YEC is physically impossible

[dlamberth]

​

Yes that is true, but looks like when given a hold science is good at hardening hearts and science knowledge will not be of much use at the great white throne. But by then it is too late.

What I'm taking from this is denial of what she presents with out actually addressing her points. To be saved a person does not need to believe the Biblical Creation story. It's weird to me that it's brought up in that context.

 

[AV1611VET]

-
​

Yes that is true, but looks like when given a hold science is good at hardening hearts ...

Jesus mentions a principle here ...

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

And for those who have invested a ton of money to get a "good education," they are not about to let some ignorant Internet poster get away with telling their treasures to take a hike.

... and science knowledge will not be of much use at the great white throne.

Imagine standing before God and being asked why you believed what you believed, and you answer back with how the earth and the universe spoke to you about this, that, and the other thing.

God leans forward and says to them what they all say to us: "Show me."

And he says, "Sure, I'll be glad to show You."

And he turns around and ... and ... well ... what happened to all that evidence!? It was here a minute ago!

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

But by then it is too late.

Yup.

 

[BCP1928]

To make threats like that, you must think agreeing with your interpretation of Genesis is more important to God than embracing the Gospel of Christ. Very odd religion, Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

To make threats like that, you must think agreeing with your interpretation of Genesis is more important to God than embracing the Gospel of Christ.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion.

I was talking about a person who didn't get saved because we was led to believe all evidence pointed to a lack of this, that, and the other thing in the Bible -- including God.

 

[Ophiolite]

So for you, me saying a little girl is speaking nonsense. Is the same as calling the same person a silly girl, if you want to look at that way fine with me.

It is pretty well identical. In my original reference I said "The young woman you dismiss as a "silly girl on youtube", or something similar," (Emphasis added.) The two phrases - your actual phrase and my recollection of it - are equally dismissive and inaccurate.

In my post (213) to your reply i placed in bold what my question was addressing "I don't think the Earth etc, was created,"

I don't think the Earth was created for many reasons. The lack of any meaningful evidence that the Christian God is real. The lack of meaningful evidence that any God is real. The requirement that such beliefs must be founded on faith. My considered opinion that faith is far too risky a method for arriving at truth, or Truth, or "truth". The development of detailed, substantiated explanations for the origin of the Earth and its subsequent evolution.
That's the condensed version. Since the path to this position took several years and contained many diverse aspects it would, I think, be tedious for you if I were to lay it all out.

My attitude is, if this method is true and accurate. Then test this method on something where a undeniable conclusion can be seen and not on something that is claimed to have happened billions of years ago. Where no one who is presently doing this testing was around. That method may be believable and acceptable to you, but for me it is not worth a second thought.

Then please don't give it a second thought. I shall continue to appreciate the power of logic chains applied to detailed, repeatable, quantitative observations as a reliable means of discerning the past.
Thank you for your responses.

 

[BCP1928]

How in the world did you come to that conclusion.

I was talking about a person who didn't get saved because we was led to believe all evidence pointed to a lack of this, that, and the other thing in the Bible -- including God.

There's that red herring again. It's beginning to smell bad.

 

[d taylor]

It is pretty well identical. In my original reference I said "The young woman you dismiss as a "silly girl on youtube", or something similar," (Emphasis added.) The two phrases - your actual phrase and my recollection of it - are equally dismissive and inaccurate.

I don't think the Earth was created for many reasons. The lack of any meaningful evidence that the Christian God is real. The lack of meaningful evidence that any God is real. The requirement that such beliefs must be founded on faith. My considered opinion that faith is far too risky a method for arriving at truth, or Truth, or "truth". The development of detailed, substantiated explanations for the origin of the Earth and its subsequent evolution.
That's the condensed version. Since the path to this position took several years and contained many diverse aspects it would, I think, be tedious for you if I were to lay it all out.

Then please don't give it a second thought. I shall continue to appreciate the power of logic chains applied to detailed, repeatable, quantitative observations as a reliable means of discerning the past.
Thank you for your responses.

-
​

So you do not believe in God because there is no creation, the earth is not actually created. So when something exist but is not created, how is that defined. What does science call this thinking and what they are examining. Because if the earth, etc was not created, then they are not studying a creation, what are they studying .

Creationist are called creationist because they believe a creator God created everything.

 

[d taylor]

What I'm taking from this is denial of what she presents with out actually addressing her points. To be saved a person does not need to believe the Biblical Creation story. It's weird to me that it's brought up in that context.

