Why does YEC try to disprove scientific theory?

[YahwehLove]

Fortunately science does not do this since most significant scientific advances suggested ideas that completely didn't fit with how the scientific community of that time viewed things. Many scientists risked ridicule and losing their reputation for presenting evidence that was contrary to popular scientific belief. But their perseverance paid off as continued investigation into the evidence justified them. The same was true of Darwin.

Oh please guy.
Every shred of evidence they find is compared to old earth/TE to see how it fits.

Only if they find something that cannot possible fit are they going to risk anything.

We're not discussing 300 years ago, we're talking TODAY.
Today TE rules the minds of scientists.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Nice try.
But as I said this is nothing more that a God/rock scenario that has no purpose but to defeat ones faith in what God said.

Im not buying it.
If yoiu want my attention with this type of sillyness, then by all means make a time machine, go back and bring me some proof.

The hypothetical isn't about who is right and who is wrong. It is about our attitudes when we discover we are wrong.

If the time machine showed that the YEC way was right, I would have no problem admitting that I was wrong.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Oh please guy.
Every shred of evidence they find is compared to old earth/TE to see how it fits.

Only if they find something that cannot possible fit are they going to risk anything.

We're not discussing 300 years ago, we're talking TODAY.
Today TE rules the minds of scientists.

Every shred of astronomical evidence is compared to the heliocentric model to see how it fits. Are you suggesting astronomers should still use geocentric models when interpreting astronomical data?

Do you suggest that scientists ignore the evidence of an old earth in their interpretation? I'm sure they would if serious scientific evidence of a young earth existed. Unfortunately it does not. The bible is evidence but not scientific evidence. (again, unscientific does not mean wrong)

 

[YahwehLove]

Polystrate trees are what one expects when trees are engulfed in mud during local flood events, or where petrified forests are exposed and then silt layers build up around them.

I see. as usual the rules change when needed.

Now, if you can show me a polystrate tree where the strata through which it cuts are actually many millions of years different in age, perhaps you have an argument.

come now gent. I can dig up pictures that I have here somewhere.
but of course you will just argue that its not mllions of years of strata in THIS case, wont you?

Now. Let's see if retro-viral insertions can get past your Morton's Demon.

Well, I have a standard response to this type of thing, but it is founded in my previous beliefs that God just changed everything magically at the fall.

Let me study this out a bit and see how it fits into my current beliefs.


dont over load me here with a bunch of other stuff to respond to and Ill get right on this.

Actaully thanks for bringing it up
I need to see if what Im working on currently is viable scripturally or not and this is just the type of thing I need to compare it to.

 

[YahwehLove]

Every shred of astronomical evidence is compared to the heliocentric model to see how it fits. Are you suggesting astronomers still use geocentric models when interpreting astronomical data?

Do you suggest that scientists ignore the evidence of an old earth in their interpretation? I'm sure they would if serious scientific evidence of a young earth existed. Unfortunately it does not. The bible is evidence but not scientific evidence. (again, unscientific does not mean wrong)

We're not discussing 300 years ago, we're talking TODAY.

 

[Gold Dragon]

We're not discussing 300 years ago, we're talking TODAY.

Yes. A scientist today interpreting fossil evidence using the assumption of an young earth is like a scientist today interpreting astronomical evidence using the assumption of a geocentric model.

 

[herev]

I am begining to think that animals were never intended to live forever as YEC seems to generally teach.
And Im beginning to think, based on Genesis 3, that neither was Adams body eternal but that he would have been perpetuated only by the Tree of Life. The Tree being a foreshadow of Christ, in my opinion, this would make perfect sense, again, in my opinion.

I agree 100% see how close we really are?

 

[herev]

Im open to new information and ready to admit when Im wrong.
The bible teaches 6 literal days of creation, however, and Im sorry, but that is my final answer

hmm, these two sentences seem to be completely in conflict

 

[herev]

one post you announce it is your opinion, but then refuse to even consider that it is an opinion in another

Nice try.
But as I said this is nothing more that a God/rock scenario that has no purpose but to defeat ones faith in what God said.

Im not buying it.
If yoiu want my attention with this type of sillyness, then by all means make a time machine, go back and bring me some proof.

 

[herev]

"you must spread some reputation around before giving it to Gold Dragon again."


I doubt this will ever get through, but very nice try

The hypothetical isn't about who is right and who is wrong. It is about our attitudes when we discover we are wrong.

If the time machine showed that the YEC way was right, I would have no problem admitting that I was wrong.

 

[versastyle]

Well, I have a standard response to this type of thing, but it is founded in my previous beliefs that God just changed everything magically at the fall.

Although scripture doesn't say that.

And refuting these scientific conclusions with this kind of statement is pointless. All it does it say "hey you are right, you are observing God's works and it is a very scientific conclusion, however, you are still making the wrong conclusion, because the bible says so, na na nay nay boo boo".

Do you honestly feel this type of response is effective?

 

[YahwehLove]

Although scripture doesn't say that.

It doesnt say that, youre right.
Keep in mind Ive only been YEC since 99 and just this week started to see that the bible doesnt teach what AIG and people assume with a few things like animal death before the fall.


At this point Im trying to see how it fits into a 6 day creation that I will not abandon.[/quote]

And refuting these scientific conclusions with this kind of statement is pointless.

you forget I dont have to refute anything.
I believe in Gods ability to do things against the laws He has instituted.

All it does it say "hey you are right, you are observing God's works and it is a very scientific conclusion, however, you are still making the wrong conclusion, because the bible says so, na na nay nay boo boo".

Now when I start saying things that offend you, keep in mind what your doing right here.
Either this is going be respectful both ways or it will be disrespectful both ways
The choice is yours.

Do you honestly feel this type of response is effective?

It doesnt have to be effective.
It is stating a FACT that the text TEACHES 6 days of creation.
If you cannot deal with that, then maybe you need to stop responding to my posts

 

[YahwehLove]

Now. Let's see if retro-viral insertions can get past your Morton's Demon.

Karl.

We have a couple options here.

I can give the typical YEC response to this; or,

because I am working my way out of the common YEC approach that says Adam was created eternal as well as animals and everything magically changed at the fall, we can opt for my researching this until I come up with some conclusion that I am happy with and then I can provide it.

Im reading up on retroviral insertions (was before the gf arrived anyway) and will keep studying it to see how it fits.
Im sure that common design is probably going to fit in there somewhere, but I dont want to go any further than that so I dont have to retract anything later.

Is this acceptable, or would you prefer the standard YECer response?

 

[versastyle]

Now when I start saying things that offend you, keep in mind what your doing right here.
Either this is going be respectful both ways or it will be disrespectful both ways
The choice is yours.

Disrespectful? I'm making an observation. What I posted was a reflection of how I view your attitude on the subject. Unfortunately, by yout response, I see that you agree with my interpretation and just have a problem with me calling you out on it.

It doesnt have to be effective.

So we agree that you aren't adding anything to discussion?

It is stating a FACT that the text TEACHES 6 days of creation.

The text does nothing. It is a book of words, which require years of scientific knowledge to combine and understand. YOU, however are the one teaching 6 day creation.

If I never read Genesis, conduct scientific research, and I conclude the Earth is millions of years old, although it is not, am I the one who is as at fault? No. Of course not. You do know that a majority of the world can't even read the bible right? Seems kind of odd to me that the only way to learn about God and His ways requires a secular eduction.

 

[YahwehLove]

Disrespectful? I'm making an observation. What I posted was a reflection of how I view your attitude on the subject. Unfortunately, by yout response, I see that you agree with my interpretation and just have a problem with me calling you out on it.

You have yet to provide a single thing with which to ''call me out''
Only Karl offered up as much

So we agree that you aren't adding anything to discussion?

You are?

The text does nothing. It is a book of words, which require years of scientific knowledge to combine and understand. YOU, however are the one teaching 6 day creation.

wow. I wonder what they all did before your wonderful science told them that the bible was wrong?
Guess God got the truth to them a few millenia too late, no?
btw;

For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
(Exo 20:11)

If I never read Genesis, conduct scientific research, and I conclude the Earth is millions of years old, although it is not, am I the one who is as at fault? No. Of course not. You do know that a majority of the world can't even read the bible right? Seems kind of odd to me that the only way to learn about God and His ways requires a secular eduction.

