show me 1 piece of scientific evidence for the YEC model

[chaoschristian]

Yes, in the eyes of an unbelieving world Evolution remains unfalsified. So lets leave it upto the scientists that believe in YECism.

And this implies, what exactly, about the many Christian who accept evolutionary science based upon the empericial evidence, as revealed by Creation, itself through science and reason?

Edited to include commas, because although I'm proud, I'm not too proud to listen when my grammar needs correctin'

 

[Prophetable]

And this implies what exactly about the many Christian who accept evolutionary science based upon the empericial evidence as revealed by Creation itself through science and reason?

ummm... it implies this:

That they need to incorporate commas, and take a deep breath, thus enabling air to get to their brain so that they can see the truth.

 

[chaoschristian]

ummm... it implies this:

That they need to incorporate commas, and take a deep breath, thus enabling air to get to their brain so that they can see the truth.

You're a clever little question dodger, aren't you?

 

[relax]

Ya know what I think is kind of ironically funny?

America, a mostly Christian society who’s supposed to believe that the world was created in 6 days is the leading offender in world pollution by burning MILLIONS of years worth of FOSCIL FUELS every decade.

Ignorance and Denial, two very powerful forces of evil!

 

[chaoschristian]

Ya know what I think is kind of ironically funny?

America, a mostly Christian society who’s supposed to believe that the world was created in 6 days is the leading offender in world pollution by burning MILLIONS of years worth of FOSCIL FUELS every decade.

Ignorance and Denial, two very powerful forces of evil!

Welcome to CF!

Actually, the majority of Americans accept evolutionary theory, and most Christian Americans accept some form of TE, they just don't realize it. Neo-creationists are still a minority, albiet a vocal one.

And, neo-creationism has an answer for you: all of that bio material that we now use as fuel was converted to such from plants and animals by the compressive weight of the global flood waters.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the majority of Americans accept evolutionary theory, and most Christian Americans accept some form of TE, they just don't realize it. Neo-creationists are still a minority, albiet a vocal one.

probably not.
the best, most recent polls show something close to
40%YEC
40%OEC->TE (depends on how the questions are worded)
20%naturalistic evolution

what is pretty sure is that an absolute majority > 50% do not believe they are descended from a common ancestor with chimps.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=118


i think what concerns me most is not just the ignorance of modern scientific claims, but that a rightward lurch(in these numbers) has been happening parallel to the rightward political movement for the last 30 years in the US.

 

[chaoschristian]

the majority of Americans accept evolutionary theory, and most Christian Americans accept some form of TE, they just don't realize it. Neo-creationists are still a minority, albiet a vocal one.

probably not.
the best, most recent polls show something close to
40%YEC
40%OEC->TE (depends on how the questions are worded)
20%naturalistic evolution

what is pretty sure is that an absolute majority > 50% do not believe they are descended from a common ancestor with chimps.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm
http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=118

Well then, I stand corrected until I can construct a viable refutation.

[goes to sit on his thinking log]

 

[chaoschristian]

Well then, I stand corrected until I can construct a viable refutation.

This is obviously going to be a long term project.

 

[Willtor]

. . .

i think what concerns me most is not just the ignorance of modern scientific claims, but that a rightward lurch(in these numbers) has been happening parallel to the rightward political movement for the last 30 years in the US.

I've been quite surprised by this, too. I think it must have some relation to the various religious movements of this time period, though. Although I don't find anything particularly Christian about the Christian Coalition or the Moral Majority or any such thing, I think they may have influenced the general American Christian thinking on a variety of matters.

I also think that the American tendency to polarize has played a significant role in this movement. Anyone who refuses to polarize along the pre-defined lines is a moderate. The connotations of "moderate" imply someone who has few convictions. A moderate is lukewarm. A moderate covers all his bases, just in case. If the moderate's side is finally overcome, the moderate can always say, "I was just a moderate, anyway."

Polarization.

 

[Willtor]

Edit: Double-post.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I've been quite surprised by this, too. I think it must have some relation to the various religious movements of this time period, though. Although I don't find anything particularly Christian about the Christian Coalition or the Moral Majority or any such thing, I think they may have influenced the general American Christian thinking on a variety of matters.

I also think that the American tendency to polarize has played a significant role in this movement. Anyone who refuses to polarize along the pre-defined lines is a moderate. The connotations of "moderate" imply someone who has few convictions. A moderate is lukewarm. A moderate covers all his bases, just in case. If the moderate's side is finally overcome, the moderate can always say, "I was just a moderate, anyway."

