Guest shiloh357 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 It's impossible for a lot of people shiloh. It's not impossible for anyone. I used to be an Old Earther, myself. But then I woke up and accepted the truth. And while your position may be more nuanced than claiming that these 'extra beliefs' are a necessary precondition to accepting the gospel, it's possible for someone to naively read them that way along with other threads and posts here. Your position *is* more subtle, and I never accused you of anything. I am sure why you are convinced I'm out to smear you or misrepresent you in particular, that just isn't true. It's obvious it is referencing me because I am the only one on any of the these threads being accused of making such a claim. But I have never claimed that accepting the Gospel including accepting YEC and nor did I subtly imply it. It is what has been assigned to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 It's impossible for a lot of people shiloh. It's not impossible for anyone. I used to be an Old Earther, myself. But then I woke up and accepted the truth. Okay, but as long as someone thinks the evidence very very strongly favors an 'old' universe it's going to be impossible to just up and choose to believe differently. And while your position may be more nuanced than claiming that these 'extra beliefs' are a necessary precondition to accepting the gospel, it's possible for someone to naively read them that way along with other threads and posts here. Your position *is* more subtle, and I never accused you of anything. I am sure why you are convinced I'm out to smear you or misrepresent you in particular, that just isn't true. It's obvious it is referencing me because I am the only one on any of the these threads being accused of making such a claim. But I have never claimed that accepting the Gospel including accepting YEC and nor did I subtly imply it. It is what has been assigned to me. No. This is a concern I've had for a while given the way this subforum goes and the types of threads that happen. I wanted people who read it to see some diversity of opinion clearly stated. I am not sure how more clearly to say this shiloh, I am not targeting you. I am not accusing you of anything. I know, for the record, publicly, in hopes to bury this forever, that your view is more subtle than saying that belief in YEC is a precondition to salvation. And further, I genuinely appreciate your participation in this thread as it services my goal as stated above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I know, for the record, publicly, in hopes to bury this forever, that your view is more subtle than saying that belief in YEC is a precondition to salvation. I am not sure how what I have stated could be characterizesd as a subtle view. I have been anything but subtle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 I know, for the record, publicly, in hopes to bury this forever, that your view is more subtle than saying that belief in YEC is a precondition to salvation. I am not sure how what I have stated could be characterizesd as a subtle view. I have been anything but subtle. ha, well okay. It is whatever you want it to be. How about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 28, 2014 No problem. "Keep in mind, attacking current science is not evidence." Define what you mean by science? Evidence: 1. Genesis 2. Carbon 14 has a half life of about 5700 years. A Lump of C14 the size of the Earth would have all decayed in a million years. Question: Why do Diamonds, Oil, Coal, and Fossil Wood still contain Carbon 14 if the ages are of Millions or Billions of years? 3. Helium in Zircons. http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics 4. Jupiter gives off twice as much heat as it receives from the sun...if it were Billions of years old it would be an Icicle!! 5. Dr. Russ Humphries predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune based on 6,000 years timescale ...Voyager 2 Space Craft confirmed them. http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-and-the-age-of-the-earth 6. Recession of the Moon...it would have been touching the Earth @ 1.4-1.5 Billion Years ago 7. The Early Faint Sun Paradox: Hydrogen/ Helium Ratio and Luminosity. The average Temp of the Earth today is 15C (59 degrees F) so the average temperature 3.5 billion years ago would have been -2C (28 degrees F). The Planet would've been engulfed with ICE!!!! 8. Dinosaur Soft Tissue 9. Young('allegedly') Spiral Galaxy's 10. Recorded History Here's 101 reasons: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth if you got some time. 2. A half life gives you the amount of time it would take for *half* a sample of N nuclei to decay. It gets halved again in that time. And then halved again. And then halved again. Once you are looking at 10 half lives later, or 100, or 1000, you'd expect to find very very very few parent nuclei left, but because of the statistic nature of the thing, it shouldn't be surprising that there is *some* at all. The question is, what the ratio of the parent nuclei to the daughter nuclei, and that is always the question. It's embarrassing this site shows such a misunderstanding of such a basic concept. 