Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Way to derail the introduction thread Rick. Nice moderating.

Welcome FallingScales

Whaddya mean Kurieuo, this is the welcome I give to all Young Earth Creationists.

Yes Fallingscales - don't mind the hypnotizing clown You'll get used to Rick...

Welcome to the Forum
-
-
-

Rick isn't alone. This whole board likes to beat up on YECs. But as long as you can get use to that, then we'll keep doing it.

Actually, in the past there was a YEC moderator... (but he's no longer around )

Seems to me that the whole board beats up on many perspectives depending on the perspective of the person talking, as it should be.
Anyways, it seems to me that you are retreading the content of the Christian forums/creation Talk/Dr. Hugh Ross from 2010 section of the forums debating this same topic, and I side with the other various YEC's that posted in there on this exact subject. I may not be equipped at the moment to defend my side of points as well as I would like, but I do what I can. I mainly skimmed it, but it seemed fairly well covered there.

FallingScales,

I'm just trying to get you thinking about what you're saying, because I'm kinda surprised anyone still uses the "appearance of age" argument. I thought it went the way of the dodo and the canopy theory.

RickD wrote:FallingScales,

I'm just trying to get you thinking about what you're saying, because I'm kinda surprised anyone still uses the "appearance of age" argument. I thought it went the way of the dodo and the canopy theory.

Most YECs who learn to defend their position long ago made the distinction between appearance of age and functional maturity, as FS did here. The OEC critique of the less sophisticated AoA argument is fine as far as it goes, but when you cross over to applying the "deception" argument to the more sophisticated take, you're really attacking a strawman. The other thing about this is that the most common example used to prove supposed deception is starlight, and it's well known that YECs have put out (and are continuing to put out) various explanations of that phenomena. You can reject those particular explanations, of course, but to write the whole thing off so simplistically is just uncharitable, to put it charitably, and all the more since it is rather widely recognized that the Standard Model has its own starlight problem.

But here I am contributing to the derailment . . . I should be moderated for this. Where's my board warning!

And FS, welcome to the boards. Always good to see fellow YECs on the boards. Anything to tweak the clown.

Jac3510 wrote:But here I am contributing to the derailment . . . I should be moderated for this. Where's my board warning!

Ah the good old days.

Jac,

My questioning ONLY pertained to the appearance of age. I wouldn't argue against Adam being created "mature", because I believe he was.

And I like your new avatar Jac. You are quite the knave.

Jac wrote:
But here I am contributing to the derailment . . . I should be moderated for this. Where's my board warning!

Don't worry Jac. If your posts in this thread go as your posts normally do, it's just a matter of time.

RickD wrote:Jac,

My questioning ONLY pertained to the appearance of age. I wouldn't argue against Adam being created "mature", because I believe he was.

DO WE NEED TO TAKE THIS OUTSIDE?

And I like your new avatar Jac. You are quite the knave.

You have no idea how happy I am that you caught the double entendre.

Jac wrote:
But here I am contributing to the derailment . . . I should be moderated for this. Where's my board warning!

Don't worry Jac. If your posts in this thread go as your posts normally do, it's just a matter of time.

DO WE NEED TO TAKE THIS OUTSIDE?



im doing the best i can i do have a reputation to uphold you know

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:Jac,

My questioning ONLY pertained to the appearance of age. I wouldn't argue against Adam being created "mature", because I believe he was.

DO WE NEED TO TAKE THIS OUTSIDE?

And I like your new avatar Jac. You are quite the knave.

You have no idea how happy I am that you caught the double entendre.

Jac wrote:
But here I am contributing to the derailment . . . I should be moderated for this. Where's my board warning!

Don't worry Jac. If your posts in this thread go as your posts normally do, it's just a matter of time.

DO WE NEED TO TAKE THIS OUTSIDE?



im doing the best i can i do have a reputation to uphold you know

Jac,

It seems God's grace may be powerful after all.

My very into caused a debate already, fun times.

FallingScales wrote:My very into caused a debate already, fun times.

See, you're already part of the family. You'll soon see we're a kind of dysfunctional family, but a family nonetheless.

indeed

Hello guys,
Welcome everybody those who are a member of this forum. I am a new user to this forum and feel very happy to be a part of this. I think it would help me a lot.Thanks.

apvkt wrote:Hello guys,
Welcome everybody those who are a member of this forum. I am a new user to this forum and feel very happy to be a part of this. I think it would help me a lot.Thanks.

Welcome.
P.S.: you have strange username

Looks like a spam registration