gray wolf

Thanks for being there, Joe.

You're not one for letting sleeping dogs lie, are you? lol Always accusing me of making fallacious arguments. Well I don't really think I did here, not on a person. I correctly pointed out that the link you provided was a creationist website and references within the article will be seen with that lens. About which I do not have a problem with; creation and science need not conflict . To my knowledge, I did not make a baseless assertion- - I simply spare others the quotes and source materials and rely on my own words. I commented in another thread certain things in YEC that I have problems with. The problem for me as a scientist will always be when we square the evidence to fit a basic assumption. Whether it is an evolutionist doing this or a YEC advocate, it is counterproductive. I will leave it at that.

I really do not know what I believe anymore. I see all these arguments posted here (not this thread), quotes from creationist websites, and raw nerves resulting from the debates. For every point there is a counter point. Sometimes they both seem realistic, but I know that can't be the case. When my children and I discuss these things (we rarely do), I can only say that there is truth out there, but I'm not sure what it is. You can't bring up a doubting Thomas question easily and not get assailed.

Well said.

I've done some digging and found some accounts that run counter to the claims of that creation website. I am not going to argue again about OE/YE creationism, ID etc, and cite opposing sources, however. I do not think anyone benefits or is convinced by the arguments either way, so I respectfully bow out.

Ha! I had the wrong mountains in mind! My mistake

Thanks about the pic. . . . the mug shot didn't do anyone favors. From what I've read, although some trees do form double rings, this is rare with bristlecones. They tend to have missing rings altogether, which would give a younger age to the specimen than what it actually is, which is not surprising considering the climatic conditions in the southwest compared to the White Mtns.

We have to look at the evidence with an open mind and let it speak for itself. For example, if bristlecone pines tell us they are 8200 years old, then perhaps some of our dates, such as the Flood, may be coming from an error in assumptions.

There are always questions about theories. A theory is not a natural law like the ideal gas law, but they are models to predict. Until we come up with better hypotheses, we interpret evidence against the current theories. If the evidence runs counter to the theory repeatedly, it is time to modify the theory or come up with a better one.

I don't see where Evolution or the OEC model are any less faith-based. The essential difference being that OEC and YEC deal with beginnings; how did life arise from non living matter. This is really out of scope for evolution. Although it's a worldview for many, I don't know how much faith is involved. For me to say evolution is a faith cheapens the term.

Referring back a couple posts-- too long to qoute again, YEC often doesn't appeal to many in the scientific realms because it operates on a radically different timeline and set of conditions than mainstream scientific models. IMHO some of the ideas are just a little too wild . YEC is a belief system and is best approached, at least in my mind, as a matter of faith.

I am sorry that you take everything personally when I make a general statement with no one in particular in mind.

If I had written an article about OEC or Theistic Evolution and why I thought either one was biblically sound, I doubt you would be questioning the need to write such an article. These are not nonessential details. One's worldview is shaped by how you view the origin of man and humanity. It is for everyone regardless of what stage they are at in their walk. History has shown that Evolution has a far greater potential of shipwrecking people's faith than YEC. No one rejects God on an intellectual basis, but on a spiritual one. I am not predicating acceptance of the Gospel with acceptance of YEC. That is a common false accusation that gets thrown around here in the absence of intelligent rebuttals. I am not saying that you have believe in the YEC model to be saved. I have never said or even implied it. Perhaps you could actually read what I have said instead misrepresenting my comments and framing them to mean something I never intended. Or am I asking too much of you? "History has shown that Evolution has a far greater potential of shipwrecking people's faith than YEC" I absolutely believe this: people who have grown up as Christians under the assumption that Genesis MUST BE READ LITERALLY and then discovering that perhaps the universe is older than what they've been taught will no doubt get shaken up a bit. I blame this on their upbringing: it is such upbringing that creates people like Bart Eerman (a staunch antiChristian). They are raised not only to believe that Scripture is inspired, but force fed a definition of what it means to be inspired--i.e. either creation happened in 6 days or Scripture is not inspired. Very well.... .....But then we are not talking about people whose faith is shipwrecked. We're talking about people who have no faith to begin with, and then are asked to pit one interpretation of Scripture (yours) against claims made by scientists; no surprise that they reject Christianity because they've been forced to make a choice that (as I and others believe) was never required of them by Scripture. If you have stats showing that evolution or OE has actually prevented people from coming to faith in Christ, even though they have been introduced to interpretations that allow for both these claims, I'd like to see them. In my experience, most unbelievers think Christians are naive or obstinately stupid because they insist that the world is only 6,000 years old; of course, we do not alter our convictions to accommodate unbelievers: many cannot come to faith because they disbelieve in the miraculous, which excludes Christianity. But I and others with me do not think Genesis was intended by God to be read as read by YE. I think you and I will both agree that it is better for a man to come to faith in Christ under the assumption that evolution or whatever is compatible with Scripture, then to reject Chrstianity because he is told he must make a choice between one interpretation of Genesis and science. clb Actually Bart Ehrman stumbled over the Problem of Evil. And he's not really anti Christian, just agnostic.

