Changing beliefs

[MikeCarra]

It is not necessary (of course not), except there is a need to do that.

What is the need? A much better understanding which can answer more questions.

Young earth creationism answers nothing. That is why YEC isn't used in any industry that relies on geology.

Not one.

 

[MikeCarra]

How about 100,000 years? It would still be a young, in fact, a very young earth.

There are no conceptions of YEC that are 100,000 years. The reason YEC exists is due to a literal reading of the Bible and there is no reason to make 100,000 years.

If it is 100,000 years then there is no reason to believe in a 4.5billion year old earth.

One or the other. No reason for a "middle ground" in ages.

Unless the goal is merely to be contrarian for no use or utility.

 

[AV1611VET]

Young earth creationism answers nothing.

Should it?

Does music? macrame? turtle racing? Chess? barbering?

 

[MikeCarra]

Should it?

Does music? macrame? turtle racing? Chess? barbering?

If YEC was only out there to "feel good" to someone then I'd agree. But Juvenissun suggested it can provide "better understanding".

In that, it fails. It provides no useful information. It is proposed merely as a "backfill" to make sense of a "Literal Genesis" story.

Since there is no physical aspect of the earth that supports (in fact much of what we see with our own eyes is the direct opposite of YEC) there is no "understanding" that is gained from it.

A loving God who gave us a brain and eyes and wisdom would never then ask us to close our eyes, switch off our brains and flush our wisdom in one area.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since there is no physical aspect of the earth that supports (in fact much of what we see with our own eyes is the direct opposite of YEC) there is no "understanding" that is gained from it.

So what?

I've been saying that for years ... yet I believe the earth was created 6000 years ago.

And if there is supposed to be evidence that can back YEC's beliefs (or mine), why did God say this?

Hebrews 11:3a Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,

 

[Dizredux]

I am not a biologist. So basically I don't know.
However, I can give a logic answer:

The bacteria changed its body chemistry so that the antibiotics will not react to the bacteria any more.

You may say: AHA, that is evolution.

I would say: If that is evolution, then the earth itself is evolving. The sun is also evolving. Accept that?

(I have made this argument many times. Hope I haven't done that to you before. But if I did, what is your response then? )

Not before, this is the first time as far as I recall.

My answer though is the term evolution can mean a number of things. Multiple meanings is part of the nature of the English language.

In this case evolution refers to biological evolution so the reference to the earth and sun have no relevancy.

I am not a biologist. So basically I don't know.

That is a good and honest response and I appreciate it.

Dizfriz

 

[MikeCarra]

So what?

I was addressing Juveinssun's claim that YEC lead to better understanding.

That is "so what".

I've been saying that for years ... yet I believe the earth was created 6000 years ago.

Well, note the other part of what I said to Juvenissun: no industry that relies on geology relies on YEC interpretations. In fact YEC, if it were true, means one of two things:

1. The earth is a Potemkin Village (that means a deceptive God to some of us, and a pointless "set designer" for others...neither of which comports with a rational God IMHO).

2. The phsysics and chemistry we use every single day that DOES work and that DOES help us function as well as we do is a lie.

YEC, if anything, makes things worse for both sides of the debate.

It is clear YOU don't care about all this "Science Stuff" since it doesn't impact you one way or another. That is fine...MOST people couldn't care less how science works.

Except that science works for them.

And if there is supposed to be evidence that can back YEC's beliefs (or mine), why did God say this?

Hebrews 11:3a Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,

Did God say that? Or did a man?

But further if we assume that Paul wrote these (or whoever the real author was) that he was inspired by God to write that, must God inspire only literal concepts? Is God so weak He cannot use METAPHOR?

I guess that it is easier to live life when one needn't pit God against the Evidence God plainly gave to EVERYONE.

If I lay out a banquet of wax fruit and vegetables is it still nourishing?

 

[juvenissun]

Not before, this is the first time as far as I recall.

My answer though is the term evolution can mean a number of things. Multiple meanings is part of the nature of the English language.

In this case evolution refers to biological evolution so the reference to the earth and sun have no relevancy.

