Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[Astrid]

So much has happened in the past 3000 years, even the past 30 years. While I studied geology and know some of the proofs of millions of years of existence, I think God has guided mankind more than all the other species. Much increase in technology has happened recently.

This is a masterpiece

Google Image Result for https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lXi5ji2nNXI/XSQkwBa6XDI/AAAAAAAARAs/2Q3fmE75MQcV53wa0-s9KmomvNIdTz7bACLcBGAs/s1600/butterfly-beautiful.jpg

 

[Astrid]

This is not a masterpiece

Google Image Result for https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/deadliestfiction/images/2/29/Hells_Angels-05.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110923043808

 

[GodLovesCats]

Except for everything.

You are mostly correct, but the order God created "kinds" of animals is supported by observable science. It also is important to note "their kinds" means animal families such as canine, feline, porcine, bovine, equine, etc. God started with only one pair of cats. Next, from them lions, tigers, jaguars, pumas, leopards, bobcats,; wildcats, servals, ocelots, and more were created, all coming from the first pair of felines God made. You can see this where Genesis says God continued to create new animals "according to their kinds." But Young Earth Creationists like pretend that can only mean all feline species were created at the same time instead of many species being the result of one original pair of cats. That is one way they mess up on Biblical interpretations. It went like this for all of the "kinds"
of animals God created - including hominids, leading to multiple human species.

 

[Astrid]

You are mostly correct, but the order God created "kinds" of animals is supported by observable science. It also is important to note "their kinds" means animal families such as canine, feline, porcine, bovine, equine, etc. God started with only one pair of cats. Next, from them lions, tigers, jaguars, pumas, leopards, bobcats,; wildcats, servals, ocelots, and more were created, all coming from the first pair of felines God made. You can see this where Genesis says God continued to create new animals "according to their kinds." But Young Earth Creationists like pretend that can only mean all feline species were created at the same time instead of many species being the result of one original pair of cats. That is one way they mess up on Biblical interpretations. It went like this for all of the "kinds"
of animals God created - including hominids, leading to multiple human species.

No, that is not what science observes.

There are fossil creatures ancestral to both
cats and dogs, and a sequence of descendants
that split further and further apart.

If ones goes by science / observation, that's what you find.

There was no "first cat" fsr less than there was a
" first poodle", a meaningless concept.

There is no such thing as " after its kind" if its to
mean " exactly the same". Nobody is identical to
parents.

Little changes, selected for, produce big changes.
It's how we got from wolf to poodle.

It's a mistaken idea to try to force fit data
into the bible narrative.

To force fit data to any preconceived idea is
anti scientific, it's pure intellectual dishonesty
if pursued and presented as demonstrated fact.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Estral, don't you know the poodle is a man-made breed for human purposes? It is not the same as saying canis familairs (domestic dog) is a subspecies of canis lupus (gray wolf)?

Notice I did not say anything about Si9amese cats becoming the basis of Himalayans, Birmans, or other colorpoint breeds. I intentionally omitted domestic cats because except for American shorthairs and American longhairs, they are all created by humans.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I guarantee you, if God had a reason for creating rocks a million years old, those rocks will be a million years old.

And if anyone thinks that's deceptive, I submit they don't know the Bible that well.

AV. You need to stop, bud! On an analytic scale I can agree with you that if God DID create the world to look 'old,' that for him to have done so would not constitute an instance of deception on His part.

However, it would still be incongruent for Him to have done so, and if he did it would thereby produce an overall incoherency being that the Bible doesn't really explain the structures of the physical or biological world.

From where I'm looking, the Bible as a whole, as piecemeal and fragmentary as it already is-----AND IT IS-----definitely comes nowhere near showing that the writers meant to present any comprehensive explanation of the world we live in, nor did they intend to do it with anything resembling a scientific manner that would or could be verified according to 21st century science. We need to stop talking as if it does beyond anything more than a token level of "indication."

Moreover, where even Biblical Epistemology is concerned, God is described as not being willing to "just reveal everything" to humanity. He's shown that He's not going to reveal everything that we could possibly want to know via His revelations that have been given through His prophets and apostles. So, we also need to stop talking as if the Bible indicates that God somehow did/does want to reveal everything to us through the Bible. No, it just doesn't present itself that way.

