Why i believe in a young earth by ex-evolutionist Dr.Grady McMurtry

[Stu]

Very compelling.
Each clip is about 20 min long with the final only 9 min. Long just short enough to hold Rick's attention.

[DBowling]

Very compelling.
Each clip is about 20 min long with the final only 9 min. Long just short enough to hold Rick's attention.

Well I made it through about 5 minutes of the first video.
It was there that McMurtry made a false assertion (that is common to YEC) that the Bible claims that the earth is 6000 years old.

If he is building his argument on that false premise about Scripture, then any argument based on that false premise will be equally flawed.
As a former Young Earther, I am well versed in YEC argumentation, and I was able to tell where he was coming from very quickly, so for me it would really be a waste of time to go any further.

[Philip]

Not to mention, Young Earthers almost universally link OEC belief to Godless evolution - as if OEC beliefs support evolution. Or as if the question of evolution is even the real or most important related question to the reality of a Creator. And outside of the fact that the facts scream that without a Creator, there would be no universe, earth or life, how LONG God took to create a planet that He would populate with animals and then humans really doesn't matter too much - or it shouldn't be a big screeching argument between BELIEVERS! But you go pushing that young earth narrative, and for unbelievers who are knowledgeable about science - it makes them doubt the Bible when they hear YECs claim the universe is only in the thousands of years old.

I've taught many church small groups issues related to Creation - especially inerrancy and how Adam and Eve had to be real people who rebelled against God and subsequently fell and needed a Savior. But I've learned that this argument over TIME is usually destructive and pointless. In fact, I don't allow small groups I teach to debate it, as I don't allow them to debate Calvinism or End Times stuff - because these topics are typically a waste of time and often damaging to individual relationships. And as it is human nature to be prideful whenever one things they have the definitive / superior take on an issue, well, it goes downhill from there. I will, however, PERSONALLY discuss Creation issues with anyone I think can have a civil, mature conversation about it, and show grace to those they disagree with, as the subject is endlessly fascinating to me.

[RickD]

Stu, I got halfway through the first video, and couldn't watch anymore. I kept thinking that I'd rather sit through an endless loop of Pain and Gain, while sticking bamboo under my fingernails, while walking on a bed of hot coals.

I've seen some pretty bad YEC "arguments", but this guy is the worst I've seen. And that's coming from someone who has read The Genesis Flood, and watched multiple videos of Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind.

This guy is either the most ignorant YEC I've ever seen, or he's deliberately trying to mislead. The first five minutes seemed like every other sentence that came out of his mouth, was pure ignorance.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I actually believed half of his BS at one time.

[Stu]

Stu, I got halfway through the first video, and couldn't watch anymore. I kept thinking that I'd rather sit through an endless loop of Pain and Gain, while sticking bamboo under my fingernails, while walking on a bed of hot coals.

I've seen some pretty bad YEC "arguments", but this guy is the worst I've seen. And that's coming from someone who has read The Genesis Flood, and watched multiple videos of Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind.

This guy is either the most ignorant YEC I've ever seen, or he's deliberately trying to mislead. The first five minutes seemed like every other sentence that came out of his mouth, was pure ignorance.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I actually believed half of his BS at one time.

Well it's easy enough to call the man ignorant, but how about about backing that up by actually showing where his arguments are wrong.

I can shout all day long that someone is ignorant and talking BS but you have to back it up with something, otherwise it's just hot air.

[RickD]

Stu, I got halfway through the first video, and couldn't watch anymore. I kept thinking that I'd rather sit through an endless loop of Pain and Gain, while sticking bamboo under my fingernails, while walking on a bed of hot coals.

I've seen some pretty bad YEC "arguments", but this guy is the worst I've seen. And that's coming from someone who has read The Genesis Flood, and watched multiple videos of Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind.

This guy is either the most ignorant YEC I've ever seen, or he's deliberately trying to mislead. The first five minutes seemed like every other sentence that came out of his mouth, was pure ignorance.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I actually believed half of his BS at one time.

Well it's easy enough to call the man ignorant, but how about about backing that up by actually showing where his arguments are wrong.

I can shout all day long that someone is ignorant and talking BS but you have to back it up with something, otherwise it's just hot air.

