Evidence for God from Science

Thank your for sharing your testimony, Adam_777.
I have considered both YEC and OEC opinions. May I recommend visiting http://www.youtube.com/user/rodyshusband, and click onto the Hugh Ross playlist. There is a series of lectures as well as debate, that you may find helpful.
Although I welcome civilized, respectful debate it is important to note that (and I've raised the ire of many a YEC for stating this), the topic means nothing in terms of salvation.
Thanks... and let the debate continue!!!

rodyshusband wrote:Thank your for sharing your testimony, Adam_777.
I have considered both YEC and OEC opinions. May I recommend visiting http://www.youtube.com/user/rodyshusband, and click onto the Hugh Ross playlist. There is a series of lectures as well as debate, that you may find helpful.
Although I welcome civilized, respectful debate it is important to note that (and I've raised the ire of many a YEC for stating this), the topic means nothing in terms of salvation.
Thanks... and let the debate continue!!!

I agree. Hey, I'm familiar with Hugh Ross and I'll look closer to what you gave me, thanks. I shared this talk earlier because it's interesting how it starts out OEC with Hugh Ross then switches to YEC with Stephen Lloyd (he calls himself a YFC, young fossil creationist) and switches to neutral with John Lennox (one of my favorite philosophers).

http://bethinking.org/science-christian ... is-1-3.htm

Hugh Ross seems to be the only high profile Christian that I know that argues for the necessity of an Old Earth. I know many Christian scholars lean towards the OEC side but they seem to avoid the topic in their ministries. Most of them actually seem rather neutral on the topic and simply submit to popular secular scholarship. It seems like most Christian scholars think there are more important things to talk about. Is Hugh Ross leading the charge and supporting the status quo all at the same time?

I'm sure the charge and growth of YEC arguments hasn't gone unnoticed.

Adam_777 wrote:

zoegirl wrote:And this is fine....just stop using YEC data. If none of the data is reliable, then NONE of us can atttempt to explain it. If God's creation is so unable to be studied, then Ken Ham has no business using his data.

Here is the rub. I would never insist that someone stop using something. Almost all arguments against YECs fall in the realm of Ad Hominem attacks and appeals to authority. When someone has an interpretation for data, that doesn't make it off limits to someone else's interpretation, right? "Those mean old OECs won't let us play "

But your point was that we can "never know". If that is the case, then we can't study the origins at all.

adam wrote: I tell people to check it out. Both camps offer ideas and philosophies. I would never tell people to avoid an investigation.

Again, not my point. My point was that YEC tend to come down to this nebuous idea of "but can you ever *really* know" as if that should cause us OEC to shrivel up and give up. But if that is the case, then YEC's can't "really ever know" either. In which case in behooves us to understand the evvidence well as we can. And from the 40 or so methods of dating the universe, the evidence shows that it is old.

adam wrote: The data and the evidence is not the problem. It's the interpretation that must be questioned.

And I keep showing you evidence that the interpretation that theYEC's make is wrong. And you haven't shown me why yet, just merely asserted that it is inconclusive.

adam wrote: I sent you a bunch of information. I don't insist that you must be a YEC to be a Christian. I have personally found that it is a defensible and respectable position especially with the current scientific data.

adam wrote: We aren't going to resolve this here right now but I will be milling around and praying about topics to bring up. Let's call a truce, so we can get into specific questions on other threads.

BTW, I watched the video you pm'ed me

Ken Ham is as dangerous as Kent HOvind, causing strife amoung Chrsitians. Within even three minutes of the video he essentailly calls OEC's heretics. "If you can't believe Genesis, then you can't believe the rest of the Bible" (paraphrased) Essentially, he uses tired arguments and inflammatory language. I haev as little respect for him as I do Kent Hovind.

He uses the incorrect interpretation of the organic matter found in fossils (a finding from a CHristian scientist who was very irate that her discovery was then used by YEC's whom she disagreed with quite incorrectly). Blithely talks about the grand canyon and the fossils without explaining it.

The hilarity is the propagates a LOT of misinformation about OEC, insisting that we doubt the historicity of Adam. And we don't, not here.

Yep, we're just a bunch of heretics and apostates and we're the cause of the strife in the church today (yes, he actually says that).