Hmm
An education not possible at ealier points in time.
I wonder how on earth Enoch knew Gods truth by your standards.

 

[versastyle]

You are?

You said effective conversation isn't necessary. I didn't say that. This leads me to believe that you aren't here to discuss points of view, but just to say the same five words.

wow. I wonder what they all did before your wonderful science told them that the bible was wrong?

They concluded the stars were embedded in the firmament and that the Earth was flat.

An education not possible at ealier points in time.
I wonder how on earth Enoch knew Gods truth by your standards.

Through prayer and guidance, definitely not based in a dogmatic approach to written words.

You are making my point.

 

[YahwehLove]

They concluded the stars were embedded in the firmament and that the Earth was flat.

Now PROVE to me that ALL men of God believed that and not just the few.
That some parts of the ''church'' called men heretics for rejecting this type of teaching does NOT mean all bought into it.
AND the bible does NOT teach either clearly.
It is men reading too much INTO the text.
Ive seen the passges and Ive seen the drawings.
they read WAY too much into the text, plain and simple
Funny tho, a 6 day creation doesnt need a thing added or any reading between the lines.
God was there, He made it all and Im sure that HE is the authority on the matter.

Through prayer and guidance, definitely not based in a dogmatic approach to written words.

Here we go.
I was just corrected for this same junk that implies that Im not praying but being dogmatic.

herev
Heres your chance to show you are being fair to all friend.

 

[versastyle]

Now PROVE to me that ALL men of God believed that and not just the few.
That some parts of the ''church'' called men heretics for rejecting this type of teaching does NOT mean all bought into it.
AND the bible does NOT teach either clearly.

Exactly. Science had to educate them.

It is men reading too much INTO the text.
Ive seen the passges and Ive seen the drawings.
they read WAY too much into the text, plain and simple
Funny tho, a 6 day creation doesnt need a thing added or any reading between the lines.
God was there, He made it all and Im sure that HE is the authority on the matter.

He is the authority on the subject. Its too bad He requires you have an education to see it.

Here we go.
I was just corrected for this same junk that implies that Im not praying but being dogmatic.
Heres your chance to show you are being fair to all friend.

You asked how people learn without any education. THEY COULDN'T READ, SO WHAT ELSE COULD THEY DO?

Pray.

 

[YahwehLove]

Exactly. Science had to educate them.

Right.
Far be it for God to have the ability to say ''I did it in 6 days'' and to teach that to man and then have that be the truth.
Lets see.
How many times has science be WRONG.
One of Hawkings latest retractions comes to mind.
Fairly major one too as I recall.

He is the authority on the subject. Its too bad He requires you have an education to see it.

Like this you mean?

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the prudent I will annul."
(1Co 1:19)

Its not wisdom to accept a theory that causes one to dismiss Gods word when not a single person on the planet will say absolultely that that thoery is foolproof.
IN MY OPINION.

All those poor uneducated saps down thru the years robbed of Gods truth simply because Darwin hadnt arrived on the scene yet.
Sounds more like a false prophet type of setup to me.
IN MY OPINION.

You asked how people learn without any education. THEY COULDN'T READ, SO WHAT ELSE COULD THEY DO?

you words made implications.
There was no other way for me to take what you said.

So either we can be men here and just deal with some implications, or we can all hit the ''report'' button everytime someone says something we dont like.

Personally Id like to have EVERYONE speak their mind.
No one is callig names or being nasty as far as Ive seen.
Herev gets on my ''implications'' no matter if I meant them or not.
I expect the same to be done here.

 

[versastyle]

Right.
Far be it for God to have the ability to say ''I did it in 6 days'' and to teach that to man and then have that be the truth.

I agree.

Lets see.
How many times has science be WRONG.

Many times.

One of Hawkings latest retractions comes to mind.
Fairly major one too as I recall.

So?

Like this you mean?

That verse leads me to believe that all this education and scientific study we have that helps us read the bible is leading us to stupidity. According to scripture it would be better that we couldn't read.

All those poor uneducated saps down thru the years robbed of Gods truth simply because Darwin hadnt arrived on the scene yet.

Yeah all those poor, blind and dumb people who couldn't read were robbed as well.