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

[Philip]

I would say that most young earthers I talk to either don't realize or haven't well thought out the Scriptural issues with the young earth position.

[RickD]

Alrighty then.

I've been upfront about the main problem that I have with many(not all) prominent YEC speakers, including the speaker in the video:
The fact that they misrepresent opposing beliefs/positions, and mislead(intentionally or unintentionally) with wrong information.

With that being said, no less than 3 times in this thread, has Stu accused me of calling the man in the video, a liar.

Not once in this entire thread, did I call him a liar. I asked Stu for a quote of me calling him a liar, and he cannot provide any.

Misrepresenting and misleading.

I rest my case.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

I would say that most young earthers I talk to either don't realize or haven't well thought out the Scriptural issues with the young earth position.

Or they're like "you can't be saved!" if you have a valid argument for an old creation. I know, I used to be one due to indoctrination from Ellen's White's ideas, as well as pressure from my church (though it was unintentional) and there are many OECs in my church. No one really cares except for a small number, but then again one can believe in a young earth if they want.

[Philip]

It would be most productive to discuss the EVIDENCES, whether for or against. I think young earthism is primarily driven by literalism applied to Scripture - but selectively applied.

But it's certainly true that ALL of the sciences show connective and ongoing processes that can be seen and detected to the conclusion of great age - and that would have to be deliberate. But why would God want us to believe that things are old, if they aren't? Why would he connect things to easily seen processes that likewise confirm the gradual attributes that also perfect match up with ancient ages, IF the processes in fact have nothing to do with it? Again, it's the old idea - would Adam, who had no human parents, have had a belly button or healed scars on that first day? Because the belly button would indicate he was born like all other men, and that he had a mother. So it's the same thing with things like the geologic layers, and the observable redshifts of stars. Why does starlight appear ancient and the distances so vast - IF things are actually very young?

Interestingly, many young earthers accept the distances of stars, but not their age. Here is an interesting review of the "young" but "ancient-looking" starlight problem YECs have: https://uncommondescent.com/creationism ... le-ground/

Here is a critique of the young earth position: http://www.godandscience.org/youngeart ... onism.html

Here is a Biblical case of an old universe / earth: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... nism.html
A bunch more: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

Scientific evidences for an ancient universe: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... verse.html - which collectively, I find powerfully convincing.

[Stu]

Alrighty then.

I've been upfront about the main problem that I have with many(not all) prominent YEC speakers, including the speaker in the video:
The fact that they misrepresent opposing beliefs/positions, and mislead(intentionally or unintentionally) with wrong information.

With that being said, no less than 3 times in this thread, has Stu accused me of calling the man in the video, a liar.

Not once in this entire thread, did I call him a liar. I asked Stu for a quote of me calling him a liar, and he cannot provide any.

Misrepresenting and misleading.

I rest my case.

What? You obviously aren't reading my posts very closely.
You wrote this:

3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable

Which means you believe it.

[RickD]

Alrighty then.

I've been upfront about the main problem that I have with many(not all) prominent YEC speakers, including the speaker in the video:
The fact that they misrepresent opposing beliefs/positions, and mislead(intentionally or unintentionally) with wrong information.

With that being said, no less than 3 times in this thread, has Stu accused me of calling the man in the video, a liar.

Not once in this entire thread, did I call him a liar. I asked Stu for a quote of me calling him a liar, and he cannot provide any.

Misrepresenting and misleading.

I rest my case.

What? You obviously aren't reading my posts very closely.
You wrote this:

3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable

Which means you believe it.

You mean this:

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

Which comes from the link I posted here:
http://www.oldearth.org/cult.htm
Which are not my words.
Which means I DID NOT call him a liar.
Which means that you accused me 3 times, of doing something that I didn't do.

[Stu]

Alrighty then.

I've been upfront about the main problem that I have with many(not all) prominent YEC speakers, including the speaker in the video:
The fact that they misrepresent opposing beliefs/positions, and mislead(intentionally or unintentionally) with wrong information.