First, I said he was either ignorant, or deliberately misleading.

I watched the first 5 minutes of the first video again, and found approximately 8 errors in the first 4 1/2 minutes. When I have time later, I'll list them.

[Stu]

Stu, I got halfway through the first video, and couldn't watch anymore. I kept thinking that I'd rather sit through an endless loop of Pain and Gain, while sticking bamboo under my fingernails, while walking on a bed of hot coals.

I've seen some pretty bad YEC "arguments", but this guy is the worst I've seen. And that's coming from someone who has read The Genesis Flood, and watched multiple videos of Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind.

This guy is either the most ignorant YEC I've ever seen, or he's deliberately trying to mislead. The first five minutes seemed like every other sentence that came out of his mouth, was pure ignorance.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I actually believed half of his BS at one time.

Well it's easy enough to call the man ignorant, but how about about backing that up by actually showing where his arguments are wrong.

I can shout all day long that someone is ignorant and talking BS but you have to back it up with something, otherwise it's just hot air.

First, I said he was either ignorant, or deliberately misleading.

I watched the first 5 minutes of the first video again, and found approximately 8 errors in the first 4 1/2 minutes. When I have time later, I'll list them.

That would be great, would like to know where you think he is wrong.

[LittleHamster]

That would be great, would like to know where you think he is wrong.

I watched the second video where he talks about radiometric dating and the inaccuracies involved with it. He doesn't explain it at all or give any evidence whatsoever of why it is inaccurate. The inaccuracies that can arise in radio-emitter ratios (used to date materials) that are formed in solidified lava are better described here.... http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html (note that this is a creationist's website).

However, there is other (more recent) evidence around - like the discovery which suggests that ancient humans (Homo-erectus*) have now dated back to 2.1 million years ago. THAT'S 2.1 MILLION ! -> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ht/564896/

Even if a radiometric analysis was carried out in the above example and the isotope ratio was distorted somehow and put out by a factor of 100, that's still puts humans to around 21,000 years ago (or 210,000,000 years the other way).




*one of Rick's favorite terms

[RickD]

Stu, I got halfway through the first video, and couldn't watch anymore. I kept thinking that I'd rather sit through an endless loop of Pain and Gain, while sticking bamboo under my fingernails, while walking on a bed of hot coals.

I've seen some pretty bad YEC "arguments", but this guy is the worst I've seen. And that's coming from someone who has read The Genesis Flood, and watched multiple videos of Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind.

This guy is either the most ignorant YEC I've ever seen, or he's deliberately trying to mislead. The first five minutes seemed like every other sentence that came out of his mouth, was pure ignorance.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I actually believed half of his BS at one time.

Well it's easy enough to call the man ignorant, but how about about backing that up by actually showing where his arguments are wrong.

I can shout all day long that someone is ignorant and talking BS but you have to back it up with something, otherwise it's just hot air.

First, I said he was either ignorant, or deliberately misleading.

I watched the first 5 minutes of the first video again, and found approximately 8 errors in the first 4 1/2 minutes. When I have time later, I'll list them.

That would be great, would like to know where you think he is wrong.

It's not just where I think he's wrong in what he's arguing, it's also where I believe he is misleading.

8 errors in 4 1/2 minutes. That's almost one error, every 30 seconds!

That's not a good way to open up an honest discussion.

I'll post the errors later, after I get home from work.

[abelcainsbrother]

Very compelling.
Each clip is about 20 min long with the final only 9 min. Long just short enough to hold Rick's attention.

I want to take this on myself. But as others have pointed out the bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old and I'll add this although the bible does not give us the exact age of the earth from the time the KJV bible was translated and people could read it up until these new translations came out for about 300 years The KJV bible may not tell us the age exactly but it tells us the earth is old.These newer translations don't and so it makes it easier to claim the earth is young.

[abelcainsbrother]

Wow! I'm just three minutes into it and he implies that the earth is millions and billions of years old because evolution needs enough time for something to happen. This is typical of YEC's to re-write history because it was discovered the earth is millions of years old before evolution even became a scientific theory.And it was Christians who started modern science that discovered it too,it wasknown the earth is very old before Charles Darwin was even born.Christian men like Charles Lyell,William Buckland,etc as matter of fact all Charles Darwin did was hyjack the evidence already discovered and he just blended evolution into it.
Charles Lyell
https://www.google.com/search?q=charles ... e&ie=UTF-8
But it was Christians who started modern science that discovered the earth is millions of years old.YEC's re-write history to try to trick you.

