Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

I'm Not A Yec (But Obviously I Am An Ec)

Recommended Posts

I've been thinking about writing this thread for some time. But if I am deep down honest, I am not a YEC. I think I used to be one. If I am honest I think there may be some age to the universe itself and possibly a formative earth. Don't get me wrong, I accept what Genesis says but I don't think it specifically mentions the age of objects in the universe or the age of the universe itself. There is for me, no room for DOGMA

 

Of course I am a creationist, I believe God created the world and I don't think abiogenesis or biological evolution took place. 

 

I also feel a little bit embarrassed by the integer, "6,000" years. I don't know why that figure has stuck. I think YECs themselves have put themselves in the position of having an epithet makes them look foolish.

 

What do I mean? I mean that it is simply human nature to regard an integer as a simplistic, unscientific attempt at ageing something. This is why the evolutionists never use an integer, because 14.1 billion years or whatever it is, SOUNDS as though it has been figured out by a calculator the size of a house. 

 

I disassociate myself from, "6,000" years. I find that an embarrassing restriction, and now I just think to myself, "yeah, why do you restrict it to that - if you are honest, you do it to chop off evolution's head."

 

Disclaimer: I am not saying the earth is NOT about 6,000 years old. That is not the point. I do not believe there is any way to know a figure. If the earth is 122.469 million years old, then I am just as happy with that figure being true, as I am 6,000 years. 

 

I also don't want to pretend I have scientific knowledge when I don't. Why should I pretend to understand dating methods just to defend an epithet-integer? I really just don't care and I just don't think the age matters to me any more. It would have to be some very strange miraculous explanation if the whole universe is 6,000 years old, personally I am convinced the starlight being old, is the best explanation (I don't want it to be, I would love it to favour youth). And it's not that I can't believe that the whole universe is young if it turns out to be. But only God knows, and it seems to for now at least, strongly point to age because of starlight. And that is the problem - to my mind, only God does know why that is, so logically I can have a 0% dogma-policy.

 

You can't get more FAIR than that surely. "Mike, who's side are you on with this age issue?"

"I'm on reality's/God's side. If the earth really is 6,000 years old then I accept. If the earth really is 54 billion years old then I accept. I'm on the side of whatever God says it is, and He hasn't said anything about it.".

 

So I am now a tautologically-earthed-creationist.  A "TEC". ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you recognize there are different authors for Genesis 1 and 2? Different purposes to these texts?

These can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", I will not ask you to defend the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really subscribe to that theory, Fjuri, no. We can discuss it if you like. As a Christian I obviously accept an inerrant bible so I think the bible is specifically and purposefully intended-by-God. I believe everything it says is said on purpose. We have to have a foundation for what we believe, the foundation is the bible because if we play with the bible and doubt it's veracity then obviously what it means to be a Christian, and what it means to obey God, very quickly becomes just a matter of opinion, IMHO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike
 
(a synthesised conversation with God)
When I think of all the power and intelligence God has, I am dwarfed! Sometimes I am dumbfounded in awe! I don't know how old the universe is! It can be any age He wants it to be!

I used to strive with my creator much more than I do now. I have told him several times I didn't ask to come to this stupid planet! Nor do I remember asking Him to create me. I tried to work out a deal where He would uncreated me! He told me He couldn't have asked me if I wanted to exist before he created me. What could I say to that?

There were 5.5 billion people on the planet when I had this conversation with Him. I told Him I was a mistake. He said He doesn't make mistakes. So, I asked Him with all those billions of people why did He need me? I told him I would die for my own sins. He told me at this point that was not an option because I had already repented, was baptized and agreed to worship (create affection for Him). He was holding me to the  agreement  we made! Besides who was I to tell him who He could create?
He created me and he waned me to exit!

Ever the rebelious being I am, I reminded him he had 5.5 billion other beings He could mess with. Then He said I had five friends and which one did I want to lose? I asked Him if he was threatening me? He said, "Just answer the question? I thought for a moment and said, "None". So he says, "I love everyone I created including you! I can have a personal relationship with all the beings I created--just like you have with your five friends. I don't want to lose anyone"! God has an amazing mind--to know personally billions of beings.

The point is I don't care how old the universe is. It is not important to me. What he does is fine with me. What is important to me is that I love God with all my heart and my billions of brothers and sisters like I love myself. That's hard enough to do! It's an interesting idea to think about. That being said...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The young age of the Earth/universe comes from the idea that you can look at the genealogies in the Bible from Adam to Christ, and since we know when Christ lived we can work back when Adam lived and was created. Assuming Genesis 1 is describing literal 24-hour days if we find out when Adam was created we know how old the Earth and universe are.

