Posted on 04/14/2009 8:36:29 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
OK, you're going to have to tell me how science argues for a 6,000 year old Earth. Please tell me how to discount fossils, petrified wood, ice layers in glaciers, even things like stars.
If you truly believe that science argues for YEC, then you either don't understand science, or you simply choose to believe otherwise. That's your right, but understand you're making some pretty extraordinary claims, and the burden of proof is on you to show your work.
For the record, do you believe God would create physical laws and scientific principles that serve to HIDE His creation? For that is what the YEC crowd proposes - God created everything 6,000 years ago and set up physical laws that prove otherwise.
I choose to believe God is not deceptive, personally.
Apparently you aren't aware that Obama is NOT a Catholic; his church - with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright - is a Protestant branch.
Ignorance is sad; willful ignorance is a sin against the gifts God gave you.
Again, when the sense of Scripture makes perfect sense, seek no other sense. You have to look at how the Jewish people of that day read the text. They would have read that as 6 literal days. That is where I get my belief.
Also, the covenant changed when Christ died on the cross so they would fall under the new covenant if they chose to believe that Christ was their Savior.
No, time itself is the question. NOAH was, at most, wandering about 7000 years ago. The dinosaurs bit the big one nearly 70000000 years ago. Only way you can get a NOAH overlay on the dinosaurs is to eliminate about 69993000 years ~ and that’s no small trick.
I believe that science today is very deceptive. Scientists have to have physical answers. All the answers have to point to evolution so they do. Evolution gave an answer to a theological problem.
How are fossils that are dated by the rock layers that are dated by the fossils found in them reliable? Also, what do you do with living fossils like the ginkgo leaf, coelacanth, scallop, dragon fly, ants, sharks, and cockroaches? These animals are supposed to have evolved to some different form but yet the fossils they are finding from “millions” of years ago look the same as the living creatures do today. What do you do with the eye of the trilobite? These are some of the oldest fossils we have but the eye is the most complicated that has been seen. If evolution is true, they should be simpler than what is found today.
What about recent tests on diamonds and coal that have found the carbon-14 levels to argue they are only thousands of years old and not millions?
I will admit that I cannot make arguments for the creationist view according to the petrified wood and ice layers you mentioned. I will also admit that I do not know why we can see light from stars that are millions of light years away. My honest opinion is that God created a world that was fully functional, meaning that the light from those stars was visible to earth from the time of creation. That is the best theory I have.
Mmmm....nah, I'm good thanks. :)
Science is not deceptive, unless you don't like the results. Geological time dating, astrophysics does not have anything to do with evolution yet still points to billions of years of age. Even off by 6 orders of magnitude you're still 3 orders of magnitude beyond the YEC.
Scientific research points to billions of years; there is NOTHING that points to 6,000 years old other than translations of the Bible, which even in this very thread has been shown to be inconsistent (translations differ in words).
I'll take science for determining age/size of the universe via physical, empirical measurements that can be reliably confirmed around the world than hundreds of oral retellings, and thousands of transcriptions and translations of a theological book.
I wanted to answer this one separately, because it is a common straw-man thrown up by the YEC crowd.
Evolution does NOT say that everything must evolve to more complexity; it says that things essentially evolve to the most efficient. In the case of the Trilobite eye, modern eyes may in fact be considerably more efficient in terms of operation versus size.
It is why some traits are eventually dropped as creation evolves, and it is why some new mutations thrive. If the mutation/trait is efficient in survival terms, it will tend to stick around.
Complexity is NOT the reason; efficiency is!
I really hate to butt into these arguments but I think you're trying to argue that humans evolved from slime or cave dwellers or whatever you claim we came from into the beings we are today with one of the most complex brains on the planet. How's that efficient?
Efficiency is being as complex as required, and no more. Sometimes highly efficient items are very complex; sometimes they are incredibly simple.
Look at the diesel engine (complex, but efficient at low RPMs), and the ramjet (incredibly siple, but efficient at very high speeds). Both are as complex as required to achieve their goals.
My own college degrees (plural) were in mathematics, and I view evolution as a bunch of ideological BS. That's not from religion or any such; evolution simply is not compatible with modern mathematics or probability theory and that's just for starters, i.e. that's before you even start to talk about the fossil record, the Haldane dilemma, the fruit fly experiments, or anything else like that.
Did the original bible say 6 literal days or is that just man's interpretation?
Perhaps you should take some science courses and understand evolutionary theory instead of just reporting the lies on the creationist websites.
You mean "That is all that my faith will allow me to believe."
Those are manufactured things, not evolved beings. It sounds a little specious to say that evolution looks for efficiency but then organisms somehow evolve from presumably single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms with hundreds or thousands of hugely complex internal systems working together to make the organism go. I cant even comprehend how that’s remotely more efficient.
Most thinking minds have no trouble with the flood. It was a regional event where Noah gathered a bunch of his farm animals on a raft and rode out a storm for a day or two.
Which version of god's word do you read?
Wrong flood. This flood is described in Genesis 1:2, Jeremiah 4 and IIPeter 3. IF these dinos were still plodding God's green earth in the days of Noah, we would still be finding live ones trampling this earth. OR Noah's flood was 'geography' specific where those son's of God cohabited with the daughters of the Adam.
The Adam and his offspring was very carefully traced for us in this generation to know evolution was NOT the vehicle the Heavenly Father elected to bring forth HIS only begotten son.
Perhaps they traced back to Adam and for lack of anymore 'hard' history, decided to begin with Adam. Makes life simple!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.