Polarization.

i've thought about the problem of polarization.
my rather awkward phrase for it is "emptying out of the middle". the idea being that it is to the advantage of the extreme positions to make the compromise positions in the middle psychologically untenable. like with AiG's "useful idiots" claim.

 

[Willtor]

i've thought about the problem of polarization.
my rather awkward phrase for it is "emptying out of the middle". the idea being that it is to the advantage of the extreme positions to make the compromise positions in the middle psychologically untenable. like with AiG's "useful idiots" claim.

On one level, yes. Each side wishes to "empty the middle," (preferably to its side) and engage in its war against its opposite. On another level, I don't think it's an adequate way of thinking about it because "middle" is loaded. It is the nature of these groups to wish to see the world as a line, and themselves on either end. The two groups have called themselves "sides" and wish to see everyone as a "middle" that is torn between them. This is different from your semantic "middle" and I'm afraid your meaning will be lost on those who are part of either group.

Let me give you an example: I should very much like my views to be one of the extremes. Maybe the self-proclaimed liberals will be on the other end of the spectrum. Now the conservatives are actually the pickers-and-choosers without any firm convictions. I'd rather they either took my views in whole or rejected them, altogether, and simply joined the liberals. Call a spade a spade.

My example is glib (there's no glib smilie, so it's hard for me to show it; sorry). But the world isn't really a spectrum.

Consider, again, the Orthodoxy of the fourth century. The two main contenders were the Arians and the Gnostics (at various points). Now, if the Arians and the Gnostics had been Americans, they might each have considered the Orthodoxy the "moderates" (if the Orthodoxy hadn't been in the majority). But consider the dogmatics of the Orthodoxy versus the dogmatics of the other two. For the Arians, Christ was not true God from true God. For the Gnostics (depending on the sect), Christ was not really Man born of Woman. But the Orthodox doctrine of "hypostasis" can hardly be called the middle ground. It is a position unto itself that happens to affirm the Arians in the humanity of Christ, and the Gnostics in his divinity. But, again, you don't have a particularly wayward Arian saying, "Well, maybe Christ actually is God from God," and landing on a slippery slope into Orthodoxy.

Now, I am well acquainted with methods of reasoning and I know all about sets and the notion of a "middle," to which you refer. But the word, "middle," also fits the semantics of the groups that work so hard to polarize. What we need is a term that describes their efforts without being ambiguous in such a way as to appear to give into their perspective of the world. We need a new, unambiguous word.

Where is ChaosChristian?

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

Has anybody mentioined Polonium Radiohalos? Dr. Robert Gentry has done some rather comprehensive work on short half-life isotopes that produce halos in granite. The halos look much like microscopic color layers just like a multi-colored jaw-breaker candy. The halos are produced by radioactive particles decaying in the granite. Each element that decays leaves a characteristic ring which is due to the energy of the emitted alpha particles. Each decaying element leaves a different ring, so it is possible to determine which elememt produced which ring. What is interesting is that some rings only contain the polonium halo, and polonium has a very short half-life. The conclusion is that the granite must have solidified in a matter of minutes. Many have examined this work, and to date no long time period explanation that is plausible has been presented. Gentry has outlined some ways to falsify his work. To date, nobody has done it.

The radiohalos require that essentially all of the earth's granite formed in a very short period of time. This sounds pretty young earth to me.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Has anybody mentioined Polonium Radiohalos? Dr. Robert Gentry has done some rather comprehensive work on short half-life isotopes that produce halos in granite. The halos look much like microscopic color layers just like a multi-colored jaw-breaker candy. The halos are produced by radioactive particles decaying in the granite. Each element that decays leaves a characteristic ring which is due to the energy of the emitted alpha particles. Each decaying element leaves a different ring, so it is possible to determine which elememt produced which ring. What is interesting is that some rings only contain the polonium halo, and polonium has a very short half-life. The conclusion is that the granite must have solidified in a matter of minutes. Many have examined this work, and to date no long time period explanation that is plausible has been presented. Gentry has outlined some ways to falsify his work. To date, nobody has done it.

The radiohalos require that essentially all of the earth's granite formed in a very short period of time. This sounds pretty young earth to me.

