• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Sign Petition to get Kent Hovind to do written discussion

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,242
52,664
Guam
✟5,156,107.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you want to say you dont believe what most YECs believe thats fine. But you are still a YEC by definition of believing the earth was created 6,000 years ago. That makes you a YEC.

If you were to read my profile for the first time, and see YEC as my Origin of Life, wouldn't you think that I think the universe is only 6000 years old?

And you were the one that came up with BEC, not me.

Of course I did, so as not to confuse people who read my profile where I stand. I'm not going to go around in life claiming I'm some sort of 'modified YEC', or a 3-point YEC, or any kind of YEC.

Y stands for 'young', and I'm not going there.

My point is if you want to have a acronym like this to describe your beliefs like YECs and OECs have, then you need one that actually means something.

And YEC means nothing to me, nor does OEC. I'm not going to go around giving people the wrong impression of what I believe.

The poster dad believes things very different from most YECs but he is still a YEC because he fits the definition, but unlike you he doesnt have a problem with that.

The very source you quoted to me (Wikipedia) also said that YEC's do not believe in a 4.5 billion year universe. It even said that was a major point of contention with YECism.

Why bring up radiometric dating? Im not talking about if your beliefs are correct or not. Once again, OECs, GAP and YECs all claim to follow Genesis as well. So how is saying you are different because you believe in a "Biblical earth as described in Genesis" going to differentiate yourself how? Its clearly not going to at all, and thats why its meaningless.

Once again, I am not going to associate myself with a major belief system that thinks this universe was created with zero age - let alone claim that today it's only 6000 years old.

OEC makes Jupiter 6000 years old, Earth 6000 years old, Andromeda 6000 years old, Alpha Centauri 6000 years old, etc.

Are you getting the point here?

As for Wikipedia, you need to read more closely apparently.

No --- you need to read a little further apparently.

Wikipedia said:
The defining characteristic of this belief is that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age of 4.5 billion years estimated by a variety of scientific methods including radiometric dating.
(emphasis mine)

I'm getting tired of posting this.

Thats how you are defining age? "the change in matter due to the passage of time"?

Yes --- the passage of time --- but Creation Week was an exception (see below).

As myself and others have told you many times, and even according to your own definition here, for it to be millions of years old it would have had to existed for millions of years. "Years" defines a period of time. If there is no time, you cant age.

I'm well-familiar with what others say. They are defining the aging process as it occurs today (as do I when I define age), but on Creation Week, age didn't come by a passage of time --- it too was ex nihilo.

Do you realize that some don't believe time even existed until Day Four?
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
45
Maastricht
Visit site
✟36,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
If you were to read my profile for the first time, and see YEC as my Origin of Life, wouldn't you think that I think the universe is only 6000 years old?
Euh, you do think that. Yes, you try to change the definition of age in such a way that it somehow means something different than how long something has been in existence. But you have not succeeded in that yet. According to your own definition, the universe and the earth are both 6000 years old.
 
Upvote 0

birdan

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2006
443
45
72
✟23,331.00
Faith
Seeker
Believing in a 4.3 billion year old earth created 6,000 years ago simply makes AV an Omphalos subset of YECism, semantics aside.

AV, here's a crucial question:

Since you believe a 4.3 billion year old earth was created 6,000 years ago, what did the universe look like, what was in existence, 60,000 years ago?
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
If you were to read my profile for the first time, and see YEC as my Origin of Life, wouldn't you think that I think the universe is only 6000 years old?

Yes, and thats what you do think. Whatever you believe about the earth it is not age. That already has a definition and you cant change it just because you dont like it.


And you were the one that came up with BEC, not me
Of course I did, so as not to confuse people who read my profile where I stand.
Didnt you read my post?! Im telling you that BEC doesnt tell anyone anything about what you believe. Thats my whole point. Imagine someone looking at your profile and see BEC, and he will ask you what that means and you will say "Biblical Earth Creationist", and he will say well dont YECS and OECs also believe they follow a Biblical view? And you will say, "well you see, I believe in Genesis". And you think will make sure people understand what you believe?!

Y stands for 'young', and I'm not going there.
Yes, "Young", as in, the earth was created 6,000 years ago and therefore only 6,000 years old. It doesnt matter if the earth itself is made of matter composed of properties that are as if they had existed for billions of years because God wanted it that way, or whatever. Age is defined with the passage of time, and if there is no time there is no age.

And YEC means nothing to me, nor does OEC. I'm not going to go around giving people the wrong impression of what I believe.

Except YEC and OEC tells people something about that persons beliefs. BEC pretty much tells someone nothing.

The very source you quoted to me (Wikipedia) also said that YEC's do not believe in a 4.5 billion year universe. .

I know, they dont believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth. And neither do you. As I said before, a "year" is defined as a period of time. To say something is billions of years old is is to be talking about a set amount of time that thing has existed for. If the earth has only existed for 6,000 years, it simply cannot by definition be billions of years old. I have to keep repeating myself, but once again, whatever you are talking about it isnt age.

