidence for this claim is ...?

The evidence, as opposed to ancient myth, says otherwise. 

So, are you saying that you have evidence that no-one else has ever produced in the history of mankind, Gordon?

[Gordon]

Then he got it wrong or lied, or of course this is all just humans being humans in a time and place where myths had more currency in the absence of knowledge. Your credulity is getting in the way of your thinking, ...

And your evidence for this claim is ...?

The evidence, as opposed to ancient myth, says otherwise. 

So, are you saying that you have evidence that no-one else has ever produced in the history of mankind, Gordon?

You need to read Spud's post: he is the one claiming miracles and I'm simply pointing out that people tell lies, which is known human behaviour. I've often asked how you guys who blithely accept miracle stories how you have assessed the risk of fabrication, so that you don't look hopelessly credulous: I've yet to see an answer to my question.

As to your second point Spud agreed with Sass's YEC view, which is of course nonsense given the evidence to the contrary, which I pointed out.

[~TW~]

Then he got it wrong or lied, or of course this is all just humans being humans in a time and place where myths had more currency in the absence of knowledge. Your credulity is getting in the way of your thinking, ...

And your evidence for this claim is ...?

The evidence, as opposed to ancient myth, says otherwise. 

So, are you saying that you have evidence that no-one else has ever produced in the history of mankind, Gordon?

You need to read Spud's post: he is the one claiming miracles and I'm simply pointing out that people tell lies, which is known human behaviour. I've often asked how you guys who blithely accept miracle stories how you have assessed the risk of fabrication, so that you don't look hopelessly credulous: I've yet to see an answer to my question.

As to your second point Spud agreed with Sass's YEC view, which is of course nonsense given the evidence to the contrary, which I pointed out.

Gordon your mind is in the stone age along with all of your cohorts.

 Lets go back to the time of Nero.-----Nero speaks he says one day man will have a box in his living room and it will show pictures from 1000
miles away.

 Gordon the backs man of clan stuck in the mud says to his fellow egg heads impossible miracles like that don't happen,we are so super in intelligence and  brains.That no intelligence could be above us.

Have fun Gordon evolution=insanity 

 ~TW~ 

[Shaker]

Insanity is a rather good description of that post of yours, ~TW~. It's the sort of incoherent, disconnected, jumbled-up, rambling word salad that you see in the severely mentally ill.

[Red Giant]

Sassy is right.

Hang on, are we going for the Omphalos theory now?  Flood Geology rejected?

[Gordon]

Gordon your mind is in the stone age along with all of your cohorts.

 Lets go back to the time of Nero.-----Nero speaks he says one day man will have a box in his living room and it will show pictures from 1000
miles away.

 Gordon the backs man of clan stuck in the mud says to his fellow egg heads impossible miracles like that don't happen,we are so super in intelligence and  brains.That no intelligence could be above us.

Have fun Gordon evolution=insanity 

 ~TW~

Why thank you, TW, for illustrating the sheer idiocy of YEC-ism more powerfully than I could ever have hoped to do by myself.   

[~TW~]

Gordon your mind is in the stone age along with all of your cohorts.

 Lets go back to the time of Nero.-----Nero speaks he says one day man will have a box in his living room and it will show pictures from 1000
miles away.

 Gordon the backs man of clan stuck in the mud says to his fellow egg heads impossible miracles like that don't happen,we are so super in intelligence and  brains.That no intelligence could be above us.

Have fun Gordon evolution=insanity 

 ~TW~

Why thank you, TW, for illustrating the sheer idiocy of YEC-ism more powerfully than I could ever have hoped to do by myself.

 Gordon turn your brain on.Your view and your mates is,you Humans are the height of intelligence across the universe.

 Evolution is an accident trial and error,yet it as produced you yet, evolution which we do not understand displays intelligence which you say does not exist.

 

  You know nothing except you hope God does not exist because one day and it could be tomorrow he will catch up with you.

            ~TW~   

[floo]

Gordon your mind is in the stone age along with all of your cohorts.

 Lets go back to the time of Nero.-----Nero speaks he says one day man will have a box in his living room and it will show pictures from 1000
miles away.

 Gordon the backs man of clan stuck in the mud says to his fellow egg heads impossible miracles like that don't happen,we are so super in intelligence and  brains.That no intelligence could be above us.