So don't tell me not to be passionate. And don't tell me or use sources that tell me that I don't take the Bible seriously or reject scripture. It's people like Ken Hamm and AiG that essentially fuel that rejection of many many people. They are throwing stumbling blocks out there because they cause CHrsitians to look like fools and you know what, it makes God out to be the fool. ANd that, to be honest, is what should make us the angriest of all. NOne of the CHristians here doubt His majesty, His power, HIs omnipotence, or His glory.

adam wrote: BTW, this thread is my testimony and you feel passionately enough to hash this out to convince me I'm wrong so don't get offended when I return the banter.

I'm not offended at the banter, I've taken far worse from others, but I do get angry. And I must say that you haven't asnswered some of my answers. So unless you start critiquing some of the methods, nothing is new. I appreciate your testimnoy and that you are sincere about GOd. And I *think* that you feel the same about us. But make no mistake, Ken Ham doesn't.

Hugh Ross is by far not the only one....I will gladly show you a website http://www.asa3.org/ that have many many OEC.

Many science professors at CHrsitian colleges are OEC, four out of the five CHristian science teachers at my school are OEC, or certianly friendly to the idea.

And of course, Rich, the owner of this website

AS well the scientists here http://www.reasons.org/about/biographies.shtml

zoegirl wrote:Ken Ham is as dangerous as Kent HOvind, causing strife amoung Chrsitians. Within even three minutes of the video he essentailly calls OEC's heretics. "If you can't believe Genesis, then you can't believe the rest of the Bible" (paraphrased) Essentially, he uses tired arguments and inflammatory language. I haev as little respect for him as I do Kent Hovind.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Do you think Ken Ham and Kent Hovind aren't sincere believers? I think we should be able to see sincerity even through some personality quarks. I have mine so I'm careful not to judge people on theirs. I think they have some great points and Ken Ham makes it clear that there are plenty of Christians who believe in the old earth and partial evolution models of creation. I think the YECs bring some worthwhile discussion to the table. I hope someday you aren't so hostile to their ideas.

I have many OEC or at least OEC friendly scholars that I revere as wonderful brothers and sisters. I wouldn't be hanging out here if I thought you were some kind of heretic. Sometimes you have to separate yourself from the discussion so people can talk about their perspective without it being some divisive danger.

Paul, recognized that people with different ideas would form sects (1 Cor 11:19). He didn't like it but he knew it would happen so those approved could rise to the surface.

Zoegirl, if you want to get angry at your, brother, maybe this conversation should get toned down. I would love to get to know you based on things we agree on first.

Adam_777 wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Ken Ham is as dangerous as Kent HOvind, causing strife amoung Chrsitians. Within even three minutes of the video he essentailly calls OEC's heretics. "If you can't believe Genesis, then you can't believe the rest of the Bible" (paraphrased) Essentially, he uses tired arguments and inflammatory language. I haev as little respect for him as I do Kent Hovind.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Do you think Ken Ham and Kent Hovind aren't sincere believers? I think we should be able to see sincerity even through some personality quarks.

Yes I do think they are sincere believers. The shame is that they do not believe we are biblical and some HAVE called us heretics. Their logic goes like this....."how can you belive in Christ when you don't believe in the entire Bible...." If they want to believe YEC, fine, but we do hold to the infallibility of scripture and the power of God. We do believe in the historical presence of Adam and sin.

adam wrote: I have mine so I'm careful not to judge people on theirs. I think they have some great points and Ken Ham makes it clear that there are plenty of Christians who believe in the old earth and partial evolution models of creation.

I know you have and I thank you for that. Within three minutes of the video, Ken essentailly claims that we reject scripture. Later on he blames us for the problems in the church. Why you think he respects us is beyond me.

adam wrote: I think the YECs bring some worthwhile discussion to the table. I hope someday you aren't so hostile to their ideas.

When they aren't so hostile to us, then maybe I will relax.

adam wrote: I have many OEC or at least OEC friendly scholars that I revere as wonderful brothers and sisters. I wouldn't be hanging out here if I thought you were some kind of heretic.

Yes, that you for that. I do appreciate it and realize that my language was strong. You have to understand that this comes from years of having attacks on our view of Biblical integrity. Many here can tell stories of the same background. You seemed to be saying that they weren't that many OEC, that Hugh Ross was the only leader of this movement....

I realize *you* don't think I am. The problem is that MOST YEC organizations and their leaders DO. Despite your praises for Ken Ham, he *does* think we compromise scripture. He thinks we're tha cause of the problems in the church. He thinks we reject scripture. He is little better than Kent Hovind in that regard.

