YEC Age of Earth question (false appearance of age?)

Once again, the topic title pretty well defines the topic theme - "YEC Age of Earth question (false apperance of age?).Messages should have some direct connection to that theme.Take any replies to this message to the ******** "General..." topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---

To me it appears that any god that would intentionally decieve the curious (scientists) to support the dogmatic (Bibical literalists) is not the God of the Bible. Wouldn't a deceptive god contradict bearing false witness. God as Great Deciever IMHO is the wrong god. Or is it the cognitive dissonance of biblical literalists who have to say natural processes such as radioactive decay, geologic weathering, the speed of light, are all not constant, despite all evidence to the contrary, just to keep from having to critically examine their beliefs rather than admit they may be guilty of misinterpretation.What about the predictions of science that are later observed, is this another trick? Postulate heredity and then several years later observe the means by which traits are heritable, is the observation an illusion?Science is fallable but self-correcting. Why are some peoples interpretation of the Bible infallable (and therefore not self-correcting?) Shouldn't the truly humble, in the face of God, seek to understand the message, and update such understanding, continuously rather than once and forever?"Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider." - Francis BaconThis message has been edited by anglagard, 04-15-2006 12:56 PM

Anglagard, a newer member, is trying to revive this topic.Check it out.

Per discussion in the General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel, it seems to me that RAZD has use for this topic.Adminnemooseus

---

There is a clear reason why this thread has no traction. It is because the line of reasoning involved leads to a logical conclusion that virtually means the death of Young Earth Creationism.When confronted with the overwhelming evidence for an old Earth, from radioisotopic decay/dendritics/ice cores/varves, fossils, genetics, uniformitarianism combined with superposition, isostasy, plate tectonics, paleomagnetism, even Kelvin's too-young estimates from cooling rates, etc. there are only a few logical choices left.The first is to accept an old Earth in line with Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Astronomy, Biology, Anthropology, and History. Therefore no YEC.The second is to say virtually all scientists are wrong, in which case there must be evidence. Since YEC evidence is easily demolished, and YEC proponents are almost always too lazy to learn anything about science or the Bible that may require critical thinking, this choice is one that shows YEC to be nothing but argument from ignorance combined with the occasional outright lie. It is interesting that after all these arguments are crushed by relentless examination, the die-hards resort to the third and most awful logical outcome that follows.The third is that their "god" is intentionally decieving all people curious enough about the works of God to actually examine and study such works, through giving the false appearance of age in all of the above mentioned fields of study. God as great deciever can't be the God of the Bible where there is a commandment against bearing false witness, among other indicators. Besides if it is the great deciever, than who can tell if the Bible itself is, or is not, a great deception.IMHO, this line of reasoning leads to YEC rejecting both the God of the Bible and science. A tremendous price to pay for being too slothful to study and understand the Bible at more than a comic-book level, and to understand the works of God as revealed by God through the laws of science.If anyone wants to disagree, here and now is the place.

Firstly: I would say that at 60 posts you haven't got enough experience to know when a thread is truly dead. EvC-ers have hides like leather - it takes more to kill things off than 65 postsSecondly: I had a quick check and this isn't a science thread so I may get away with the following. Nothing in the Bible relys primarily on it being logical in a general sense of the world. The truths of the Bible are spiritually discerned and for someone who is spiritually dead, 1 Cor 2:14 has something to say. What appears illogic to a spiritually dead person makes perfect sense to a spiritually alive one. It depends completely on the position you view things from.Thirdly: You forgot to mention the Bible in your "Avenue of the Righteous". For some people the Bible takes precedence over everything else - no matter how appealing the argument might be. You would need to counter their reasoning for doing so to make headway with this partial reasoning. "Science uber alles" would be a fitting thread titleFourthly: A serious case of finger pointing going on here. A cursory reading of the bible will show the limitless ability of man to decieve himself and to ignore that which is patently obvious. Stephen blasted the Sanhedrin scholars of his day with an exposition of the OT in the book of Acts. Paul frequently points out the massive error Judaism made in his frequent pointing out of the true meaning of OT scripture. The trouble with science is that it deals with tentatives yet its high priests fail to see that .99 x.99 x.99 x.99 probability still leaves room for error - including error w.r.t. probability calculation.Fifthly: You are entitled to hold a view on God-of-the-bible. Whether your view holds water or not has yet to be established. Given this, the statement above can only be read as hyperbolic.Not that I am unable point the finger at myself in this regard. If your post was a tad less pseudo-definitive, I might have decided to engage in a little more of it.

Well it appears it Isn't dead after all.Where does it say in the Bible that the Earth is 6000 years old?

If I were to say "inferred from the (biblical) evidence" what would you say?(I deliberately made that sound scientific btw)

Even assuming that the Bible can't be occasionally treated as parable as inferred by Jesus or that the KJV is definitive, which in another line of argument in another thread heavily infers the KJV is not definitive, There is no logical connection between Gen. 1.1 and 1.5 as to length of time as there was no solid Earth to determine the length of the first day.Therefore Ussher's 6000 year old Earth is not logically backed by a literal interpretation of even the KJV Bible. It is a controversy made up by those who hate science more and read to understand Bible less.

A day is a day unless there is good reason to think otherwise I would have thought. Why does one need a solid earth (physical) to define something that occurs in time (non-physical)?

Because a day and a night is defined by one complete rotation of the Earth upon its axis relative to the Sun

Or 24 hours..This message has been edited by iano, 03-May-2006 02:58 AM

One of which is defined as......And like one could even determine how long the earth took to rotate befre the sun, moon, and stars existed. Like a flat earth under a Firmament rotated, anyway.Sheesh.

No, not always 24 hours (at this momement 23 hours and 56 minutes of Earth rotation + 4 minutes for the increment of revolving about the Sun), faster in the past, as proven by current rates of slowing. Hours are a human construct defined by dividing one rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun into 24 same sized units.ABE, I agree with Coragyps. Iano, if you are you defending YEC, I don't see how this helps.This message has been edited by anglagard, 05-02-2006 10:21 PM

how long would 24 hours be 6000 years ago (not a whole lot different than it is now I'll warrant).