Thoughts on YEC

[abelcainsbrother]

You apologize if I took it that way?!?

THAT is the hubris, ACB. You can't even admit when your direct quotes are inappropriate. My God, how pride blinds . . .

As I said, do whatever you like. Just know that I'm done tolerating your personal attacks. They're getting reported from here on out.

I do not attack personally,never have and never will.It seems to me that because I try to point out why young earth creationism is wrong it is a personal attack or that I try to tell you how bringing up Hebrew does not matter,you take it as a personal attack,or that I think the YEC interpretation came about from a lazy way of bible reading or study? You take it personal.I have only tried to point out why I think you are wrong biblically to reject the gap and accept YEC and their false talking points against the gap theory.I have also tried to stress that it does not matter what you or I think,it matters what God's word says.I never tried to offend you or attack you personally only try to say why I think you are wrong to reject the gap theory because of hebrew.This is a common misunderstanding that is spread around about the gap theory when it does not apply and will not refute it and you brought it up.Do not think hebrew is against the gap theory or you will be wrong.You should not take it personal that I disagree with your views on YEC or the gap theory,yet you do,when it is not meant.The only way we can iron out the truth of God's word is to discuss these things without getting offended.

[EssentialSacrifice]

acb wrote:
The only other flood is in Genesis 1:2 and then you realize that Peter is taking us back to Genesis 1, not Noah's flood and you start from Genesis 1.

I know we've had numerous discussions on how water got to earth and the implications of water's force upon the earth and therefore certain creation stance's obligations ... here's an interesting article/pod cast that will possibly change your POV for how water got here and some of the biblical verses being tossed around ( 2nd Peter 3:5-6, among others) for verification of a particular train of thought... who'd-a-thunk-it?

http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... ived-water

[abelcainsbrother]

acb wrote:
The only other flood is in Genesis 1:2 and then you realize that Peter is taking us back to Genesis 1, not Noah's flood and you start from Genesis 1.

I know we've had numerous discussions on how water got to earth and the implications of water's force upon the earth and therefore certain creation stance's obligations ... here's an interesting article/pod cast that will possibly change your POV for how water got here and some of the biblical verses being tossed around ( 2nd Peter 3:5-6, among others) for verification of a particular train of thought... who'd-a-thunk-it?

http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... ived-water

Thanks ES for the link but I'm not able to listen to it for some reason so I wish you could explain what they are saying about the water on the earth.From my understanding Gap theorists have always believed what the bible says that the water on this earth came from inside the earth,recently geologists discovered zircon crystals that date back to 4.43 billions years and that there are oceans of water inside the earth and it is changing the perception that comets brought the water to the earth and that the early earth was less hostile than previously believed,with oceans on the earth in the earth's beginning because zircon crystals are formed in water,if true? This would give credence to God not creating the earth in a chaotic state and then decorating it like YEC's think,but that God created it perfect in the beginning like the bible tells us and gap theorists believe based on Isaiah 45:18 and Job 38:4-8 that there was a former world because the early earth was not a hostile place according to zircon crystals.The early earth was not the molten lava hell like science believed before comets brought water to the earth,zircon crystal show that water was already on the earth.



Here are some links to back it up.
http://www.geologypage.com/2014/08/scie ... z3WdC2Xxcq

http://news.vanderbilt.edu/vanderbiltma ... y-thought/

[swordfish7]

RickD, I would agree with theophilus. Evolutionists assume the world was old and will not entertain any other idea. They are closed-minded to the evidence, so their "science" is twisted and distorted! Their naturalistic assumptions are all wrong if God did create all things!

[abelcainsbrother]

RickD, I would agree with theophilus. Evolutionists assume the world was old and will not entertain any other idea. They are closed-minded to the evidence, so their "science" is twisted and distorted! Their naturalistic assumptions are all wrong if God did create all things!

Although evolution should be rejected. It was known before evolution became a scientific theory that the earth is old and not young and these scientists who believed it and discovered it were Christians who were not at all influenced by evolution. They just honestly discovered the earth is very old - millions of years old. Charles Darwin just took this evidence and came up with a way to make evolution fit into this evidence. This is something that young earth creationists do not know or understand because young earth ministries ignore true history and does not teach true history because they want people to believe their "creation science". They want people to think Christians have always believed the earth is young.This is one reason I reject young earth creationism. I expect the truth to be taught regardless if they believe the bible teaches the earth is young. That is debatable biblically, but to not teach the truth? Bothers me.

[RickD]

RickD, I would agree with theophilus. Evolutionists assume the world was old and will not entertain any other idea. They are closed-minded to the evidence, so their "science" is twisted and distorted! Their naturalistic assumptions are all wrong if God did create all things!

You do realize that not all evolutionists believe in naturalism, don't you? There are many theistic evolutionists who believe that God was the one who created the universe.

Imagine, people look at the overwhelming evidence that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. And they won't entertain the idea that both are only thousands of years old. That's not twisted and distorted. That's called "living in reality". In the same way, we see the overwhelming evidence that the earth is not flat. And by not entertaining the idea that it is flat, that doesn't mean we are closed-minded to the "evidence" that the earth is flat. It just means we are in touch with reality.

[swordfish7]

RickD, I would agree with theophilus. Evolutionists assume the world was old and will not entertain any other idea. They are closed-minded to the evidence, so their "science" is twisted and distorted! Their naturalistic assumptions are all wrong if God did create all things!

You do realize that not all evolutionists believe in naturalism, don't you? There are many theistic evolutionists who believe that God was the one who created the universe.

Well typically the vast majority believe in naturalism or that natural law is the cause of all things even though God created it.

Imagine, people look at the overwhelming evidence that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. And they won't entertain the idea that both are only thousands of years old. That's not twisted and distorted. That's called "living in reality". In the same way, we see the overwhelming evidence that the earth is not flat. And by not entertaining the idea that it is flat, that doesn't mean we are closed-minded to the "evidence" that the earth is flat. It just means we are in touch with reality.

So what is the deal? Are you a naturalist or not? You are not logical here! What overwhelming evidence are you talking about? If God supernaturally created the earth and life how can you use the naturalistic assumptions that allow the conclusion that it is old? How do you know that the radiometric dating methods work if God did not use natural law in creating the earth? How do you know that it took billions of years for the light to traverse the universe?

[swordfish7]

Although evolution should be rejected. It was known before evolution became a scientific theory that the earth is old and not young and these scientists who believed it and discovered it were Christians who were not at all influenced by evolution. They just honestly discovered the earth is very old - millions of years old.

These Christian scientists took on the belief that only natural law explained things. This was a shift that many Christian scientists found objectionable! It was a raging battle of the time and the old age was not "just discovered".

Charles Darwin just took this evidence and came up with a way to make evolution fit into this evidence. This is something that young earth creationists do not know or understand because young earth ministries ignore true history and does not teach true history because they want people to believe their "creation science".

This is a distorted view that somebody sold to you. The proponents of YEC often don't go into the details of the history but there is nothing dishonest that they say! There was a shift that went on during that time in their thinking that lead to the acceptance of the old age.

They want people to think Christians have always believed the earth is young.This is one reason I reject young earth creationism. I expect the truth to be taught regardless if they believe the bible teaches the earth is young. That is debatable biblically, but to not teach the truth? Bothers me.

Again, proponents of YEC are not dishonest, but somebody has sold you line of goods!

[RickD]

RickD, I would agree with theophilus. Evolutionists assume the world was old and will not entertain any other idea. They are closed-minded to the evidence, so their "science" is twisted and distorted! Their naturalistic assumptions are all wrong if God did create all things!

You do realize that not all evolutionists believe in naturalism, don't you? There are many theistic evolutionists who believe that God was the one who created the universe.

Well typically the vast majority believe in naturalism or that natural law is the cause of all things even though God created it.

Imagine, people look at the overwhelming evidence that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. And they won't entertain the idea that both are only thousands of years old. That's not twisted and distorted. That's called "living in reality". In the same way, we see the overwhelming evidence that the earth is not flat. And by not entertaining the idea that it is flat, that doesn't mean we are closed-minded to the "evidence" that the earth is flat. It just means we are in touch with reality.

So what is the deal? Are you a naturalist or not? You are not logical here! What overwhelming evidence are you talking about? If God supernaturally created the earth and life how can you use the naturalistic assumptions that allow the conclusion that it is old? How do you know that the radiometric dating methods work if God did not use natural law in creating the earth? How do you know that it took billions of years for the light to traverse the universe?

All scientists are not a part of some "anti God" conspiracy. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and also believe the universe is billions of years old. For some reason, you've bought into the Ken Ham school of thought which conflates billions of years, with naturalism.

There's absolutely no reason one can't believe the evidence of an old universe, and still believe that God created it.

Here's just a few of the ways scientists, even theistic scientists, know the age of the universe and earth:
http://biologos.org/common-questions/sc ... d-universe

[abelcainsbrother]

Although evolution should be rejected. It was known before evolution became a scientific theory that the earth is old and not young and these scientists who believed it and discovered it were Christians who were not at all influenced by evolution. They just honestly discovered the earth is very old - millions of years old.

These Christian scientists took on the belief that only natural law explained things. This was a shift that many Christian scientists found objectionable! It was a raging battle of the time and the old age was not "just discovered".

Charles Darwin just took this evidence and came up with a way to make evolution fit into this evidence. This is something that young earth creationists do not know or understand because young earth ministries ignore true history and does not teach true history because they want people to believe their "creation science".

This is a distorted view that somebody sold to you. The proponents of YEC often don't go into the details of the history but there is nothing dishonest that they say! There was a shift that went on during that time in their thinking that lead to the acceptance of the old age.

They want people to think Christians have always believed the earth is young.This is one reason I reject young earth creationism. I expect the truth to be taught regardless if they believe the bible teaches the earth is young. That is debatable biblically, but to not teach the truth? Bothers me.

