Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Young Earth Creationism

Dhruva
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:48:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't believe there is any supporting evidence for young earth creationism, because there is too much evidence against the idea of a 10,000 year old Earth.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 12:58:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

YEC may be the most honest interpretation of the Bible, but it is the weakest interpretation when compared to actual evidence of an old Earth.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Rosco_P_Coletrain
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 1:42:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

The biggest problem as I see it with YEC is that God is shown to use the consistency of these created things as a picture of how reliable his own ways are.

If we make those things out to have been around only a short period of time we sort of yank the power of such comparisons away and destroy them.

Psalms 119:90-91 "Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth. "They continue this day according to thine ordinances: for all are thy servants."

Psalms 89:36-37 ""His seed shall endure to the end of time, and his throne as the sun before me. "It shall be established to the end of time as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah."

Many Bibles use the words, "for ever", at Psalms 89:36-37 but the word is, "owlam", literally meaning, "the lopping off point of time", as in, "a vanishing point of time".
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 2:58:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:58:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

YEC may be the most honest interpretation of the Bible, but it is the weakest interpretation when compared to actual evidence of an old Earth.

Who says it's the most "honest" interpretation of the bible?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 4:03:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 2:58:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:58:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

YEC may be the most honest interpretation of the Bible, but it is the weakest interpretation when compared to actual evidence of an old Earth.

Who says it's the most "honest" interpretation of the bible?

Maybe 'accurate' is a better word, but it probably doesn't matter overall - no matter what word I use you're not going to like the thought. The YEC interpretation of creation requires the least amount of creative work arounds. A day being an actual day presents less problems for the coherence of the message.

Specifically, if creation week were actual days, then there would not necessarily be any death before the original sin, unlike other explanations. I understand by what Paul writes in Romans that creation as a whole suffers and dies due to the original sin - something to the effect that all of creation suffers due to the 'sin of one man' and "death entered the world due to sin" (I think that is also in Romans).

There are other problems YEC is not forced to deal with since it seems they take the text as is.

I haven't looked at this in a long time - I'm sure I have forgotten some of their interpretations and arguments for them. Forgive me if I'm a little rusty.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dhruva
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 4:36:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:48:54 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I don't believe there is any supporting evidence for young earth creationism, because there is too much evidence against the idea of a 10,000 year old Earth.

Ive seen debates with YEC's winning against evolutionists. I'm just waiting for them to show up
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 4:51:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 4:03:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 2:58:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:58:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

YEC may be the most honest interpretation of the Bible, but it is the weakest interpretation when compared to actual evidence of an old Earth.

Who says it's the most "honest" interpretation of the bible?

Maybe 'accurate' is a better word, but it probably doesn't matter overall - no matter what word I use you're not going to like the thought. The YEC interpretation of creation requires the least amount of creative work arounds. A day being an actual day presents less problems for the coherence of the message.


It depends on how you're supposed to read it and what it's aims are. I can believe that the "days" in Harry Potter are supposed to roughly cohere with our 24 hours days - that is they are a representation of our days in the literature but also believe that they nothing actually corresponds to those days in this world. So, yeah, I would accept that they are actual days in Genesis but not accept that that section isn't supposed to be read like a straightforward, modern day history or science book. I don't think the "days" were supposed to represent actually billions of years or whatever some people come up with. I think they are reading in wrong in the first place if they are trying to read it like that.

If I read Harry Potter "literally" (as in reading it as a book that is/was supposed to correspond to actual events) sure that may require less "creative interpretations" of what the values in the text that are being espoused are but that doesn't mean that it'd be smart way to read it. And we know because we know the genre of the book.

Specifically, if creation week were actual days, then there would not necessarily be any death before the original sin, unlike other explanations. I understand by what Paul writes in Romans that creation as a whole suffers and dies due to the original sin - something to the effect that all of creation suffers due to the 'sin of one man' and "death entered the world due to sin" (I think that is also in Romans).

There are other problems YEC is not forced to deal with since it seems they take the text as is.


I haven't looked at this in a long time - I'm sure I have forgotten some of their interpretations and arguments for them. Forgive me if I'm a little rusty.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 4:56:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 4:51:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:03:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 2:58:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:58:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

YEC may be the most honest interpretation of the Bible, but it is the weakest interpretation when compared to actual evidence of an old Earth.