-
​

If there was no Bible, then i would have no reference to deny her points. But since The Bible does exist and not only exist, but gives account of God creating His creation. So I judge her information against God's recorded creation descriptions.

 

[Ophiolite]

-
​

So you do not believe in God because there is no creation, the earth is not actually created. So when something exist but is not created, how is that defined. What does science call this thinking and what they are examining. Because if the earth, etc was not created, then they are not studying a creation, what are they studying .

Creationist are called creationist because they believe a creator God created everything.

I did not say that they (scientists) were studying creation. I said that if creation, as envisaged by you, was real, then scientists would be studying creation. I understand you to view creation as being as literally as described in Genesis. If you mean something else, please let me know.
Scientists who are Christians, but not literalists, will consider they are studying God's creation. The rest of us think we are studying some aspect of the universe. Most such studies need not worry about where the universe came from, a question I consider above my pay grade.

To phrase it another way, what we choose to characterise the origin of the universe is largely irrelevant to the study of the universe, though it may be important to the motivation of some to carry on such study.

 

[dlamberth]

-
​

So you do not believe in God because there is no creation, the earth is not actually created. So when something exist but is not created, how is that defined. What does science call this thinking and what they are examining. Because if the earth, etc was not created, then they are not studying a creation, what are they studying .

Creationist are called creationist because they believe a creator God created everything.

From my perspective, science is opening a window into the creation process. What's not wanted in some quarters is the new creation story that science is telling.

 

[AV1611VET]

From my perspective, science is opening a window into the creation process. What's not wanted in some quarters is the new creation story that science is telling.

Including this one?

I've Got To Get To Walmart!

 

[sjastro]

Here is another video from Erika.

You can skip to the four minute mark as the early part of the video covers uninteresting stuff involving her PhD studies, chopping up cadavers and running around naked in the forest howling at the moon.
She exposes the misinformation from the YECist Eric Hovind (like father (Ken) like son) on evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is another video from Erika.

Thank you.

 

[dlamberth]

Including this one?

I've Got To Get To Walmart!

As I've said many times now, I'll take what science is showing us about the Earth any day over the creation story of an ancient middle-eastern tribe of desert dwellers. Science is open to learning and growing. Not so much for the other side.

 

[Chesterton]

nm

 

[d taylor]

As I've said many times now, I'll take what science is showing us about the Earth any day over the creation story of an ancient middle-eastern tribe of desert dwellers. Science is open to learning and growing. Not so much for the other side.

God does not grow or need to learn, even though as Jesus, He God humbled Himself to come as a human baby. Which grew physically and grew in wisdom (His human nature , not the divine nature), but the other members of The Godhead have never grew or needed to learn.

So you will trust in a system that has to grow and learn which obviously will have mistakes, failures and even lies, to advance its system. Over a Being that does not have the problems associated with learning, growing and truth telling.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I've said many times now, I'll take what science is showing us about the Earth any day over the creation story of an ancient middle-eastern tribe of desert dwellers. Science is open to learning and growing. Not so much for the other side.

You're good at starting junk science threads left, right, and center.

Did you buy into this Big Bounce at one time?

If so, I can't find where you started a thread on it.

 

[Ophiolite]

So you will trust in a system that has to grow and learn which obviously will have mistakes, failures and even lies, to advance its system. Over a Being that does not have the problems associated with learning, growing and truth telling.

Yes, I will trust in a system that is a system of growth; a system so designed to identify and correct mistakes; a system that honestly reports on failures and ferrets out lies. I won't simply trust in it, I shall celebrate and admire it, for its patience and modesty. And this I shall do in preference to your offered alternative of a Being for which their is no significant evidence and whose existence must be taken on faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is another video from Erika.

Gutsick seems to have a penchant for stating that creationists "regurgitate" or "recycle the same old arguments since the '70s."

She'd be singing a different tune with me though.

But I get it from both sides actually.

One minute people are accusing me of "not thinking outside the box," and the next, they're wanting "chapter and verse" for something I believe.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, I will trust in a system that is a system of growth; a system so designed to identify and correct mistakes; a system that honestly reports on failures and ferrets out lies. I won't simply trust in it, I shall celebrate and admire it, for its patience and modesty. And this I shall do in preference to your offered alternative of a Being for which their is no significant evidence and whose existence must be taken on faith.

Make that any of many proposed gods
and innumerable opinions about said gods.