 

The "6,000" year figure comes from Bishop Usher who analyzed the genealogies. IIRC he concluded that the universe was created in the year 4,004 BC, which gives us an approximate age of 6,020 years. There are reasons to think Bishop Usher was wrong in his calculations, and other clergy/scholar types have come up with slightly different numbers, so many YEC opt out for the "10,000" year figure instead as an approximation.

 

I don't know why having an "integer" is embarrassing; even 13.8 billion years is an integer if you bother to expand it out: 13,800,000,000.  Or you can rewrite 6,020 years as 6.02 millennia; that zero stuck in the middle makes it very scientific and authoritative.  Or you can go one step further and rewrite it using scientific notation: "6.02 * 10^3"  ;)   

 

So next time someone asks you the age of the universe you can tell them "six point naught two times ten to the third years". That is roughly equivalent to 2,198,745 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goku, I know that technically speaking, 6, 432 years is also an integer, okay sure, I should have said, "whole" number. I just mean when people decimalise figures to make them sound scientific, as though someone measure the amount of time with a tape measure, down to the millimetre. ;)

 

You see for me this argument you make, CONFLATES the age of separate things. For example, yes, I agree that humans and probably life too, have been on earth for the estimation that CMI gives which is roughly about 5,800 - 8,000 years. (I read their genealogy study some months back).

 

But all I am saying is that technically speaking, the earth might have been completed 6,000 years ago but does that mean that it was not in a formative stage for a great amount of time? Or if the earth is about 6,000 years old, does that mean the universe has to be that age?

 

It seems to me there is at least some room in Genesis, technically, to argue that although Genesis is historical narrative, that perhaps we do take it a bit too literally as creationists, to the point where we feel the need to be dogmatic about one particular intepretation.

 

So now you might say, "what about all that you said about not being able to interpret the bible". But I don't really mean the obvious things that are stated, need intepretation. It is obvious that Adam had to be created literally by God only thousands of years ago. I accept I can't "interpret" that. I accept all the vegetation was for all the animals. I accept I can't interpret that.

 

But I think the AGE of things really is not mentioned. The genealogies can get you back thousands of years, and it definitely was completed then. 

 

But take Genesis 1 for example: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It then says, "the earth was..." Okay, when "was" it. Was it two seconds after He created the heavens? Two minutes? Two thousand years? Obviously time has no meaning to God as He transcends space/time. When He says, "let there be light" did God say that at the moment when the light from the universe and outer-galaxies became visible having reached the earth at light speed over millions of years?

 

If I am honest, I don't really know do I? It seems possible at least. Perhaps then the sun and stars on day four are just the stars of our solar system, since the planets would also be regarded as, "stars" in Hebrew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are to take the Bible literally and use scripture to interpret scripture, then we have Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth".

 

This suggests that the entire creation period lasted one week, not thousands or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really subscribe to that theory, Fjuri, no. We can discuss it if you like. As a Christian I obviously accept an inerrant bible so I think the bible is specifically and purposefully intended-by-God. I believe everything it says is said on purpose. We have to have a foundation for what we believe, the foundation is the bible because if we play with the bible and doubt it's veracity then obviously what it means to be a Christian, and what it means to obey God, very quickly becomes just a matter of opinion, IMHO.

Could the genesis stories, just as the Gospels have been written down by different authors, each focusing on different points of view, each important in the eyes of God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Goku: If we are to take the Bible literally and use scripture to interpret scripture, then we have Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth".

 

This suggests that the entire creation period lasted one week, not thousands or more.

 

I'm not, "against" that possibility. Do you understand what it means when someone says, "tautological"? A tautological position, means that like Mike said, "I don't know how old the universe is, any age God wants it to be" (paraphrase).

 

So then a tautology is basically defined as something which is always true under any circumstance. That means me and Mike accept that the universe is 6,000 years old if that is what it is. If it is 6,675 years old, we accept that age, if it is 34567, 9737526265 years old, we accept that age, because our position is tautological, meaning under any circumstances it will be true that we will accept reality.

 

Examples of tautologies:

 

"In a car I shall find car-parts." (so then, if I find a carburetor or a wheel, it matters not, they are always car-parts).

 

THIS is the crux of my position as a none-age creationist, I don't believe there is enough to go on.