Who says it's the most "honest" interpretation of the bible?

Maybe 'accurate' is a better word, but it probably doesn't matter overall - no matter what word I use you're not going to like the thought. The YEC interpretation of creation requires the least amount of creative work arounds. A day being an actual day presents less problems for the coherence of the message.


It depends on how you're supposed to read it and what it's aims are. I can believe that the "days" in Harry Potter are supposed to roughly cohere with our 24 hours days - that is they are a representation of our days in the literature but also believe that they nothing actually corresponds to those days in this world. So, yeah, I would accept that they are actual days in Genesis but not accept that that section isn't supposed to be read like a straightforward, modern day history or science book. I don't think the "days" were supposed to represent actually billions of years or whatever some people come up with. I think they are reading in wrong in the first place if they are trying to read it like that.

If I read Harry Potter "literally" (as in reading it as a book that is/was supposed to correspond to actual events) sure that may require less "creative interpretations" of what the values in the text that are being espoused are but that doesn't mean that it'd be smart way to read it. And we know because we know the genre of the book.

I've heard this argument before, but I believe it is based on a fallacy. Do YEC read everything literally? Obviously, they do not take the parables as literal.

Specifically, if creation week were actual days, then there would not necessarily be any death before the original sin, unlike other explanations. I understand by what Paul writes in Romans that creation as a whole suffers and dies due to the original sin - something to the effect that all of creation suffers due to the 'sin of one man' and "death entered the world due to sin" (I think that is also in Romans).

There are other problems YEC is not forced to deal with since it seems they take the text as is.



I haven't looked at this in a long time - I'm sure I have forgotten some of their interpretations and arguments for them. Forgive me if I'm a little rusty.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 5:04:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 4:56:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:51:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:03:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 2:58:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:58:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

YEC may be the most honest interpretation of the Bible, but it is the weakest interpretation when compared to actual evidence of an old Earth.

Who says it's the most "honest" interpretation of the bible?

Maybe 'accurate' is a better word, but it probably doesn't matter overall - no matter what word I use you're not going to like the thought. The YEC interpretation of creation requires the least amount of creative work arounds. A day being an actual day presents less problems for the coherence of the message.


It depends on how you're supposed to read it and what it's aims are. I can believe that the "days" in Harry Potter are supposed to roughly cohere with our 24 hours days - that is they are a representation of our days in the literature but also believe that they nothing actually corresponds to those days in this world. So, yeah, I would accept that they are actual days in Genesis but not accept that that section isn't supposed to be read like a straightforward, modern day history or science book. I don't think the "days" were supposed to represent actually billions of years or whatever some people come up with. I think they are reading in wrong in the first place if they are trying to read it like that.

If I read Harry Potter "literally" (as in reading it as a book that is/was supposed to correspond to actual events) sure that may require less "creative interpretations" of what the values in the text that are being espoused are but that doesn't mean that it'd be smart way to read it. And we know because we know the genre of the book.

I've heard this argument before, but I believe it is based on a fallacy. Do YEC read everything literally? Obviously, they do not take the parables as literal.


Sure and I (and pretty much all biblical scholars) say they are reading Genesis wrong too.

Specifically, if creation week were actual days, then there would not necessarily be any death before the original sin, unlike other explanations. I understand by what Paul writes in Romans that creation as a whole suffers and dies due to the original sin - something to the effect that all of creation suffers due to the 'sin of one man' and "death entered the world due to sin" (I think that is also in Romans).

There are other problems YEC is not forced to deal with since it seems they take the text as is.



I haven't looked at this in a long time - I'm sure I have forgotten some of their interpretations and arguments for them. Forgive me if I'm a little rusty.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 5:09:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 5:04:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:56:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:51:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:03:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 2:58:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:58:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

YEC may be the most honest interpretation of the Bible, but it is the weakest interpretation when compared to actual evidence of an old Earth.

Who says it's the most "honest" interpretation of the bible?

Maybe 'accurate' is a better word, but it probably doesn't matter overall - no matter what word I use you're not going to like the thought. The YEC interpretation of creation requires the least amount of creative work arounds. A day being an actual day presents less problems for the coherence of the message.