With that being said, no less than 3 times in this thread, has Stu accused me of calling the man in the video, a liar.

Not once in this entire thread, did I call him a liar. I asked Stu for a quote of me calling him a liar, and he cannot provide any.

Misrepresenting and misleading.

I rest my case.

What? You obviously aren't reading my posts very closely.
You wrote this:

3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable

Which means you believe it.

You mean this:

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

Which comes from the link I posted here:
http://www.oldearth.org/cult.htm
Which are not my words.
Which means I DID NOT call him a liar.
Which means that you accused me 3 times, of doing something that I didn't do.

Well why did you choose to quote it then, twice I believe. Usually when people do that it means they believe what they quoted.

So are you saying you made a mistake posting it and in fact you don't believe the following about McMurtry:

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

[RickD]

Alrighty then.

I've been upfront about the main problem that I have with many(not all) prominent YEC speakers, including the speaker in the video:
The fact that they misrepresent opposing beliefs/positions, and mislead(intentionally or unintentionally) with wrong information.

With that being said, no less than 3 times in this thread, has Stu accused me of calling the man in the video, a liar.

Not once in this entire thread, did I call him a liar. I asked Stu for a quote of me calling him a liar, and he cannot provide any.

Misrepresenting and misleading.

I rest my case.

What? You obviously aren't reading my posts very closely.
You wrote this:

3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable

Which means you believe it.

You mean this:

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

Which comes from the link I posted here:
http://www.oldearth.org/cult.htm
Which are not my words.
Which means I DID NOT call him a liar.
Which means that you accused me 3 times, of doing something that I didn't do.

Well why did you choose to quote it then, twice I believe. Usually when people do that it means they believe what they quoted.

So are you saying you made a mistake posting it and in fact you don't believe the following about McMurtry:

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

So,
Instead of realizing and admitting that you're wrong, and apologizing to me for misrepresenting me, you decide to dig your heels in?

I hope people can now see what I've been saying all along in this thread.

[Stu]

Alrighty then.

I've been upfront about the main problem that I have with many(not all) prominent YEC speakers, including the speaker in the video:
The fact that they misrepresent opposing beliefs/positions, and mislead(intentionally or unintentionally) with wrong information.

With that being said, no less than 3 times in this thread, has Stu accused me of calling the man in the video, a liar.

Not once in this entire thread, did I call him a liar. I asked Stu for a quote of me calling him a liar, and he cannot provide any.

Misrepresenting and misleading.

I rest my case.

What? You obviously aren't reading my posts very closely.
You wrote this:

3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable

Which means you believe it.

You mean this:

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

Which comes from the link I posted here:
http://www.oldearth.org/cult.htm
Which are not my words.
Which means I DID NOT call him a liar.
Which means that you accused me 3 times, of doing something that I didn't do.

Well why did you choose to quote it then, twice I believe. Usually when people do that it means they believe what they quoted.

So are you saying you made a mistake posting it and in fact you don't believe the following about McMurtry:

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

So,
Instead of realizing and admitting that you're wrong, and apologizing to me for misrepresenting me, you decide to dig your heels in?

I hope people can now see what I've been saying all along in this thread.

Why did you bother quoting that then?? Did you not mean to bring that message across?? That McMutry was lying, because you applied points 1-5 to what McMurtry was doing.

So why did you bring in the quote in the first place? Did you not quote it twice in fact.

[RickD]

What? You obviously aren't reading my posts very closely.
You wrote this:



Which means you believe it.

You mean this:

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

Which comes from the link I posted here:
http://www.oldearth.org/cult.htm
Which are not my words.
Which means I DID NOT call him a liar.
Which means that you accused me 3 times, of doing something that I didn't do.

Well why did you choose to quote it then, twice I believe. Usually when people do that it means they believe what they quoted.

So are you saying you made a mistake posting it and in fact you don't believe the following about McMurtry:

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

So,
Instead of realizing and admitting that you're wrong, and apologizing to me for misrepresenting me, you decide to dig your heels in?

