Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ex-YECs -- a question
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 16 of 36 (176000)
01-11-2005 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by TrueCreation
01-09-2005 7:02 PM


Thanks for your reply, TC.
I'm curious... why is it not an option for you that God took care of all the heat resulting from accelerated decay rates?
Also, if you no longer believe in a young earth (~6,000 yrs. old), why do you have a hard time believing it's 4.6 billion years old? I would think all your research is pointing you in the direction (or at least the research you've already conducted) by now. By "philosophie" do you mean your religious convictions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 01-09-2005 7:02 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2005 6:53 PM roxrkool has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 17 of 36 (176002)
01-11-2005 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by PecosGeorge
01-11-2005 2:33 PM


Re: young earth?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-11-2005 2:33 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-11-2005 9:30 PM roxrkool has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 18 of 36 (176021)
01-11-2005 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by roxrkool
01-11-2005 8:51 PM


Re: young earth?
It cannot be a young earth. Not going into methods of dating and just using the biblical 'note' of 'in the beginning', I am suggesting that this earth is very old.
Much older than we have ways of measuring at this moment of knowledge.
Created dark and filled with water, it may have been left to its own devices (with all the information necessary) to emerge as we know it today, or moved upon at a later time to give it a more pleasant look and to support the addition of all life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by roxrkool, posted 01-11-2005 8:51 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by roxrkool, posted 01-11-2005 10:05 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 19 of 36 (176029)
01-11-2005 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by PecosGeorge
01-11-2005 9:30 PM


Re: young earth?
Oh, okay. THAT I understood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-11-2005 9:30 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 36 (179438)
01-21-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by roxrkool
01-11-2005 8:48 PM


quote:
I'm curious... why is it not an option for you that God took care of all the heat resulting from accelerated decay rates?
--Because accelerated decay may have a purpose in CPT (eg. as an initiation process). That it produces heat may be a good thing. The problem is that calculations show that such a process would produce far too much heat. Postulating that excess heat was removed via some unfalsifiable supernatural mechanism has no basis whatsoever than to merely ignore the problem it directly implies.
--Efficient redistribution of heat resultant directly from the runaway subduction process and the new cooling oceanic lithosphere could possibly occur through the said steam jets (ironically, the higher the temperature, the more feasible the process and hence remove--or at least depreciate--the problem), but removal of excess radiogenic heat in the continents; there is no viable mechanism at all that I know of.
--Edit--> I think that the only possibility here would be a difference in the nuclear physics of a decaying radioisotope. Of course, I have only grasped the most fundamental of fundamentals in nuclear physics so this is merely my mind wandering.
quote:
Also, if you no longer believe in a young earth (~6,000 yrs. old), why do you have a hard time believing it's 4.6 billion years old? I would think all your research is pointing you in the direction (or at least the research you've already conducted) by now.
--I really don't have that problem. I just haven't made that conclusion. However I would agree that my research is pointing me in that direction. Indeed, I ultimately have little scientific reason to believe it is significantly younger; I only leave a small window open. A rigorous scientific community has been in operation for only a little over two hundred years--what will we discover and understand when that number becomes a relative fraction? Of course I won't be there to analyze the status of scientific acheivement, but that won't make me any less wrong.
quote:
By "philosophie" do you mean your religious convictions?
--By philosophy I mean my personal convictions--my subjective methods of interpreting the relative value and meaning of data and information, such as that involved in the acceptance of scientific theories.
--I am currently taking a class geared toward the philosophy of natural sciences at USF--intended to be a graduate level course, very rigorous--which should help me sharpen my understanding of scientific methodology and= appropriately evaluate the credibility of theories.
-Chris
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-21-2005 18:53 AM
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-21-2005 18:54 AM
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-21-2005 19:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by roxrkool, posted 01-11-2005 8:48 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by roxrkool, posted 01-25-2005 12:59 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 21 of 36 (180370)
01-25-2005 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by TrueCreation
01-21-2005 6:53 PM


Thanks, TC. That was very illuminating.
Are you in college full time now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by TrueCreation, posted 01-21-2005 6:53 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2005 1:44 AM roxrkool has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 36 (180376)
01-25-2005 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by roxrkool
01-25-2005 12:59 AM


quote:
Thanks, TC. That was very illuminating.
Are you in college full time now?
--Yes indeed. And loving it
This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2005 01:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by roxrkool, posted 01-25-2005 12:59 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by roxrkool, posted 01-25-2005 8:25 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 23 of 36 (180602)
01-25-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by TrueCreation
01-25-2005 1:44 AM