He then says that we cannot prove the earth is old,but he can't prove it is young so it is a moot point.I reject evolution as much as YEC's do but I don't re-write history and imply that the earth is old because of evolution,which is not true at all.But I challenge any YEC to show us where the bible says the earth is only 6000 years old or even young.You can't but i can show you where the bible says the earth is old. Genesis 2:4 "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the EARTH when they were created,in the day the Lord God made the earth and heaven." Notice there were generations of the heavens and of the earth. Anybody reading this since the KJV bible was translated and was read for atleast 300 years would not believe the earth is young.

It is my contention that both evolution and young earth creationism are both wrong and they have been used to divide us and cover up the true history of the earth. We have all seen hundreds of YEC vs evolution debates and neither side gives any convincing evidence they are correct and it always comes down to who we believe the most. Yet evolution is more believable if we examine the evidence of the earth and so belief in evolution grows more and more each day.

From a Gap Theory perspective it is pretty simple and makes much more sense than either YEC or evolution. We simply are now living in the second earth age/world. There was a first earth age and the age of the earth and fossils prove it and it reveals to us the former earth age/world was much different than this world we now live in. There was a pre-Adamite society that once existed on this earth and the evidence in the earth proves it. When you see a hominid,Cro-Magnon,Neanderthal,Dinosaur,trilobite,etc amongst the fossil record you are seeing evidence of that pre-Adamite earth age/world and it was very different than this world we now live in since Adam and Eve. Very simple with evidence and it is more believable than evolution is.

[RickD]

Let's see if I can list some of the things I found wrong in only the first 4 1/2 minutes of the first video. I'll try to quote as best I can, but I wrote down the quotes as I was listening to the video. I'll put the time that each quote appeared in the video.

1) :35 mark:
He said he's a "teaching missionary talking about the truths of creation vs evolution."

He hits us right off the bat, with the cult like belief system he's going to try to indoctrinate us with. I'm not sure that Christian missionaries are supposed to teach creationism. I thought the mission of a missionary, was to preach the gospel.

2) :55 mark
"Evolutionists say that we are just the result of a cosmic accident. That we are just thinking animals without design or purpose."

Some evolutionists may say that, but it's not what all evolutionists believe. And it certainly isn't part of what evolution is about. This is a logical fallacy, called poisoning the well.

3) 1:22 mark

"...and the assumption of an old age of the earth and the universe."

Misleading. People who believe in an old earth and universe, have no evidence, but merely assume an old age?

4) 1:55 mark

"Evolutionists have no proof that the earth is millions and billions of years old. They simply claim it."

Again, misleading. Does he seriously believe that first, anyone studying the age of the earth thinks that science could possibly "prove" the age of the earth? This guy is really supposed to be a scientist, and he doesn't know that? And second, scientists simply claim that the earth is billions of years old, without evidence?

5) 3:15 mark

"Is there anything about a rock that'll tell you how old it is? Is there anything about the size, feel, shape, taste,...that will tell you how old it is?"

Does he seriously not realize how scientists measure the age of a rock?

6) 4:20 mark

"Supposedly this Big Bang occurred some perhaps 20 billion years ago..."

13.8 billion years ago. Not 20 billion. He's off by over 6 billion years, or over 40%. Not very scientific. Not very honest.

7) 4:34

He says The Bible tells us the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

And he offers no proof of his assertion, whatsoever.

Purposely misleading?

And then he goes into the idea that just because man has found a way to artificially form diamonds very quickly, that must mean that they naturally don't really take over a billion years to form.

Misleading?

[RickD]

littleHamster wrote:

*one of Rick's favorite terms

I missed that. The font was too small on my phone.

[LittleHamster]

littleHamster wrote:

*one of Rick's favorite terms

I missed that. The font was too small on my phone.

That was supposed to be a secret, 'illuminati style' comment.

[RickD]

Stu wrote:
That would be great, would like to know where you think he is wrong.

Any thoughts on my post?