Uphill Battle
Well-Known Member
- Apr 25, 2005
- 18,279
- 1,221
- 48
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Upvote
0
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.
Guywiththehead said:With the huge number of major miracles needed (such as God feeding the animals, removing their waste, stopping them from eating each other, removing all evidence of a flood for some reason, etc.) you'd think more would be mentioned.
Being an omniscient journalist, God would know that these questions would be asked.Uphill Battle said:why? To satisfy you?
nvxplorer said:Being an omniscient journalist, God would know that these questions would be asked.
Where does it state God removed evidence for the flood?Uphill Battle said:he did know. It's in the bible.
nvxplorer said:Where does it state God removed evidence for the flood?
Okay, I misunderstood. It seems odd that God would know that people would seek evidence, and yet decide to not provide that evidence. Its not only a lack of evidence, but that the evidence contradicts a global flood. Faith is one thing, but if we cant trust our senses, how can we trust the Bible, which is only a book requiring sensory perception.Uphill Battle said:that's not what I said. I said he did know that people would question him.
nvxplorer said:Okay, I misunderstood. It seems odd that God would know that people would seek evidence, and yet decide to not provide that evidence. Its not only a lack of evidence, but that the evidence contradicts a global flood. Faith is one thing, but if we cant trust our senses, how can we trust the Bible, which is only a book requiring sensory perception.
Now were back to square one. What evidence?Uphill Battle said:he provided evidence. What we chose to do with it is up to us after that.
nvxplorer said:Now were back to square one. What evidence?
Uphill Battle said:all the evidence is the same. The evidence that you look at and say "Old earth" I look at and say "young earth."
Edx said:No you dont. You look at Genesis and say "young earth" then you look at the world and say "how can I interprete this evidence to fit", in other words "how can I twist the evidence to my faith". YECs dont care about evidence, why else would those like ICR and AIG have to sign sworn "statements of faith" to not let any evidence change their minds?
Actually, I look to trained scientists who say old earth. (Though understanding the basics is trivial for anyone with a grade school education.) To disbelieve scientific findings, Id have to conclude a huge conspiracy, with many if not most participants being Christian themselves. To me, the wise choice is to believe the scientists.Uphill Battle said:all the evidence is the same. The evidence that you look at and say "Old earth" I look at and say "young earth."
ChrisPelletier said:I think that if we did find Noah's Ark (and we identify it as his) it would stirr up more questions than answers. If found the question of animal distribution around the world still exsists. How are there soo many species of animals, how did they get to where they are, and why aren't the animals in the sea dead (becuase a change in salinity would kill nearly all live both in fresh & salt water)?
Go for her.RightWingGirl said:ChrisPelletier--I can try to answer the animal distribution question for you if you are interested.
Can't be. Part of the evidence is how to extrapolate the processes that we know are occurring now. Geology assumes general uniformity - a reasonable position given that we are all process uniformitarians in everyday life.Uphill Battle said:all the evidence is the same. The evidence that you look at and say "Old earth" I look at and say "young earth."
TeddyKGB said:Can't be. Part of the evidence is how to extrapolate the processes that we know are occurring now. Geology assumes general uniformity - a reasonable position given that we are all process uniformitarians in everyday life.
But you have already voiced your opposition to process uniformitarianism. The inexorable conclusion, therefore, is that the features we see today were produced by processes operating at different rates; and since the difference between 4.6 billion and 6000 is something approaching incomprehensible, the difference in process speeds will be likewise colossal.
But of course, there is no evidence that said processes have ever operated at wildly elevated rates - even the most ardent YECs are limited to arguments of the "X could have happened" variety. Obviously, then, you can not use the fluctuating rates themselves as evidence. But without them how can you possibly get to 6000 years? Or to any specific time frame at all?
I will make this easy for you: You can't.
Okay, let us work from the position that both time frames are based on pure assumption. OE geology assumes that the underlying processes occur at a uniform rate. Thus, a rough age estimate can be arrived at mathematically.Uphill Battle said:depends on the way things were in the first place. Both you and I would be guessing at the "original" state of the world, before either th4.6 billion or 6000 year time frames.
Obviously, I can not speak intelligently about cliffs near your home. You should know, however, that arguing from geological anecdotes is fatally flawed from the outset.But let me put it into a clearer picture of how I see a young earth Where I live, there is a formation of cliffs. Now, looking at these cliffs do not suggest to me at all that it was a long period of time that formed them. There is sheer edges... little or no wear. (and it is nothing recent that caused this.) there are rift caves all over it, filled with UNFOSSILIZED sea shells. Ostensibly, it's because millions of years ago, the cliffs lifted out of an ancient sea that used to cover the area. There is NO evidence of this sea, however. In fact, the terrain slopes AWAY from the area. It's a ridge, not a basin. Would unfossilized sea shells last millions of years? Not to my understanding. beyond that, there is another area where we have a waterfall. It again, is a sheer drop, not a worn edge, or eroded. However, we do not live in an area with active tectonic plates. (what I mean by this, is an area where upthrust could be used to explain it.)
this is just around my home. And it leads me to believe that the old earth theory does not fit.
TeddyKGB said:Okay, let us work from the position that both time frames are based on pure assumption. OE geology assumes that the underlying processes occur at a uniform rate. Thus, a rough age estimate can be arrived at mathematically.
How can you do that from a non-uniformitarian perspective? From what initial assumptions do you start in order to reach 6000 years honestly?
Obviously, I can not speak intelligently about cliffs near your home. You should know, however, that arguing from geological anecdotes is fatally flawed from the outset.
Even stipulating that your off-the-cuff assessment is correct, you have a daunting task ahead of you to say the least. OE geology can account for features of any age up to 4.6 billion years. YE geology, however, has to make every single feature fit into a miniscule time frame.
One set of thousand-year-old cliffs harms OE geology not at all. But one old-appearing feature for which YEG has no explanation is fatal.
I know. That is why your methodology fails. You can not establish a young Earth by examples; you say, "Those cliffs have young features," then I say, "What about that canyon over there? And that mountain? And that lake? And the sixteen squillion other geological features found somewhere on the Earth's crust?"Uphill Battle said:riiiight. I was asked to explain why I see a young earth, I gave one example.
TeddyKGB said:I know. That is why your methodology fails. You can not establish a young Earth by examples; you say, "Those cliffs have young features," then I say, "What about that canyon over there? And that mountain? And that lake? And the sixteen squillion other geological features found somewhere on the Earth's crust?"
You do not have enough minutes in several lifetimes, I think, to demonstrate a young Earth feature-by-feature. Without a procedure or methodology or even a philosophy you face an impossibly broad set of individual items, for each of which you must generate an independent apologetic.
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?