So, I think we can [and should] drop this hyper-focus on Genesis and what we think Creation is "supposed" to tell us and take the entirety of the book of Genesis as "theologically mindful, historically representational" cosmogony in the form of Israelite prose using narrative geneology. This implies that we should move to where the actual ground of the epistemic and currently "critical" [and thereby partially scientific and historical and hermeneutical] discussion/debate rests:

1) on the Exodus led by Moses

and

2) on the Advent of, and prophetic meaning of, Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God.

The rest of it---like whether to believe in Creationism or not---is, however important as some of it is or seems, secondary; some of it may even be tertiary.

 

[Astrid]

Estral, don't you know the poodle is a man-made breed for human purposes? It is not the same as saying canis familairs (domestic dog) is a subspecies of canis lupus (gray wolf)?

Notice I did not say anything about Si9amese cats becoming the basis of Himalayans, Birmans, or other colorpoint breeds. I intentionally omitted domestic cats because except for American shorthairs and American longhairs, they are all created by humans.

" Estrid"

Since you don't know much about zoology
or paleontology I used a simple but not
inept analogy. You found what you imagined
to be a fault in the comparison, explain,
as if Idon't know, that dog breeds were bred by humans, and totally ignored the substance
of my post.

And still think there was such a thing as the
" first pair of cats"

Does that adequately sum your post?

 

[Astrid]

AV. You need to stop, bud! On an analytic scale I can agree with you that if God DID create the world to look 'old,' that for him to have done so would not constitute an instance of deception on His part.

However, it would still be incongruent for Him to have done so, and if he did it would thereby produce an overall incoherency being that the Bible doesn't really explain the structures of the physical or biological world.

From where I'm looking, the Bible as a whole, as piecemeal and fragmentary as it already is-----AND IT IS-----definitely comes nowhere near showing that the writers meant to present any comprehensive explanation of the world we live in, nor did they intend to do it with anything resembling a scientific manner that would or could be verified according to 21st century science. We need to stop talking as if it does beyond anything more than a token level of "indication."

Moreover, where even Biblical Epistemology is concerned, God is described as not being willing to "just reveal everything" to humanity. He's shown that He's not going to reveal everything that we could possibly want to know via His revelations that have been given through His prophets and apostles. So, we also need to stop talking as if the Bible indicates that God somehow did/does want to reveal everything to us through the Bible. No, it just doesn't present itself that way.

So, I think we can [and should] drop this hyper-focus on Genesis and what we think Creation is "supposed" to tell us and take the entirety of the book of Genesis as "theologically mindful, historically representational" cosmogony in the form of Israelite prose using narrative geneology. This implies that we should move to where the actual ground of the epistemic and currently "critical" [and thereby partially scientific and historical and hermeneutical] discussion/debate rests:

1) on the Exodus led by Moses

and

2) on the Advent of, and prophetic meaning of, Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God.

The rest of it---like whether to believe in Creationism or not---is, however important as some of it is or seems, secondary; some of it may even be tertiary.

If there's a god, some who least expect it are
going to get it, big time

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If there's a god, some who least expect it are
going to get it, big time

Yeah ... not a happy thought.

 

[Frank Robert]

I guarantee you, if God had a reason for creating rocks a million years old, those rocks will be a million years old.

And if anyone thinks that's deceptive, I submit they don't know the Bible that well.

It is not deceptive. It simply a belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Most of the ~40,000 Christian denominations do not believe that the bible is the literal word of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV. You need to stop, bud!

Nope. Not in 14.7 billion years will I do that.

On an analytic scale I can agree with you that if God DID create the world to look 'old,'

There you go.

Talking like Kylie.

God didn't create the world [just] to "look old."

God created the world "old."

You are now the third person who gives me the impression you have no idea what embedded age is.

And of the three, I'm most disappointed in you.

I thought you knew what it is.

But your word choices say otherwise.

Learn what embedded age creation is -- (maturity without history) -- and we can have a decent conversation.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there's a god, some who least expect it are going to get it, big time

Yup.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not deceptive.

It sure isn't.

It simply a belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

If you fed the Bible through a computer, then asked the computer how old the earth is, I'm sure it would say: "OLD."

Based on ...

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Then, if you asked the computer HOW OLD the earth is, I would assume it would go 404.

Because, in order to get the computer to answer that question, you would have to feed into it information collected by the sciences.

