Where are the young earthers.....

[dougangel]

I think it's called the Day-Age Theory.

In addition, some believe, as do I, that in the first three days of creation, God created the firmaments; and in the last three days of creation, He populated them.

I think it's called the Day-Age Theory.

In addition, some believe, as do I, that in the first three days of creation, God created the firmaments; and in the last three days of creation, He populated them.

That doesn't work because on day 3 you have plant's and trees and vegetation before day 4 the sun the moon the stars.
the sun the moon the stars must be the first thing on that creation list or at least lining up with the day and the night.

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't work because on day 3 you have plant's and trees and vegetation before day 4 the sun the moon the stars.

Do you think maybe photosynthesis could occur with another form of energy than from the sun?

For instance, Shekinah energy from the Son?

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

 

[dougangel]

Do you think maybe photosynthesis could occur with another form of energy than from the sun?

For instance, Shekinah energy from the Son?

Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

There are about 10 billion galaxies in the observable universe! The number of stars in a galaxy varies, but assuming an average of 100 billion stars per galaxy means that there are about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 billion trillion) stars in the observable universe!

-Altair is the closest at 16.6 light years and it is about 1.5 times the size of the sun.
-Vega is about 2.5 times as large as the sun, but it 25 light years away.
-Deneb is the largest at about 120 times the size of the sun, but it is 1550 light years away.
the gravity of all these things are holding the universe together.

If the plants and earth are there at day 3 before the sun stars and planets. then they show up. everything would blow up.
if the earth is less than 10 thousand years old we would not be able to see Deneb star at 1550 light years away.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the plants and earth are there at day 3 before the sun stars and planets. then they show up. everything would blow up.
if the earth is less than 10 years old we would not be able to see Deneb star at 1550 light years away.

What does this have to do with angiosperms being created before the sun?

 

[dougangel]

What does this have to do with angiosperms being created before the sun?

In addition, some believe, as do I, that in the first three days of creation, God created the firmaments; and in the last three days of creation, He populated them.

don't really think angiosperms can be there if the day 4 hasn't happened.
plants were in the first 3 days of creation. the sun the moon the stars are in the last three days of creation day 4.
That's what you said. Just pointing out It is wrong.
Your really wanting day 4, 1 and 2 to be populated by day 3, 5, 6.

 

[OzSpen]

For my part at least it's not flack; it's astonishment.

No, some of the more abuse I've received in person and on some forums has been from old earthers who don't like the idea that a person such as I do not accept the Darwinian evolutionary theory and the radio active dating that tries to support an old earth.

'Astonishment' is your attempt at emotional abuse. I'll not engage further if you take this approach.

 

[AV1611VET]

don't really think angiosperms can be there if the day 4 hasn't happened.
plants were in the first 3 days of creation. the sun the moon the stars are in the last three days of creation day 4.
That's what you said. Just pointing out It is wrong.
Your really wanting day 4, 1 and 2 to be populated by day 3, 5, 6.

QV: Framework Interpretation

 

[dougangel]

QV: Framework Interpretation

ok well I didn't quite understand what you were saying and what your order was.
Yes I agree with the Framework Interpretation.

I particularly like what this points out
""The Genesis author was simply writing in the ‘politically-correct’ Cosmo genic and prose-narrative style of that day. Thus, the Genesis 1 text was not meant to represent a sequential order of creation or one that needs to fit with modern science. It was simply the literary way that writers of that day wrote down their narrative thoughts. In other words, God gave the revelation to the people mentioned in Genesis, but then the biblical authors wrote this revelation down in their own literary style.""

Whether the framework was intended to be scientific or not. In that framework, it does fit in with what evolution and the big bang or modern science is saying.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I'm one of them, but I expect that to identify myself as accepting that the earth is young will earn me flack from others. I will not be replying to the flack.

Why not try to reply with a few facts?

 

[OzSpen]

Why not try to reply with a few facts?

That was not required in my response. It was simply a matter of identification. You are asking for more than was required of me in the OP.

The title of this thread is, 'Where are the young earthers?' I answered this question in the positive. That is all that was asked of me. The question was not, If you are a young earther, will you please defend your position?

Bye,
Oz

 

[pat34lee]

Could you show your reasoning, please? What mutation rate would be required to explain human diversity in the case of a tight bottleneck within the last ten thousand years? How does this compare with the observed mutation rate in humans? What would the recombination rate have to be for a tight bottleneck to be consistent with the observed levels of linkage disequilibrium? What would the site frequency spectrum look like for a rapidly increasing population? How does this compare to the observed site frequency spectrum?

Please read the following:
https://www.icr.org/article/7685/

 

[Jimmy D]

Please read the following:
https://www.icr.org/article/7685/

Does that answer the question? It seems like all he's doing is saying that the generally accepted data is wrong because of "notoriously unreliable radiometric dating techniques". Has he done his own research or is he just trying to pick holes in the work of others?

He finishes off his 'research' with -

"All molecular-clock calculations require the observer to invoke assumptions about the past, and these Science study authors selected assumptions that fit their predetermined ideas about deep time. In the process, they relied on other disciplines saturated with evolution-friendly conjectures, and their reasoning became decidedly circular. How much better it is to start with the assumptions of Scripture, which plainly describes a recent and literal Adam and Eve, than with the ever-changing speculation of sinful man."

He sounds like 'Dad' and his different state past.

Sadly I'll never get the 10 minutes of my life back that I spent reading that rubbish.

 

[sfs]

Please read the following:
https://www.icr.org/article/7685/

I've read it previously. Now that we've both read it, could you please answer the questions?

What mutation rate would be required to explain human diversity in the case of a tight bottleneck within the last ten thousand years? How does this compare with the observed mutation rate in humans? What would the recombination rate have to be for a tight bottleneck to be consistent with the observed levels of linkage disequilibrium? What would the site frequency spectrum look like for a rapidly increasing population? How does this compare to the observed site frequency spectrum?

 

[florida2]

No, some of the more abuse I've received in person and on some forums has been from old earthers who don't like the idea that a person such as I do not accept the Darwinian evolutionary theory and the radio active dating that tries to support an old earth.

'Astonishment' is your attempt at emotional abuse. I'll not engage further if you take this approach.

Emotional abuse? You can believe whatever you like but YEC views do surprise me - which is why I said astonishment.

Don't go around accusing me or others of abuse, please. Not very nice.