Young Earth Frustration

[_Hoops]

What is the literal interpretation of the term 'eternal'?

I have always understood it to be this

out side of time entirely where time does not take place?

[_stemelbow]

So Hoops when thinking of creation, what was before creation? was not God before creation? How does that square with the notion of no time, or time being created upon light's creation?

[_Hoops]

So Hoops when thinking of creation, what was before creation? was not God before creation? How does that square with the notion of no time, or time being created upon light's creation?

You're asking your question within the framework of time. If there is no time, there is no "before".

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Richard Dawkins on Young Earth Creationists, why they are wrong and why they believe they are right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqYASxal-PI&feature=related

[_Hoops]

Richard Dawkins on Young Earth Creationists, why they are wrong and why they believe they are right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqYASxal-PI&feature=related

I'd rather hear from you why YEC's are wrong and why we believe we're right.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Richard Dawkins on Young Earth Creationists, why they are wrong and why they believe they are right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqYASxal-PI&feature=related

I'd rather hear from you why YEC's are wrong and why we believe we're right.

Really? Thanks.

The reason I think YEC's are wrong (and I use that term loosely) is because of plate tectonics, the geologic record, the meteorologic record, the fossil record, background radition from the Big Bang, anthropologic record, archeologic record, earth's magnetic fluctuation from pole to pole, astronomy etc., etc., etc.

More important, many YEC's that I know tend to want it both ways: they love saying that 99.9% of science and the scientific experts are wrong, but will not listen to or or let me say what is even more reasonable--namely, that it is the other .1% who are wrong.

[_Hoops]

Really? Thanks.

The reason I think YEC's are wrong (and I use that term loosely) is because of plate tectonics, the geologic record, the meteorologic record, the fossil record, background radition from the Big Bang, anthropologic record, archeologic record, earth's magnetic fluctuation from pole to pole, astronomy etc., etc., etc.

More important, many YEC's that I know tend to want it both ways: they love saying that 99.9% of science and the scientific experts are wrong, but will not listen to or or let me say what is even more reasonable--namely, that it is the other .1% who are wrong.

Those are subjects, not reasons. I'm assuming that you have specifics within each of those disciplines? I'm sure you do, I've heard them.

Nonetheless, is science up for majority vote? What do your numbers have to do with anything? But, I think I see where you're headed and it's fair. Still, that tack opens up another avenue for debate. Namely, your inevitable claim that scientists are as pure as the wind driven snow and only go where the science leads them. Which is quite a claim. As an example: I have a friend who is a world renowned nuclear scientist. To the point that he is called upon to consult for quite a few facilities around the world. Anyone in the nuclear community would know his name and his credentials are quite impressive. He is a YEC - after coming to faith as an atheist. I asked him once why he didn't write a book about what supports his view. He answered that he couldn't be excommunicated from the scientific community. "Maybe when I retire," he said.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Those are subjects, not reasons. I'm assuming that you have specifics within each of those disciplines? I'm sure you do, I've heard them.

Yes, I do have specifics from each of those disciplines. Those specifics are scientifically sound (if you believe in science). At some point, even the most hardcore YEC has to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence against their postion.

Nonetheless, is science up for majority vote? What do your numbers have to do with anything? But, I think I see where you're headed and it's fair. Still, that tack opens up another avenue for debate. Namely, your inevitable claim that scientists are as pure as the wind driven snow and only go where the science leads them. Which is quite a claim. As an example: I have a friend who is a world renowned nuclear scientist. To the point that he is called upon to consult for quite a few facilities around the world. Anyone in the nuclear community would know his name and his credentials are quite impressive. He is a YEC - after coming to faith as an atheist. I asked him once why he didn't write a book about what supports his view. He answered that he couldn't be excommunicated from the scientific community. "Maybe when I retire," he said.

Hoops, you just proved my point about YEC's tending to want it both ways: they love saying that 99.9% of science and the scientific experts are wrong, and refuse to listen to what is even more reasonable--namely, that it is the other .1% who are wrong.

You just discounted the fact that the vast majority of scientists are against YEC, but then you brought up one scientist who is a YEC. Again, YEC's love to discount the majority in favor of the .1%.

Hoops, are you really a YEC? If so, would you be willing to share some evidence that you feel supports your position?

Thanks,

a fan

[_Buffalo]

Those are subjects, not reasons. I'm assuming that you have specifics within each of those disciplines? I'm sure you do, I've heard them.

Nonetheless, is science up for majority vote? What do your numbers have to do with anything? But, I think I see where you're headed and it's fair. Still, that tack opens up another avenue for debate. Namely, your inevitable claim that scientists are as pure as the wind driven snow and only go where the science leads them. Which is quite a claim. As an example: I have a friend who is a world renowned nuclear scientist. To the point that he is called upon to consult for quite a few facilities around the world. Anyone in the nuclear community would know his name and his credentials are quite impressive. He is a YEC - after coming to faith as an atheist. I asked him once why he didn't write a book about what supports his view. He answered that he couldn't be excommunicated from the scientific community. "Maybe when I retire," he said.

A much more difficult claim to swallow is the idea that 99.9% of scientists are evil liars hell-bent on a global conspiracy to make young earthers look like ignoramuses - as if that required a conspiracy.

[_stemelbow]

You're asking your question within the framework of time. If there is no time, there is no "before".

Okay. It simply doesn't make any sense. But we can agree to disagree on this.