THEN, if you asked the computer how old the earth is, it probably will say: "4.543 BILLION YEARS OLD."

Most of the ~40,000 Christian denominations do not believe that the bible is the literal word of God.

I'll side with Paul on this one.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm enjoying this. Its like a tennis match...So far AV is down 30-0

Interesting analogy. Perhaps volleyball is a better analogy for a back-and-forth sport. If he sticks with the thread eventually it will be 25-0, 25-0, 25-0 and he'll just be standing there complaining that the other team has left the court.

 

[GodLovesCats]

If there's a god, some who least expect it are going to get it, big time

From this statement I assume you are not sure whether to believe in God or not.

 

[Frank Robert]

It sure isn't.

If you fed the Bible through a computer, then asked the computer how old the earth is, I'm sure it would say: "OLD."

Based on ...

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Then, if you asked the computer HOW OLD the earth is, I would assume it would go 404.

Because, in order to get the computer to answer that question, you would have to feed into it information collected by the sciences.

THEN, if you asked the computer how old the earth is, it probably will say: "14.7 BILLION YEARS OLD."


I'll side with Paul on this one.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

You fail to understand the simply fact that it is not computers that establish a 3.5billion year earth which is based on the consilience of multiple unrelated scientific fields. Your are entitled to your belief in literal interpretation of the bible even if it does lead you down a rabbit hole.

AIG and other creationist orgs make up many just so stories which they are well compensated for.

Are you aware that several of Pauls's letters are disputed: Several additional letters bearing Paul's name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nope. Not in 14.7 billion years will I do that.

There you go.

Talking like Kylie.

God didn't create the world [just] to "look old."

God created the world "old."

You are now the third person who gives me the impression you have no idea what embedded age is.

And of the three, I'm most disappointed in you.

I thought you knew what it is.

But your word choices say otherwise.

Learn what embedded age creation is -- (maturity without history) -- and we can have a decent conversation.

And here I thought we could be allies in the faith... apparently for you, that's a challenge.

You might be surprised by it, but I do understand what "embedded age" is said to be. I think it's in error, but I do understand the concept.

The problem between you and me is that we come at our engagement with Jesus and our Christian faith from two polar opposite epistemic points. I start as an Existentialist, without any absolute assumptions about the Bible or about seeing the world "with" the Bible and then I journey from there, to see if I can find conceptual space for the Bible.

By contrast, you're a Fundamentalist, and not just that, but a Fundamentalist of a particular sort: You start WITH the Bible and with the presupposition that it is the cosmically iron-clad statement (and axiomatic vantage point) by which the rest of Reality is undergirded and by which, (whatever objectivity there may be), Reality must be stuffed into it ...or Reality can take a hike!

On some level, I understand this because every human being is different; we have different feelings, different perceptions, different backgrounds, different experiences, different cultures, different social acculturations, different learning, etc. We're not clones.

I think it's kind of sad, though, that in the fact that we're both Christians, we both have a different concept of what a "decent conversation" is or can be, apparently. Mine doesn't require absolute compliance with what I recommend to others for consideration. ........................... your's does!

So, I don't know how to overcome this impasse. I'll just say that you have the freedom to carry on as you are and I expect that we'll never agree in 14.7 billion years over the significance or priority of the first few chapters of Genesis.

Ok. So be it. I'll go the way of someone like a modernized version of Blaise Pascal would go, and you can go the way that's in accordance with whatever it is your pastor is telling you.


Be blessed!

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you aware that several of Pauls's letters are disputed: Several additional letters bearing Paul's name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus?

Yes, I am aware of it.

That's why they're called "scholars."

 

[AV1611VET]

You might be surprised by it, but I do understand what "embedded age" is said to be.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

So, I don't know how to overcome this impasse.

By learning what embedded age is -- (maturity without history).

Instead of ...

I'll go the way of someone like a modernized version of Blaise Pascal would go,

... running away from it.

Put a little effort into it, and it should come to you.

As I said, I would expect that from Kylie, et alii.

But not from you.

You disappoint me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And I'm Genghis Khan.

By learning what embedded age is -- (maturity without history).

Instead of ...

... running away from it.

Put a little effort into it, and it should come to you.

As I said, I would expect that from Kylie, et alii.

But not from you.

You disappoint me.

Thank you for the brotherly insults, AV! I appreciate it.

Merry Christmas to you, too!