I'm a YEC. Challenge me.

[max-greece]

Is Catfish going to just sit here and say "Go fuck yourself" on every post just because someone told him there's no rule against it?

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Doesn't seem to bother you that Minnie does the same.

Only to you - so fuck off with your complaining.

[Esquilax]

I challenge the OP to investigate the concept of conformation bias.

You mean like only seeing the moon rock ages that you want to see?

Okay, I'll bite: what fresh new bullshit is this?

[Kayenneh]

Doesn't seem to bother you that Minnie does the same.

Oh, it doesn't? Pray tell, when did you become able to intercept PM and look around the staff lounge?

[John V]

Okay, I'll bite: what fresh new bullshit is this?

Look back a few pages. Someone said that dating using different elements gives "roughly" the same dates. I showed a chart of ages on moon rocks showing widely varying dates. Response was that those are good enough, as the "majority" are in the same "ballpark."

[Violet]

Is Catfish going to just sit here and say "Go fuck yourself" on every post just because someone told him there's no rule against it?

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

To be fair, a single usage of 'go fuck yourself' isn't against the rules. Also to be fair, just about every reasonable human being assumes it as a 'basic rule of human decency'. It shouldn't have to be spelled out... I'm totally fine with not warning members to not be a total style-lacking poohead. That said, verbal nonofficial warnings are good.

Catty's probably mostly just a little irritated that he was mentioned by name for reporting something ridiculous, and is reacting in a sort of bitter humor since. I mean, even I would have reported the posts after the third consecutive one: spamming. If there is one rule, and only the one, which I actually do care about... it's that one.

So, to more or less to the point: spamming is against the rules, and flaming is in general frowned upon... put the two together, and you have a hatemachine. So here is a friendly reminder to not spam As long as you write something different every time, you're gold.

[JeffB]

As the OP, allow me to follow up:
First, thank you those of you who posted links. I have been reading through those (and bookmarked).

Second:

Welcome, Jeff. An intro thread would have been a more courteous start.

True, I see that now. I did read through your posting rules and Netiquette Guide.
And yes Violet Lilly Blossom, it wasn’t appropriate to request only specific types of replies.

There are hundreds of threads on this forum with creationist claims being debunked.

Read through all of them.

And if non of them cover your subject then post it as a new entry.

Otherwise you will be wasting the time of people who have better things to do than listen to you.

Valid point.

I am still here and regardless of what the trolls say, I left you a few verses and some questions for you to address.
You say you want challenged? Prove it. (the next series of questions will be harder)

Sorry I didn’t reply catfish, I’ve been busy reading links provided to me. As for how exactly age is calculated through scripture, I’d have to admit, not my area of expertise. Genealogy seems to be a primary means (which I’m sure you’re aware of). Regarding age of the earth, see below:

First - if YOU were actually interested in EVERY argument against YEC - you would not believe in YEC - there is a mountain of proof that YEC is not true and there is not a single Article published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that supports an earth that is only about 6000 years old - NONE at all. There is NO basis for saying YEC is logically sound - because it is not.

ThomM, I’ve spent the last few years reading through that ‘mountain of proof’. It’s been an encouraging journey. Out of all those challenges to YEC, the only two that remain a challenge are radiometric dating, and bio-dispersion. I do have to say radiometric dating research has been encouraging over the last 5-10 years for us YECs.

I’m surprised at how many people get hung up on 6000 years as problem. I have no need to defend myself, but will give you insight into what YECs believe:

Obviously it starts with belief that the God of the bible exists, which is yes, unscientific. That’s the ONLY area you can criticize.
After that, here’s the logic:
1) In His word, he created animals in a single day. Each fully mature animal would have had the same actual age, yet differing appearances of age: Conclusion: not only does He demonstrate creating things with apparent ages, but even differing apparent ages.
2) God also created the starry hosts (the universe).
3) As we examine the universe, we see varying evidence for its age. Not JUST ~14 billion. Some entities show indications that the universe CANNOT be 14 billion years old.
4) The varying ages of aspects of the universe can therefore be dealt with by applying that principle from item 1).

So there you have it: age of the universe logically solid within the creation model.

Here’s the irony: although evolutionists criticize YECs for their ‘age of the universe’ logic flaw, the truth is, it’s actually a logic flaw for them, not us. How do you account for the scientific evidence saying the universe cannot be 14B years old?

(sorry for that long post)

[John V]

Oh, it doesn't?

No, it doesn't.

Pray tell, when did you become able to intercept PM and look around the staff lounge?

Never, neither can I read minds. I can only go by public postings. That's why I said "seem" to.

If you're implying he's made private complaints re: Minnie, there's still hypocrisy involved, as complaints re: catfish are public.

[popeyespappy]

I challenge the OP to investigate the concept of conformation bias.

You mean like only seeing the moon rock ages that you want to see?

You do understand don't you John that the moon was geologically active in the past, and the rocks found there would date across a range of ages?

http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/2841.pdf

[Kayenneh]

What sorcery is this?! A completely lucid and to the point post by Lilly!

---

Just kidding love, your posts are always to the point

---

But I wholeheartedly agree.

[LastPoet]

popeye, he's more interested in playing the persecution complex.