depthdeception said:What specific elements of this idea is it that appeals most aestetically?
I don't think that I could properly get that across, not just on a message board but even face to face. It's like asking why a man thinks one particular woman is attractive yet another man might think she's repulsive ... you can use all kinds of words to describe either opinion but beauty is just too subjective to translate for others. If you understand what I mean, lol. For me, the YEC view just represents a more majestic and appealing method than the others.
Sabertooth said:Organic maturity did not require age. Inorganic material does not mature. Comparing the two is a bit a bit unfounded.
Inorganic material does indeed mature. Stars don't just suddenly wink into being. They begin as an accumulation of gases and pass through fairly definitive life stages until they eventually collapse and explode. I'm not speaking of maturity in the sense of a childs "whaa, I want it it's mine" to an adults "sure, you can use my stuff", but rather maturity in the sense of a point in the growth/life/stages of an object.
Sabertooth}[size=2 said:Further, if these were ages, instead of days, either the plants would have broken the soil or you would have some pretty hungry herbivores...!
Sigh, people and their relentless logic I'm not claiming to be logical with this, not one single tiny bit. If some part doesn't make sense then it doesn't make sense, no biggie.
Why are people so wrapped up in proving it one way or the other? My point is, it doesn't matter. God created everything, that's truth. How he did that is really irrelevant (for me, at least). I just appreciate the beauty in the Genesis account and prefer to think of it that way.
Anyway, all I've presented is a viewpoint. It is one based strictly on a poetic and aesthetic preference. Whatever works for you is good too
[/size]
Upvote
0