 

This means if the whole heavens and earth were created in six literal days then I am fine with that, if that is how it happened. It's just that I am not dogmatic about it. For example when it says the Lord made heaven in six days that would still be a true and literal statement even if what I said about Genesis one was true, that after the first verse there was a period unknown.

 

So then all of the, "making" DID happen in six days, because the earth was "formless and void" before those six days. There was no sun or planets, (heavens). 

 

It's not that I necessarily believe there was a gap, as to why I am not a YEC, it's that because there is a possibility of it, that I can't be a dogmatic YEC. But when it comes to Christ's resurrection or what it meant by veggie-meals for all animals, I cannot escape that there is no room for any possibilities. Therefore how can I be dogmatic about something which is not necessarily as simply as it seems from just taking those verses as read?

 

But don't make out that I oppose the YEC-version either! If the bible really does mean the whole thing was in 6 days then I accept that as true. I think there isn't enough to go on. I have read all of the scriptures, I just don't see where there is any scientific detail about it, or any talk of actual time. It is okay to be in a fence-sitting position for something as trivial as age, since I still accept everything the bible says and 95% of what YEC say, after all I am still a creationist, I still believe life has only been on this planet for a maximum of probably 7-8 thousand years according to the genealogies. I also agree with the intepretation of literal days. I am open to the possibility of the heavens and earth sitting there waiting for the correct time for the orchestra to begin, since God is not affected by time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fjuri: Could the genesis stories, just as the Gospels have been written down by different authors, each focusing on different points of view, each important in the eyes of God?

 

I'm open to that possibility. I think Genesis could still be inspired by God even with different authors so it's a pretty well perceived point you make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with multiple authors/sources is it opens possibility of duplication- eg. both Abraham and Isaac telling abimelech that their wife is their sister; Abraham tells a foreign ruler that his wife is his sister on two occasions. That might restrict genesis being treated as literal history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheeseburger, it's more the issue of, "who took over when Moses died". If Moses wrote the law books then died, then someone continued writing it, I am okay with that being a possibility. Obviously it is impossible to know who wrote it but we get a story that is fluent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't thnk its so much what human penned the books as who "inspired" them. God supports individuality. No two of us are alike by His purpose. Cosnider the Gospels The same story from sightly different points of view! God is not a control freak!

2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not, "against" that possibility. Do you understand what it means when someone says, "tautological"? A tautological position, means that like Mike said, "I don't know how old the universe is, any age God wants it to be" (paraphrase).

 

So then a tautology is basically defined as something which is always true under any circumstance. That means me and Mike accept that the universe is 6,000 years old if that is what it is. If it is 6,675 years old, we accept that age, if it is 34567, 9737526265 years old, we accept that age, because our position is tautological, meaning under any circumstances it will be true that we will accept reality.

 

Examples of tautologies:

 

"In a car I shall find car-parts." (so then, if I find a carburetor or a wheel, it matters not, they are always car-parts).

 

THIS is the crux of my position as a none-age creationist, I don't believe there is enough to go on.

 

This means if the whole heavens and earth were created in six literal days then I am fine with that, if that is how it happened. It's just that I am not dogmatic about it. For example when it says the Lord made heaven in six days that would still be a true and literal statement even if what I said about Genesis one was true, that after the first verse there was a period unknown.

 

So then all of the, "making" DID happen in six days, because the earth was "formless and void" before those six days. There was no sun or planets, (heavens). 

 

It's not that I necessarily believe there was a gap, as to why I am not a YEC, it's that because there is a possibility of it, that I can't be a dogmatic YEC. But when it comes to Christ's resurrection or what it meant by veggie-meals for all animals, I cannot escape that there is no room for any possibilities. Therefore how can I be dogmatic about something which is not necessarily as simply as it seems from just taking those verses as read?

 

But don't make out that I oppose the YEC-version either! If the bible really does mean the whole thing was in 6 days then I accept that as true. I think there isn't enough to go on. I have read all of the scriptures, I just don't see where there is any scientific detail about it, or any talk of actual time. It is okay to be in a fence-sitting position for something as trivial as age, since I still accept everything the bible says and 95% of what YEC say, after all I am still a creationist, I still believe life has only been on this planet for a maximum of probably 7-8 thousand years according to the genealogies. I also agree with the intepretation of literal days. I am open to the possibility of the heavens and earth sitting there waiting for the correct time for the orchestra to begin, since God is not affected by time.

