Test thread for YEC'ism.

[RobTheMagnificent]

Just in this thread only, I'm a YEC --- pwn me.

Sorry, "pwn you?"

You are over 50 and you actually use such crap in a debate?

I don't need to "pwn" you, science has done that for me.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Sorry, "pwn you?"

You are over 50 and you actually use such crap in a debate?

I don't need to "pwn" you, science has done that for me.

I'd say life in general has done the job.

 

[Psudopod]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Assyrian
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?

In respect to creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, "pwn you?"

Ya --- "pwn me" --- if you don't know what the term means, feel free to Google it.

 

[RobTheMagnificent]

Ya --- "pwn me" --- if you don't know what the term means, feel free to Google it.

I know what the term means, my 12 year old brother uses it, I'm just baffled why someone your age would use it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know what the term means, my 12 year old brother uses it, I'm just baffled why someone your age would use it.

I wasn't aware it's off-limits to "old men."

Would "zwischenzug" suffice?

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.

Of course, Moses would have no way of knowing the Psalms, so it's moot.

Oh, come on. Are you serious with this?

Sadly enough, you seem to be.

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

If they were at all relevent to caridology -- which they are not.

"Here" is the key word here.

I don't see geologists trying to discredit Jesus anywhere. That's a job for a YEC.

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

Try regardless of the Scriptures.

Excuse me?

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

And we all know Jesus' proclivity for telling parables and fictional stories to prove a point -- and his own explanation that he did this so that people who didn't get the parables (for example, people who only understand them literally) wouldn't get the point.

How does it feel to miss the point, AV?

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.

And that means you'll forever miss the point.

The other YECs will love you.

 

[RobTheMagnificent]

I wasn't aware it's off-limits to "old men."

Would "zwischenzug" suffice?

Well, it's not a very good first impression, neither is your signature, so let me ask you, you care to explain why all scientif evidence points towards an old earth?

 

[AV1611VET]

And we all know Jesus' proclivity for telling parables and fictional stories to prove a point -- and his own explanation that he did this so that people who didn't get the parables (for example, people who only understand them literally) wouldn't get the point.

Unless I'm missing something --- the parables were meant to be taken literally. They are stories about things that actually happened and, in my opinion, Jesus Himself witnessed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, it's not a very good first impression, neither is your signature, so let me ask you, you care to explain why all scientif evidence points towards an old earth?

Well, since this is a test thread - and I'm not actually a YEC - how do you want me to answer this? From my perspective, or from [what I think is] the YEC perspective?

 

[RobTheMagnificent]

Well, since this is a test thread - and I'm not actually a YEC - how do you want me to answer this? From my perspective, or from [what I think is] the YEC perspective?

From a YEC would be a good start.

 

[AV1611VET]

From a YEC would be a good start.

Very well.

Well, it's not a very good first impression, neither is your signature...

You should see my caption.

... so let me ask you, you care to explain why all scientif evidence points towards an old earth?

Because scientific evidence is misinterpreted?

 

[RobTheMagnificent]

Because scientific evidence is misinterpreted?

Try telling that to the millions of people who devote their lives to finding cures, finding new technology and finding answers to the big questions in life.

I guarantee they will laugh at you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Unless I'm missing something --- the parables were meant to be taken literally. They are stories about things that actually happened and, in my opinion, Jesus Himself witnessed.

I'd say you're missing pretty much everything if you literalize every last parable.

Jesus spells out that they're meant to be symbolic:

[bible]Mark 4:1-20[/bible]

If you're reading this, and all you get out of it is Jesus once saw a guy planting seeds, then you are even further on the outside than even he could've figured.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You should see my caption.

But AV, if you really believed that caption, you wouldn't need "embedded age" at all.

Just stick to your "The world was create 6100 years ago" guns, claim that all radiometric dating is wrong, because all the results have been misinterpreted, and if anyone tries to convince you otherwise, just repeat your caption and /thread out of there.

See? You'd be a natural YEC, and it would require only a minimal change in your current posting habits.

 

[AV1611VET]

But AV, if you really believed that caption, you wouldn't need "embedded age" at all.

Just stick to your "The world was create 6100 years ago" guns, claim that all radiometric dating is wrong, because all the results have been misinterpreted, and if anyone tries to convince you otherwise, just repeat your caption and /thread out of there.

See? You'd be a natural YEC, and it would require only a minimal change in your current posting habits.

I think you know what I mean.

Science, insofar as it disagrees with the Bible, can take a hike.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think you know what I mean.

I do, but I'm sure you don't.

Science, insofar as it disagrees with the Bible, can take a hike.

But science doesn't disagree with the Bible -- Never has, never will. Science has only ever disagreed with how people have chosen to read the Bible.

You have already decided how to read the Bible, and science, insofar is it disagrees with you, can take a hike.

You're already soooo close to being a full-fledged YEC -- you just need to be a tiny bit more stubborn.

 

[RobTheMagnificent]

I think you know what I mean.

Science, insofar as it disagrees with the Bible, can take a hike.

Ok, that is the most narrow-minded comment I have read.

"If it contradicts my bible, it's wrong"

Well guess what, I have news for you, the bible isn't a science textbook.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, that is the most narrow-minded comment I have read.

You don't get around much, do you?

CLICK HERE

Well guess what, I have news for you, the bible isn't a science textbook.

LOL --- you really are new here, aren't you?

 

[Assyrian]

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.

If you assume the psalm is intended to give a mathematical formula to calculate the length of a day. The fact Moses compares a thousand years to a yom, or a watch in the night goes against this mathematical formula interpetation. Or Moses could simply be using a thousand years as an illustration to show God's idea of a day may be vastly longer than ours. What we can say is that he wrote a Psalm that looks at the creation of the world, and then tells us God's days aren't the same as our literal days. As Genesis and Exodus are the only places in the whole bible to mention a six day creation, and Moses doesn't even take God's days literally, YEC doesn't have a leg to stand on.

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?

You were talking about atheists who make a career studying rocks and then coming to the conclusion that Jesus isn't The Rock Why does the cardiologist have to know his bible to write a valentine card?

"Here" is the key word here.

You brought it up in this thread. I haven't come across any atheists who would claim 'Jesus said rocks can talk I'm a geologist and I know they don't'. Sorry AV, you are much more likely to hear creationist's coming up with an arguments like that.

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

In respect to the truth. They were trying to find evidence for a global flood, they found there was none and that the earth was much older than they thought. They were honest enough to accept the fact and bible scholars looked again at the Genesis account to see where they had misinterpreted what it was saying. And rightly too.

Excuse me?

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

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Even if you want to conflate what God told us through the prophets and what Jesus said, don't forget Jesus loved to speak to us in parables and metaphors.

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.

And since YEC is thoroughly discredited by geologists, it is not what God's word means.