That is a good and honest response and I appreciate it.

Dizfriz

What is biological evolution? This is science, not a dictionary. There can only be ONE unambiguous definition for one term.

I am getting old. Is this a biological evolution? Why not?

 

[juvenissun]

There are no conceptions of YEC that are 100,000 years. The reason YEC exists is due to a literal reading of the Bible and there is no reason to make 100,000 years.

If it is 100,000 years then there is no reason to believe in a 4.5billion year old earth.

One or the other. No reason for a "middle ground" in ages.

Unless the goal is merely to be contrarian for no use or utility.

If so, please show me the verse.

 

[juvenissun]

Young earth creationism answers nothing. That is why YEC isn't used in any industry that relies on geology.

Not one.

This is a funny statement.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[juvenissun]

If you want to use that sort of language, the Sun is evolving into a white dwarf. Playing with words doesn't really prove anything.

No playing at all. Evolutionist defined evolution as "change". I simply applied that.

Do you want to modify the definition? I will certainly not playing words with you. I don't have time to play.

As you can see from my another post, define it as "biological change" is not any better. It has to be more specific. (the trick is: the more specific, the higher chance it will fail, or be useless).

 

[bhsmte]

No playing at all. Evolutionist defined evolution as "change". I simply applied that.

Do you want to modify the definition? I will certainly not playing words with you. I don't have time to play.

As you can see from my another post, define it as "biological change" is not any better. It has to be more specific. (the trick is: the more specific, the higher chance it will fail, or be useless).

I know it is your defense mechanism, but fooling around with word games and definitions, will do nothing to make all the evidence go bye bye.

 

[Dizredux]

What is biological evolution? This is science, not a dictionary. There can only be ONE unambiguous definition for one term.

I am getting old. Is this a biological evolution? Why not?

OK the scientific definition of biological evolution is change in allie frequencies in a population over time aka change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.

Nice, simple and measurable.

Dizredux

 

[Chany]

No playing at all. Evolutionist defined evolution as "change". I simply applied that.

Do you want to modify the definition? I will certainly not playing words with you. I don't have time to play.

As you can see from my another post, define it as "biological change" is not any better. It has to be more specific. (the trick is: the more specific, the higher chance it will fail, or be useless).

Evolution, officially defined, is the change in allele frequencies in a population over generations and time. It only applies to DNA, genetics, and the changes they produce in the physical/mental traits in creatures.

Individuals cannot evolve. One individual could be born with a different genetic makeup and different traits when compared to their ancestors, and in that sense, "evolved". However, traits cannot change within an individual once they're born.

No proponent of evolution would ever define evolution as simple, generic change.

 

[Dizredux]

Originally Posted by MikeCarra

Young earth creationism answers nothing. That is why YEC isn't used in any industry that relies on geology.

Not one.

Response by juvenissun

This is a funny statement.

Perhaps, but it is an accurate one. Perhaps you can point out a few major drilling operations using YEC geology to search for oil and gas?

Dizredux

 

[MikeCarra]

This is a funny statement.

I will appreciate your insight....should you care to actually tell us why it is funny.

Apart from the failed attempt to find oil in Israel relying on a bible verse, can you show us any use of YEC concepts in ANY industry that relies on geology?

 

[MikeCarra]

I don't have time to play.

From what I have seen of your posts that is pretty much all you appear to have.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess that it is easier to live life when one needn't pit God against the Evidence God plainly gave to EVERYONE.

How did we get our moon?

(We'll see what's "plainly given to EVERYONE," won't we? )

How did we get our moon, Mike?

 

[MikeCarra]

How did we get our moon?

(We'll see what's "plainly given to EVERYONE," won't we? )

How did we get our moon, Mike?

So in order to prove the existence of a God who likes to play "tricks" by building potemkin villages for someone's entertainment we must allow that if science fails to know one thing in particular then clearly the trickster God wins?

Sorry, not playing that game, AV. I will leave you to whatever you have cobbled together for yourself.

I prefer a God who is infinitely stronger, infinitely more capable, infinitely greater than a poor cartoon imagination.

I bid you good day.