It depends on how you're supposed to read it and what it's aims are. I can believe that the "days" in Harry Potter are supposed to roughly cohere with our 24 hours days - that is they are a representation of our days in the literature but also believe that they nothing actually corresponds to those days in this world. So, yeah, I would accept that they are actual days in Genesis but not accept that that section isn't supposed to be read like a straightforward, modern day history or science book. I don't think the "days" were supposed to represent actually billions of years or whatever some people come up with. I think they are reading in wrong in the first place if they are trying to read it like that.

If I read Harry Potter "literally" (as in reading it as a book that is/was supposed to correspond to actual events) sure that may require less "creative interpretations" of what the values in the text that are being espoused are but that doesn't mean that it'd be smart way to read it. And we know because we know the genre of the book.

I've heard this argument before, but I believe it is based on a fallacy. Do YEC read everything literally? Obviously, they do not take the parables as literal.


Sure and I (and pretty much all biblical scholars) say they are reading Genesis wrong too.

Well, that takes all the fun out of it!!! That's like calling your mama to fight your fights. ;-)

Specifically, if creation week were actual days, then there would not necessarily be any death before the original sin, unlike other explanations. I understand by what Paul writes in Romans that creation as a whole suffers and dies due to the original sin - something to the effect that all of creation suffers due to the 'sin of one man' and "death entered the world due to sin" (I think that is also in Romans).

There are other problems YEC is not forced to deal with since it seems they take the text as is.



I haven't looked at this in a long time - I'm sure I have forgotten some of their interpretations and arguments for them. Forgive me if I'm a little rusty.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 5:29:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

I don't think people on this forum actually know the meaning of evolution. The theory of YEC even if it's true doesn't disprove evolution in any way, the two could co exist as a matter of fact. But just an FYI there is no evidence to prove that the earth is 10000 years old or however old people think it is. The evidence is pretty solid that the earth is around 3.5-4 billion years old. Either way evolution is a real thing.
Rosco_P_Coletrain
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2015 11:57:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 5:29:09 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

I don't think people on this forum actually know the meaning of evolution. The theory of YEC even if it's true doesn't disprove evolution in any way, the two could co exist as a matter of fact. But just an FYI there is no evidence to prove that the earth is 10000 years old or however old people think it is. The evidence is pretty solid that the earth is around 3.5-4 billion years old. Either way evolution is a real thing.

Yes, you are right.

Another common mistake is that some identify the word "cosmos" as being the entire creation from beginning to end. And science's own use of the word has not helped this. Notice: Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the cosmos, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.." The word cosmos is of course translated as world there and other places in the Greek New Testament Bible.

G2889 - kosmos (or, cosmos) - orderly arrangement, i.e. decoration; by implication, the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively (morally)): KJV translates it as "adorning" at 1 Peter 3:3 but elsewhere in the New Testament as "world".

Other than at 1 Peter 3:3 where it speaks of the adornment of the already completed human body, when it comes to the Greek New Testament's use of the word elsewhere it does reference the adorning the already completed earth. And it is that adornment of the already completed earth with man and man's civilizations that constitutes "the world".

So the world is considered in the New Testament Bible to have began with Adam's and Eve's first children.

The expression "from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Luke 11:50; Hebrews 4:3; Revelation 13:8; 17:8) means from the first children of Adam and Eve.

The expression "before the foundation of the world" (John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20) means after Adam and Eve sinned but before they began having children.

Of the 43 times the Greek New Testament uses the words, "the beginning", in every case the context must be used to determine whether it means one of the before or after foundations or a more local event.

But with all the bias of religious preferences most individuals have not really been free to think this through for their own self. (Often even when they think they have.)

And that is the main doggy dodo that is bad about religion as an institution (which it was never meant to be.)
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 2:31:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I find it very hard to understand how the YECs can possibly believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old, when there seems to be plenty of evidence pointing to it being very old indeed!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 9:50:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 2:31:07 AM, JJ50 wrote:
I find it very hard to understand how the YECs can possibly believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old, when there seems to be plenty of evidence pointing to it being very old indeed! : :

The earth is as old as the first observer ( created being ) experienced it. Before that, the earth was created without form and void of light, which is only experienced by created beings. This means the earth is only an illusion, too.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 9:53:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:50:54 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 4/24/2015 2:31:07 AM, JJ50 wrote:
I find it very hard to understand how the YECs can possibly believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old, when there seems to be plenty of evidence pointing to it being very old indeed! : :

The earth is as old as the first observer ( created being ) experienced it. Before that, the earth was created without form and void of light, which is only experienced by created beings. This means the earth is only an illusion, too.

