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.
Perhaps not for you, but for many YECs it certainly is the unquestionable authority. Or for the really naive, Kent Hovind is the unquestionable authority.AIG is not an unquestionable authority for YECs.
The difference is, Talk origins is a compilation of information based on scientific data from actual journal sources. AIG doesn't do any research, nor do the vast majority of the "scientists" they have on their roster.The TE equivalent is the talk.origins archive.
No, I honestly don't have a problem with this. Adam and Eve were created full grown. I have no problem with God making the universe full grown -- with photons in flight just as if they had been traveling for a long time. Otherwise, we would not have been able to see the extent of His wonderful creation. I'm willing to be persuaded of other explanations, but I have no problem with God creating a mature universe.
Yes I am. Have they ever done legitimate scientific research that has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals?AIG is just one organization, alongside others like CMI, ICR, etc. Are you trying to tell me the folks at icr.org aren't doing any research?
I never heard ot TO until I came here, and I was already a TE. I do not think that I have ever linked to it, I may be wrong, but i do not recall ever using it even after I found out about it. All the information there is found in greater detail in journals which I have access to. I don't even bother reading it unless it is linked as part of someone elses argument. I prefer real source materials, scientific journals and the like.AIG is not an unquestionable authority for YECs.
The TE equivalent is the talk.origins archive.
Guess what, I agree with you here! Are you surprised? However, this actually agrees with scripture in a literal way in Genesis 1:1-2.But According to the YEC criteria, they aren't there. You can't have a 6,000 year old universe, with a supernova exploding 10 billion light years away, and the supernova ever actually having existed. In such a case, we still have another 9, 999, 994, 000 years to go before that supernova ever actually explodes in the YEC world. Yeah yeah, I know you can just say God isn't bound by natural laws and could make it happen, but one might ask themselves why God ever created physics if he has to permanently keep them broken to appease the YEC interpretation.
Ironic since this is exactly the kind of accusations and insinuations which are directed at TEs.ScotishFury09 said:So, because we believe in a literal 6-day creation we believe in less of a God? Oh man, this forum gets worse and worse every day.
Yes.Yes I am. Have they ever done legitimate scientific research that has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals?
Your logic doesn't follow. Just because God could have created the universe in a mature state does not mean that what we see does not exist. If true, the universe was created just as if it were mature - exactly the same - so that we could glory in the wonder of His creation.You don't seem to get the point. Photons in flight means objects like supernovae don't actually exist. What we are seeing is not from an exploding supernova. It is an artificial source of light from some cosmic nether realm in the middle of space some 6,000 light years away from us. In fact, it means 99% of the observable universe is a giant illusion. Our own galaxy is vastly bigger than 6,000 light years. 6,000 light years is so incredibly tiny from a cosmological perspective. For a bad analogy, it's like if Earth were the top of your head, 6000 light years would be the distance to your eyebrows, and the edge of the universe would be the distance from the top of your head to the Sun.
Yes.
Loosely affiliated:
Dr. Kurt Wise
Oh I don't know he might just deal with a $25 million Creation Museum that has been swallowing up widows mites they though was going to serve the Lord's work.Scripture is very powerful, and it all ties together. Please, as Christians, don't try to delude it to just something spiritual. If there are discussion about the meanings or intent fine, but to let your understanding about the "evidence" or lack of it for such things a global flood be the rule for scriptural understanding is not something I believe Jesus would do. In other words, if you are Christians, you should be asking yourselves what would Jesus do or say about this. Frankly, I think he would go into the universities and turn over some tables and give a lecture of his own.
I have a big problem with that. If that's true, then God created the universe to APPEAR as if it was much older that it really is, which is deceptive if he holds us to believing in the literal view of creation from the bible.A mature universe would include light "in-flight" -- in other words, it would include the ability for us to see it.
So God so loved the idea of a Big Bang, a 13.7 billion year old universe, and life on earth looking like it evolved over billions of years that he created the heavens and the earth to look like that is just what happened? If God likes those ideas so much, why do YECs have a problem with people believing that is precisely what he did.Your logic doesn't follow. Just because God could have created the universe in a mature state does not mean that what we see does not exist. If true, the universe was created just as if it were mature - exactly the same - so that we could glory in the wonder of His creation.
So we have 1 YEC geologist compared to thousands of non-YEC geologists who claim the evidence most certainly doesn't support a 6,000 year old Earth. And why would we trust Wise? I think it's pretty telling that a creationist almost 200 years ago was the first to disprove the Global flood. The fact that science and the evidence has only gotten exponentially more accurate and overwhelming since then really discredits Wise's opinion.That is not what Kurt Wise says. He says that the evidence is consistent with a 6-day YEC. Read some of his writings.
Have you really looked at all the evidence? I'm still waiting to your response about extinction level events btw.Obviously, I dispute that the evidence on earth supports the TOE over YEC. I believe the *evidence* (not the conventional conclusions, conjectures, and extrapolations) are much more consistent with YEC which is much more consistent with the revelation of a loving God.
So what was the point of the Ark if life was going to be almost completely wiped out multiple times before or after that? No to mention, how did we get today's current species diversity without evolution following extinctions that wiped out 90% of sea life and 70% of land life? Even worse, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old, how could there have been something like 9 Extinction level events in less than 1 thousand years, 5 of which were major? Earth hasn't been around long enough in the YEC model to recover from that many extinctions and catastrophes.There's nothing about extinctions that contradicts the YEC model. There's nothing that says there won't be large, significant events- just not a global flood again. For a particular event, the dating used may be quite different, but the understanding may be very similar.
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?