I am 100% willing to accept Young Earth Creationism

That's right folks. I am 100% willing to accept Young Earth Creationism. I do not have any vested interest in accepting evolution, or an old Earth. I am not bound by any philosophy that makes evolution necessary. Certainly, my current world view is based on an ancient universe were humans came to be through evolution. However, I am willing to accept that this may be totally erroneous. It would take some getting used to, but I could come to accept a totally different description of reality - i.e. that the world was created in 6 literal days as described in Genesis.

What would it take to make this change, to throw away this supposed religion of evolution?

Its kind of like sitting on a jury actually.

EVIDENCE. Good ol' scientific evidence. That's right, as long as there was some unfalsified evidence for YEC I would accept it. However, there is none so I don't accept it. There is, in fact, enough evidence from numerous branches of science to convince me otherwise.

__________________
"We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture," Pastor Ray Mummert speaking out against teaching evolution in Pennsylvania schools
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The flood becomes harder and harder to support when you get more information.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bunnies in the pre-Cambrian, man. Bunnies. Or giraffes. Or people. Heck, I'd accept a fossilized blade of grass. But noooo...

__________________
--Zadok001, aka Greater Good fanatic

Go check out Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. . .

or go to the Answers in Genesis website

__________________
Check out my blog at dahoffermn.net

DaHoffermn:

None of those seem to offer empirical, positive evidence for YECism. They offer some attempts at rebuttals for evolution, but I see no positive evidence.

__________________
--Zadok001, aka Greater Good fanatic

I see the same problem with evolution. Let's face it, this argument is not scientific. It cannot be tested, so we must use historical evidence. And in historical arguments we must first confront the opposition.

__________________
Check out my blog at dahoffermn.net

Just walk away....

How do you see the same problem with evolution?  You want positive evidence?  We've got it in spades - The fossil record, geobiodiversity, 'remnant' chromosome ends, modern adaptations, basically every bit of evidence ever found fits into the evolution model, and is positive evidence FOR evolution!

But when YECists try to 'prove' YECism, they tend to attack the data recorded for evolution, without ever presenting positive data.  Show me ONE piece of evidence that actively SUPPORTS creationism.  One piece.  Something that seems to indicate that God created organisms in 'kinds' approximately 6-20 thousand years ago.  Not something that says 'Evolution can't work because XYZ.'  Something that says 'Creationism makes sense because this piece of evidence cannot be explained by any other model.'  If creationism is true, this should be EXCEEDINGLY easy.

__________________
--Zadok001, aka Greater Good fanatic

I called my pastor on his creation theory, in light of the recent findings in DNA. He is going to stick by the Gap theory. That is between Genesis 1:1 & Genesis 1:2 is a gap of time of any length that you want it to be.

Anything you find, any bones, if they are man like, monkey like, or whatever took place before Genesis 2:2.

Genesis 1:2a And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

The words: "without form, and void" Indicated ruin. A world that was once lust and green, but was destroyed. God was going to recreate the earth.

The days in Genesis represent 1000 year periods of time. Science will tell you that 12,970 years ago was the beginning of the end of the ice age and most all life for some unknown reason had been destroyed off of the face of the earth.

He seems to do that a lot...

JohnR7:

I'm not versed in the original translations, so I could be really far off on this. I respect your knowledge of the Bible, so I'd appreciate it if you could clarify:



'Void' does not indicated 'destroyed' to me. It indicates non-existance. If I say something is 'voided' I don't mean it was destroyed. I mean it effectively never was. Thoughts?

__________________
--Zadok001, aka Greater Good fanatic