Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My pastor is a YEC, and I like to defend YECs, even though I'm not fully aware of everything they believe.But, that wouldn't apply to you, would it? Or, have you gotten so confused about your own "embedded age/actual history" conundrum, that half the time you consider yourself a YEC and the other half you don't, and maybe with good compartmentalization skills, both at the same time?
All i can say is 'The Bible is True' But we need God to discern some parts as it looks like it contradicts sometimes but it is because the scripture refers to another time normallyCouple of points:
Books, particularly books explaining the natural sciences, are updated to reflect new information. This occurs for all categories of publishing, from popular science books, to school/university textbooks and specialist publications dealing with particular branches of science. There's a reason why my anthropology textbook is on its 16th edition in six years and my principles of geology text is on its 26th edition in 40 years.
Books are not the best receptacles for up to date scholarship in science. That's the role of professional journals. There is always a lag between the discovery and dissemination of new information, the publication of such information in a professional journal, the response and expansion on the topic and then the publication of any book on the subject.
Science starts from the position that you need to be able to support your position with evidence, otherwise its not valid. Science also works, to an extent, on breaking the work of others and disproving previous work based on new information. All scientific positions are b
The assumption in science is not that you're right, but that you need to prove you're not wrong. When I started my dissertation, my adviser told me to work under the assumption that everything I wrote was wrong and that he, and the other reviewers, would work to disprove everything.
Biblical literalists, on the other hand, start with the assumption that everything in the Bible is true (or, the assumption that it is perfect). Any evidence that does not fit this assumption is either ignored or dismissed as irrelevant to whatever flavour of literalism the particular literalist holds to.
Tell me, which position do you think is more prideful?
'Soft' tissue in dinosaurs is easily explainable by the iron in the blood cells which, when the animal died, became free from the blood stream, forming itself, on a molecular level, in to knots creating a preservative similar to formaldehyde, preserving the dinosaur tissue. Easy to explain. Here's an article explaining it.
And DNA is preserved in fossils. It's not intact, but it's still there. They even explain it in the hit film Jurassic Park (although they go in to greater detail in the novel).
All i can say is 'The Bible is True' But we need God to discern some parts as it looks like it contradicts sometimes but it is because the scripture refers to another time normally
like as in Creation where God made an earlier Ancient world and was destroyed before ours was created
Some scripture in Genesis refers to the Ancient world so we need to pray for discernment over ALL the bible and not let zealots or denominations colour our understanding of it
No dating method, radiometric or non-radiometric has anything to do with the speed of light.
'c', the speed of light, is in the numerator of every reduced radio decay rate equation.
http://www.setterfield.org/Radiometric_Dating.html
Source?
They never looked for soft tissue until one woman found it because
it is impossible for any living tissue to last that long without being
fossilized.
Under ideal conditions, which means never in nature, DNA could
last up to a million years. This by the rate at which it decays.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49366487/...w-long-can-dna-last-million-years-maybe-more/
Couple of points:
Books, particularly books explaining the natural sciences, are updated to reflect new information. This occurs for all categories of publishing, from popular science books, to school/university textbooks and specialist publications dealing with particular branches of science. There's a reason why my anthropology textbook is on its 16th edition in six years and my principles of geology text is on its 26th edition in 40 years.
Books are not the best receptacles for up to date scholarship in science. That's the role of professional journals. There is always a lag between the discovery and dissemination of new information, the publication of such information in a professional journal, the response and expansion on the topic and then the publication of any book on the subject.
Science starts from the position that you need to be able to support your position with evidence, otherwise its not valid. Science also works, to an extent, on breaking the work of others and disproving previous work based on new information. All scientific positions are b
The assumption in science is not that you're right, but that you need to prove you're not wrong. When I started my dissertation, my adviser told me to work under the assumption that everything I wrote was wrong and that he, and the other reviewers, would work to disprove everything.
Biblical literalists, on the other hand, start with the assumption that everything in the Bible is true (or, the assumption that it is perfect). Any evidence that does not fit this assumption is either ignored or dismissed as irrelevant to whatever flavour of literalism the particular literalist holds to.
Tell me, which position do you think is more prideful?
My favourite hobby is studying Ancient Archaeology which all lines up with the bible.
Good.
Nothing is wrong with geologists. They have their reasons to do the interpretation.
YECs ALSO make their interpretation based on a different set of reasons.
In this case, both sides could accuse the other side "misinterpreted" the data.
For people not in the field of study, they have no base to lean toward one side or the other. You do not like the interpretation of the creationists. That is based on your preference, not based on your understanding.
Of course you can go further into the details. I would be interesting to see what would you say.
In this case, the mistake of mainstream geologist in the eyes of Creationists is that they miscounted the rate of deposition of the rocks layers. Mainstream geologists suggested that it take a whole lot more time to make those rocks.
The question I have asked, and have yet to have answered, is, "if a person who had no exposure to Christianity OR evolutionary theory, was trained in the scientific method, and given access to all available data, which theory would they come up with from first principles?"Creationists like to say they use the same data but have a different interpretation. I have yet to see any article written by a creation scientist that uses the same data that mainstream science uses. However, I have seen a lot of cherry picking of data and out right misrepresentation of how specific scientific methods actually work, such as dating methods and sedimentation processes.
But Ken Ham proved you can fossilize a teddy bear in an hour and a half! [/snark]False.
Instead, mainstream geologists concluded the rate of deposition based on actual observation and experimentation.
While creationists start with the answers (ie: their a priori faith based religious beliefs) and then force-match the evidence of reality into it. So they start with the time period they have available according to their beliefs and work backwards from there. Off course, WITHOUT testing their conclusions. WITHOUT conducting experiments to see if their conclusions actually match reality.
The first is engaged in an intellectually honest enterprise.
The latter is drowning in confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty.
However, their example(s) do not even come close to any of the natural processes. How do they get thousands of feet of limestone from a flood in less than a year?
First, eyewitness testimony from the creator.
Second, the impossibility of naturalism to explain:
the beginning.
star formation.
planet formation.
moon, planets and even galaxies spinning the wrong direction.
origin of life.
origin of information.
origin of consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness.
language.
proof that ancient man, far from being ape-like, was
far more intelligent than people today.
Dating methods. All depend on the speed of light as a constant
or they become unreliable.
Guess what? The speed of light can be changed, and has been slowing down since the beginning.
I can predict your response if we got into details. I don't like it. So I pass this one.
I may have gotten you confused with another poster who posted a link to a creationist explanation for the Grand Canyon.
But I have looked at the main examples that creationists claim that supports the Grand Canyon being formed in a year, and none of it holds up. If the canyon had been formed in a year, taking in to account the speed and force that would have been active, the sides of the canyon wouldn't just be steep, they'd be like mirrored glass.
Run, Forrest, run!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?