4. This is false. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=65 5. Not sure why this ought to be. Metallic hydrogen flow is assumed to be the source of magnetic field for these planets. 6. The moon is actually thought to have once touched the earth. It's commonly thought that a large impact of the earth caused the moon to form. 7. Yes. The solution here is thought to be something related to earth's conditions which were different. Not sure what's wrong with 'young' spiral galaxies. As galaxies get older they are more likely to become elliptical galaxies through collisions etc. "2. A half life gives you the amount of time it would take for *half* a sample of N nuclei to decay. It gets halved again in that time. And then halved again. And then halved again. Once you are looking at 10 half lives later, or 100, or 1000, you'd expect to find very very very few parent nuclei left, but because of the statistic nature of the thing, it shouldn't be surprising that there is *some* at all. The question is, what the ratio of the parent nuclei to the daughter nuclei, and that is always the question." Agreed. You know how I feel about Radiometric Dating anyways "It's embarrassing this site shows such a misunderstanding of such a basic concept." Thanks for the added color commentary. "5. Not sure why this ought to be. Metallic hydrogen flow is assumed to be the source of magnetic field for these planets." Why what ought to be? "6. The moon is actually thought to have once touched the earth. It's commonly thought that a large impact of the earth caused the moon to form." It's commonly thought?? Sounds like a ludicrous "Ad Hoc hypothesis" to me. It was also commonly thought that the Titanic was unsinkable. Oh and yes, this is where Dr. Hugh Ross gets his "Fossils on the Moon" thesis Are you embarrassed about that? "7. Yes. The solution here is thought to be something related to earth's conditions which were different." Another generalized "ad hoc hypothesis". And I'd agree, those conditions were very different for not only the Earth..... approx 6,000 years ago, however. "Not sure what's wrong with 'young' spiral galaxies." Well according to current stellar evolution theory, that should not be. Since spiral galaxies take only 2 to 3 turns before beginning to dissipate and lose their spiral definition, then anything beyond the 10 to 20 million light year range should NOT have spirals. Yet they are seen everywhere in the visible universe in every direction....including the Red Shift Desert. Everything from the closest spiral galaxy (Andromeda, 2.5 million light yrs.) to BX442 which is about 10 billion light yrs from us...we see spiral galaxies. Please Note: Genesis is my 99.999999999999999% Reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 1. You're welcome. Honestly, maybe you could email them about this? It seems like such a grating, glaring mistake. 6. it is a hypothesis, and still contested. There are reasons for thinking it is so, and reasons for doubting it also. But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely. 7. yes this is also speculative and has several hypotheses. No, not everything is completely figured out . Do your thoughts about spiral galaxy formation and stability include dark matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 28, 2014 1. You're welcome. Honestly, maybe you could email them about this? It seems like such a grating, glaring mistake. 6. it is a hypothesis, and still contested. There are reasons for thinking it is so, and reasons for doubting it also. But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely. 7. yes this is also speculative and has several hypotheses. No, not everything is completely figured out . Do your thoughts about spiral galaxy formation and stability include dark matter? "But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely." I find it Preposterous and akin to claiming there are roadrunners evolving in the sun's inner core. Just unprovable/ unfalsifiable speculations...rinse and repeat. "No, not everything is completely figured out" This is a Fallacy (Argument to the Future) "Dark Matter" I this like Dark Coffee? The same thing with Inflation and Dark Energy and whatever other "AD HOC" Hypothesis that is wheeled out. Speaking of "Ad Hoc" Hypothesis.... Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 1. You're welcome. Honestly, maybe you could email them about this? It seems like such a grating, glaring mistake. 6. it is a hypothesis, and still contested. There are reasons for thinking it is so, and reasons for doubting it also. But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely. 7. yes this is also speculative and has several hypotheses. No, not everything is completely figured out . Do your thoughts about spiral galaxy formation and stability include dark matter? "But, that the earth and moon used to be 'touching' seems very very likely." I find it Preposterous and akin to claiming there are roadrunners evolving in the sun's inner core. Just unprovable/ unfalsifiable speculations...rinse and repeat. "No, not everything is completely figured out" This is a Fallacy (Argument to the Future) "Dark Matter" I this like Dark Coffee? The same thing with Inflation and Dark Energy and whatever other "AD HOC" Hypothesis that is wheeled out. Speaking of "Ad Hoc" Hypothesis.... Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience I could share reasons people think the moon arose due to a collision with a foreign body and the earth if you'd like. But, as you've determined such activities don't constitute science, no matter how carefully modeled or what observations they are based on don't count as science it may be an exercise in futility. No, it's true, the great secret is out, we don't know everything. The case for dark matter is quite good right now though, and people are actively engaged in trying to detect it and pin what it is. It is possible that they won't find it, and we will then have to go back to the drawing board. I'd be pretty surprised, but such is the nature of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 28, 2014 I do not believe God intended Genesis to be a complete statement on the origins of the universe like some do here. Spock, Spock. The majority of Secular "Scientists" (and I would say more like the power behind them) are the ones trying they're best to explain away GOD with their "CLAIMS" of this and that. Then their 13th Century Alchemy graces the Elementary-College TextBooks and are portrayed as Scientific FACT. Then the media grabs hold of these Modern Day Fairytales and pushes the Half-Baked Propaganda (LIES) Over and Over and Over again. By the time the Average Kid gets to college (if the get that chance), they are so overwhelmingly indoctrinated by the Culture/Education/PEERS any semblance of the WORD of GOD, even if they've been brought up with it, fades away into oblivion. Even if they question it, they're are ridiculed endlessly (or worse) with the usual: "Dumb/Ignorant Creationists", "You believe Primitive Stupid Goatherders??"....that's what can be printed!!! How do they do it and what's the first target?? They surreptitiously and in some cases overtly attack GENESIS. THEY KNOW, If they can somehow create DOUBT in the PILLARED FOUNDATION of the CLEAR TEACHINGS in Genesis....then the whole COLLAPSES, basically uncontested. WHO WAS THE FIRST TO CREATE DOUBT THEN OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF THE WORD IN GENESIS??? I'm sick of the LIES and I won't stand for it!!! I will expose it EVERY TIME I SEE IT....The LORD has put it on my Heart. What's my Authority?...... (Ephesians 5:11) "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Am I direct? Yes. Is that directness misconstrued as rude and insulting? Yes. Do I need work with meekness and gentleness? Yes. Am I fallible (stupid question) Yes, just ask my wife. But I will not stand for the Lies!!! Period, End of Story!! ps. not solely directed @ you Tell me how you really feel. I hope you feel better now, and I was glad to help you get that off your chest. Phew! Spock running out of this fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I am not in the young earth brigade Now that is a good one LOL. Now I'm a YEB I'm curious why your not a YEB? No compelling evidence. Can you offer evidence? Keep in mind, attacking current science is not evidence. Please, if you have something novel I'd love to see it - no attacking. Thanks There you have it! There is no compelling evidence either way! The bible would tell us, in no uncertain terms if God wanted us, or thought we needed to know. But He did not, just like there are a myriad of things Jesus did that the bible does not talk about because we don't need to know. What we know, what we have been given, is enough. Would knowing that the earth was 6,001 years old, or 14.72 million/billion years old change what I feel about Jesus? Of course not. The Holy Spirit is reborn, new, refreshed, renewed within me every time I take a breath. And yet He is eternal. It has nothing to do with how old is dirt. That's what makes sense to me personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts