Great video series for Old Earth Creationism

[firehud]

Here's a must watch video series on old earth creationism. This guy destroys young earth creationism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqoT5ej ... wbqyoV6Ed7

[RickD]

Oh great, more Gap Theory.

I think I'll go kick my dog.

[Stu]

Oh great, more Gap Theory.

I think I'll go kick my dog.

Open-minded much... Oh right, YOU are the one that has all the right answers

[RickD]

Oh great, more Gap Theory.

I think I'll go kick my dog.

Open-minded much... Oh right, YOU are the one that has all the right answers

I used to be young earth. Then I became open minded. I studied a bunch of creation positions, and came to the conclusion that the Gap Theory has no basis in scripture nor science.

And FYI, it just seems to you that I have all the right answers, because you are frequently wrong.

[Stu]

Oh great, more Gap Theory.

I think I'll go kick my dog.

Open-minded much... Oh right, YOU are the one that has all the right answers

I used to be young earth. Then I became open minded. I studied a bunch of creation positions, and came to the conclusion that the Gap Theory has no basis in scripture nor science.

And FYI, it just seems to you that I have all the right answers, because you are frequently wrong.

As opposed to day-age being without error, yeah right. I see problems with many ideas that is why I remain undecided.

[RickD]

Oh great, more Gap Theory.

I think I'll go kick my dog.

Open-minded much... Oh right, YOU are the one that has all the right answers

I used to be young earth. Then I became open minded. I studied a bunch of creation positions, and came to the conclusion that the Gap Theory has no basis in scripture nor science.

And FYI, it just seems to you that I have all the right answers, because you are frequently wrong.

As opposed to day-age being without error, yeah right. I see problems with many ideas that is why I remain undecided.

Who said that Day-Age, however one defines Day-Age, is without error?

You won't find a quote from me saying that.

[Stu]

Oh great, more Gap Theory.

I think I'll go kick my dog.

Open-minded much... Oh right, YOU are the one that has all the right answers

I used to be young earth. Then I became open minded. I studied a bunch of creation positions, and came to the conclusion that the Gap Theory has no basis in scripture nor science.

And FYI, it just seems to you that I have all the right answers, because you are frequently wrong.

As opposed to day-age being without error, yeah right. I see problems with many ideas that is why I remain undecided.

Who said that Day-Age, however one defines Day-Age, is without error?

You won't find a quote from me saying that.

You seemed so certain that the gap theory was wrong that one assumed you thought your version was the correct one.

[RickD]

Open-minded much... Oh right, YOU are the one that has all the right answers

I used to be young earth. Then I became open minded. I studied a bunch of creation positions, and came to the conclusion that the Gap Theory has no basis in scripture nor science.

And FYI, it just seems to you that I have all the right answers, because you are frequently wrong.

As opposed to day-age being without error, yeah right. I see problems with many ideas that is why I remain undecided.

Who said that Day-Age, however one defines Day-Age, is without error?

You won't find a quote from me saying that.

You seemed so certain that the gap theory was wrong that one assumed you thought your version was the correct one.

Stu,

I can be certain that communism sucks, while still admitting that a Democratic Republic isn't perfect.

[DBowling]

You seemed so certain that the gap theory was wrong that one assumed you thought your version was the correct one.

It's much easier to prove that a theory (like YEC, Gap, and Darwinistic Evolution) contradicts Scripture and/or Science than it is to find a theory that is consistent with all the known facts.

I do believe that Day-Age does the best job of accurately representing the known Scriptural and Scientific facts. But even there I'm convinced that standard Day-Age anthropology (as represented by RTB) is contradicted by both Scripture and Science.

[Kurieuo]

I tend to care less about the Genesis creation than what I did years ago, and am content with an umbrella of views. There are so many avenues one can take, the important part as I see is that the person is taken in and absorbed by Scripture and investigating it in a manner honest with their own conscience and search for truth.

Genesis is often the start of a journey for many new Christians, particularly of the male variety. While I have my favourite ideas and positions, we all see through the glass dimly, myself included. It could even be the case that we're all wrong, and inerrancy forbid, we're wrong at a foundational premise in taking Scripture so literally true (OEC and YEC alike) -- though I do choose not to believe this but it is a possibility.

That said, I don't particularly like the disresepect the youtube guy shows towards YECs. He seems a bit immature. Evidently, he has had his run in from the sound of it, with being labelled a heretic or the like. Yet, dishing it back in a condescending tit-for-tat manner is a bit childish. Especially since he is advocating the gap. But, I suppose, it is all part of the creation-wars debate.

[Audie]

You seemed so certain that the gap theory was wrong that one assumed you thought your version was the correct one.

It's much easier to prove that a theory (like YEC, Gap, and Darwinistic Evolution) contradicts Scripture and/or Science than it is to find a theory that is consistent with all the known facts.

I do believe that Day-Age does the best job of accurately representing the known Scriptural and Scientific facts. But even there I'm convinced that standard Day-Age anthropology (as represented by RTB) is contradicted by both Scripture and Science.

Easy to disprove evolution? Prease do so right away.
The Noble people are awaiting.

[Philip]

Evolution, if it occurred, would have nothing relevant to add to the debate as to whether God created the universe, earth and all life - as for THAT debate, it's not what truly needs to be explained. As for the God debate, what needs to be explained happened 11 billion years before anything would have even existed to begin evolving. At least when it comes to the question of origins of all physical things, proper conditions, and essential / foundational elements that instantly roared into existence at moment of the Big Bang, SMART Christians should realize that getting sucked into arguments about evolution is a pointless endeavor.

[DBowling]

It's much easier to prove that a theory (like YEC, Gap, and Darwinistic Evolution) contradicts Scripture and/or Science than it is to find a theory that is consistent with all the known facts.

I do believe that Day-Age does the best job of accurately representing the known Scriptural and Scientific facts. But even there I'm convinced that standard Day-Age anthropology (as represented by RTB) is contradicted by both Scripture and Science.

Easy to disprove evolution? Prease do so right away.
The Noble people are awaiting.

I don't have to... Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer have already done all the heavy lifting.

Behe and Meyer have done an excellent job documenting how the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record... especially the Cambrian Explosion which Darwin himself admitted was a problem for his theory.
And random mutation and natural selection alone are also incapable of explaining the complexity, structure, and diversity of information that we find in the DNA of Life today.

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution


The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism


Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design


Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

[Audie]

Finding a flaw here and there in a Victorian
theory is like beating up on Newton. Unseemly
and, withal, rather churlish.

Citing pop pseudoscience from a crackpot
( Behe) just makes it more distasteful.

I thought you meant ToE was easily disproved.

That would be a completely different thing.

[Audie]

Oh, one other thing-

A properly written scientific paper of the sort
always cites issues, it is misleading to say
Darwin relectantly confessed that in the day,
the fossil record was all but totally unexplored.