I'm a YEC. Challenge me.

[Dionysius]

I'm a YEC. Challenge me.

It would appear you are already challenged. However, in God's Kingdom even bacteria have a purpose in his grand design.

[Esquilax]

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."

Did you happen to do any research into why that would be, before leaping straight to a conspiracy theory? Because, as Popeye has already said, the moon was recently geologically active. And the older ages are corroborated by multiple dating methods.

Oh, and your link was on page 2. That'll teach me to go back through the thread in reverse order.

[Zazzy]

in God's Kingdom even bacteria have a purpose in his grand design.

Bacteria are way more important on the planet than people are. If all the people died tomorrow, the bacteria would barely notice. If all the bacteria died tomorrow, all other life would dead shortly thereafter.

Bacteria are my peeps.

[Esquilax]

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.

Well, okay: you've woven a fiction, using mostly magic with no motivation for the spellcaster in question, and no reason to think it's true. Great.

Now where's your evidence that this actually happened?

Because without that, what have you got? An ad hoc, just-so story to retrofit present day evidence to a story, just to preserve your beliefs. You might as well just say that a space wizard farted on reality, and his cosmologically arcane fart gas caused everything to age a bunch.

At the moment, both claims have the same level of evidence. Care to add some more to yours?

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?

Present this evidence, and we'll see. I'd enjoy a bit of research.

[Crossless2.0]

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)

I'm sober and out of pain reliever so I know I'll regret this, but what the hell! OK, what scientific evidence do you have that contradicts the generally accepted age of the universe?

[LastPoet]

It's just not as fun as 'RACIST!'

I have no respect for trite individuals. Stay classy, Catty At least a new take on it

He will have his oportunity to return, in two weeks O godess. I am already preparing for the shitload of whining that will ensue.

[Violet]

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.

Mmm... I do threaten some proper crazy if I am *ever* given a warning again. I takes me some very strong offense to that

That, and I'll leave and never come back. Gogo verbal nonofficial warnings.

[pocaracas]

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."

Oh, to be relegated to that unknown "someone"....

Not even answering the rest, because popeyespappy and Esquilax already did it for me!

I'm still waiting for an idea as to why none (I'll repeat that, NONE) of those ages match with the YEC number.... not even in the same order of magnitude!

[Angrboda]

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....

Not even remotely true. Assuming the God of the bible exists is simply one of a whole slew of unscientific assumptions. You first have to assume Him, then assume the bible is a valid description of Him and his works whether through being God-inspired or whatever, then that you know which specific ancient texts have this "God inspired" property and in what way, then that there is such a thing as a correct interpretation, then that you know how to properly interpret His word (and a whole host of questions regarding hermeneutics), then you have to assume that what you have been interpreting is not corrupted in a way that affects your conclusion (either through transmission or translation), then you have to assume your methods are acceptable application of the principles of inquiry (which for most YEC'ers, they aren't), and so on.

You start with not one unscientific assumption, but a whole army of them. The silver lining in the cloud is that for some of them you can get tacit agreement on them between yourself and whomever you are speaking with. Unfortunately, you can't get agreement on all or even the more significant ones, so your appeal reduces to "I believe what I believe, and I'm going to call that scientific." It's not. Garbage-in, garbage-out.

[Violet]

He will have his oportunity to return, in two weeks O godess. I am already preparing for the shitload of whining that will ensue.

Awww I was too late

Dammit :X

...

DAMMIT!



Bleh, well I look forward to his return, then

I swear, I should become mod *just* to give out more verbal warnings, written with class and stuff I'd be the best mod ever. Only banning spammahz, being all fair and shit. Everyone should like, vote me in, or something.