Dr. Gentry's work has been discussed here and elsewhere... and refuted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF201.html

 

[Dannager]

Dr. Gentry's work has been discussed here and elsewhere... and refuted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF201.html

Also, take a look at the link underneath the above refutation for a more in-depth explanation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html

 

[jleslie48]

No cherrypicking here, but your false use of Galileo is - No where does the scripture teach that the earth is flat.
Get your facts straight my cherry picking friend

Evolutionary theory data conflicts with itself.

The Order of Creation
The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The order of creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.
The Vault of Heaven
The vault of heaven is a crucial concept. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”
Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:

Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”​

Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”​

Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”​

Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”​

Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”​

If these verses are about a mere illusion of a vault, they are surely much ado about nothing. Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be lofty. It literally means the sky. Other passages complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome. God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.” By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk. Likewise, the context in both cases requires elevation. In Isaiah, the elevation causes the people below to look small as grasshoppers. In Job, God's eyes must penetrate the clouds to view the doings of humans below. Elevation is also implied by Job 22:12: “Surely God is at the zenith of the heavens [shamayim] and looks down on all the stars, high as they are.”
This picture of the cosmos is reinforced by Ezekiel's vision. The Hebrew word raqiya appears five times in Ezekiel, four times in Ezekiel 1:22-26 and once in Ezekiel 10:1. In each case the context requires a literal vault or dome. The vault appears above the “living creatures” and glitters “like a sheet of ice.” Above the vault is a throne of sapphire (or lapis lazuli). Seated on the throne is “a form in human likeness,” which is radiant and “like the appearance of the glory of the Lord.” In short, Ezekiel saw a vision of God sitting throned on the vault of heaven, as described in Isaiah 40:22.
The Shape of the Earth
Disregarding the dome, the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.” If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.” Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...”
The Celestial Bodies
The Hebrews considered the celestial bodies relatively small. The Genesis creation story indicates the size and importance of the earth relative to the celestial bodies in two ways, first by their order of creation, and second by their positional relationships. They had to be small to fit inside the vault of heaven. Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12, which says that the sun stood still “in Gibeon” and the moon “in the Vale of Aijalon.”
Further, the Bible frequently presents celestial bodies as exotic living beings. For example, “In them [the heavens], a tent is fixed for the sun, who comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, rejoicing like a strong man to run his race. His rising is at one end of the heavens, his circuit touches their farthest ends; and nothing is hidden from his heat (Psalm 19:4-6).” The stars are anthropomorphic demigods. When the earth's cornerstone was laid “the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted aloud (Job 38:7).” The morning star is censured for trying to set his throne above that of other stars:

You thought in your own mind, I will scale the heavens; I will set my throne high above the stars of God, I will sit on the mountain where the gods meet in the far recesses of the north. I will rise high above the cloud-banks and make myself like the most high (Isaiah 14:13-14).​

Deuteronomy 4:15-19 recognizes the god-like status of stars, noting that they were created for other peoples to worship.
Stars can fall from the skies according to Daniel 8:10 and Matthew 24:29. The same idea is found in the following extracts from Revelation 6:13-16:

...the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up...they called out to the mountains and the crags, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne...”​

This is consistent with the Hebrew cosmology previously described, but it is ludicrous in the light of modern astronomy. If one star let alone all the stars in the sky “fell” on the earth, no one would be hollering from any mountain or crag. The writer considered the stars small objects, all of which could fall to the earth without eradicating human life. He also viewed the sky as a physical object. The stars are inside the sky, and they fall before the sky opens. When it is whisked away, it reveals the One throned above (see Isaiah 40:22).


ahh, thats flat. and without any grey area either

 

[jleslie48]

No cherrypicking here, but your false use of Galileo is - No where does the scripture teach that the earth is flat.
Get your facts straight my cherry picking friend

Evolutionary theory data conflicts with itself.

Shake the Earth by Its Edges


"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)


How could the earth be held by its "edges"? A sphere has no edges. Would the Job author have spoken of "edges" of the earth if he had known the earth was a sphere? Which makes more sense? The author imagined grabbing and shaking by the edges a flat earth, or the author imagined grabbing the ball of the earth by "edges" which don't exist? Before you answer, consider what else the same author had to say about how the earth is formed:

Stamp Out the Earth Like Clay under A Seal

Clay when stamped with a seal is not rounded into a ball, but flattened, like the clay seal (ca. 3300-3000 BCE) below found in Israel in 1994.1 In the verse below, readers will see that the Job author believes that the earth was stamped out in the manner of clay flattened with a seal:



[]

"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14)

This is the same author who spoke of grabbing the earth by its "edges." If the Job author had known the earth was round, would he have referred to edges which don't exist, and would he have compared it to clay seals, which are pressed flat?