And I do think that their reasoning leaves a lot to be desired, but that can be for another thread if you so desire.

adam wrote: Sometimes you have to separate yourself from the discussion so people can talk about their perspective without it being some divisive danger.

Paul, recognized that people with different ideas would form sects (1 Cor 11:19). He didn't like it but he knew it would happen so those approved could rise to the surface.

Again, that's wonderful. I personally disagree with YEC, but have no problem with people who do. What I *do* have a problem with is when *they* have a problem with me. I have never gone to ICR or AiG and claimed that they have warped view of scripture, that thye diminish God with their beliefs, that they cause stumbling blocks to many people coming to Christ. I DON't do this. I may think this, but I don't start arguments. If they want to discuss, then they should be prepared to argue their points. But I am a pretty peaceful person on the whole. I HAVE to be. I teach in a anvironment where most people were brought YEC and many parents still hold to this. So in my teaching I MUST be able to put away the emotions. And If you notice, I only got peeved when their names where brought up.

adam wrote: Zoegirl, if you want to get angry at your, brother, maybe this conversation should get toned down. I would love to get to know you based on things we agree on first.

I get angry at ken Ham, not at you although I wish that he was not used for your support.

No problem....I do get angry when the conversation approaches on the "we rearrange acripture to our liking" and you were going there. You sent me a link to a person who accuses us of rejecting scripture. So I think it's fair to say that it's a reasonable conclusion that that was where the conversation was going.


I agree that we started great. I must get back to work. But thanks for writing.

Hi Zoegirl,

Being a teacher is a huge responsibility. As a teacher of sorts too, people regularly bounce ideas off of me to see if they can validate an argument/idea or if they can get me to trip up on something I believe to discredit it.

I guess people find me a fun target to debate because I like to debate and I do my homework. Also, I've found the more I learn, the easier it is to flippantly throw other people's ideas under a bus without careful consideration since "I've been there done that". Wouldn't you agree that ideas are best analyzed apart from personality or perceived familiarity? Wouldn't you agree that good communication starts with a desire to objectively step into the other person's perspective to understand it, no matter how flawed or offensive you find it? I can look at the world from an atheist's perspective without forfeiting my worldview one bit. Isn't this being all things to all people? (1 Cor 9:22) And being in the world not of the world? (I couldn't find the verse for this, a little help? )

If it's important to be sober minded with the world how much more important is it to address the things that divide inside the church with the same sober mindedness? Jesus had no problem dividing people out. We shouldn't either. The truth (Jesus) and the truth alone should be what unifies us in love by grace through faith. We all might learn a thing or two in the process.

I'll leave the party Camaraderie to the Soviets…

I agree with Ken Ham and Kent Hovind and other YECs that OECs face some severe scriptural problems when compromising with the "wealth of evidence" in science. This is exactly why we question the interpretation of evidence and the potentially flawed (admittedly, commonly held today) eisegesis of scripture. Zoegirl, I don't know about you but if I'm wrong about something, I don't care how educated I am or how much of a stupid jerk the person is that's trying to communicate a valid truth to me is. I decided a long time ago that the place in my intellect where I get the angriest is the place where I need to slow down and ask; Why?

…without being emotional or angry.

People have slandered me too (if we aren't then we aren't doing our jobs as Christians) and I'm finding out that the slandering can have one of two effects... I can either get harder or softer. I have decided that being softer while being assertive works best for me. I'm still growing in this but it's always my goal.

Okay, I know the teacher just received a sermon. Take it easy on me.

Adam_777 wrote:Hi Zoegirl,

Being a teacher is a huge responsibility. As a teacher of sorts too, people regularly bounce ideas off of me to see if they can validate an argument/idea or if they can get me to trip up on something I believe to discredit it.

I guess people find me a fun target to debate because I like to debate and I do my homework. Also, I've found the more I learn, the easier it is to flippantly throw other people's ideas under a bus without careful consideration since "I've been there done that". Wouldn't you agree that ideas are best analyzed apart from personality or perceived familiarity? Wouldn't you agree that good communication starts with a desire to objectively step into the other person's perspective to understand it, no matter how flawed or offensive you find it?

Yes, it is nice....and I have examined it objectively and have concluded that YEC does not have good evidence. I showed you my article and only became quite angry when the conversation turned to the leaders of YEC and when the conversation shifted towards our alleged treatment of scripture. Let's move on, shall we.

