YEC's Unite Continued

[fragmentsofdreams]

When a model doesn't work...with what? Your preconceived ideas? Are you telling me that because something doesn't fit with your beliefs it must be false?

Does anyone else see this as ironic? Here am I proclaiming the Bible and people shoot me down saying "Well because the Bible doesn't fit with science we must change it's meaning or interpret it another way" and then someone else turns around and goes "Well because something (supposedly scientific) doesn't with my ideas it must be wrong or changed". Its almost funny how people will turn a blind eye to methods that were supposed to work for them and then didn't. And now they say because it didn't work the way they wanted it to its wrong. That's holding on to YOUR beliefs too tightly.

When the model doesn't work with the data, the assumptions of the model are obviously flawed.

 

[L'Anatra]

When the model doesn't work with the data, the assumptions of the model are obviously flawed.

Exactly. And Underdog is ignoring the data.

 

[Underdog77]

Exactly. And Underdog is ignoring the data.

What are you guys talking about? The data (dating method, geology, etc...) doesn't fit an old earth model, so are you saying the old earth model is wrong?

I'm not getting it. First you (fragmentsofdreams) say in post #24 in this thread that if the data doesn't fit with a model, then somethings faulty in the data (and again I ask, is it faulty because it doesn't with your model?). But now you say, in post #81, that if a model doesn't fit the data then the model is faulty.

Make up your mind . If the latter is true, then you just claimed the old earth model is incorrect. That model doesn't fit with 90% of dating methods (not that I believe they are reliable, but if OE's are going to use them I might as well use them a l too). That model doesn't fit with many geological discoveries. Also that model does not fit with the Bible.

Either way (#24 or #81) you hurt yourself.

 

[Underdog77]

Me too.

I've had to bite my tongue (read fingers) at least 15 times (by my count) over the last few days.

Me too when I read yours, Chi's, Fragments, and boughtwitha price. But rules are rules, let us control ourselves.

 

[L'Anatra]

What are you guys talking about? The data (dating method, geology, etc...) doesn't fit an old earth model, so are you saying the old earth model is wrong?

Absolutely incorrect! My goodness... give us the data that doesn't fit an old Earth model. Come on, out with it.

Anything that is older than 6,000 years refutes your model.

I'm not getting it. First you (fragmentsofdreams) say in post #24 in this thread that if the data doesn't fit with a model, then somethings faulty in the data (and again I ask, is it faulty because it doesn't with your model?). But now you say, in post #81, that if a model doesn't fit the data then the model is faulty.

Actually, he said the same thing in both posts. Read them again.

If the data (properly measured) doesn't fit the model, then there's something wrong with the model. This isn't complicated.

Make up your mind . If the latter is true, then you just claimed the old earth model is incorrect. That model doesn't fit with 90% of dating methods (not that I believe they are reliable, but if OE's are going to use them I might as well use them a l too). That model doesn't fit with many geological discoveries. Also that model does not fit with the Bible.

Geological discoveries... right.

I ask you again. Give us the "geological discoveries" that refute an old Earth.

Either way (#24 or #81) you hurt yourself.

Since they both say the same thing, that's a little preposterous.

 

[L'Anatra]

Me too when I read yours, Chi's, Fragments, and boughtwitha price. But rules are rules, let us control ourselves.

Yep.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

What are you guys talking about? The data (dating method, geology, etc...) doesn't fit an old earth model, so are you saying the old earth model is wrong?

I'm not getting it. First you (fragmentsofdreams) say in post #24 in this thread that if the data doesn't fit with a model, then somethings faulty in the data (and again I ask, is it faulty because it doesn't with your model?). But now you say, in post #81, that if a model doesn't fit the data then the model is faulty.

Make up your mind . If the latter is true, then you just claimed the old earth model is incorrect. That model doesn't fit with 90% of dating methods (not that I believe they are reliable, but if OE's are going to use them I might as well use them a l too). That model doesn't fit with many geological discoveries. Also that model does not fit with the Bible.

Either way (#24 or #81) you hurt yourself.

