Young Earth Frustration

[_GR33N]

If the earth is to be believed as a 'young earth' how does one account for dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs lived on the earth up until the flood.

[_Tarski]

If the earth is to be believed as a 'young earth' how does one account for dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs lived on the earth up until the flood.

A silly notion pulled out of thin air rather than from evidence.

There was no global flood.
The earth is billions of years old.
Life on earth evolved from earlier simpler life forms over a period of hundreds of millions of years.

I have seen a lot of so called creation science from places like Answers in Genesis etc. and it is nearly all utterly stupid and desperate. YEC is a clumsy patchwork of ad hoc notions that betray scientific illiteracy, self deception and foolishness.

That's just the way it is and I see no reason to tippy toe around that fact.

[_jon]

If the earth is to be believed as a 'young earth' how does one account for dinosaurs?

Dinosaurs lived on the earth up until the flood.

Perhaps, it would help you to understand the likelihood of a global flood if you studied the variety of unique species found on Madagascar...

And if you believe dinosaurs roamed the earth prior to a flood, then you cannot subscribe to the young earth position.

[_Themis]

Perhaps, it would help you to understand the likelihood of a global flood if you studied the variety of unique species found on Madagascar...

And if you believe dinosaurs roamed the earth prior to a flood, then you cannot subscribe to the young earth position.

Actually, when God commanded Noah to gather the animals he didn't take the Dinosaurs on purpose because they had killed his only daughter. The unicorn was just a slip of the mind.

[_Hoops]

Can anyone look at the Grand Canyon with a young earth belief?

I have seen internet sites that promote tours of the Grand Canyon to prove the young earth theory. /boggle/ Here is a guy that defends it

'http://creation.com/geologist-steve-austin

This is what I've been saying throughout this entire thread. Instead of telling us how stupid this guy is, either overtly or subtly, tell us how his conclusions are wrong. If you disagree, that's fine. But I'm interested in a thoughtful discussion - which, apparently, is not possible because anyone wishing to this discussion is dismissed because the subject is simply too ridiculous. That's fine to. Now we know.

[_Hoops]

I have seen a lot of so called creation science from places like Answers in Genesis etc. and it is nearly all utterly stupid and desperate. YEC is a clumsy patchwork of ad hoc notions that betray scientific illiteracy, self deception and foolishness.

That's just the way it is and I see no reason to tippy toe around that fact.

Of course. Specifics?

[_keithb]

This is what I've been saying throughout this entire thread. Instead of telling us how stupid this guy is, either overtly or subtly, tell us how his conclusions are wrong. If you disagree, that's fine. But I'm interested in a thoughtful discussion - which, apparently, is not possible because anyone wishing to this discussion is dismissed because the subject is simply too ridiculous. That's fine to. Now we know.

In a previous post, I threw out three objections, based on the laws of physics, to a specific creationist claim: that the universe was "created" in it's present state 10,000 or so years ago and then the speed of light was changed to allow light to reach the earth at an accelerated pace. I have yet to see any answer to these claims or a specific, scientifically consistent model of how the speed of light could have been changed without leaving evidence of that change. Also, I have not had anyone explain to me how the idea of a god creating the universe 10,000 years ago (or whatever) is any different from an argument that Papa Smurf created the universe 10 minutes ago.

Just because YEC's choose to ignore scientific responses to their claims doesn't mean that such scientific challenges don't exist.

Also, this IS a ridiculous discussion to be having because the amount of scientific evidence regarding the age of the universe is overwhelming. Consider how much respect I would get if I came on this message board and posited a scientific theory that the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese. Do you think I could get a respectful dialogue going about these topics?

[_Hoops]

In a previous post, I threw out three objections, based on the laws of physics, to a specific creationist claim: that the universe was "created" in it's present state 10,000 or so years ago and then the speed of light was changed to allow light to reach the earth at an accelerated pace. I have yet to see any answer to these claims or a specific, scientifically consistent model of how the speed of light could have been changed without leaving evidence of that change. Also, I have not had anyone explain to me how the idea of a god creating the universe 10,000 years ago (or whatever) is any different from an argument that Papa Smurf created the universe 10 minutes ago.

Then you can't read. Like virtually every evolutionist I've encountered, you are so absorbed in your own brilliance that you can't deign to address those beneath you.

Also, this IS a ridiculous discussion to be having because the amount of scientific evidence regarding the age of the universe is overwhelming.

Again.

Consider how much respect I would get if I came on this message board and posited a scientific theory that the earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese. Do you think I could get a respectful dialogue going about these topics?

And again.

I proffered a specific suggestion about how your light evidence could fit quite well within a literal Genesis. You can't read.

[_Fence Sitter]

This is what I've been saying throughout this entire thread. Instead of telling us how stupid this guy is, either overtly or subtly, tell us how his conclusions are wrong. If you disagree, that's fine. But I'm interested in a thoughtful discussion - which, apparently, is not possible because anyone wishing to this discussion is dismissed because the subject is simply too ridiculous. That's fine to. Now we know.

Hoops I am sure you can find sites regarding regarding Bigfoot, alien abduction, Lock Ness, numerology, Scientology, astrology and so on, most of which I hope you don't accept as reality. Are you willing to have a thoughtful discussion on say alien abduction? Or do you just dismiss it out of hand?

[_keithb]

]Then you can't read. Like virtually every evolutionist I've encountered, you are so absorbed in your own brilliance that you can't deign to address those beneath you.

You cited a "supernatural event" as your explanation for this.

Wow.

I have to tell you that I am impressed by this explanation. I mean, hell, why don't we just forget about the whole idea of the sun running off nuclear fusion and just say what it really is: tiny little elves shoveling tons of magical coal into a magical fire every second. I mean, why not, right? If one is going to reject science, why not reject all of science instead of picking and choosing? Or, why don't we just go back to the model where insanity is caused by demonic possession and lightning is caused by Thor?

Again.

Again what? You're offended that I don't buy your explanation that the fairies, leprechauns, and/or angels did it?

I believe Papa Smurf did it. So there.

And again.

I proffered a specific suggestion about how your light evidence could fit quite well within a literal Genesis. You can't read.

One of us can't read apparently, as the truth about the origin of the universe is in any elementary Astronomy textbook.