• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Calling all YECs

RobRoy said:
YEC isn't really my forte, but as far as I'm concerned, there isn't any non-Biblical (extra-Biblical?) evidence for a young earth.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of non Biblical evidence for young Earth. Unfortunaely it doesn't have much supporting evidence either
 
dio said:
Uh, I don't know, 4 billion years old earth rocks? 4.5 billion years old meteorites? 13 billion years old little lights in the sky?
Click to expand...

I meant in general, but I realized after posting that your "study guide" referred to how YEC's interpret the Bible, since that's the topic of the thread.

Otherwise, does the Bible necessarily conflict with a 4 billion-year-old Earth? Or does it necessarily conflict with natural science in other ways, barring supernatural claims for the moment?

(I had to remove the links from your quote because of my low post count.)
 
Last edited:
Rougarou said:
. . .To turn the tables as an example, do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? If not, what evidence would convince you that it was a factual historical event that only the son of God could experience? (Edit: By experience, I mean the experience of being resurrected. Others could, of course, experience the event as observers.)
Click to expand...

Well, for a start, I'd like a bit more agreement between the gospels, as well as 1 Corinthians on the order and number of people who witnessed the risen Christ, along with other specifics of the Resurrection. It would be most convincing if the gospels did not repeat this word for word, indicating copying. So what I would like is reasonable agreement in testimony from multiple, independent sources.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, the Crucifixion was accompanied with all sorts of special effects: There was a massive earthquake; the curtain in the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn in two; tombs were opened and (Mt. 27:52, 53):

. . . and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep [i.e. died] were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Here, again, we could use a little independent attestation. For example, had Josephus mentioned this event - one that's rather hard to ignore - that would be impressive evidence.

Another bit of proof might be a verifiable tomb of Jesus, with reasonable indications that it had not been looted, that, therefore, should contain his bones, but is pointedly empty.

So far, we have none these proofs. Matthew's account of the earthquake and dead people walking around in Jerusalem is his alone. It's not even corroborated by the other gospels. The account of the Resurrection and the order of appearances of the risen Christ differ from one gospel to the next in virtually every detail. There is no extra-biblical support for the Resurrection. Finally, Jerusalem was flattened in the year 70. The supposed Holy Sepulcher was actually "discovered" by Helena, Constantine's mother in the fourth century.
 
Lord Emsworth said:
And if you get such answers, then what?
Click to expand...

Then I'd be able to judge the evidence. Alternatively, if they can't supply it, I could force them to admit that they have no evidence. So far, what I've got is the Avalon XQ has apparently put me on "ignore" rather than honestly answering a direct question.
 
TimCallahan said:
Then I'd be able to judge the evidence. Alternatively, if they can't supply it, I could force them to admit that they have no evidence. So far, what I've got is the Avalon XQ has apparently put me on "ignore" rather than honestly answering a direct question.
Click to expand...

But you are not going to get any evidence, and most likely not even anything new. Whatever is going to be brought up is just going to be the same old, same old stuff.
 
TimCallahan said:
...snip...
Click to expand...

To clarify, are you saying that more agreement between the gospels, mentions in extra-biblical literature, and an empty tomb would convince you that it is more likely someone actually rose from the dead than that it was a Christian legend designed to win converts?

I know that I would still find it tough to believe.
 
I want the same treatment, same deal that Saul/Paul got, Thomas, etc.

Personal revelations/demonstrations of supernatural ability.

Before theists retort, would you have him appear to everyone?

Well, yes. Why would he play favorites?

Then there's the classic: An omnipotent deity would/should know exactly what kind of rational evidence would convince me.
 
Rougarou said:
To clarify, are you saying that more agreement between the gospels, mentions in extra-biblical literature, and an empty tomb would convince you that it is more likely someone actually rose from the dead than that it was a Christian legend designed to win converts?

I know that I would still find it tough to believe.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd still probably have a hard time accepting the idea that someone could rise from the dead. However, the failure of the gospels and 1 Corinthians to agree on the order of appearances of the resurrected Christ makes it easy to dismiss their accounts.

Had Josephus corroborated Matthew's account of dead people rising from their tombs and walking around the city of Jerusalem, that bit of independent attestation would have been impressive. On that subject, though, I wonder what finally happened to these resurrected dead. Did they resume their old lives, as Lazarus presumably did, or did God tell them that this was just a dress rehearsal and to go lie down again until Judgment Day?

Another potential proof would be testable evidences of the supernatural in our own time. Near death experiences are the most impressive candidates for this. However, they fail the test of having the hovering soul looking down on the I.C.U. from above being able to read messages left on the tops of cabinets.
 
Rougarou said:
Asking the "What would you accept as evidence?" question assumes the person being asked knows what might convince them, or that they're even willing to be convinced. (Of course, outing someone who is not willing to be convinced is often the whole point of asking.) But whenever I hear the question, I think "What have you got? If I knew what evidence would convince me, I'd probably already have the evidence and be convinced."

To turn the tables as an example, do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? If not, what evidence would convince you that it was a factual historical event that only the son of God could experience? (Edit: By experience, I mean the experience of being resurrected. Others could, of course, experience the event as observers.)



What, in particular, did you have in mind?
Click to expand...

If Jesus appeared in the sky to everyone on Earth and spoke to everyone in their native language, I'm pretty sure I would believe. Other posters say that such an event could just as easily be aliens using technology a millennium or two beyond our current science, but I'd be willing to give the divine explanation a go.
 
If the Earth is really billions of years old like the Darwinists would like us to think, how come Jesus wasn't like a million years old when he was born.

Also, if all forms of life evolved from a single-celled organism, why are there still cells?
 
JimBrown257 said:
If the Earth is really billions of years old like the Darwinists would like us to think, how come Jesus wasn't like a million years old when he was born.

Also, if all forms of life evolved from a single-celled organism, why are there still cells?
Click to expand...

I gave this post a day in which I could digest it, but I still cant make sense of it. To begin with, why would the age of the earth have anything to do with how old Jesus was when he was born? Using the implied "logic" of the argument, if the earth is ca. 6,000 years old, as YECs argue, Jesus should have been 4,000 years old when he was born.

The second question, involving cells, betrays such a level of incomprehension of biology that I can't even decide where to begin a response to it.

So, are you for real, or is this joke?
 
Madalch said:
He creates the rules, but he can't make them self-contradictory. Even YECs don't consider him that omnipotent.
Click to expand...

There's nothing contradictory about changing the rules, as long as the old and new rules don't both apply at the same time.

Hell, even Alex Trebek can do that, and does, nightly. The questions in the Double Jeopardy round are worth twice what they are in the first round.

Designated hitters are legal in the American League, but not the National League.

By the same token, when God created the heavens and the earth, He could have run the Earth on "fast forward" for a while so that it had time to build up zillions of years of oil reserves in the first twenty minutes or so,... and then adjusted the stability of hydrocarbon to be what we know and love today. Because He knew, in His infinite wisdom, that we would need oil in the same way that we need topsoil.
 
drkitten said:
There's nothing contradictory about changing the rules, as long as the old and new rules don't both apply at the same time.

Hell, even Alex Trebek can do that, and does, nightly. The questions in the Double Jeopardy round are worth twice what they are in the first round.

Designated hitters are legal in the American League, but not the National League.

By the same token, when God created the heavens and the earth, He could have run the Earth on "fast forward" for a while so that it had time to build up zillions of years of oil reserves in the first twenty minutes or so,... and then adjusted the stability of hydrocarbon to be what we know and love today. Because He knew, in His infinite wisdom, that we would need oil in the same way that we need topsoil.
Click to expand...

So, basically, what you're saying is that the YEC scenario is not one that is verifiable / falsifiable. While they cling to this "appearance of age" I don't think YECs will concede that there isn't a scientific basis for their form o creationism.
 
TimCallahan said:
So, basically, what you're saying is that the YEC scenario is not one that is verifiable / falsifiable. While they cling to this "appearance of age" I don't think YECs will concede that there isn't a scientific basis for their form o creationism.
Click to expand...

Crikey!
 
I guess the non-response of the YECs posting on this forum is a good indication that there is, in fact, no pass / fail, verifiable / falsifiable test they would accept as a scientific proof for the age of the earth - young or old. Once one invokes the "appearance of age" theory to explain away unpleasant facts, that person has crossed a line and abandoned science for all the claims of prominent YECs to the contrary.
 
I copied the material below from Conservapedia (conservapedia.com/Young_Earth_Creationism):

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and the evolutionary position are at root tied to worldviews, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth creation scientists argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.
Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as radiometric dating and biological observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many anomalies associated with the old earth/universe position.
So there we have it. First the assertion that anything relating to the age of the earth is untestable - at least that's more than I could get out of our resident YECs - followed by the ominous allusion "the many anomalies" of and old earth position. Even when they're honest enough to say they think its untestable they snipe at the evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom