Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[Hans Blaster]

Yes but I don’t have an issue with million year old rocks when the earth was created 6000 years ago. That would seem logical to me.

So if the rocks are (or date to) a million years (for example) then you have two possibilities:

1. The Earth is 6000 years old and the million-year age is deception by the creator of the rock, -OR-
2. The Earth is at least as old as the million-year-old rock

Choose you player.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Earth is 6000 years old and the million-year age is deception by the creator of the rock,

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.

 

[Kylie]

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.

If they haven't existed for a million years, they aren't a million years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

If they haven't existed for a million years, they aren't a million years old.

So you're a YEC then? science can take a hike?

 

[Kylie]

So you're a YEC then? science can take a hike?

Really AV?

It's quite clear that I am saying that IF God created the universe 6000 years ago, then there are no rocks that are a million years old, no matter how much it looks like they are.

Since I have made it so abundantly clear that I am an atheist and thus don't believe in any form of creationism, I can only conclude that you are playing silly games.

Your embedded age nonsense can take a hike, and your childish replies can take a hike too.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Asking if the biblical creation story is science is like asking if the resurrection of Christ is science. How can a miracle be science? Everyone know science starts with a naturalistic assumption and then proceeds to try to find only naturalistic answers.

I suppose whether or not ID is "science" is another matter. But as far a YEC I think the point is nothing in science contradicts it.

We all know it is impossible for the "Creation Week" story to be true because millions of living organisms came and went, including many plants (which Genesis says never existed before God made the two trees), and "day" is the word used in every English Bible. We also know dinosaurs died tens of millions of years before the first humans evolved from chimps, so the claims about people and dinosaurs living together are obvious lies. Science proved that is impossible because there would be fossils of humans and dinosaurs buried near each other if that ever happened.

I have said multiple times in the past, "The Bible is not a science book." Genesis 1 was never intended to be interpreted literally, with a flat Earth and nothing evolving or being destructed (including millions of species becoming extinct). If it was, I would say it is just a bunch of lies and be an atheist again. But I have learned to think differently a bout it, while continuing to be stuck on the word "day" instead of "period" to mean before each of the five mass extinctions (such as when all the dinosaurs died out) in modern English versions of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's quite clear that I am saying that IF God created the universe 6000 years ago, then there are no rocks that are a million years old, no matter how much it looks like they are.

Well I'm glad God didn't ask you how He should have done it.

Or we'd all be glorified apes, wouldn't we?

(And you keep using that term "looks like," and that shows you must think they only look that way, but aren't. Now that makes you Last Thursday. I know you're an atheist, but come on, learn the difference between IS and LOOKS LIKE IT IS. Then we might be able to get somewhere in our discussions.)

 

[Kylie]

Well I'm glad God didn't ask you how He should have done it.

Or we'd all be glorified apes, wouldn't we?

(And you keep using that term "looks like," and that shows you must think they only look that way, but aren't. Now that makes you Last Thursday. I know you're an atheist, but come on, learn the difference between IS and LOOKS LIKE IT IS. Then we might be able to get somewhere in our discussions.)

Your embedded age nonsense is supposition. Science has verifiable fact. Embedded age loses.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your embedded age nonsense is supposition.

Thank you for your opinion.

Science has verifiable fact.

No it doesn't. That's why we're discussing this.

Embedded age loses.

I really don't believe you know what it is. You keep saying it means God made the rocks to "look like" they were old; rather than saying God "created the rocks old."

 

[Kylie]

No it doesn't. That's why we're discussing this.

Yes it does. Your refusal to accept it does not change it.

I really don't believe you know what it is. You keep saying it means God made the rocks to "look like" they were old; rather than saying God "created the rocks old."

However you want to phrase it, it's ridiculous.

If God created the rocks five minutes ago, then they have existed for five minutes and have an age of five minutes. If he makes them in a way that all testing shows they are a million years old, yet they have not existed for those million years, then, like it or not, God made the rocks look like they are a million years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God created the rocks five minutes ago, then they have existed for five minutes and have an age of five minutes.

I'm not going to embrace your YEC interpretation.

If he makes them in a way that all testing shows they are a million years old,

There you go again.

Look how you word it.

Why didn't you say:

"If He makes them a million years old ..."

... yet they have not existed for those million years, then, like it or not, God made the rocks look like they are a million years old.

I'm going to conclude that you don't understand embedded age creation.

But I'll ask again:

Can God make a dress tomorrow, so old it falls apart with age?

If you think that's ridiculous, then chances are you'll either not answer it, or you'll answer it incorrectly.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not going to embrace your YEC interpretation.

Nor I yours.

There you go again.

Look how you word it.

Why didn't you say:

"If He makes them a million years old ..."

How can he make them a million years old if they did not exist five minutes ago?

I'm going to conclude that you don't understand embedded age creation.

But I'll ask again:

Can God make a dress tomorrow, so old it falls apart with age?

God can make a dress tomorrow with the appearance of being so old that it falls apart. But if he makes it tomorrow and I look at it an hour later and it falls apart, then the dress has only existed for an hour and thus it's an hour old.

If you think that's ridiculous, then chances are you'll either not answer it, or you'll answer it incorrectly.

The fact I don't answer the way you want me to does not make it incorrect. You don't get to decide on what counts as "truth."

 

[AV1611VET]

Nor I yours.

How can he make them a million years old if they did not exist five minutes ago?

God can make a dress tomorrow with the appearance of being so old that it falls apart. But if he makes it tomorrow and I look at it an hour later and it falls apart, then the dress has only existed for an hour and thus it's an hour old.

The fact I don't answer the way you want me to does not make it incorrect. You don't get to decide on what counts as "truth."

Have a nice day.

 

[Kylie]

Have a nice day.

I shall, since once again I've raised points you aren't able to respond to.

 

[MissRowy]

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

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You have no idea what "my camp" thinks, do you?

If you did, you would not have put that word "look" in there.

My comment is based on what you've written all the years you've been on here. "With the appearance of" is just a fancier way of saying "looks".

Not my fault that your near idolatrous need for the Bible to be correct has corrupted your view of the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

My comment is based on what you've written all the years you've been on here. "With the appearance of" is just a fancier way of saying "looks".

You don't know either, do you?

 

[Frank Robert]

Yes but I don’t have an issue with million year old rocks when the earth was created 6000 years ago. That would seem logical to me.

There is no coal/charcoal that would date to the same age as me

You have hit the bottom of rabbit hole but keep digging.

 

[Frank Robert]

... a rabbit hole at all you tell me, how could the earth be created 6000 years ago but something dated older than that?

Religious beliefs don't need evidence, even the consilience of overwhelming evidence from multiple unrelated scientific fields can not change them. Enjoy your time in the rabbit hole.

 

[dqhall]

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.