Young Earth Frustration

[_Hoops]

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

Not at all. Just curious.

I believe Papa Smurf did it. So there.

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

Lol! You're so impressed with yourself that you don't even know what you just wrote. Okay, you have it all figured out. Good for you.

[_Hoops]

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?

Actually, Bigfoot and Alien Abduction are in a different clase than those others don't you think? But if we were to discuss the others, you might explain why my explanations are wrong. I'm open to that, There are a lot of OE Christians.

But let me make my position clear. My position is that I believe Genesis should be taken literally. (for Biblical reasons which are not germane here). That doesn't necessarily mean I am a YEC. There seems to be scientific reasons that I don't have to be. Of course I appeal to the supernatural, I'm a Christian, I believe it and I believe it in a reasonable way I think. Why is the supernatural immediately dismissed as a piece to the puzzle? Because science only deals with what is verifiable/falsifiable? Fine, but grant that there are possiblities that science can not investigate - but no less real - and your (not YOU of course) steadfastness in refusing to account for those possiblities is no less narrow than my willingness to consider them.

But I'm genuinely curious of 1) the objections to YEC, or, rather, the counter to their objections, and 2) why, among all the subjects people discuss, evolutionists/atheists/agnostics/etc. are such a$$holes.

[_keithb]

Not at all. Just curious.

One can only hope that this curiosity eventually leads you to actually find out what science says about this topic instead of relying on your chosen brand of mythology.

]Lol! You're so impressed with yourself that you don't even know what you just wrote. Okay, you have it all figured out. Good for you.

Really Hoops? You're so desperate that you're going to misquote me (by joining two sentences from separate parts of my post to make them appear related) in an effort to bolster your own arguments?

Really?

[_just me]

The arguments for YEC that I have read seem to be in a few different camps.

I have seen the supernatural power argument. That is to say that God just made everything the way it is without needed to follow the natural laws as we know them. Everything that looks old just really isn't. The stars were powered by some other means than what they currently are (I may be misunderstanding this argument, sorry) thus allowing them to be visible on Earth before the Sun would have kicked in. All the Earths systems and patterns are misunderstood (like erosion). These typically lack source citations from anything other than scripture.

I have seen arguments that cite supposed scientifically unexplainable artifacts that have "disappeared." These articles always lack source citations and have the look of the National Inquirer.

Then, there are some arguments that have had a lot of thought put into them and include citations from scientific studies and articles and such. These, to me, are the only ones worth exploring or showing wrong using scientific evidence.

[_Hoops]

Really Hoops? You're so desperate that you're going to misquote me (by joining two sentences from separate parts of my post to make them appear related) in an effort to bolster your own arguments?

Really?

Lol!! I've seen this tactic many times before to.

No, I didn't do that to make them appear related. They're obviously not related. I did that because I'm too lazy to go back and get rid of the top one. What are thinking was trying to accomplish here?

[_keithb]

Really Hoops? You're so desperate that you're going to misquote me (by joining two sentences from separate parts of my post to make them appear related) in an effort to bolster your own arguments?

Really?

Lol!! I've seen this tactic many times before to.

No, I didn't do that to make them appear related. They're obviously not related. I did that because I'm too lazy to go back and get rid of the top one. What are thinking was trying to accomplish here?

And now you're backing away ... :)

[_Hoops]

The arguments for YEC that I have read seem to be in a few different camps.

I have seen the supernatural power argument. That is to say that God just made everything the way it is without needed to follow the natural laws as we know them. Everything that looks old just really isn't. The stars were powered by some other means than what they currently are (I may be misunderstanding this argument, sorry) thus allowing them to be visible on Earth before the Sun would have kicked in. All the Earths systems and patterns are misunderstood (like erosion). These typically lack source citations from anything other than scripture.

I have seen arguments that cite supposed scientifically unexplainable artifacts that have "disappeared." These articles always lack source citations and have the look of the National Inquirer.

Then, there are some arguments that have had a lot of thought put into them and include citations from scientific studies and articles and such. These, to me, are the only ones worth exploring or showing wrong using scientific evidence.

These are fair points of discussions. Most of your first paragraph I have also seen and I dismiss as well. But it's worth considering that if Genesis were to be taken literally, how would that be manifest in the creation? That's what I'm driving at.

[_Hoops]

And now you're backing away ... :)

Of course. It's always stupidity or duplicitousness isn't it.

[_zeezrom]

For those that believe God assembled a world with all the canyons, lake beds, oil shale, etc already in place as if it had existed for hundreds of millions of years, I have a question. Why would God do it that way? Why go to such extremes when the natural laws can run it's course in it's own, beautiful way? Do you mean to say God would go to such extremes just to speed things up or to show off his power and ingenuity? You mean he placed every grain of sand, silt, and clay in just the right layers, pressurized it, weathered it with a time machine, and then warped them with a twist of his hand?

I think I realize what the belief is all about. They believe this life is literally a computer simulation. That is the only way it could make sense. That drops the meaning of our lives down a few notches, and elevates the meaning of the afterlife. Perfect fodder for a religion.

[_Hoops]

Everything that looks old just really isn't.

You seem to be attaching some kind of cosmic underhandedness to this. I'm not sure that's warranted. Nonetheless, this is why I asked the question before, and for which I would have expanded into other things. That question being: doesn't the light from space have some function, some utility, for a working complete universe?

Take that to the next possiblity. I suppose God could have made the first tree with just one ring, but what would be the consequence of that? The easy answer would be, "well, we would know when the universe was created." I'm not so sure. But that's not even what I'm after here. Is there some scientific, falsifiable utility to tree rings?

Anyway, you get the point. I'm interested in how all of this works together. If it does at all.