YEC view on carbon dating

[SBG]

Back to your OP:



Firstly, if you wanted only YECs to answer you should have posted in the YECs forum. That way you wouldn't have to deal with us infidels attacking your faith.

The thing is, if you don't know about it, you're perfectly free to say:

I don't understand how young rocks can give old ages, and I have no idea how science can be so gosh darned wrong. But I believe so because of the Bible.

We'd be fine with that. But don't expect to find much scientific proof for your position. If your position really is based on faith per se, then you should feel comfortable just putting in earplugs and ignoring a word of what any scientist says.

But don't expect to be able to give a good answer to how Christianity can be relevant in today's world of science and technology ...

What was the point to this other than to ridicule your fellow believers?

 

[shernren]

What was the point to this other than to ridicule your fellow believers?

Who have I ridiculed? I may have used strong words but I don't believe I targeted anyone. Unless you mean "infidels", which I qualified with to indicate a joke. Sorry if it was offensive.

But honestly, that is the logical implication of it all. In fact I held this belief for a few weeks. After my encounters on the Open Forums and my reading TalkOrigins, for a while I believed that the earth was young, and if the evidence said it was old then the evidence could go burn for all I care. It was just that as I kept refuting evidence for a young earth that I saw there was really no need for me to hold on to the actuality of a young earth. Right now, the "earth is young, science is bogus" view to me is a plausible alternative, but not the best one for me personally, though I would feel that it would be the approach with the most honesty that a YEC can hold.

 

[SBG]

Who have I ridiculed? I may have used strong words but I don't believe I targeted anyone. Unless you mean "infidels", which I qualified with to indicate a joke. Sorry if it was offensive.

But honestly, that is the logical implication of it all. In fact I held this belief for a few weeks. After my encounters on the Open Forums and my reading TalkOrigins, for a while I believed that the earth was young, and if the evidence said it was old then the evidence could go burn for all I care. It was just that as I kept refuting evidence for a young earth that I saw there was really no need for me to hold on to the actuality of a young earth. Right now, the "earth is young, science is bogus" view to me is a plausible alternative, but not the best one for me personally, though I would feel that it would be the approach with the most honesty that a YEC can hold.

I didn't take issue with the infidel comment, I understood the joke refering to yourself.

I thought these comments were rather condescending and poking fun at all YECs.

" I don't understand how young rocks can give old ages, and I have no idea how science can be so gosh darned wrong. But I believe so because of the Bible.

We'd be fine with that. But don't expect to find much scientific proof for your position. If your position really is based on faith per se, then you should feel comfortable just putting in earplugs and ignoring a word of what any scientist says.

But don't expect to be able to give a good answer to how Christianity can be relevant in today's world of science and technology ..."

Especially the last one with saying that YECs cannot speak of Christianity that is relevant to todays world. As far as I can see, we are still in need of a Savior.

 

[shernren]

Well, it seems I've gotten my points across well! Now to blunt those points down ...

" I don't understand how young rocks can give old ages, and I have no idea how science can be so gosh darned wrong. But I believe so because of the Bible.

I love what AiG says in its statement of faith, that any observed or reported phenomenon that clashes with a young-earth worldview must be invalid by definition. This is exactly as above, except I've put it in stupider words. AiG doesn't bother to explain how these contrary phenomena are unscientific: they just say they must be wrong. In other words, "I don't care: if it's not what I think the Bible says it must be wrong!"

We'd be fine with that. But don't expect to find much scientific proof for your position. If your position really is based on faith per se, then you should feel comfortable just putting in earplugs and ignoring a word of what any scientist says.

Now this is ironic. You chide us for putting stock on our wonderful scientists instead of the great Word of God. But then again, why should AiG? Why should ICR? Why should they bother with scientific journals and credited scientists? After all, if they believe in a young earth simply because of the Word of God, shouldn't the Word of God be enough for them despite whatever science says?

Think of it this way: let's say per imposibile the scientists "disproved" Jesus' time on earth. I would be the first person to say: "You should feel comfortable just putting in earplugs and ignoring a word of what any scientist says!" and I'd be the first person to do just that! Now, since it appears from your actions that the 6-day creation is as important as Jesus' Incarnation on earth to you, wouldn't you agree that you should ignore whatever "rubbish" science has to say about it?

But don't expect to be able to give a good answer to how Christianity can be relevant in today's world of science and technology ..."

On second thought, this one was probably a bit overboard. I apologize. Then again, have you ever wondered why they laugh at us? The Bible says that the world will hate us for being Jesus-followers - but at the same time the world can also hate us for something we ourselves have done. I don't want to draw comparisons, but if a Christian murders someone do you think the world hates him because he is a Christian or because he is a murderer? In the same way, it may entirely be possible that the world laughs at YECists not just because of Jesus, but also because of YECism itself...