Test thread for YEC'ism.

[Loudmouth]

Um --- by consulting local water tables first, I take it? Or do they use trial-and-error?

By drilling.

 

[GrayCat]

Random question - what does this word "pwn" mean?

 

[monkeypsycho62]

... can take a hike.

Why, exactly? Because you don't like it? Because the King James Bible disagrees? You're getting predictable, AV. Although, I guess that's what you want. Your God is everlasting and unchanging. You want to act as he does.....

Sheesh. Be a little open-minded for once. Just once. It truly doesn't hurt to question. If what you question is truth, then you will be led, continuously, back to it. Right? And have you EVER tried to rationally assess your beliefs? Or do you think rationality will disagree with your stance and lead to to that dang ol' evil atheist evolutionist side?

Ugh.

Step 3.
[/list]Can I haz cheezburger now?

u can haz cheezbergur nau

 

[Nathan Poe]

Because only an atheist would make a career studying rocks and then coming to the conclusion that Jesus isn't The Rock.

[bible]1 Corinthians 10:4[/bible]

No, AV -- THIS is The Rock

 

[AV1611VET]

By drilling.

Drilling requires tools --- let's see people do today what they did back then --- without the tools.

 

[AV1611VET]

If what you question is truth, then you will be led, continuously, back to it. Right?

Like Pontius Pilate was?

[bible]John 18:38[/bible]

Like Agrippa was?

[bible]Acts 26:28[/bible]

And have you EVER tried to rationally assess your beliefs?

I know what I believe --- and it won't change tomorrow with the next issue of American Scientist. In fact, it won't change with the next translation of the Scriptures - (if God so chooses to do that).

Or do you think rationality will disagree with your stance and lead to to that dang ol' evil atheist evolutionist side?

No comment.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Drilling requires tools --- let's see people do today what they did back then --- without the tools.

Takes time and a steady supply of slave labor.

Fortunately, Ancent peoples had both.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Random question - what does this word "pwn" mean?

Quotes are in the wrong place: they should be around "word". Anyway, when AV uses it, it generally means nothing at all; possibly "I'd like to think I showed you all, but actually I've done nothing of the sort". But it's supposed to be a humorous play on "own" (p being next to o on the keyboard, so it mimics gamerheads who type fast and loose). So "I haz pwnd u" means "I kicked your @$$".

IOW: it's AV's "smack down".

Edit to Add: For more information, please direct your browser of choice to the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet_speak

 

[vernee]

Random question - what does this word "pwn" mean?

I think it's like own.

 

[FishFace]

No, AV -- THIS is The Rock

And he's cookin' bacon and eggs.

 

[Assyrian]

Because only an atheist would make a career studying rocks and then coming to the conclusion that Jesus isn't The Rock.

[bible]1 Corinthians 10:4[/bible]

Ooh AV, I realise you are not actually a YEC, just a devil's advocate as it were, but you have fallen into a classic YEC trap. It is amazing, but I find when people try to defend YEC they keep ending up quoting biblical metaphors and allegories in support of literal interpretation. Unless you think Jesus was some kind of Rock Troll who wandered around the desert following the Israelites, Paul is interpreting the Exodus account allegorically here.

One of the foundational claims of YEC is we know Genesis is meant literally because we can tell when the bible is using metaphors. But literalists are pretty poor at recognising biblical metaphors and allegories unless there is a big label on them spelling it out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ooh AV, I realise you are not actually a YEC, just a devil's advocate as it were, but you have fallen into a classic YEC trap. It is amazing, but I find when people try to defend YEC they keep ending up quoting biblical metaphors and allegories in support of literal interpretation. Unless you think Jesus was some kind of Rock Troll who wandered around the desert following the Israelites, Paul is interpreting the Exodus account allegorically here.

One of the foundational claims of YEC is we know Genesis is meant literally because we can tell when the bible is using metaphors. But literalists are pretty poor at recognising biblical metaphors and allegories unless there is a big label on them spelling it out.

I know that, bro; and I don't particularly care to quote metaphor either, as I don't particularly care to go outside of Genesis 1 with these guys.

But the point I was making with Thaumaturgy, is that when God chose to describe Jesus in a metaphorical term, He picked a geological term - and geologists [of all people] who claim they know the Bible should be sensitive to that fact.

In addition, Jesus Himself used a geological metaphor during His grand entrance into Jerusalem just before His crucifixion.

For geologists [of all people] to use geology to discredit Him is --- well --- ironic.

I can picture the devil laughing.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I know that, bro; and I don't particularly care to quote metaphor either, as I don't particularly care to go outside of Genesis 1 with these guys.

But the point I was making with Thaumaturgy, is that when God chose to describe Jesus in a metaphorical term, He picked a geological term - and geologists [of all people] who claim they know the Bible should be sensitive to that fact.

Why should geologists be sensitive to that fact? How do the facts that Jesus was once referred to as a rock, as well as he nicknamed his #1 disciple after a rock, impact the study of geology?

In addition, Jesus Himself used a geological metaphor during His grand entrance into Jerusalem just before His crucifixion.

For geologists [of all people] to use geology to discredit Him is --- well --- ironic.