I gave you an article that showed you why radiometric dating is valid. If you'd like to discuss that or any of the other pieces of evidence, that's fine. So far, you have only talked about the fact that they are inconclusive.

adam wrote: I can look at the world from an atheist's perspective without forfeiting my worldview one bit. Isn't this being all things to all people? (1 Cor 9:22) And being in the world not of the world? (I couldn't find the verse for this, a little help? )

Absolutely, no argument here....again, just get angry about the treatment of YEC towards OEC. To be honest, the burden of guilty behvior is on the YEC camps. The have done more attacking that my lovely rant.

adam wrote: If it's important to be sober minded with the world how much more important is it to address the things that divide inside the church with the same sober mindedness? Jesus had no problem dividing people out. We shouldn't either. The truth (Jesus) and the truth alone should be what unifies us in love by grace through faith. We all might learn a thing or two in the process.

Adam, let's move on!!! I agree....I wish that Ken Hamm and Kent Hovind and others did as well!! I wish you would direct this to the leaders of the YEC camps!!! They have done more to create divisiveness than any OEC camp ever has.

adam wrote:
I'll leave the party Camaraderie to the Soviets…

I agree with Ken Ham and Kent Hovind and other YECs that OECs face some severe scriptural problems when compromising with the "wealth of evidence" in science. This is exactly why we question the interpretation of evidence and the potentially flawed (admittedly, commonly held today) eisegesis of scripture. Zoegirl, I don't know about you but if I'm wrong about something, I don't care how educated I am or how much of a stupid jerk the person is that's trying to communicate a valid truth to me is.

FIrst, this would be a lot more effective if you would admit that these gentlemen are wrong is BEING such jerks. You have now written 2 or 3 posts advising ME to calm done and you have done nothing to bridge this chasm with regard to THEIR> behavior. It's seems to be great and ok for them to be so divisive and them you admonish *me*?!?!
Your admonishment would go a lot further if you would concede that they ARE jerks. Hey, I'll admit when I;m angry. They cloak their anger and obnoxious is righteousness.


Secondly, It is also a verse to love the Lord you God with you MIND. To take CCAPTIVE every thought....We ARE to be educated. YOU SHOULD CARE!! If somebody comes to me with only a high school level of biology and tries to debate with me about a concept reagrding natural selection and they don't even have it right, how does that TAKE CAPTIVE every thought and examine every philosophy? Whether or not selection is true, when Christians don't even bother to get the definition correct, then we can't even be in the arena to debate. It bothers me when one of my parents wants to come in to give a speech about creationism and virtually everything he says about biology is wrong. You are asking me to place these students in a very tenuous spot. Yes, it makes Christians look like fools AND worse, WILLING fools!!! It is one thing to be a fool for Christ, it is another to be willingly ignorant.

I had a graduate professor BRAG about the fact that he could turn students away from thei faith and acept evolution. And when he explained how he did it....you know what??? It was because of their IGNORANCE that they fell away from their faith. How dare we say that it doesn't matter if someone is educated.

It saddens me that students come to me and all they want to say is "I don't believe in evolution because it's stupid" or more disappointing is when they trot out tired bullet points from YEC websites that don't bother to elaborate on their topic AND who have it wrong.

For example, take the standard bullet point about the "blood in the dinosaur bones". This is one of the most widely used and most erroneous of statements, and yet it gets pulled out now by virtually all Christians because, darn it, it supports what they want to believe, nevermind examining it and reading about it. And then we tell our students these obviously WRONG statements about the evidence and they go off to college and get corrected and shown the evidence and THEN the students, whose faith is held together by these fragile and tenuous strands of nothing, look at what they have been taught and their faith stretches to the breaking point.

And what about compromising God's creation? Especially when There IS a perfectly fine way for BOTH to mesh

adam wrote:I decided a long time ago that the place in my intellect where I get the angriest is the place where I need to slow down and ask; Why?

First, glad to know that....let me know when you are going to write Ken Ham and Kent Hovind and tell them that!!!

For me, it's because I am angry at willingly ignorant Christians who compromise God and HIs creation because they are not willing to exmaine scripture AND because, let's face, most of them are scared.

People have slandered me too (if we aren't then we aren't doing our jobs as Christians) and I'm finding out that the slandering can have one of two effects... I can either get harder or softer. I have decided that being softer while being assertive works best for me. I'm still growing in this but it's always my goal.