Brad, you are the one living in an illusionary world of your own, not the rest of us!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 9:58:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:53:24 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:50:54 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 4/24/2015 2:31:07 AM, JJ50 wrote:
I find it very hard to understand how the YECs can possibly believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old, when there seems to be plenty of evidence pointing to it being very old indeed! : :

The earth is as old as the first observer ( created being ) experienced it. Before that, the earth was created without form and void of light, which is only experienced by created beings. This means the earth is only an illusion, too.

Brad, you are the one living in an illusionary world of your own, not the rest of us! : :

I'm living in the same world that all God's people are except I understand what the world is. The world isn't quite so fearful once you know that the visible objects and all the languages that go along with them aren't real. How could death have any effect on something that isn't real?

Isaiah 25
6: On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined.
7: And he will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations.
8: He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth; for the LORD has spoken.
9: It will be said on that day, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation."

God planned on having a new age after He ends ACT I of His program called Eternal Life.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:00:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

There is no valid critique of modern Evolutionary Theory as it fits the facts we have and has provided us with predictive capabilities and valid experimental results. There is no valid evidence supporting YEC. The concept flies in the face of all of the collected data regarding the Earth's age, development, and the origins of life.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:06:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2015 5:09:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:04:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:56:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:51:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:03:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 2:58:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:58:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

YEC may be the most honest interpretation of the Bible, but it is the weakest interpretation when compared to actual evidence of an old Earth.

Who says it's the most "honest" interpretation of the bible?

Maybe 'accurate' is a better word, but it probably doesn't matter overall - no matter what word I use you're not going to like the thought. The YEC interpretation of creation requires the least amount of creative work arounds. A day being an actual day presents less problems for the coherence of the message.


It depends on how you're supposed to read it and what it's aims are. I can believe that the "days" in Harry Potter are supposed to roughly cohere with our 24 hours days - that is they are a representation of our days in the literature but also believe that they nothing actually corresponds to those days in this world. So, yeah, I would accept that they are actual days in Genesis but not accept that that section isn't supposed to be read like a straightforward, modern day history or science book. I don't think the "days" were supposed to represent actually billions of years or whatever some people come up with. I think they are reading in wrong in the first place if they are trying to read it like that.

If I read Harry Potter "literally" (as in reading it as a book that is/was supposed to correspond to actual events) sure that may require less "creative interpretations" of what the values in the text that are being espoused are but that doesn't mean that it'd be smart way to read it. And we know because we know the genre of the book.

I've heard this argument before, but I believe it is based on a fallacy. Do YEC read everything literally? Obviously, they do not take the parables as literal.


Sure and I (and pretty much all biblical scholars) say they are reading Genesis wrong too.

Well, that takes all the fun out of it!!! That's like calling your mama to fight your fights. ;-)


Sometimes you gotta bring out the big guns! ;)
Specifically, if creation week were actual days, then there would not necessarily be any death before the original sin, unlike other explanations. I understand by what Paul writes in Romans that creation as a whole suffers and dies due to the original sin - something to the effect that all of creation suffers due to the 'sin of one man' and "death entered the world due to sin" (I think that is also in Romans).

There are other problems YEC is not forced to deal with since it seems they take the text as is.



I haven't looked at this in a long time - I'm sure I have forgotten some of their interpretations and arguments for them. Forgive me if I'm a little rusty.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
lannan13
Posts: 23,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:08:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:00:14 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

There is no valid critique of modern Evolutionary Theory as it fits the facts we have and has provided us with predictive capabilities and valid experimental results. There is no valid evidence supporting YEC. The concept flies in the face of all of the collected data regarding the Earth's age, development, and the origins of life.

Indeed. All one has to do is messure the speed of light and when we look at how far light travels in 6000 years we can see a whole lot less then what Hubble and the Kelper see. We wouldn't be able to see half the stars in our night sky if the Earth was that old.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:12:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:06:34 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:09:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:04:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:56:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:51:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:03:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 2:58:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:58:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

YEC may be the most honest interpretation of the Bible, but it is the weakest interpretation when compared to actual evidence of an old Earth.