Great news!
Geophysics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by TrueCreation, posted 01-25-2005 1:44 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2005 1:19 PM roxrkool has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 36 (180833)
01-26-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by roxrkool
01-25-2005 8:25 PM


quote:
Great news!
Geophysics?
--Of course . Although I am actually double majoring in geology/geophysics and graphics design. Then again.. the philosophy of science is getting very interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by roxrkool, posted 01-25-2005 8:25 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by roxrkool, posted 01-26-2005 5:32 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 25 of 36 (180877)
01-26-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by coffee_addict
01-07-2005 10:40 PM


Noah had two of some and seven of another.
The earth is old and the bible tells you so.
"In the beginning, God created.....". God's beginning? He has none.
Why make it dark and filled with water?
Well, you know all that, don't you?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Al, I agree!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by coffee_addict, posted 01-07-2005 10:40 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 26 of 36 (180908)
01-26-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by TrueCreation
01-26-2005 1:19 PM


Geology? I thought you hated geology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 01-26-2005 1:19 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by TrueCreation, posted 01-29-2005 2:22 AM roxrkool has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 27 of 36 (181534)
01-29-2005 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by roxrkool
01-07-2005 12:53 AM


I'm not sure how many ex-YECs we have here, but I was wondering if you would be willing to share with us the details of your transformation from YECist to old earther.
Alright... I'm a curious person and more scientifically minded than the average joe, therefore I don't believe in things without good reason. I was of the opinion that all truth could be proven through reason or science. I was not particularly well-informed about the nature of science or the philosophies of epistemology.
Since I believed it was a fact that God existed, I believed we could prove it because I believed all truth is proveable which I now know to be false. I was sure that God could be proven to exist and the biggest proof for his existence was his creation. Even though there isn't really any significant conflict between evolution and the scriptures, I wanted an instantaneous creation to be true because it would be a hole in our knowledge that science could not fill so we would be forced to believe in God. I stupidly based my faith in God on a hole in human understanding.
I had been reading a bunch of creationist materials and was convinced that evolution was the biggest fraud ever. I started debating here and let my arguments be picked apart. So as I opened to evolution as a possibility I lost my "proof" for God and therefore questioned his existence entirely.
So I entertained every doubt possible for a few months and waivered in my faith. Finally, I made it through all the doubts and my faith has came back. I am definately better off for going through all of it.
I'm particularly interested in the pieces of evidence that finally convinced you YECism was wrong and how long it took to reach that conclusion.
I'm very grateful to Nosy and Loudmouth and many others who kindly and patiently explained some things to me. It was their arguments particularly the one about pseudogenes that opened me up completely to it.
Additionally, were you open or completely closed to the idea of an old earth and how long did the transformation process take? Were you scientifically literate or not? Was it spiritually devastating or fulfilling?
I was open to the idea of an old earth, but not evolution. It took me about a week before I had serious doubts about my position, but I held onto it for about 3 or 4 months.
Were you scientifically literate or not?
...I was a Freshmen engineering student with a high school 4.0, so I don't know if that counts.
Was it spiritually devastating or fulfilling?
It was spiritually devastating for about 3 or 4 more months after I accepted evolution as a plausible theory. That time when I was constantly doubting God and all the Christianity around me was the most depressing period of my life. But I'm definately glad I went through it. I have learned immeasurable amounts of stuff, gained some humility, and a better understanding of Christianity, science, and philosophy in general.
I'm interested because I have been involved in many young earth v. old earth discussions and for the most part, they seem like a complete waste of time - not to mention frustrating as hell. It does seem, however, that the silent majority are where the battles are being won.
I think as long as you are polite, patient, and clear that you are not trying to destroy their faith in God and as long as they are willing to have an intelligent discussion you are not wasting your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by roxrkool, posted 01-07-2005 12:53 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2005 2:02 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 32 by roxrkool, posted 01-29-2005 2:23 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 36 (181547)
01-29-2005 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hangdawg13
01-29-2005 1:05 AM


Hey, buddy, don't beat yourself up about things you may have believed in the past. Wisdom is not always being right; it's knowing when one has been wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-29-2005 1:05 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Delusion
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 36 (181556)
01-29-2005 2:18 AM


At the risk of a tangental discussion, I have one quick question for the OEC converts from YEC:
Why do you trust science for the age of the Earth but not with its overwhelming evidence suggesting that evolution is the most accurate model for diversification and speciation?

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 01-29-2005 2:21 AM Delusion has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 36 (181561)
01-29-2005 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Delusion
01-29-2005 2:18 AM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Delusion, posted 01-29-2005 2:18 AM Delusion has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024