Once again, I am not going to associate myself with a major belief system that thinks this universe was created with zero age - let alone claim that today it's only 6000 years old.

What makes you a YEC is that you believe the universe was created 6-10 thousand years ago. Anything else you believe is just specifics.

OEC makes Jupiter 6000 years old, Earth 6000 years old, Andromeda 6000 years old, Alpha Centauri 6000 years old, etc.

You mean YEC, and so do you. You just say there is age "embedded" so that the properties that make up the universe are as if they had existed for billions of years, or something. Problem is, as I have said over and over, you are NOT talking about age because, as your own definition you provided, age is defined as the passage of time. If the universe has only existed for 6,000 years, as you said, then the earth and everything in it can only be 6,000 years old by definition.

No --- you need to read a little further apparently.

(emphasis mine)

I'm getting tired of posting this.

This is what you posted:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The defining characteristic of this belief is that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age of 4.5 billion years estimated by a variety of scientific methods including radiometric dating


The introduction to the article has already established that what makes you a YEC is the belief that "the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago). ". And it had already established that it is a view "generally" held by Christians and Jews that believe in a literal Genesis who believe that the evidence points to an earth that is young. Generally. So that doesnt stop you from being a YEC.

So the section you quoted is saying that the defining characteristic of YEC is that the earth is young, "on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old". And as we have established, by definition you also believe the earth is 6,000 years old. "Generally" YECs believe science shows the earth as about 6,000 years old, and looks its age. You just happen to believe the earth doesnt look its age and that the earths is made of material that has all the properties of material created billions of years ago, and so dont have a problem with dating.

I'll give the fact that you arent a typical YEC. Certianly not. If you were to have a chart where you had OEC on one side and YEC on the other you'd be near the middle on the YEC side. But you are still a YEC, because you believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago. And by definition not an OEC, as one of the things that definies them as a group is they believe the universe really was created billions of years ago. Therefore that stops you from being an OEC.

Yes --- the passage of time --- but Creation Week was an exception (see below).

lol. What? ^_^

I'd just like to point out that in the last post you scoffed at the suggestion that you were trying to redefine "age". You said you werent, and provided your definiton of age.

So when I point out that, in your own definition, age still meant the passage of time, you come back saying that it doesnt apply to the Creation Week?!

Whats the matter with you? This is exactly what what we've been talking about! Of course you are using a different definition of age, and you are doing it again right here. You are using your own personal definition of age where you dont need to have any passage of time. Where something can have been created - out of nothing - a second a go and already be a billion years old.

Like I keep telling you, whatever you are talking about its not age.

I'm well-familiar with what others say. They are defining the aging process as it occurs today (as do I when I define age), but on Creation Week, age didn't come by a passage of time --- it too was ex nihilo.

Do you realize that some don't believe time even existed until Day Four?

See above. Age cannot be created out of nothing.
Age is the passage of time. If there was no time, there is no age.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,242
52,664
Guam
✟5,156,107.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Believing in a 4.3 billion year old earth created 6,000 years ago simply makes AV an Omphalos subset of YECism, semantics aside.

AV, here's a crucial question:

Since you believe a 4.3 billion year old earth was created 6,000 years ago, what did the universe look like, what was in existence, 60,000 years ago?

Nothing was in existence 60,000 years ago.
  • not an atom
  • not an Adam
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,242
52,664
Guam
✟5,156,107.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, and thats what you do think. Whatever you believe about the earth it is not age. That already has a definition and you cant change it just because you dont like it.

This discussion is over between you and me, Edx. I'm beginning to think you're just yanking my chain now.

Other people understand where I'm coming from, even though they strongly disagree with it.

I don't know how many other ways I can explain myself.

Have a great day, though! :wave:
 
Upvote 0

Jase

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2003
7,330
385
✟10,432.00
Faith
Messianic
Politics
US-Democrat
This discussion is over between you and me, Edx. I'm beginning to think you're just yanking my chain now.

Other people understand where I'm coming from, even though they strongly disagree with it.

I don't know how many other ways I can explain myself.

Have a great day, though! :wave:
I haven't seen one person who understand where you are coming from AV. You do not get the basic meaning of age. The fact that you can't even grasp what we are talking about is really telling. You really just have no desire for honest discussion. It's almost as if you are trying to see just how far out there you can get.
 
Upvote 0

birdan

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2006
443
45
72
✟23,331.00
Faith
Seeker
Nothing was in existence 60,000 years ago.
  • not an atom
  • not an Adam

Then, by definition, you believe in a young earth (i.e., < 60,000 years old). And, as you have previously stated, you are a creationist.

YE + C = YEC.

edited: (omphalos added for seasoning)
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,242
52,664
Guam
✟5,156,107.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I haven't seen one person who understand where you are coming from AV.