 

I've heard of tautologies before, although I was taught that a good basic synonym is "redundant" in the sense that a tautology adds nothing new; it is redundant to say that car parts make up a car. Or, under the presupposition that God created, it is redundant to say that the age of the universe is however old it is since the time when God created it.

 

What is amusing to me, considering that one of your motifs is that evolution is a capitulation because there is no mention of it in the Bible, is that as best I can tell gap theory is a capitulation to science. As far as I understand no one proposed gap theory until the 1700's when science was first discovering that the Earth is much older than previously thought. IOW, gap theory is a relatively modern interpretation of scripture in order to conform scripture to science.

 

Now in order to understand my next point you have to understand that the notation of chapters and verses in scripture were not originally in the modern form we all understand. This is important because, as Fjuri stated Gen 1 and Gen 2 have different authors, Genesis 1:1-2:3 are the same story with the second story picking up in Genesis 2:4. If we look at the first story it starts off in Genesis 1:1 stating that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", and it ends in Genesis 2:3 stating "God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done". Taken together this clearly makes Genesis 1:1 either part of day 1 itself or an introduction, like a title, to the rest of the story.

 

I didn't have much time last post, so to go back to your previous post when you asked when was the time period in Gen 1:2 when it says the earth "was" formless and void, why not the beginning of day 1 setting up the scene for the starting point of creation itself, or is there a time before "the beginning"? Recall that this is being written by humans after the fact, not during the creation event itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Goku: I've heard of tautologies before, although I was taught that a good basic synonym is "redundant" in the sense that a tautology adds nothing new; it is redundant to say that car parts make up a car. Or, under the presupposition that God created, it is redundant to say that the age of the universe is however old it is since the time when God created it.

 

I see a lot more to it than this. Usually, the, "tautologies don't tell us much" argument is where evolutionists tend to think the issue ends.  :argue:

 

By definition a tautology is the opposite of a contradiction. A contradiction is something which is guaranteed to always be false and a tautology is something always guaranteed to be true. While a tautology, like a contradiction, doesn't tell us all that much because it is rather obvious, nevertheless this does not negate it's importance. Sometimes a tautology can relate to another issue indirectly, making it important.

 

For example, because of the great number of species on earth, it is logically guaranteed (tautologous) that if evolution had definitely NOT happened, nevertheless we would still be able to create fictional transitional lineages. That's an example of an important tautology. It is always true logically, that if you have millions of anatomical shapes, that you will be able to propose and purport there to be, transitionals leading from one anatomical shape to another. (so the tautology related to that issue is that where there are millions of different shapes, we can create patterns linking them to one another as though there is a relationship between the patterns, as though one shape can turn into another shape by slowly using other shapes to say they changed shape towards the other)

 

It isn't redundant to say the universe is X age. In life we do this all of the time with things we don't know. Imagine if I asked you, "who do you think Jack the ripper was?" and you said, "I don't know", do you still agree that you would obviously accept that someone killed the victims? Would it not be logical and objective to therefore state: "well, I am not dogmatic about who did the crime but there was a crime so I accept that whoever actually did do it, is the one to have done it."

 

We have to do that where knowledge is absent. 

 

 

 

Goku: What is amusing to me, considering that one of your motifs is that evolution is a capitulation because there is no mention of it in the Bible, is that as best I can tell gap theory is a capitulation to science

 

There was possibly a gap, even if it was one second. All I am saying is that I don't know if the gap was 1 tenth of a second or 1 trillion years, it doesn't say. Of course it could just mean it like this example:

 

"In the beginning of my time on EFF forum, I created an introduction topic....(then I go on to flesh out how I did that)."

 

So yes, - you could be right, that it is a kind of overview of the six days, the statement, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", but then we have the potential problem of what is meant by, "stars" and, "heavens". Could God have meant just our galaxy and that was the, "beginning?" What beginning? The beginning of all things, or does God have our permission to do things before we existed? ;)

 

And I would say you misrepresent me a bit here, Goku. What I have actually argued is that evolution directly contradicts the description of hod God clearly created the world, and created humans separately. Evolution obviously says there is a link between humans and the animals, humans having stemmed from a common ancestor, but Genesis says that the male of the human kind was created while there wasn't any female/s, leaving a rather glaring contradiction to evolution.

 

I appreciate that Piasan and other theistic evolutionists might not take Genesis literally, in which case you can then accept a more allegorical position.

 

My only real statement in this thread, is that like with Jack-the-Ripper, I know God did create the universe but I can't know for sure if we are conflating the dates of certain things. We tend to say that because man arrived thousands of years ago, and the animals, that the earth also must have, and the universe, and that God is banned from creating any previous rudimentary, formative process. 

 

 

 

 Goku: as Fjuri stated Gen 1 and Gen 2 have different authors,

 

Begging-the-question, it has only been stated in this thread, that there were different authors. Are you so obtuse that you would believe that I accept ANY common evolutionist argument about the bible, and believe there is no ulterior motives to those arguments? I suppose you also think I accept the sophistry that the bible says a bat is a bird, DESPITE the hebrew term, "owph2 meaning, "flying thing" rather than a modern taxanomical, biological definition, the evolutionists would have us believe was meant? Goku, I know there is a long list of arguments by you guys, that you accept as true, such as Cain not being able to get a wife and different authors, and God being immoral. Just because you argue those things and accept your own sophistry, doesn't mean the rest of us will treat your arguments as though they have merit, just because you neurotically agree with each other that your arguments are true and sound. :rolleyes: So do tell, how can you tell two authors wrote a book if you only have the text available?

 

"Khan, I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect" - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan. ;)

 

How can we infer a different author in a text because of a change of style, a change of pace, or any other change that happens? If I start talking about grobswitching flushbunkem in my next post, does that mean there is a different author and that Roald Dahl must have been alive at the time that post was made? Obviously without having the original Hebrew texts available, how can we note a different handwriting? (someone hasn't done their logic today! ) :P

 

It seems to me I have no way of knowing whether there was a second author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you recognize there are different authors for Genesis 1 and 2? Different purposes to these texts?

These can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", I will not ask you to defend the answer.

I recognize you inserted a premise into your question. It's kind of like asking:"Do you still beat your wife?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about writing this thread for some time. But if I am deep down honest, I am not a YEC. I think I used to be one. 

 

On What Basis were you a YEC initially, and then... On What Basis did you change your position?

 

 

I also feel a little bit embarrassed by the integer, "6,000" years. I don't know why that figure has stuck. I think YECs themselves have put themselves in the position of having an epithet makes them look foolish.

 

 

Foolish, eh?

 

Well we "YEC's" put ourselves in that position because The WORD OF GOD and The Doctrine of Salvation -- "Kinsmen Redeemer" DEMAND IT !!

 

Can you please show how this is FOOLISH....?

 

If I am honest I think there may be some age to the universe itself and possibly a formative earth. Don't get me wrong, I accept what Genesis says but I don't think it specifically mentions the age of objects in the universe or the age of the universe itself. There is for me, no room for DOGMA

 

 

Well Scripture doesn't Explicitly mention that Jesus Christ post Resurrection exists in @ least 4 Physical Dimensions either.  But when HE enters and leaves and Enclosed 6-Sided Room without being Detected (John 20:26) then, Errr...what's the only rational Conclusion?? 

 

 

I disassociate myself from, "6,000" years.

 

 

On what Basis....?

 

 

I find that an embarrassing restriction...

 

 

Appeal to Emotion Fallacy

 

 

and now I just think to myself, "yeah, why do you restrict it to that - if you are honest, you do it to chop off evolution's head."

 

 

I hope you're just referring to yourself here...is that correct?  If not, please don't attempt to tie that baggage to some incoherent parallel with another's Honesty with themselves.

 

 

Disclaimer: I am not saying the earth is NOT about 6,000 years old. That is not the point. I do not believe there is any way to know a figure.

 

 

Well yea, Age can not be Validated Scientifically...it's Prima Facia.

 

However, according to Scripture it's Heavily Implicit...and is tied directly to the Doctrine of Salvation "Kinsmen Redeemer". 

 

 

If the earth is 122.469 million years old, then I am just as happy with that figure being true, as I am 6,000 years. 

 

 

Yes, me too I suppose.  However, then you would have to say that GOD short-changed us on the DETAILED GENEALOGIES in Genesis 5 and 10 (THEN by proxy--- the Genealogies in Matthew and Luke) AND you would surely need to hold the position that there was no: Death/Disease/Suffering/THORNS before 'The Fall'.

 

So, are those your positions?

 

 

I also don't want to pretend I have scientific knowledge when I don't. Why should I pretend to understand dating methods just to defend an epithet-integer?

 

 

Say What?  :blink:  You just contradicted yourself... Didn't you just say (And Imply Heavily) above, that: "I do not believe there is any way to know a figure" ??

 

You should have stuck with that....