Who says it's the most "honest" interpretation of the bible?

Maybe 'accurate' is a better word, but it probably doesn't matter overall - no matter what word I use you're not going to like the thought. The YEC interpretation of creation requires the least amount of creative work arounds. A day being an actual day presents less problems for the coherence of the message.


It depends on how you're supposed to read it and what it's aims are. I can believe that the "days" in Harry Potter are supposed to roughly cohere with our 24 hours days - that is they are a representation of our days in the literature but also believe that they nothing actually corresponds to those days in this world. So, yeah, I would accept that they are actual days in Genesis but not accept that that section isn't supposed to be read like a straightforward, modern day history or science book. I don't think the "days" were supposed to represent actually billions of years or whatever some people come up with. I think they are reading in wrong in the first place if they are trying to read it like that.

If I read Harry Potter "literally" (as in reading it as a book that is/was supposed to correspond to actual events) sure that may require less "creative interpretations" of what the values in the text that are being espoused are but that doesn't mean that it'd be smart way to read it. And we know because we know the genre of the book.

I've heard this argument before, but I believe it is based on a fallacy. Do YEC read everything literally? Obviously, they do not take the parables as literal.


Sure and I (and pretty much all biblical scholars) say they are reading Genesis wrong too.

Well, that takes all the fun out of it!!! That's like calling your mama to fight your fights. ;-)


Sometimes you gotta bring out the big guns! ;)

Well, I could argue the YEC biblical scholars say your scholars are reading it wrong, but then it would just be my mama against yours. (My mama's gonna kick yo mama's butt! Lol)
Specifically, if creation week were actual days, then there would not necessarily be any death before the original sin, unlike other explanations. I understand by what Paul writes in Romans that creation as a whole suffers and dies due to the original sin - something to the effect that all of creation suffers due to the 'sin of one man' and "death entered the world due to sin" (I think that is also in Romans).

There are other problems YEC is not forced to deal with since it seems they take the text as is.



I haven't looked at this in a long time - I'm sure I have forgotten some of their interpretations and arguments for them. Forgive me if I'm a little rusty.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:12:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:08:00 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:00:14 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

There is no valid critique of modern Evolutionary Theory as it fits the facts we have and has provided us with predictive capabilities and valid experimental results. There is no valid evidence supporting YEC. The concept flies in the face of all of the collected data regarding the Earth's age, development, and the origins of life.

Indeed. All one has to do is messure the speed of light and when we look at how far light travels in 6000 years we can see a whole lot less then what Hubble and the Kelper see. We wouldn't be able to see half the stars in our night sky if the Earth was that old.

That's just one piece of data the disproves the 10,000 year age limit. What will happen now is that some creationist will ask how we know that the speed of light is the same now as it was a few thousand years ago. One major Creationist attack is to question known constants and claim they could have changed.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 10:48:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:12:45 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:06:34 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:09:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:04:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:56:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:51:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:03:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 2:58:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:58:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

YEC may be the most honest interpretation of the Bible, but it is the weakest interpretation when compared to actual evidence of an old Earth.

Who says it's the most "honest" interpretation of the bible?

Maybe 'accurate' is a better word, but it probably doesn't matter overall - no matter what word I use you're not going to like the thought. The YEC interpretation of creation requires the least amount of creative work arounds. A day being an actual day presents less problems for the coherence of the message.


It depends on how you're supposed to read it and what it's aims are. I can believe that the "days" in Harry Potter are supposed to roughly cohere with our 24 hours days - that is they are a representation of our days in the literature but also believe that they nothing actually corresponds to those days in this world. So, yeah, I would accept that they are actual days in Genesis but not accept that that section isn't supposed to be read like a straightforward, modern day history or science book. I don't think the "days" were supposed to represent actually billions of years or whatever some people come up with. I think they are reading in wrong in the first place if they are trying to read it like that.

If I read Harry Potter "literally" (as in reading it as a book that is/was supposed to correspond to actual events) sure that may require less "creative interpretations" of what the values in the text that are being espoused are but that doesn't mean that it'd be smart way to read it. And we know because we know the genre of the book.