I hope people can now see what I've been saying all along in this thread.

Why did you bother quoting that then?? Did you not mean to bring that message across?? That McMutry was lying, because you applied points 1-5 to what McMurtry was doing.

So why did you bring in the quote in the first place? Did you not quote it twice in fact.

You asked a question about why I thought YEC was cult-like. So, I posted a link with an explanation. And the link gave a list of 5 things that some YECs do, which are traits of cults.

You then took that, changed the context of what was posted, and said that I called him a liar.



I guess I'll just accept it as par for the course.

[Stu]

You mean this:


Which comes from the link I posted here:
http://www.oldearth.org/cult.htm
Which are not my words.
Which means I DID NOT call him a liar.
Which means that you accused me 3 times, of doing something that I didn't do.

Well why did you choose to quote it then, twice I believe. Usually when people do that it means they believe what they quoted.

So are you saying you made a mistake posting it and in fact you don't believe the following about McMurtry:

1. Convince followers that everyone else is wrong.
2. Misrepresent God's Word and change what the Bible really means.
3. Mix in just enough truth to make the lies believable
4. Other teachings present a danger to the religion or society as a whole.
5. Warn followers to never listen to other doctrines or they will be deceived.

So,
Instead of realizing and admitting that you're wrong, and apologizing to me for misrepresenting me, you decide to dig your heels in?

I hope people can now see what I've been saying all along in this thread.

Why did you bother quoting that then?? Did you not mean to bring that message across?? That McMutry was lying, because you applied points 1-5 to what McMurtry was doing.

So why did you bring in the quote in the first place? Did you not quote it twice in fact.

You asked a question about why I thought YEC was cult-like. So, I posted a link with an explanation. And the link gave a list of 5 things that some YECs do, which are traits of cults.

You then took that, changed the context of what was posted, and said that I called him a liar.



I guess I'll just accept it as par for the course.

"...gave a list of 5 things that some YEC's do..."

So McMurtry doesn't fall into that category then?
Or does he? Because if he does, then yes, by you admitting the above, you called him a liar.

[RickD]

Well why did you choose to quote it then, twice I believe. Usually when people do that it means they believe what they quoted.

So are you saying you made a mistake posting it and in fact you don't believe the following about McMurtry:

So,
Instead of realizing and admitting that you're wrong, and apologizing to me for misrepresenting me, you decide to dig your heels in?

I hope people can now see what I've been saying all along in this thread.

Why did you bother quoting that then?? Did you not mean to bring that message across?? That McMutry was lying, because you applied points 1-5 to what McMurtry was doing.

So why did you bring in the quote in the first place? Did you not quote it twice in fact.

You asked a question about why I thought YEC was cult-like. So, I posted a link with an explanation. And the link gave a list of 5 things that some YECs do, which are traits of cults.

You then took that, changed the context of what was posted, and said that I called him a liar.



I guess I'll just accept it as par for the course.

"...gave a list of 5 things that some YEC's do..."

So McMurtry doesn't fall into that category then?
Or does he? Because if he does, then yes, by you admitting the above, you called him a liar.

Let's try a new concept. We have a conversation where we respond to what the other person actually says, instead of accusing the other of something he never said.

As far as him lying, I don't know him well enough to make that judgement. Perhaps I'd be able to tell better if I saw more of his videos.

But what I did actually say, is this:

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 stand by my comment.

Apology yet, or are you just going to continue justifying your misrepresentation of me?

[Stu]

So,
Instead of realizing and admitting that you're wrong, and apologizing to me for misrepresenting me, you decide to dig your heels in?

I hope people can now see what I've been saying all along in this thread.

Why did you bother quoting that then?? Did you not mean to bring that message across?? That McMutry was lying, because you applied points 1-5 to what McMurtry was doing.

So why did you bring in the quote in the first place? Did you not quote it twice in fact.