Thanks.

Well in that case, I guess you have my vote for NOT being a YEC.

Young Earth Creationism makes the false claim that scientific evidence shows the earth to be (relatively) young. From what I understand your belief doesn't so much contradict science, rather it supercedes it.
While I don't agree with that position myself, I don't think I'd consider it to be young earth creationism in the sense that most people define.

.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,242
52,664
Guam
✟5,156,107.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
...how is what AV is suggesting different from Gosse, or last Thursdayism for that matter?

Norm
Deception.

Omphalos means "navel" --- as in Adam had a navel --- as in they show signs of being born --- as in the appearance of history --- as in deception.

I'm on record as saying I don't believe Adam and Eve had a belly button.
 
Upvote 0

birdan

Regular Member
Jan 20, 2006
443
45
72
✟23,331.00
Faith
Seeker
Deception.

Omphalos means "navel" --- as in Adam had a navel --- as in they show signs of being born --- as in the appearance of history --- as in deception.

I'm on record as saying I don't believe Adam and Eve had a belly button.

But then you contradict yourself by seeing no problem with the earth's equivalent to a "navel": radioactive decay, meteor craters, erosion, miles of marine life sedimentation, fossils, linguistics, archeology, etc. All these are "as in the appearance of history --- as in deception". If your premise was logically consistent we would see none of the above phenomena, we would see no "navel" of the earth. And none of the above (with the possible exception of radioactive decay) must be present to sustain life within a 6,000 year time period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,242
52,664
Guam
✟5,156,107.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But then you contradict yourself by seeing no problem with the earth's equivalent to a "navel": radioactive decay, meteor craters, erosion, miles of marine life sedimentation, fossils, linguistics, archeology, etc. All these are "as in the appearance of history --- as in deception". If your premise was logically consistent we would see none of the above phenomena, we would see no "navel" of the earth. And none of the above (with the possible exception of radioactive decay) must be present to sustain life within a 6,000 year time period.

I don't think I contradict myself. I usually explain most of those in light of the Flood; but I will be quick to admit that I'm not an expert in those respective fields.

People can impress me all they want with their science, but if they don't conclude that God exists (and they admit that science can't), I'm not really interested.

I have much more respect for someone who explains, say, the Strong Nuclear Force, then tie it in with Scripture (as in 2 Peter 3:10), than I do someone who just talks pure science.

The Flood is a perfect example. Talk to me about geology and plate tectonics all you want, but if I detect you're trying to say the Flood could not have existed because of it, I usually let it go in one ear and out the other.
 
Upvote 0

dawiyd

Veteran
Apr 2, 2006
1,753
123
✟2,566.00
Faith
Judaism
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I don't think I contradict myself. I usually explain most of those in light of the Flood; but I will be quick to admit that I'm not an expert in those respective fields.

People can impress me all they want with their science, but if they don't conclude that God exists (and they admit that science can't), I'm not really interested.

I have much more respect for someone who explains, say, the Strong Nuclear Force, then tie it in with Scripture (as in 2 Peter 3:10), than I do someone who just talks pure science.

The Flood is a perfect example. Talk to me about geology and plate tectonics all you want, but if I detect you're trying to say the Flood could not have existed because of it, I usually let it go in one ear and out the other.

Wow, you really are Christian Nihilist .
 
Upvote 0

fromdownunder

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2006
944
78
✟24,024.00
Faith
Atheist
AV, you are taking far too a narrow view of what Gosse was actually saying in his book. The "naval" bit was only a small part of his argument.

He also stated that in order for the world to be functional, God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels, and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.

Had he been aware of the distance of stars, he would have also included in his argument that God created light so as to show that it was also "old", and it was created "on the way" to earth.

How (specifically leaving navals aside), is this any different to what you are saying?

Norm
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I don't think I'm going to sign the Hovind petition, but I think it will be a nice "in your face" grenade to toss around when supporters claim no one will debate Hovind. Sorta like the Project Steve list.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,242
52,664
Guam
✟5,156,107.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
AV, you are taking far too a narrow view of what Gosse was actually saying in his book. The "naval" bit was only a small part of his argument.

Wikipedia said:
The Omphalos hypothesis contains a powerful philosophic problem, one that troubles even those who have applied it in recent times. Since the hypothesis is based on the idea that apparent age is an illusion, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the world was created mere minutes ago.
(emphasis mine)

I strongly disagree with what I bolded.
 
Upvote 0

Elduran

Disruptive influence
May 19, 2005
1,773
64
43
✟24,830.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
(emphasis mine)

I strongly disagree with what I bolded.
And yet you agree with it pretty much exactly with your arguments on the age of the earth.

You believe it is 6000 years old but has the characteristics of billions of years. This makes it "a deceptive or misleading appearence", which is one of the very definitions of illusion in Chambers dictionary.
 
Upvote 0