When is it time to abandon a sinking ship? (YEC?)

[Jase]

AIG is not an unquestionable authority for YECs.

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.

The TE equivalent is the talk.origins archive.

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.

 

[laptoppop]

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?

 

[Jase]

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.

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.

 

[Jase]

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?

Yes I am. Have they ever done legitimate scientific research that has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

AIG is not an unquestionable authority for YECs.

The TE equivalent is the talk.origins archive.

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.

TO can and is often questioned for errors, when found they are connected. Is AiG? My questions were ignored, and that was kind compared to some of the responses that I have seen them make to people that question them.

TO is used by some here because it is a handy collection of information, but it is hardly an authority figure like AiG or CRI.

 

[keyarch]

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.

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.

The first "day" of the six started with light (Genesis 1:3) after the universe and water covered earth were created. And yes, I'm a Biblical Creationist.

 

[theFijian]

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.

Ironic since this is exactly the kind of accusations and insinuations which are directed at TEs.

 

[theFijian]

The idea that God using one method of creating over another somehow makes him less powerful or glorious isn't much of an argument because it is essentially man-centred. Whatever God does is by definition powerful and glorious. God is the very definition of power and the very definition of glory.

 

[laptoppop]

Yes I am. Have they ever done legitimate scientific research that has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals?

Yes.

Loosely affiliated:
Dr. Kurt Wise
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci_wise/
B.A. Geophysical Sciences (Majored in Geology while close to a second major in Biology), University of Chicago - 1981
M.A. Geology, Harvard University - 1984
Ph.D. Geology (Paleontology), Harvard University - 1989
Ph.D. dissertation: The Estimation of True Taxonomic Durations from Fossil Occurrence Data.

He trained under Stephen Gould, and has over 50 published papers in peer-reviewed journals.

Here are the faculty at ICR's grad school
http://icr.edu/administration/faculty.html

 

[laptoppop]

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.

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.

 

[hithesh]

Yes.

Loosely affiliated:
Dr. Kurt Wise

Well, Kurt Wise is this figure who is quite aware that the evidence points to evolution, but he is unconcerened with it, because the evidence will not change his creationist stance?

I'm curiuous to know, if this is the position of the bulk of YECs?
That no matter how much the evidence points to evolution, they will still be YECs?

And i'm curious as to know, if even a YEC can see that the physical evidence points to Evoulation, what does that mean?
Is a God a deciever, or did the devil just plant the evidence?

 

[laptoppop]

That is not what Kurt Wise says. He says that the evidence is consistent with a 6-day YEC. Read some of his writings.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

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.

Remember Jesus had much more trouble with literalists, especially about Sabbath observance and the origin of the Sabbath. He really didn't take it very literally. He didn't preach six days creation or global flood either.

 

[crawfish]

A mature universe would include light "in-flight" -- in other words, it would include the ability for us to see it.

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.

If not, well - as in the old philosophy question "what if our entire existence is just someone's dream", the answer is that the question is totally irrelevant. The science would still be as valid as if it had actually happened since God had made it that way.

The problem with most Creationist theory is that nobody would take them seriously if it wasn't for the biblical account, because the more accepted theories have far more evidence in support of them. Most of the valid Creationist evidence is simply finding the holes in scientific theories; however, finding holes is not tantamount to disproving the theory.

The only clear path, in my mind, is to reevaluate what Genesis says and try to figure out if the literal view is actually what God is telling us. I think our understanding of the passage is enhanced when we can rule out certain interpretations because they don't fit with reality, and I believe that is EXACTLY what God intended.

 

[Assyrian]

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 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.

 

[laptoppop]

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.

 

[Jase]

That is not what Kurt Wise says. He says that the evidence is consistent with a 6-day YEC. Read some of his writings.

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.

 

[Jase]

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.

Have you really looked at all the evidence? I'm still waiting to your response about extinction level events btw.

 

[laptoppop]

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.

 

[Jase]

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.

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.