I've heard this argument before, but I believe it is based on a fallacy. Do YEC read everything literally? Obviously, they do not take the parables as literal.


Sure and I (and pretty much all biblical scholars) say they are reading Genesis wrong too.

Well, that takes all the fun out of it!!! That's like calling your mama to fight your fights. ;-)


Sometimes you gotta bring out the big guns! ;)

Well, I could argue the YEC biblical scholars say your scholars are reading it wrong, but then it would just be my mama against yours. (My mama's gonna kick yo mama's butt! Lol)

But my scholars are consensus and YEC scholars are a surprisingly small minority amongst biblical scholars

Consensus don't necessarily equal right but it does mean the onus is on YEC biblical scholars to put forward better arguments.

(My mama would win. :P )
Specifically, if creation week were actual days, then there would not necessarily be any death before the original sin, unlike other explanations. I understand by what Paul writes in Romans that creation as a whole suffers and dies due to the original sin - something to the effect that all of creation suffers due to the 'sin of one man' and "death entered the world due to sin" (I think that is also in Romans).

There are other problems YEC is not forced to deal with since it seems they take the text as is.



I haven't looked at this in a long time - I'm sure I have forgotten some of their interpretations and arguments for them. Forgive me if I'm a little rusty.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rosco_P_Coletrain
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 11:18:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:12:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:08:00 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:00:14 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

There is no valid critique of modern Evolutionary Theory as it fits the facts we have and has provided us with predictive capabilities and valid experimental results. There is no valid evidence supporting YEC. The concept flies in the face of all of the collected data regarding the Earth's age, development, and the origins of life.

Indeed. All one has to do is messure the speed of light and when we look at how far light travels in 6000 years we can see a whole lot less then what Hubble and the Kelper see. We wouldn't be able to see half the stars in our night sky if the Earth was that old.

That's just one piece of data the disproves the 10,000 year age limit. What will happen now is that some creationist will ask how we know that the speed of light is the same now as it was a few thousand years ago. One major Creationist attack is to question known constants and claim they could have changed.

Excellent point.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 11:54:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:12:55 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:08:00 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:00:14 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

There is no valid critique of modern Evolutionary Theory as it fits the facts we have and has provided us with predictive capabilities and valid experimental results. There is no valid evidence supporting YEC. The concept flies in the face of all of the collected data regarding the Earth's age, development, and the origins of life.

Indeed. All one has to do is messure the speed of light and when we look at how far light travels in 6000 years we can see a whole lot less then what Hubble and the Kelper see. We wouldn't be able to see half the stars in our night sky if the Earth was that old.

That's just one piece of data the disproves the 10,000 year age limit. What will happen now is that some creationist will ask how we know that the speed of light is the same now as it was a few thousand years ago. One major Creationist attack is to question known constants and claim they could have changed.

Why do creationist think by disproving science it makes God anymore real? They still are left with the burden of proving He exists and providing the evidence for it.
Just like a few typos doesn't invalidate the entire argument a few scientific oooops!! doesn't invalidate science.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 12:11:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 10:48:57 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:12:45 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/24/2015 10:06:34 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:09:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 5:04:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:56:20 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:51:48 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 4:03:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 2:58:33 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:58:19 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/23/2015 12:40:34 PM, Dhruva wrote:
What is the best critique of Evolution, In Your Opinion, and the best supporting evidence for YEC?

YEC may be the most honest interpretation of the Bible, but it is the weakest interpretation when compared to actual evidence of an old Earth.

Who says it's the most "honest" interpretation of the bible?

Maybe 'accurate' is a better word, but it probably doesn't matter overall - no matter what word I use you're not going to like the thought. The YEC interpretation of creation requires the least amount of creative work arounds. A day being an actual day presents less problems for the coherence of the message.


It depends on how you're supposed to read it and what it's aims are. I can believe that the "days" in Harry Potter are supposed to roughly cohere with our 24 hours days - that is they are a representation of our days in the literature but also believe that they nothing actually corresponds to those days in this world. So, yeah, I would accept that they are actual days in Genesis but not accept that that section isn't supposed to be read like a straightforward, modern day history or science book. I don't think the "days" were supposed to represent actually billions of years or whatever some people come up with. I think they are reading in wrong in the first place if they are trying to read it like that.