I went back to reread #24. I said:

When a model doesn't work, it is a good sign that at least one of the assumptions is faulty.

I said that the assumptions of the model had to be faulty. I said nothing about the data.

Your model assumes that no He escapes. I do not see how this is reasonable to assume. Unless you can support this assumption, I see no reason to accept your model.

 

[Underdog77]

Absolutely incorrect! My goodness... give us the data that doesn't fit an old Earth model. Come on, out with it.

I've already told you I won't have everything I want ready for another month or so.

Actually, he said the same thing in both posts. Read them again.[/QOUTE]

Actually He didn't, use some reasoning skills. In the first one he said that if a model doesn't work then one of the assumptions is faulty. But the assumptions affect the data, so if an assumption is wrong then the data is wrong.

In this light when you read his first post again it means that whenever a model doesn't work then the data is probably faulty. This contridicts his second post mentioned. In the second one he says if the model doesn't work with the data then the assumptions of the model are wrong.

Which is it?

If the data (properly measured) doesn't fit the model, then there's something wrong with the model. This isn't complicated.

Well said. I have given Biblical evidence portraying a young earth and soon I will the scientific evidence for a young earth...just have some patience.

I ask you again. Give us the "geological discoveries" that refute an old Earth.

I tell you again, just hold on for a while. BTW You never gave me those creation contridictions in the Bible. I can't answer anything that isn't presented.

 

[Underdog77]

I went back to reread #24. I said:

[/font]

I said that the assumptions of the model had to be faulty. I said nothing about the data.

Your model assumes that no He escapes. I do not see how this is reasonable to assume. Unless you can support this assumption, I see no reason to accept your model.

Read my reply to L'anatra.

 

[Enigma'07]

Hey guy's! I just wanted to say that I am a young earth creationist. I have a question for you guys. What do you see as the best scientific support for what we believe?

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Hey guy's! I just wanted to say that I am a young earth creationist. I have a question for you guys. What do you see as the best scientific support for what we believe?

There isn't any.

Next...

 

[Enigma'07]

The way I see it there is. ICR has alot of stuff, and there are many books on the subject.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

There are many books on the benefits of astrology too.

ICR has a lot of nonsense that usually only fools the gullible or folks who just want to believe that way.

 

[Enigma'07]

The books bring up good points. I can tell you that I am not gullible I believe that which has the most evidance, and YEC is that.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Right - you're not gullible.

Tell me, what is the vast scientific experience you objectively bring to the table to ascertain that the ICR points are good ones?

Are you sure it's not your wishful thinking that leads you to conclude they are good points?

 

[Enigma'07]

Read "A Case For A Creator" by Lee Strobel.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I'm not a big Strobel fan. But I want to hear of your scientific expertise.

Also please give me at most two strong 'scientific' arguments you, in light of your expertise, believe are cogent arguments for a young Earth.

 

[GodSaves]

Chi_Cygni, is there ever a time that you aren't condescending or rude? Look at your signature, people are stupid. Great statement of judgement for a Christian to go around with.

Everyone who believes in evolution easily dismisses ICR as being fools or foolish. Who is it Chi that you, who claims to be a Christian, are calling a fool? Hmm, lets see ICR is made up of other Christians and you are calling other Christians fools. Doesn't seem too healthing for Christians as a whole. ICR has many well educated men/women of science with, yes a biased opinion on the creation of the world because who do they believe, GOD.
Then we have scientists who are not men/women of God(on an generalized scale of the total) claiming a big bang type theory and evolution. These people are also biased because they want to disprove creation. Who do you put your faith in for the creation? The men and women who, on the majority, do not believe in God, and are trying to disprove the idea of God in creation.

Shouldn't science be unbiased and produce the same results no matter what your faith or non faith is? Of course. Notice as well there are scientists who are not believers in God who also make mention that there had to have been some miracle for life to come forth in 4.6 billion years. Some of these people are saying that aliens planted seeds in the ocean and that is where we came from. Maybe this will be your new opinion of how life came to be, when everyone realizes that a cell, as complex as it is, could not have evolved out of the primordial soup. Or wait, maybe you will believe that God created this primative type ape and that is where we came from. Then God's image must be a primative ape, since God said He created man in His image. But that is proved wrong because Jesus was a man not a primative ape.

