Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[AV1611VET]

You mean why did omnipotent being that knows everything, who created these two with their character flaws and apparently lack of common sense, stuck a mysterious object next to them and let an outsider tell them lies about it hold them accountable for their obvious actions.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

God gave them two major trees: Life and Death, and told them which one to stay away from.

Sounds to me like you have a real issue with God and freewill.

So what should "omnipotent being" have done instead?

 

[AV1611VET]

Seeing if you can find the logic in the literal reading of the genesis.

Ya ... it's called theological.

You're a Lutheran and don't know this stuff?

It does not look that great so far.

Depends if you're on the outside looking in, or the inside looking out.

 

[Astrid]

The point was there is no coal that is going to date to the same age as me

You said coal or charcoal,
that latter being false.

 

[Homeowner]

Sounds to me like you have a real issue with God and freewill.

So what should "omnipotent being" have done instead?

About as much freewill as train on tracks. What God should have done ? Are you seriously saying that God could not have arranged things to go differently. Of course He could have. Even with free will Eve could have been smarter more experienced or gazillion other things.

Ya ... it's called theological.

You're a Lutheran and don't know this stuff?

Lutherans generally leave theology to theologians and science to scientists. It really helps to not have to invent stuff like angels living on trillion stars seven trillion light years away or having to dream up crutches like embedded age. Back here your arguments would look pretty silly.

You can take the theology or you can take the science. Trying to combine the two in some physical way always looks like a train wreck.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can take the theology or you can take the science. Trying to combine the two in some physical way always looks like a train wreck.

In case you're interested, here's the "train wreck" that I go by:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[Homeowner]

4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x


Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Uh didn't you just violate your Prime Directive ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh didn't you just violate your Prime Directive ?

How so?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is there something I can help you with? or are you just here to take pot shots at Christianity?

His personal info says he's Lutheran, AV.

 

[Homeowner]

How so?

Nm thought you just stuck up some symbols without actual meaning on them although I guess there would be plenty of things that the Bible does not really say anything about that you just infer to differ from whatever science says.

 

[AV1611VET]

His personal info says he's Lutheran, AV.

I noticed that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nm thought you just stuck up some symbols without actual meaning on them although I guess there would be plenty of things that the Bible does not really say anything about that you just infer to differ from whatever science says.

Science can take a hike.

A long one on a short pier.

 

[Homeowner]

Science can take a hike.

I am sure after nearly 4 million posts most of us can get that but why not just concentrate on theology then ? Why try to explain theology by science ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I noticed that.

Right. Since I don't know whether or not you looked before or after you made your earlier comment, I've corrected its articulation. It should now read, "Is there something I can help you with? or are you just here to take pot shots at another version of Christianity?"

See how that works? It's best to look before you leap by "inference".....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Science can take a hike.

A long one on a short pier.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right. Since I don't know whether or not you looked before or after you made your earlier comment, I've corrected its articulation. It should now read, "Is there something I can help you with? or are you just here to take pot shots at another version of Christianity?"

See how that works? It's best to look before you leap by "inference".....

Good point! I'll edit that out.

 

[Platte]

You mean why did omnipotent being that knows everything, who created these two with their character flaws and apparently lack of common sense, stuck a mysterious object next to them and let an outsider tell them lies about it hold them accountable for their obvious actions.

I do not know. Almost like it was part of a plan ?

If you take it literally that is.

Free will is not a flaw.

 

[sjastro]

Writing fails miserably to support 4000bc creation. By 600 years you say. Hmmmmm when do you think the world began billions of years before writing. Give me a break. Silly. History supports the creation timeline and location.

I will tell what is silly.
(1) Claiming the Bible is a history book which supports the creation timeline when the Bible doesn't even give a creation date period.
(2) Waffling on continuously about the amazing coincidence of the invention of writing with this creation date of 4004 BC when evidence shows there is a 600 year shortfall.
(3) "Yes but YEC also says the earth was created about 6000 years in the Middle East." (?????)
(4) Total denial to the point of delusion of the evidence supplied by cosmology, astrophysics, physics, geology, archaeology and molecular biology which contradict YEC.
(5) Since there is no evidence to support YEC the logical fallacy of denying the evidence which contradicts YEC becomes the support for YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will tell what is silly.
(1) Claiming the Bible is a history book which supports the creation timeline when the Bible doesn't even give a creation date period.
(2) Waffling on continuously about the amazing coincidence of the invention of writing with this creation date of 4004 BC when evidence shows there is a 600 year shortfall.
(3) "Yes but YEC also says the earth was created about 6000 years in the Middle East." (?????)
(4) Total denial to the point of delusion of the evidence supplied by cosmology, astrophysics, physics, geology, archaeology and molecular biology which contradict YEC.
(5) Since there is no evidence to support YEC the logical fallacy of denying the evidence which contradicts YEC becomes the support for YEC.

(1) Even a cheap calculator will help you here.

(2) Are you talking about the 400 year gap between the Testaments?

 

[sjastro]

(1) Even a cheap calculator will help you here.

(2) Are you talking about the 400 year gap between the Testaments?

In the real universe unlike your make believe one calculators are not used in history books, neither is making uneducated guesses on dates.
Also in the real universe 600 is not the same as 400.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the real universe unlike your make believe one calculators are not used in history books, neither is making uneducated guesses on dates.

Then I'll take your post with a grain of salt, since James Ussher arrived at a 4004 BC date.

And he didn't even use an electronic calculator.