Since Jesus is a literary character, how ironic is it to discuss him in literary terms -- metaphors, for example?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why should geologists be sensitive to that fact?

I said geologists who claim they know the Bible.

How do the facts that Jesus was once referred to as a rock, as well as he nicknamed his #1 disciple after a rock, impact the study of geology?

Impact? I don't know. God gifts us geologists.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I said geologists who claim they know the Bible.

Fine -- why should those geologists allow a metaphor to influence their work?

 

[AV1611VET]

Fine -- why should those geologists allow a metaphor to influence their work?

"Influence"?

1. Name one thing a geologist can do that a creationist can't.
2. Name one conclusion a geologist can reach that a creationist can't.
3. Name one place a geologist can go that a creationist can't.
4. Name one thing a geologist can teach that a creationist can't.
5. Name one tool a geologist can use that a creationist can't.

Get the point?

 

[Assyrian]

I know that, bro; and I don't particularly care to quote metaphor either, as I don't particularly care to go outside of Genesis 1 with these guys.

Unless Genesis 1 is figurative too, like so many of the passages YECs quote in their defense of literalism, and as Moses himself seems to have understood it in Psalm 90

But the point I was making with Thaumaturgy, is that when God chose to describe Jesus in a metaphorical term, He picked a geological term - and geologists [of all people] who claim they know the Bible should be sensitive to that fact.

I would no more expect a cardiologist be be particularly good at Valentine cards than a geologist to be an expert in rock metaphors.

In addition, Jesus Himself used a geological metaphor during His grand entrance into Jerusalem just before His crucifixion.

For geologists [of all people] to use geology to discredit Him is --- well --- ironic.

I didn't see any geologists using geology to discredit Jesus here. In fact it was uberd00b who pointed out in the first reply, that it was Christian Geologists who realised the earth was really ancient. Jesus never said the earth was created in six days, so unless you buy into the YEC view that they believe in a young earth therefore that is what Jesus believed too, geology only discredits YEC.

I can picture the devil laughing.

 

[Nathan Poe]

"Influence"?

1. Name one thing a geologist can do that a creationist can't.
2. Name one conclusion a geologist can reach that a creationist can't.
3. Name one place a geologist can go that a creationist can't.
4. Name one thing a geologist can teach that a creationist can't.
5. Name one tool a geologist can use that a creationist can't.

Get the point?

There is no point to your statment. Although, to your credit, you did recognize "geologist" and creationist" as two separate occupations.

It's never been about what Creationists can't do -- after all, they're human beings, and capable of doing anything a human can -- but about what Creationists won't do, choose not to do, and refuse to do.

So, now that we've cleared that up, let's reword your questions to make them relevent:

1. Name one thing a geologist can do that a creationist won't.
2. Name one conclusion a geologist can reach that a creationist refuses to.
3. Name one place a geologist can go that a creationist chooses not to.
4. Name one thing a geologist can teach that a creationist forbids.
5. Name one tool a geologist can use that a creationist would consider heresy.

Would you like to try the questions now?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

"Influence"?

1. Name one thing a geologist can do that a creationist can't.
2. Name one conclusion a geologist can reach that a creationist can't.
3. Name one place a geologist can go that a creationist can't.
4. Name one thing a geologist can teach that a creationist can't.
5. Name one tool a geologist can use that a creationist can't.

Get the point?

AV asks

1. Name one thing a geologist can do that a creationist can't.

Interperate all geological data and find it ALL fits into a old world paradigm

1. Name one conclusion a geologist can reach that a creationist can't.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old

1. Name one place a geologist can go that a creationist can't.

Back through Earth’s history

1. Name one thing a geologist can teach that a creationist can't.

No global flood ever occurred

1. Name one tool a geologist can use that a creationist can't.

His/her brain


Get the point?

 

[AV1611VET]

Unless Genesis 1 is figurative too, like so many of the passages YECs quote in their defense of literalism, and as Moses himself seems to have understood it in Psalm 90

Genesis 1 is not figurative, and Moses, if he was making a reference here to the literal amount of time that passed in Genesis 1 (i.e. 6000 years vs. 6 days) ---

[bible]Psalm 90:4[/bible]

--- would still be off by about, 4.569994 billion years.

I would no more expect a cardiologist be be particularly good at Valentine cards than a geologist to be an expert in rock metaphors.

Oh, come on. Are you serious with this?

I would expect a cardiologist who knows his Bible to be sensitive to the passages that deal with the heart --- wouldn't you?

I didn't see any geologists using geology to discredit Jesus here.

"Here" is the key word here.

In fact it was uberd00b who pointed out in the first reply, that it was Christian Geologists who realised the earth was really ancient.

In respect to the Scriptures --- or in spite of the Scriptures?

Jesus never said the earth was created in six days...

Excuse me?

Jesus is [ultimately] the One Who wrote Genesis 1.

... so unless you buy into the YEC view that they believe in a young earth therefore that is what Jesus believed too, geology only discredits YEC.

I'll vouch that [most] geologists try to discredit YEC --- but the Word of our LORD shall stand forever, and that means It's meaning will too.