What I find to be convincing to me is that science keeps evolving and changing its "facts" on how things began. All because tomorrow brings more evidence that shows they were wrong with their previous assumptions. Creationism has never changed.(Genesis Literal) Creationism doesn't have to change to covers everything in a very logical way if you do believe in God, because God can do all. But I guess many need to have evidence of this so they can believe. And here it is yet again, FAITH. Faith that one believes God did what He says He did.

Which claim gives adds ammo to those who do not believe, creationism or evolution? It is too easy for one to dispute the Bible and its authority if you say that if a part of the Bible doesn't produce evidence that we can see at this moment, then it must be taken allegorical. And it must also be taken allegorical if we do not understand how it could have happened like it did. It also must be taken allegorical if our minds cannot grasp what happened. So one will say, as they have, that Jesus, salvation, God, hell and heaven, all must be taken allegorical as well, because we cannot grasp the concept of heaven and hell, we cannot understand how we can have salvation, and certainly we have never seen God so He is allegorical as well. Heck, it is all just a lesson in life created by man without any intervetion by the Holy Spirit, let alone God or Jesus. I am hoping that you are not apart of the believing in this 'new translation' of the Bible to come from and Angelican Bishop and a Baptist Pastor that turns almost all the teachings to teach the opposite.

These are the type of statements I have come across on this forum as well as in life due in part to people saying such miracles are allegorical. I am aware that you will say that creationism adds more ammo to the non-believers because it is too big to comprehend, and there is no found proof. Of course there is no found proof for the big bang type theory, or evolution as far as where man evolved from. And you as a TE believes that God is all powerful and could have created everything if you took Genesis literal. So you still have the same argument as a literalists, is God all powerful, can He do miracles? Such as walk on water, calm the storm, raise the dead, feed 5,000 with a few loaves and a few fish, call out demons.


L'Anatra, I am trying to put together a thorough answer to your question on Genesis 1 and 2. I could give a simple answer but that doesn't really help any. =)

God Bless

 

[Enigma'07]

First off, before I do so, I want to say that I do not know everything and I am open to the evidence. Second off, I am a sophmore in high school, I don't have much expertise. I was asking the others becuase I wanted to know what they found helpful.

Erosion, and Populations.

Also, the only reson I see to allow for an old earth is so that evolution could take place. I have read plenty of evidance asto why that is not true. The number one being I believe in the Bible and it tells me that God created all things.

Have you read "Starlight And Time" by Humphreys?

 

[L'Anatra]

I've already told you I won't have everything I want ready for another month or so.

Okay.

Actually, he said the same thing in both posts. Read them again.

Actually, I read them several times over.

Actually He didn't, use some reasoning skills. In the first one he said that if a model doesn't work then one of the assumptions is faulty. But the assumptions affect the data, so if an assumption is wrong then the data is wrong.

The assumptions do not affect the data. The data exists regardless of assumptions. Assumptions are part of the model. If the data falsifies the assumptions (the hypotheses) of the model, then the model is wrong. fragmentsofdreams said the same thing in both posts.

In this light when you read his first post again it means that whenever a model doesn't work then the data is probably faulty. This contridicts his second post mentioned. In the second one he says if the model doesn't work with the data then the assumptions of the model are wrong.

Which is it?

He really did not say that. I will repeat: if the model doesn't work with the measured data, then the [assumptions of the] model is/are wrong.

Well said. I have given Biblical evidence portraying a young earth and soon I will the scientific evidence for a young earth...just have some patience.

I tell you again, just hold on for a while.

Alright.

BTW You never gave me those creation contridictions in the Bible. I can't answer anything that isn't presented.

I didn't give them to you specifically... but I did present them in this thread in post #79. If you need more detail, I'd be happy to elaborate.