Whole Earth Can Be Seen from A Tall Mountain

Other evidence that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat is found in the following passages. The first is in Matthew:

"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"
(Matthew 4:1-12)

Certainly, if the earth were flat, standing atop "an exceedingly high mountain" would allow Jesus to see the whole earth, but there is no mountain tall enough to allow him to see the other side of a spherical earth. At most, one hemisphere would be seen, but not the other.

Or a Tall-Enough Tree

The other passage is in Daniel:

The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

The "whole" earth? No matter how tall the tree was, even if it was only a dream, it would not have been visible from the other side of the earth.

Hopeful believers in the scientific wisdom found in the Bible ignore the verse above and point to a verse in Isaiah which they think shows that the Bible writers knew the earth was a sphere. They believe that the word "circle" could actually mean "sphere," since both are round, but they ignore Isaiah's use of a different word in another verse where he speaks of a "ball." Here are the two verses:

To whom then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle (chuwg) of the earth (Isaiah 40:18-23

He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house. (Isaiah 22:18)




The Hebrew word used in scripture for "circle" in the verse above is chuwg. If the Bible writer had meant for us to believe that "circle of the earth" meant that the earth was round, the writer would have used the Hebrew word for "ball," which is duwr. The fact that Isaiah didn't use duwr shows that he wasn't trying to tell us the earth was like a ball.

Furthermore, there exists a simple interpretation of "circle of the earth" which does not imply a spherical earth. On a hill overlooking a wide expanse free of tall trees and other hills the horizon appears as a perfect circle, 360 degrees of blue sky. If Isaiah meant to tell us the earth was a globe, he would have used another word. A circle is not a ball, nor is a ball a circle. Everyone knew what a "circle" was in those times; it meant the same then as it means today.




ahem...

 

[rmwilliamsll]

1. please include references when you cut and paste, posting #221 is
from: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
actually it is potentially from lots of places, that is just the first google hit

the details for the piece are:
The Flat-Earth Bible
© 1987, 1995 by Robert J. Schadewald
Reprinted from The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society #44 (July 1987)

2. No where does the scripture teach that the earth is flat.
there is an active flat earther voice on the net, google and read their essays, some quote over a 100 verses in support of their ideas.

3. the point is that the Bible uses the common cosmology of the day that it was written, that is not the same thing as requiring it to be the viewpoint of all subsequent readers.

 

[jleslie48]

1
3. the point is that the Bible uses the common cosmology of the day that it was written, that is not the same thing as requiring it to be the viewpoint of all subsequent readers.

sorry for not footnoting my quoted sections. I repeated that mistake a second time.

back OT, what are you trying to say in point 3) above?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

sorry for not footnoting my quoted sections. I repeated that mistake a second time.

back OT, what are you trying to say in point 3) above?

take a whole group of examples:

demon possession. obviously NT Christians and Jesus believed that most mental illness was demon possession. Are we required to believe so?

The whole cosmology system:
flat earth, pillars on the sides, holding up a solid firmament. the sun, moon, planets, stars are either lights in it or holes.

are we to discard modern cosmology because the Scriptures use an ancient near east babylonian cosmology?

the chapter in Gen where Jacob uses (Gen 30:34-41) peeled branches to produce spotted offspring. Are we to neglect modern genetics and do likewise?

the point is that it is impossible to talk about things without introducing science, history, cosmology etc. these are cultural and historical systems. we have them, the ancient Hebrews had them, the Hellenized Jews of Israel in Jesus' day had them. These systems are not the same, signficant elements collide if you try to harmonize them.

Now is God using these thought forms or teaching them?
the flatearthers would say that believing a flat earth, unmovable earth is a requirement to believe that Scripture is authoritative. All people at all times must believe exactly what is written in the Scriptures.

likewise the geocentric anti-Copericans teach that YECist have deserted the fold and accepted a heliocentric solar system, the first step down that slippery slope to unbelief.

The issue can be metaphorically seen as the question:
is the Bible addressed to us? or are we reading someone's else's mail? if we are reading someone else's mail then it is crucial that we first understand what it meant to those first readers, with their cosmology, with their medical science, with their cultural systems. and only afterwards make the connections between those systems and our own. not to submit our systems, point by point, fact by fact to theirs, but to understand that it is meaning and significance that flows up the exegetical tree and down the application one, not whether the earth is flat or not.