I didn't really run into rampant atheism when I was an undergrad at a public university. Yes the theory was taught but never once did I hear an instructor mock or even question God. Of course I studied mainly chemistry which is not as... philosophical

You have yourself conceded to so called micro evolution. The mechanism is there. I dare say the young earth notion is a stumbling block to scientists. Be it truth, there is no better way of putting these people off. As I posted above, concentrate on the gospel and let the other doctrine follow.

I know of no one who became a believer based on YEC arguments. There could be, however. I do know that some people, specifically science people who are put off. If they accept the gospel that means for them YEC hook line and sinker. And at risk of being flayed, I would say that it is possible to be a believer and accept some of the concepts in evolution. That being said, I do believe in Adam and Eve of course.

I actually just thought of that objection, I did not read it in any of your posts. I do recall you emphasizing that evolution is not consistent with Christian doctrine. My post was not a veiled assault on you. I spoke from the experience with creationists where young earth doctrine eclipses the gospel. I am sure that is not what anyone really wants down deep.

I'd say so, but that is my faith. When asked by a colleague or atheist to prove these things, I cannot point to scientific evidence. If it is possible at all, I certainly don't have the background or knowledge. I'd fall into an argument from ignorance pretty quickly.

Things at the beginning fly in the face of present knowledge, even in the secular cosmology view of the Big Bang. The universe prior to that event was vastly different, unimaginable. I don't see why God could not do amazing things as well at the world's inception. But this again is a matter of faith.

Why subject a seeker to this? Why not rather emphasize Christ and let God take care of the details and convictions later? YEC I think is for the firm Christian. If you predicate acceptance of the Gospel with acceptance of YEC, you are going to lose people.

I dunno about the math. How do you calculate the probability that a physical constant changes? Nowadays it's pretty much zero. I would venture that you'd need a case study to set up a calculation. It is rather an exercise in faith, which is the core of creationism. This is not a surprise, but it is as it should be and makes it distinctive.

Unfalsifiable but improbable? To fit the chronology as you read it. Is there an alternate view Biblically? I think so. After creating the sun and the moon, the Bible says He made the stars also. And when was that? In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Is it not possible according to the text that is when they were made? Before the 6 days. No time constraints yet. To me it seems more likely than the supernatural alteration of physical laws. But then, I may be wrong.

No I think it would be more stating in a premise as a fact differently than the same thing in the conclusion. But no matter. What you are proposing is unfalsifiable, so I'm going to bow out.

"but it was very thoughtful for you to try." Thanks, and it was a couple of degrees (on the top end) of "try". "where did you get #1 and #3?" Check the link I posted to kwik. "I think the Kachina Bridge image has been determined not to be what it appears on first glance." Yes, I heard that. No worries, I have thousands more. "why is the Grand Canyon wandering in shape, wouldn't it be more straight if a single flood formed it? And why are there not other Grand Canyons throughout the world?" I haven't the first Clue. I'm neither a Geologist or Hydrologist...you could query them I suppose. "So with the light from stars and galaxies millions and billions of light years away travelled all that way in one day?" The Speed of Light isn't a measure of Time, it's a measure of Distance. You're, "begging the question"....assuming the very thing you're trying to prove, if you use the CURRENT or "Present" Speed of Light and then attempt to extrapolate it to Creation Week. If you think the Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry et al were the same now as Creation Week....I suggest you read the first Chapter of Genesis. The reading will put that notion to bed in a PLANCK TIME. I'll just take GOD'S WORD for it. "That would be creating the heavens with apparent age. . ." That statement is contingent on the implied conundrum of your first statement (see directly above) being True. Did Adam have the appearance of age? [/ That is really straining the definition of begging the question, especially when we have a known quantity. By stating that the speed of light is a constant is not a circular argument. The speed of light is not a measure of distance, that would be a light year.