 

Any 5th Grade General Science Graduate knows Prima Facia, that ALL "DATING METHODS" are outside of the Scientific Method; Errr..." Sciences' " Purview, for goodness sakes.

You have NO....: "Independent Variable", so as to Form a Valid Scientific Hypothesis to TEST then VALIDATE your PREDICTION. Ahhh... "SCIENCE" !
 
1. So "Independent Variables" are the "Input" (The Cause) that is CHANGED "controlled by the scientist" so as to measure the "Output" (The Effect) "Dependent Variables"---Predictions.

 

2. And, Independent Variables are VITALLY Essential (indispensable, as it were) to Scientific Hypothesis construction, then Ipso Facto Experiments...So can you please elaborate: How on Earth can you CHANGE the "INPUT" and TEST your Prediction on a Past Event without a Time Machine, Pray Tell....?

 
You're in a simple Category Error. The Scientific Method is used to Validate "Cause and Effect" Relationships...it's Non Sequitur to use it to extrapolate "age" from ANYTHING.

It's tantamount to using a Framing Square to calculate the GNP of the Netherlands, for goodness sakes.

 
 
It would have to be some very strange miraculous explanation if the whole universe is 6,000 years old

 

 

Based on What...?

 

I am convinced the starlight being old, is the best explanation

 

 

Really??  

 

1. You just contradicted yourself again..."I do not believe there is any way to know a figure" .

 

2. Begging The Question (Fallacy)...Who said Starlight is Old??  Does Starlight come with a Date and Time Stamp??

 

 

According to Quantum Mechanics... Independent of measurement/ observation/ "A KNOWER" of 'which-path' information, Photons (including ...Elementary Particles/Atoms/Molecules) have no defined properties or location. They exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities.

 

Therefore...

 

Unless you can explicitly identify "a Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and recorded it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide....

 

The Speed for a Wave of Potentialities !! Go ahead...?

 

 

So I am now a tautologically-earthed-creationist.  A "TEC".  ;)

 

 

So you're a Redundant-Earth-Creationist ??

 

 

 I'm on the side of whatever God says it is, and He hasn't said anything about it.".

 

 

Oh Yes, HE surely has.

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Enoch: On What Basis were you a YEC initially, and then... On What Basis did you change your position?

 

Lyell's synchrony convention was recently refuted by CMI, because of the new experiments pertaining to blackholes, proving what seems to be a speed of light. My provisional belief is that the most parsimonious explanation is that the stars really are as old as the science seems to indicate. (But I'm happy to be wrong about this if there is some unknown reason why they aren't, I only think that it is the best explanation of the facts.

 

 

 

 

Enoch: Foolish, eh?

 

Well we "YEC's" put ourselves in that position because The WORD OF GOD and The Doctrine of Salvation -- "Kinsmen Redeemer" DEMAND IT !!

 

Can you please show how this is FOOLISH....?

 

What I actually specifically meant, Enoch, is that the genealogies CMI studied gave them a figure between roughly 5,800 years and 8,000 years, so to stick to the, "6000 years" figure makes YECism look foolish, because unfortunately it looks like a simplistic figure. You should have read more about what I said about epithets, and their influence on people. So many people laugh at the 6,000 year figure, and I think had they spread the "5,800 to 8,000" figure around, then it would imply a more scientific effort to ascertain an age. Why stick to the whole number, 6000? Are they in love with that particular number? Why not 6,010 years or 6, 200. All I mean is that it makes us look like simple people that have just come up with a religiously simplistic number. I have come to hate the question, "you believe the earth is 6,000 years?"

 

My answer now; "HUH? When did I mention that particular amount? If the genealogies are an estimate, then why that particular number?"

 

 

Enoch: Yes, me too I suppose.  However, then you would have to say that GOD short-changed us on the DETAILED GENEALOGIES in Genesis 5and 10 (THEN by proxy--- the Genealogies in Matthew and Luke) AND you would surely need to hold the position that there was no:Death/Disease/Suffering/THORNS before 'The Fall'.

 

So, are those your positions?

 

No, it isn't my position. I believe those genealogies are correct, life on earth can not be older than about 6,000 to 8,000 years old, roughly speaking. We can't absolutely guarantee accuracy on those figures but I think I would find it very hard to believe that life has been on earth for anything more than 15,000 years absolute maximum. But a primordial, yet-to-be-fully-formed earth that sat there when darkness was on the face of the deep, doesn't have to be the same age as life.