And I have said before and I'll say it again....not angry at you....angry at the leaders of the YEC movement who are "allowed" to be obnoxious and slander other CHristians.

adam wrote: Okay, I know the teacher just received a sermon. Take it easy on me.

Fine by me....let me know when you will be giving this sermon to your own camp

BTW, here's is a source for the blood in the bones

http://www.reasons.org/chapters/seattle ... 200407.pdf

and from the main site

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html

Just in case you wanted to know the full story

Be Careful, Zoegirl, I'm hardest on people that are like me. Ask, JC333, I don't play favorites. You're attaching a lot of baggage to this conversation.

If you want your license to be angry, you aren't getting it from me.

I think you're exposing yourself as being more hostile then you intend. I'm brand new here and I can tell you have an ax to grind. I have to say I'm kind of getting turned off to my sister in Christ by her barrage of insults for people who have a ministry that don't agree with her origins beliefs. That's an odd place to rest so much of your passion.

I'm passionate about the evidence that shows a young Universe and a Young earth and there is plenty of it out there (A cracked up earth from a GLOBAL flood, catastrophe sized fossil beds, unusual plant and animal fossils from a unique pre-flood world, comets that should be long gone).

You can scream that this evidence has already been interpreted for an Old Earth. I say; who cares?

God promised that there would never be another flood like what Noah experienced. Well if it was a local flood, He lied. However, if it was a global flood, like the text plainly reads, then what we see, as a planet that couldn't be covered with water anymore, shows why God's promise is true.

Can you show me a topographic map of the region/valley that would have been needed to be filled for a local flood to have worked? This is the only question that I really want addressed more then anything else. Don't forget Mt. Ararat would have been covered up.

Adam_777 wrote:Be Careful, Zoegirl, I'm hardest on people that are like me. Ask, JC333, I don't play favorites. You're attaching a lot of baggage to this conversation.

If you want your license to be angry, you aren't getting it from me.

I think you're exposing yourself as being more hostile then you intend. I'm brand new here and I can tell you have an ax to grind. I have to say I'm kind of getting turned off to my sister in Christ by her barrage of insults for people who have a ministry that don't agree with her origins beliefs. That's an odd place to rest so much of your passion.

I'm passionate about the evidence that shows a young Universe and a Young earth and there is plenty of it out there (A cracked up earth from a GLOBAL flood, catastrophe sized fossil beds, unusual plant and animal fossils from a unique pre-flood world, comets that should be long gone).

You can scream that this evidence has already been interpreted for an Old Earth. I say; who cares?

God promised that there would never be another flood like what Noah experienced. Well if it was a local flood, He lied. However, if it was a global flood, like the text plainly reads, then what we see, as a planet that couldn't be covered with water anymore, shows why God's promise is true.

Can you show me a topographic map of the region/valley that would have been needed to be filled for a local flood to have worked? This is the only question that I really want addressed more then anything else. Don't forget Mt. Ararat would have been covered up.

Adam,

Permit me to jump in for a minute. I think it's very clear where Zoegirl's *anger* rests, and that's with YECers who deny Christianity to whomever disagrees with them (like Hovind has done oh so many times). So her anger is not directed towards you (although you came very close to saying exactly what Hovind does, though a bit more tactfully).

As for the local flood question, we've discussed this topic many times here. I will look for the appropriate thread and post its link here (Gman, this is your area, help me out if you know where it is).

Otherwise, carry you on (this (great) discussion ).

Post edit:
Yep, here's one: Local Flood vs Global Flood (there's a TON of data here).
and another: Location of Noah's Local Flood (very informative and clear - complete with maps).

Byblos wrote:Adam,

Permit me to jump in for a minute. I think it's very clear where Zoegirl's *anger* rests, and that's with YECers who deny Christianity to whomever disagrees with them (like Hovind has done oh so many times). So her anger is not directed towards you (although you came very close to saying exactly what Hovind does, though a bit more tactfully).

As for the local flood question, we've discussed this topic many times here. I will look for the appropriate thread and post its link here (Gman, this is your area, help me out if you know where it is).

Otherwise, carry you on (this (great) discussion ).

Thanks Byblos,

I have watched many many videos that Hovind has and many articles and videos by Ham. I can see how people could extrapolate their teaching that to be a Christian you must believe in a Young Earth, without careful observation, but I've watched them acknowledge and even promote the work of OECs. So I think at the end of the day whether it's their miscommunication or whatever. It behooves us to recognize that Hovind and Ham aren't in a YEC only church. They are passionate about telling the church that there are inconsistencies that follow from believing in an old earth and for this I commend them.