Again, proponents of YEC are not dishonest, but somebody has sold you line of goods!

No they did not. These Christian men who started science and eventually discovered the earth is very old-millions of years did not look at it from a naturalistic viewpoint. These were Christian men who believed God created everything and they were not at all influenced by evolution or naturalism. They just honestly discovered the earth is old. This was before evolution became a scientific theory in the 1700's. Evolution did not become a scientific theory until after 1859 when Charles Darwin published his book " The Origin of Species".Now although there were evolutionary ideas around,it was not until Charles Darwin published his book that evolution became popular and then naturalism became apart of it,but those Christians were not at all influenced by naturalism or evolution when they discovered the earth is very old.

As a matter of fact many of them rejected evolution after Darwin published his book,but evolution became very popular.men like Lyell and Buckland rejected Darwin's evolutionary ideas..Buckland believed the Gap Theory based on the evidence he had discovered,he discovered the very first dinosaur and he taught it at Oxford,Oxford's very first Geology professor,it took years of discussions with Darwin that Lyell many years later came around to the idea of evolution.Buckland died about a year before Darwin's book was published. These men's contributions to modern day science - Geology - should not be dismissed just because Darwin hyjacked their evidence.

This is a common mistake YEC's assume because of YEC ministries ignoring or not teaching true history because they want you to believe Christians have always been young earth creationists and they want you to accept their creation science.

[swordfish7]

RickD, you always accuse others of misleading when their views don't align with your own. Is that fair? We need a little give and take where when a YEC says you are close minded, you let them hold their view even if you don't agree with it. Ironically, you try to pigeonhole all creationists into a monolithic category, which is unfair to YEC, since there are many views out there on YEC.

[RickD]

RickD, you always accuse others of misleading when their views don't align with your own. Is that fair? We need a little give and take where when a YEC says you are close minded, you let them hold their view even if you don't agree with it. Ironically, you try to pigeonhole all creationists into a monolithic category, which is unfair to YEC, since there are many views out there on YEC.

And here you are continuing your misrepresenting. You accuse me of always accusing others when their views don't align with my own.

Do you care to show proof that I always accuse others of misleading when their views don't align with mine?
No you won't. Because I don't.

This is your first warning. Stop misrepresenting what others believe. Period. You do not get to come to our forum and expect to get away with misrepresenting, without being called on it.

No more warnings.

[swordfish7]

All scientists are not a part of some "anti God" conspiracy. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and also believe the universe is billions of years old. For some reason, you've bought into the Ken Ham school of thought which conflates billions of years, with naturalism.

Do you know the difference between supernatural and natural? What impact would a supernatural creation have on the expansion of the universe? What about the decay constants of the radiometric dating methods? How would a Christian assuming natural causes in creation be misled if the causes were actually supernatural? There IS a conspiracy in science to not even allow the possibility of God creating life and the universe: only natural processes are allowed. When Christian scientists agree to this assumption, then they will end up with a belief that the earth is old, because they don't allow supernatural processes. But one may object to this and say they do believe in supernatural processes. Yes, they are double tongued for when they conduct their science they do so with the assumption that only natural processes explain the creation, yet they believe there were supernatural processes in creation. Specifically, they assume the supernatural processes do not mess up the natural processes and the associated outcomes. So the real question for all creationists is,"Do the supernatural processes God used in creation impact the assumed natural processes and by how much?" So when scientists come up with models of the evolution of the universe, can those models be trusted even with the supernatural creation impacts included?

There's absolutely no reason one can't believe the evidence of an old universe, and still believe that God created it.

This would be an absolute statement if all the processes God used were natural and the evidence for the old universe were accurate. If God did use supernatural processes, then how much did it cause divergence from the assumed natural processes?

Here's just a few of the ways scientists, even theistic scientists, know the age of the universe and earth:
http://biologos.org/common-questions/sc ... d-universe

I had lunch with Hugh Ross once and mentioned that all the mountains I had ever hiked on had shells on them. I knew this question would be "in your face" but I asked it to rattle his cage and see his response. He was very condescending and stated the standard evolutionary response. Rather than graciously laughing and saying, "Well I guess one could see this as evidence for a young earth, but I see it as ..." He showed his utter contempt for YECs by his sneer and body language. Again, the logical question to ask is, "If God supernaturally created the universe and all life, can we use naturalistic models that show the age of the universe and rely on them to show an accurate age?" This is the question!

[Philip]

Swordfish: "... He (Hugh Ross) was very condescending and stated the standard evolutionary response."

But Hugh Ross clearly does not believe in evolution!

[RickD]

Swordfish: "... He (Hugh Ross) was very condescending and stated the standard evolutionary response."

But Hugh Ross clearly does not believe in evolution!

Anyone else seeing the theme with swordfish's posts?

He just makes up things that he thinks people believe, and he argues against them.

It's called bearing a false witness against a brother. As well as straw man arguments.