 

 

Enoch: Really??  

 

1. You just contradicted yourself again..."I do not believe there is any way to know a figure" .

 

It wasn't a contradiction, I believe the best explanation of starlight is it is old, I still say I can't know for sure, I am only saying it seems to be the best most direct explanation. It's not as though I am allowing for evolutionary-time anyway, because all of the fossils in the rocks were created about 4,500 years ago by Noah's flood. If 10,000 years ago the earth was primordial, and left barren in darkness, with no life on it, then how does that help evolution? How could evolution work if the earth was only made habitable about 6-8,000 years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lyell's synchrony convention was recently refuted by CMI, because of the new experiments pertaining to blackholes, proving what seems to be a speed of light. 

 

There aren't any Black Holes...it's a Fairytale.

 

 

My provisional belief is that the most parsimonious explanation is that the stars really are as old as the science seems to indicate. (But I'm happy to be wrong about this if there is some unknown reason why they aren't, I only think that it is the best explanation of the facts.

 

 

It's not Parsimonious and it's not Science as I Explained In DETAIL.

 

 

What I actually specifically meant, Enoch, is that the genealogies CMI studied gave them a figure between roughly 5,800 years and 8,000 years, so to stick to the, "6000 years" figure makes YECism look foolish, because unfortunately it looks like a simplistic figure. You should have read more about what I said about epithets, and their influence on people. 

 

 

CMI CMI CMI,,,who cares what they say? And what's the BIG difference between 6,000 and 8,000 years for the age of the Universe/Earth.

 

Astronomy/Cosmology/Astrophysics isn't Science Mike.

 

 

So many people laugh at the 6,000 year figure, and I think had they spread the "5,800 to 8,000" figure around, then it would imply a more scientific effort to ascertain an age.

 

 

So your position is based on the Antithesis of Laughter?

 

You can't IMPLY "Science" with mere words!!!!  It's not a Linguistics Exercise for cryin out loud !!!!

 

 

 Why stick to the whole number, 6000? Are they in love with that particular number? Why not 6,010 years or 6, 200. All I mean is that it makes us look like simple people that have just come up with a religiously simplistic number. I have come to hate the question, "you believe the earth is 6,000 years?"

 

 

It's only Nonsensical Quibbling Mike.

 

Who cares what people "think" about others positions.

 

 

 

My answer now; "HUH? When did I mention that particular amount? If the genealogies are an estimate, then why that particular number?"

 

 

Who on Earth says the Genealogies are Estimates??  

 

 

I believe those genealogies are correct, life on earth can not be older than about 6,000 to 8,000 years old, roughly speaking.

 

 

6,000-8,000 years ................... is a Young Earth Mike.  Welcome Back YEC-er  thumbsup.gif 

 

 

It wasn't a contradiction

 

 

It was and still is a contradiction.

 

 

I believe the best explanation of starlight is it is old, I still say I can't know for sure, I am only saying it seems to be the best most direct explanation.

 

 

So you don't know but it "Seems"??  Please Explain the seemingly "Direct Explanation"...?

 

I already pummeled this in my last post, SEE Quantum Mechanics --- "Real Science".

 

Does this now mean your not a "YEC-er" ??

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, I am a young-life creationist, but I don't see where there is a rule that means that if life is 6-8000 years old that everything else has to be. If I am 35 years old and have lived in the same house my whole life, would that mean my house is 35 years old?  :yoda:

 

You have to step-back from your view of the bible and look at my argument as a more general argument. You obviously take the bible as a YEC, and insist that the whole thing can only be interpreted as 6,000 years old. But if you can remember that video I shown you with ken Ham and Hugh Ross, (if you remember, you amusingly called him a nincompoop), then there were some debates there from some reasonable Christians, that weren't so dogmatic about the actual age of the universe. Not only Hugh Ross, but another chap, and they obviously did believe in their bible, like me, but they just didn't take such a dogmatic issue with the age of the universe.

 

I can't make myself believe, something I don't see. If I could see in the bible where there is something that definitely leads to a belief in 6,000 years I would have to believe it, but even the genealogies do not allows us to conclude that number down to the year, there is an estimate based on extrapolations and many variables, that give a window between 5,900 years and about 8,000 years. So that alone means I don't have to associate myself with the year, "6,000", any more than I would associate myself with the figure, "6,001" years.

 

 

 

Enoch: It was and still is a contradiction.

 

Argumentum Ad Flushbunkem. :D It is not a contradiction to believe I can't know an exact date of the universe yet be convinced that the best explanation of starlight is that of an age of millions and billions of years.

 

EXAMPLE: I don't know who Jack the ripper was and never will, but I believe the best explanation is that it was Tumblety. 

post-2116-0-89680300-1463775442.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enoch, I am a young-life creationist, but I don't see where there is a rule that means that if life is 6-8000 years old that everything else has to be. If I am 35 years old and have lived in the same house my whole life, would that mean my house is 35 years old?  

 

Well you're forgetting something...

 

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

HE created Life on Day 3; Ergo Life is 6000/8000 years + 2 days and a wake up. 

 

 

You obviously take the bible as a YEC, and insist that the whole thing can only be interpreted as 6,000 years old.

 

 

6000-8000 is fine with me.

 

 

But if you can remember that video I shown you with ken Ham and Hugh Ross, (if you remember, you amusingly called him a nincompoop), then there were some debates there from some reasonable Christians, that weren't so dogmatic about the actual age of the universe. 

 

 

I studied that video many years before you posted it.  Hugh Ross --- Mr. "Moon Fossils"  :laugh_point: , yea he is a Nincompoop.

 

 

Not only Hugh Ross, but another chap, and they obviously did believe in their bible, like me, but they just didn't take such a dogmatic issue with the age of the universe.

 

 

So...?  Do you know these people? What Evidence did they present to warrant their position...?

 

 

I can't make myself believe, something I don't see. If I could see in the bible where there is something that definitely leads to a belief in 6,000 years I would have to believe it, but even the genealogies do not allows us to conclude that number down to the year, there is an estimate based on extrapolations and many variables, that give a window between 5,900 years and about 8,000 years. So that alone means I don't have to associate myself with the year, "6,000", any more than I would associate myself with the figure, "6,001" years.

 

 

You're splitting hairs without cause/need in my opinion.  6000-8000 or 5,000 -10,000 isn't 14 Billion.

 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you recognize there are different authors for Genesis 1 and 2? Different purposes to these texts?

These can be answered with a simple "yes" or "no", I will not ask you to defend the answer.

 

I recognize you inserted a premise into your question. It's kind of like asking:"Do you still beat your wife?"

 

The word "recognize" probably did have this implicated, I didn't recognize it at the time, but I can see it now. Would you mind providing me with a better phrasing?

 

I do note however, that Mike the Wiz correctly understood my question perfectly and answered accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Enoch: HE created Life on Day 3; Ergo Life is 6000/8000 years + 2 days and a wake up.

God did not create life. He did not create Himself. God is life. He is the lifegiver! He has always existed. Abiogenesis is true.

 

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God did not create life. 

 

Say What?

 

 

He did not create Himself.

 

 

Yes, I know.

 

God is life

 

 

Technically, God is Spirit...

 

(John 4:24) " God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

 

He is the lifegiver!

 

 

How can God be the 'Life-Giver" and "God did not create Life" @ the same time ? 

 

 

He has always existed.

 

 

Yes, I know.

 

 

Abiogenesis is true.

 

 

:blink:

 

Well the Law of Biogenesis (Nature/Natural Law)--- The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.--- biology online. Or simply...

 

The Law of Biogenesis --- "Nature/Natural Law" CAN NOT create Life from Non-Life.

 

Ergo...

 

Abiogenesis --  "Nature/Natural Law" CAN create Life from Non-Life.

 

You still think Abiogenesis is true?  If so, show life from non-life, "Naturally"....?

 

 

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

 

 

So in the context of Life in Man, and you're saying "God did not create Life"; But Genesis 2:7 above says God --- breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.

 

So if God didn't breathe into his nostrils....would man be "alive" ?

 

Who created "Life", as we define "Life"...?

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry Enoch , I was half awake when I made the post. I meant to say biogenesis (life only comes from life). MY bad!

Technically God is Spirit

So are we but in a portable containment field callled our body.
"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him"?-- 1st Cor 2:11

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."--John 14:6

Who created "Life", as we define "Life"...?


God uses his holy spirit to animate matter. We call it biological life.

Man would be a deadd body without a spirit as it says in the scripture above.
They have weighed the body before and after death and it is the same when we are alive or dead. Spirit has no physics.

 

 

 

How can God be the 'Life-Giver" and "God did not create Life" @ the same time ?

Just like  did not   create life but passed it on to your children/.

"For in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' Acts 17:8

Affectionately,
Your bro Mike S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms