3 Qs which changed a YECs mind!

[TLK Valentine]

I've had a scientific education, and I love science, but many aspects of my religion fly in the face of it.

• My religion says Jesus shouted down a storm. Science says that's impossible.
• My religion says Jesus walked on water. Science says that's impossible.
• My religion says Jesus fed thousands of people with a few fish and loaves of bread. Science says that's impossible.
• My religion says Jesus healed people who did nothing more than touch his robe with faith. Science says that's impossible.
• My religion says Jesus raised a man from the dead. Science says that's impossible.
• My religion says Jesus himself rose from the dead after three days. Science says that's impossible.
• My religion says our universe is a creation, spoken into existence by God. Science says that's impossible.

And so on.

Don't you mean your Bible says all that?

In sum, I'm content to take God at his word: he created Adam from the dust and Eve from his side, and from them we all came. And if I'm ever taking him too literally, I don't think he'll be upset about that. So I'm not going to apologize to anyone for being a creationist.

But He would be upset for not taking Him literally enough, right?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

We are interested in exposing the dogmatism of YEC since it is still argued that YEC is supported by evidence. We use YEC's to teach other YEC's about the dogmatism involved in holding that position. When YEC's are publically challenged and can not even answer the simplest of questions, other YEC's will learn a valuable lesson about the veracity of creationism.

I smell religion.

 

[Split Rock]

Features on fossils are inconclusive as to common ancestry.

In other words, you will accept no fossil as transitional.

Nearly zero fossilized specimens. Little sediment. No chalk cliffs. I am sure someone more familiar with geology can come up with more.

No fossilized specimens? Three billion years of life and you expect no fossilizations?

Not sure you could tell the difference at this point in time. Besides, everything was created in 6 days, together. Not separate creations.

In other words you will accept no genetic evidence either.

If the YEC is opinionated then the evolutionist or atheist or whatever is opinionated as well.

He said dogmatic, not "opinionated."

 

[Loudmouth]

I smell religion.

I smell projection.

 

[keith99]

You wear a blue color glasses, everything is overwhelmingly blue.
I wear a red color glasses, everything becomes overwhelmingly red.

Have you EVER try to look any of so-called evidence of evolution from the creation point of view? Never, right? Then you are overwhelmingly prejudiced. If you do not know how, give an example and I will tell you how.

-------

The other two questions are naive.

What is the point of view of a Creationist?

BTW where I attended college the science classes usually included a bit of the history of the science in question. For Geology that included that most early geologists were Bible believing Christians who expected to be able to explain Geology as something caused by the Great Flood. The more they studied and mapped formations the more untenable that position became.

Unlike those Geologists most YECs are unwilling to admit their interpretation of Scripture is in error.

 

[Loudmouth]

Features on fossils are inconclusive as to common ancestry.

Then you aren't using fossils as evidence like real scientists are. You ignore the fossil evidence.

Nearly zero fossilized specimens. Little sediment. No chalk cliffs. I am sure
someone more familiar with geology can come up with more.

Why would these be inconsistent with a recent global flood?

Not sure you could tell the difference at this point in time. Besides,
everything was created in 6 days, together. Not separate creations.

Separate creations means that they do not share a common ancestor.

It would seem that you are now throwing out the genetic evidence. You claim that you use the same evidence. Real biologists use genetics to test common ancestry. You don't. It seems that you don't use the same evidence.

You ignore the entire fields of genetics and fossil morphology.

Why do you ignore this evidence?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I smell projection.

 

[EternalDragon]

In other words, you will accept no fossil as transitional.

No fossilized specimens? Three billion years of life and you expect no fossilizations?

In other words you will accept no genetic evidence either.

He said dogmatic, not "opinionated."

I said nearly any fossilization and dogmatic does mean opinionated.

 

[keith99]

Nearly zero fossilized specimens. Little sediment. No chalk cliffs. I am sure
someone more familiar with geology can come up with more.

Actually those are all consistent with a 6000 year old Earth and a great flood causing most Geologic features. .

Fossilization takes a long time. The original elements are replaced.

One huge rain can carry a lot of sediment, but only so much and no more. Not nearly as much as exists today in many places.

Chalk Cliffs consist of the bodies of small organisms. No way for those to all concentrate in one place due to a flood. Come to think of it cliffs at all could not be formed by a great flood, let alone creating a great depth of strata to erode and eroding of the same in one step.

 

[Loudmouth]

I said nearly any fossilization and dogmatic does mean opinionated.

dogma: prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group.
Dogma | Define Dogma at Dictionary.com

dogmatic: relating to or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas or any strong set of principles concerning faith, morals, etc., as those laid down by a church; doctrinal:
Dogmatic | Define Dogmatic at Dictionary.com

What I have shown is that no evidence will change your position becuase your position is dogmatic (proclaimed as unquestionably true).

 

[EternalDragon]

Then you aren't using fossils as evidence like real scientists are. You ignore the fossil evidence.

Why would these be inconsistent with a recent global flood?

Separate creations means that they do not share a common ancestor.

It would seem that you are now throwing out the genetic evidence. You claim that you use the same evidence. Real biologists use genetics to test common ancestry. You don't. It seems that you don't use the same evidence.

You ignore the entire fields of genetics and fossil morphology.

Why do you ignore this evidence?

I'm not. I stated everything was created together. From similar materials
and for the same planet. Of course they would all share genetics. They
would all show similar signs of being created by one designer. Which is
exactly what we find. You apparently want to interpret it in a more
naturalistic light.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not. I stated everything was created together. From similar materials
and for the same planet.

Cars are designed in the same manner, and they are created separately. All I am doing is differentiating species that do not share a common ancestor and those that do.

Of course they would all share genetics. They
would all show similar signs of being created by one designer. Which is
exactly what we find.

How does this differentiate design from shared ancestry?

You apparently want to interpret it in a more
naturalistic light.

I want to be able to interpret it, period. The problem is that you come to the table with the conclusion already in hand, and do not attempt to interpret the data.

 

[ChetSinger]

I'm not. I stated everything was created together. From similar materials
and for the same planet. Of course they would all share genetics. They
would all show similar signs of being created by one designer. Which is
exactly what we find. You apparently want to interpret it in a more
naturalistic light.

And they'd all have to thrive in the same biosphere. This includes plants, animals, microorganisms that keep the place clean, etc. It makes sense to me that they would share the same chemistry.

 

[Loudmouth]

And they'd all have to thrive in the same biosphere. This includes plants, animals, microorganisms that keep the place clean, etc. It makes sense to me that they would share the same chemistry.

Why would sharing the same chemistry and same environment require them to share the same codon usage?

How would this differentiate design from evolution?

 

[bhsmte]

Some of these comments are written by ex-Christians turned Atheist/Anostic, who are far more agenda driven to 'force' rather than teach. It's understandable, for they have severed the bond and are no longer receiving the nourishment of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives.

I have found that those who haven't been exposed to the Light of truth, are often far less desperate and make far better teachers. I think of the wise words spoken by Prof. deGrasse to Richard Dawkins, about the way to teach and not distance the very people he wants to help. Even Stephen Jay Gould had tried to reach him before he died (ref. The Devil's Chaplain - near the back of his book.)

People who have not been exposed to truth, make far better teachers????

Makes perfect sense.

 

[bhsmte]

I smell projection.

A text book example of projection, indeed.

 

[juvenissun]

What is the point of view of a Creationist?

BTW where I attended college the science classes usually included a bit of the history of the science in question. For Geology that included that most early geologists were Bible believing Christians who expected to be able to explain Geology as something caused by the Great Flood. The more they studied and mapped formations the more untenable that position became.

Unlike those Geologists most YECs are unwilling to admit their interpretation of Scripture is in error.

Sorry, the issue here is evolution, not the Flood.
From a creationist point of view, there is no continuous change of life. If you like to, then there might be a continuous creation of life.

 

[juvenissun]

Fair enough about evolution, though the OP spoke of YEC.

You have no problem with meteorites being billions of years old?

Number-wise, no.
As I said many times, I don't take it as the true age.

 

[Loudmouth]

From a creationist point of view, there is no continuous change of life.

What features would a fossil need to have in order to evidence a continuous change of life?

 

[keith99]

Sorry, the issue here is evolution, not the Flood.
From a creationist point of view, there is no continuous change of life. If you like to, then there might be a continuous creation of life.

Not quite, but your post was about evolution so point taken.

So what is the creationists view regarding the appearance of new species? Is there anything in Scripture that would indicate that Evolution is not occurring today? Actually YECs have a huge problem with the flood and evolution. If the Earth is 6000 years old and the flood that wiped all but a few out then how can we see all the species we see today unless evolution is occurring so rapidly that it no longer deserves the name.

I do not see a creationists view from Scripture.