I would recognize this as the best starting point from a philosophical end to see why Old Earth/Evolutionary theory doesn't fit right in the jigsaw puzzle of life for a Biblical Christian. Has anybody here read it? It's not Hovind or Ham. It's written by John MacArther a high end theologian and author:



I'm not saying you can't believe and revere the Bible or be a Christian. I'm simply saying that we aren't looking for exhaustive knowledge; we're looking for a coherent framework. I believe the plain reading of the Bible and the evidence of a worldwide flood tells me that we don't need to compromise with the worldly, ever. The Word and the World fit perfectly without us imposing contemporary theories and ideas that can't be proven into clever eisegesis of scripture.

(40 methods that repeat similar results don't make, the tagged on assumptions of uniformitarianism, go away. What was the world like before the flood? Adam and his offspring lived for over nine hundred years before the flood, something was very different. )

zoegirl wrote:BTW, here's is a source for the blood in the bones

//www.reasons.org/chapters/seattle/newsle ... 200407.pdf

and from the main site

//www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html

Just in case you wanted to know the full story

I couldn't open the first one. What's so conclusive about the second one? The tissue was still there. 4400 years couldn't produce decayed tissue?

Hey, what do you think about Niagara Falls? If we let that thing erode back into Lake Erie the way it wants to, I bet we would end up with another unique post flood Canyon. How come so many scientists feel fine saying that the canyon on Mars was rapid erosion but Grand Canyon can't be?



Without nitpicking personality or minor flaws would you say that this should be disregarded as bad information?

//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5665691163985573518&ei=TrslSaiUO5PuqAK08OHQCA&q=hovind+4&hl=en&dur=3

rodyshusband wrote:Thank your for sharing your testimony, Adam_777.
I have considered both YEC and OEC opinions. May I recommend visiting http://www.youtube.com/user/rodyshusband, and click onto the Hugh Ross playlist. There is a series of lectures as well as debate, that you may find helpful.
Although I welcome civilized, respectful debate it is important to note that (and I've raised the ire of many a YEC for stating this), the topic means nothing in terms of salvation.
Thanks... and let the debate continue!!!

I watched Hugh Ross. I know he's on our side and appreciate him as a brother in the Lord but his approach and information doesn't flick my bic. I'm really open to persuasion. I was persuaded from an OEC to a YEC so I guess if I blew it and the evidence needs another look, I'll look. I just don't see anything that says we need to concede to the beliefs of naturalists and their philosophy of how things must have been.

We all agree with the fact that God created ex nihilo. We can't measure it or test it because we can't do it, praise Jesus. At the end of the day what is so tough about the fact that God “baaraaed” a mature universe in six days? (Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17) These verses aren't qualified and they seem to be written to show that God has it put together, we don't.

How come God is restricted to our faulty ideas when He tells us that His ways aren't our ways and what He tells us is the truth whether we understand it or not.

Adam_777 wrote:The Word and the World fit perfectly without us imposing contemporary theories and ideas that can't be proven into clever eisegesis of scripture.

Adam_777 wrote: At the end of the day what is so tough about the fact that God “baaraaed” a mature universe in six days?

(emphasis mine)

Adam,

The above statements are precisely the problem that Zoegirl, myself, and every other OECer everywhere else have with YECers and why we get emotional, angry, passionate, whatever. The implication is stark that if one does not believe in a 6 day creation then they are imposing contemporary ideas into scripture. We totally reject this out of hand and we assert that our reading is just as plain and just as literal as yours. We are simply not imposing anything on the text.

What is so tough about God creating in 6 days? First let me ask you this, how long do you think 14 billion years is for an eternal, timeless being? Second, would you believe God could have created in 6 nano-seconds? I do, we all here do. So please don't go making implicit accusations that we're the ones limiting God's powers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The plain truth is that we see complete and total harmony between scripture (as plainly and literally read) and our observations of the universe around us, and we see this harmony reconciled with an old earth and an old universe.

These are the problems we've ALWAYS encountered with YECers and why these types of discussions almost always end up heavily moderated. My hope is that this does not happen here and we're able to carry on a semi-intelligent conversation.

P.S. Take your time reading the flood links, they are rather extensive.