If I read Harry Potter "literally" (as in reading it as a book that is/was supposed to correspond to actual events) sure that may require less "creative interpretations" of what the values in the text that are being espoused are but that doesn't mean that it'd be smart way to read it. And we know because we know the genre of the book.

I've heard this argument before, but I believe it is based on a fallacy. Do YEC read everything literally? Obviously, they do not take the parables as literal.


Sure and I (and pretty much all biblical scholars) say they are reading Genesis wrong too.

Well, that takes all the fun out of it!!! That's like calling your mama to fight your fights. ;-)


Sometimes you gotta bring out the big guns! ;)

Well, I could argue the YEC biblical scholars say your scholars are reading it wrong, but then it would just be my mama against yours. (My mama's gonna kick yo mama's butt! Lol)

But my scholars are consensus and YEC scholars are a surprisingly small minority amongst biblical scholars

Consensus don't necessarily equal right but it does mean the onus is on YEC biblical scholars to put forward better arguments.

We may have to discuss his another time without falling back on scholars - I can break out my YEC playbook. It could be interesting.

(My mama would win. :P )

My mama is scrappy, and she fights dirty! :-)

Specifically, if creation week were actual days, then there would not necessarily be any death before the original sin, unlike other explanations. I understand by what Paul writes in Romans that creation as a whole suffers and dies due to the original sin - something to the effect that all of creation suffers due to the 'sin of one man' and "death entered the world due to sin" (I think that is also in Romans).

There are other problems YEC is not forced to deal with since it seems they take the text as is.



I haven't looked at this in a long time - I'm sure I have forgotten some of their interpretations and arguments for them. Forgive me if I'm a little rusty.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 3:47:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 9:50:54 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 4/24/2015 2:31:07 AM, JJ50 wrote:
I find it very hard to understand how the YECs can possibly believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old, when there seems to be plenty of evidence pointing to it being very old indeed! : :

The earth is as old as the first observer ( created being ) experienced it. Before that, the earth was created without form and void of light, which is only experienced by created beings. This means the earth is only an illusion, too.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The earth existed long befor humans or any other organism existed. The earth is certainly not an illusion either, unless you think we're all living in the matrix.....
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 4:02:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:50:54 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 4/24/2015 2:31:07 AM, JJ50 wrote:
I find it very hard to understand how the YECs can possibly believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old, when there seems to be plenty of evidence pointing to it being very old indeed! : :

The earth is as old as the first observer ( created being ) experienced it. Before that, the earth was created without form and void of light, which is only experienced by created beings. This means the earth is only an illusion, too.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The earth existed long befor humans or any other organism existed. The earth is certainly not an illusion either, unless you think we're all living in the matrix.....

That's pretty much what he thinks. We're all part of a program god is running n his head.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 4:18:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:50:54 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 4/24/2015 2:31:07 AM, JJ50 wrote:
I find it very hard to understand how the YECs can possibly believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old, when there seems to be plenty of evidence pointing to it being very old indeed! : :

The earth is as old as the first observer ( created being ) experienced it. Before that, the earth was created without form and void of light, which is only experienced by created beings. This means the earth is only an illusion, too.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The earth existed long befor humans or any other organism existed. The earth is certainly not an illusion either, unless you think we're all living in the matrix..... : :

Listen and learn how you were created. Otherwise, you will be deceived by the liars of this world.
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 4:32:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 4:18:01 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 4/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 4/24/2015 9:50:54 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 4/24/2015 2:31:07 AM, JJ50 wrote:
I find it very hard to understand how the YECs can possibly believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old, when there seems to be plenty of evidence pointing to it being very old indeed! : :

The earth is as old as the first observer ( created being ) experienced it. Before that, the earth was created without form and void of light, which is only experienced by created beings. This means the earth is only an illusion, too.

This couldn't be further from the truth. The earth existed long befor humans or any other organism existed. The earth is certainly not an illusion either, unless you think we're all living in the matrix..... : :

Listen and learn how you were created. Otherwise, you will be deceived by the liars of this world.

Well no one knows the specifics of how humans came to be. Anyone who says they do is a liar so I'll heed your advice and it or those individuals.