You asked a question about why I thought YEC was cult-like. So, I posted a link with an explanation. And the link gave a list of 5 things that some YECs do, which are traits of cults.

You then took that, changed the context of what was posted, and said that I called him a liar.



I guess I'll just accept it as par for the course.

"...gave a list of 5 things that some YEC's do..."

So McMurtry doesn't fall into that category then?
Or does he? Because if he does, then yes, by you admitting the above, you called him a liar.

Let's try a new concept. We have a conversation where we respond to what the other person actually says, instead of accusing the other of something he never said.

As far as him lying, I don't know him well enough to make that judgement. Perhaps I'd be able to tell better if I saw more of his videos.

But what I did actually say, is this:

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 stand by my comment.

Apology yet, or are you just going to continue justifying your misrepresentation of me?

It's a bit of a grey area because you quoted that text. But after what you said in this post, then, yes, you didn't call him a liar.

As for your views on YEC, they are clearly bias, tainted and pretty toxic, so it would be pretty hard to debate with you on anything YEC. Let me put it this way, if people from the YEC community treated you the way you treat YECers you would quite rightly have something to say about it.

But let's leave it there as this is clearly not going to be a fruitful discussion.

[RickD]

Why did you bother quoting that then?? Did you not mean to bring that message across?? That McMutry was lying, because you applied points 1-5 to what McMurtry was doing.

So why did you bring in the quote in the first place? Did you not quote it twice in fact.

You asked a question about why I thought YEC was cult-like. So, I posted a link with an explanation. And the link gave a list of 5 things that some YECs do, which are traits of cults.

You then took that, changed the context of what was posted, and said that I called him a liar.



I guess I'll just accept it as par for the course.

"...gave a list of 5 things that some YEC's do..."

So McMurtry doesn't fall into that category then?
Or does he? Because if he does, then yes, by you admitting the above, you called him a liar.

Let's try a new concept. We have a conversation where we respond to what the other person actually says, instead of accusing the other of something he never said.

As far as him lying, I don't know him well enough to make that judgement. Perhaps I'd be able to tell better if I saw more of his videos.

But what I did actually say, is this:

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 stand by my comment.

Apology yet, or are you just going to continue justifying your misrepresentation of me?

It's a bit of a grey area because you quoted that text. But after what you said in this post, then, yes, you didn't call him a liar.

As for your views on YEC, they are clearly bias, tainted and pretty toxic, so it would be pretty hard to debate with you on anything YEC. Let me put it this way, if people from the YEC community treated you the way you treat YECers you would quite rightly have something to say about it.

But let's leave it there as this is clearly not going to be a fruitful discussion.

I guess a half-assed apology is better than none.

My views on yec are not biased. My views are fair.

If you want to see how a reasonable, and honest conversation went between me and a YEC who was respectful and honest back to me, you can read a discussion that Jac and I had. Misrepresentations were minimal, or non-existent.

You need to realize that when people come out of a toxic belief system, such as YEC, and word-faith theology, the reviews on these theologies aren't so glowing. Just look at people who have come out of Scientology, Mormonism, etc.

Or, I bet you don't think that your criticism of Catholicism is biased, tainted or toxic, do you?

If I can help one person get free from unhealthy belief systems such as YEC or word-faith, then it's worth it to me. Even if I have a hundred people like you, who are still stuck and brainwashed.

It's part of bringing false doctrines to light. People involved in these doctrines just don't like people criticizing them. Believe me, I was one of them. When I was a YEC, everyone else was wrong. My way was the only way. A real Christian had to believe in YEC. I'm sorry I acted like that.

[LittleHamster]

I was just having a look at the list of impact craters on the earth (at least 190 of them confirmed)

The big ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_i ... a_or_more)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_i ... ed_craters

How would a YEC justify the presence of these craters ? They don't seem to be mentioned in any text, carvings, paintings, etc, of the last few thousand years. (the big crater supposedly goes back a couple of billion years at the time of impact)