Have fun Gordon evolution=insanity 

 ~TW~

Why thank you, TW, for illustrating the sheer idiocy of YEC-ism more powerfully than I could ever have hoped to do by myself.

 Gordon turn your brain on.Your view and your mates is,you Humans are the height of intelligence across the universe.

 Evolution is an accident trial and error,yet it as produced you yet, evolution which we do not understand displays intelligence which you say does not exist.

 

  You know nothing except you hope God does not exist because one day and it could be tomorrow he will catch up with you.

            ~TW~

If the deity does exist it might not be too thrilled by the sort of behaviour you display, which is a right turn off where the faith is concerned!

[Gordon]

Gordon turn your brain on.Your view and your mates is,you Humans are the height of intelligence across the universe.

I don't think I've ever made that claim: it would be a daft one to make, for obvious reasons.

Evolution is an accident trial and error,yet it as produced you yet, evolution which we do not understand displays intelligence which you say does not exist.

Evolution is an unguided process, where natural selection is currently the best explanation we have for how it 'works' - intelligence, as we refer to it, may be a consequence of evolution but it isn't part of the process. 

You know nothing except you hope God does not exist because one day and it could be tomorrow he will catch up with you.

Since 'God' isn't a serious proposition it worries me not a jot - I'll take my chances.

[BeRational]

TW

  You know nothing except you hope God does not exist because one day and it could be tomorrow he will catch up with you.

How much do you worry about the JU JU monster being the real god, and catching up with you?

I suspect you do not give it a moments thought.

Perhaps, now you can understand why atheists do not worry about your mythical unevidenced god as well.

[Spud]

Or at least, no changes significant enough to prevent them producing hybrid offspring.

There has still been significant evolution since they 'split' but there are still sufficient similarities to enable interbreeding and the production of infertile hybrids. This really isn't surprising.

If I'm not mistaken:
Creationists and Evolutionists would agree that the significant evolution that has produced the lions and tigers we have today, happened rapidly. From what I have read, there are various 'panthera' fossils which show a more punctuated evolution from the common ancestor than a gradual evolution.
Evolutionists say that short periods of rapid evolution were followed by hundreds of thousands of years of stasis (no evolutionary change); creationists say the changes occurred at some point during the last 6000 years.
The question for evolutionists is: realistically, what effect would a million-odd years of post-'split' in-breeding have on the two species' ability to hybridize? Is it reasonable to believe that they could still hybridize after such a long time? Do we have any way of measuring this?
It seems that evolutionists see the geological record and assume that such a great length of time has not affected their ability to hybridize, when actually there is no method by which we can predict the effect of this time, since we can only observe and measure changes that occur over hundreds of years.

[Maeght]

Or at least, no changes significant enough to prevent them producing hybrid offspring.

There has still been significant evolution since they 'split' but there are still sufficient similarities to enable interbreeding and the production of infertile hybrids. This really isn't surprising.

If I'm not mistaken:
Creationists and Evolutionists would agree that the significant evolution that has produced the lions and tigers we have today, happened rapidly. From what I have read, there are various 'panthera' fossils which show a more punctuated evolution from the common ancestor than a gradual evolution.
Evolutionists say that short periods of rapid evolution were followed by hundreds of thousands of years of stasis (no evolutionary change); creationists say the changes occurred at some point during the last 6000 years.
The question for evolutionists is: realistically, what effect would a million-odd years of post-'split' in-breeding have on the two species' ability to hybridize? Is it reasonable to believe that they could still hybridize after such a long time? Do we have any way of measuring this?
It seems that evolutionists see the geological record and assume that such a great length of time has not affected their ability to hybridize, when actually there is no method by which we can predict the effect of this time, since we can only observe and measure changes that occur over hundreds of years.

Of course we cannot observe the changes directly over such long time periods and so have to use a variety of methods to construct a timeline of events. The geological record is just one of a great range of different measurements over a wide range of disciplines which indicate an old earth. If you establish an old earth using these methods then the fact that hybridization now occurs demonstartes that it is possible after such long periods after a split - so the question of hybridisation isn't the key question. The key question really is does the evidence from a wide range of disciplines support a great age for the earth, and the answer is yes. There is no reason why hybridization folloing eaither a gradual evolution or puntuated evolution is impossible from what I can tell so unless this was shown this does not invalidate the idea of an old earth. You need to show scientific evidence that it isn't possible - as I mentioned earlier.