Young Earth Frustration

[_Hoops]

I think you'll find that criticism of Flat Earth ideas has the same tone. Why is that, do you think? Are people afraid, deep deep down, that the earth really is flat?

I'll let you do your own self analysis.

[_Scottie]

So far in this thread, we have:

1) Hoops telling us that he knows of a really, really smart nuclear scientists who believes in YEC
2) Hoops telling us that the evidence for old Earth is really evidence for a young Earth if viewed in a certain way.
3) Hoops flat out telling us that he will not provide evidences that lead him to his young earth views.

I, for one, am willing to view the evidence with an open mind, Hoops. Lay it on me. I will try my best to set aside my pre-conceived old Earth notions.

Why is the Earth ~6000 years old?

[_Tarski]

Interesting timing here. I was just wondering why it is that criticism (I've yet to find an example of one that does not do this) of YEC is riddled with sarcasm and ridicule. Not of the ideas, just the people that have them.

What are you so afraid of?

Some things just truly are ridiculous. YEC is absurd in the same way that it is absurd to claim that George Bush was built in a laboratory 15 years ago by elves. We have records that show otherwise and the idea is totally and rightfully unbelievable in the extreme.

In the case of evolution the fossil record and the genetic record are already way more than we need to settle it but it is only the beginning of the story.
YEC is unbelievable and absurd in the extreme and would be so even if we had no idea about evolution. It is also just childish--more so than one of Kipling's just so stories.

There is nothing about YEC that surpasses flat earth-ism or belief in flying reindeer in intellectual sophistication or plausibility.

The mystery is how an adult could believe it in our modern society.

I have fear alright. I fear for our nation.

Now I can picture your sadly offended face at this point but, really,
must we respect every and any idea just because it is expressed with a polite and sincere face?

[_Buffalo]

I think you'll find that criticism of Flat Earth ideas has the same tone. Why is that, do you think? Are people afraid, deep deep down, that the earth really is flat?

I'll let you do your own self analysis.

Hint: both ideas are equally ridiculous.

[_Hoops]

I'll let you do your own self analysis.

Hint: both ideas are equally ridiculous.[/quote]
okay

[_Hoops]

I have fear all right. I fear for our nation.

Now I can picture your sadly offended face at this point but, really,
must we respect every and any idea just because it is expressed with a polite and sincere face?

No, you surely do not. But adults do respect other people with whom they are discussing. Fortunately, I don't really care how you regard me. Never have, never will. I'm just curious why the discussion inevitably, consistently, and without variation descends to that. That says more about you than it does about me.

[_stemelbow]

Hey Just me. I don't see how this link is to help me resolve the issues I've raised. Here's a quote from your link:

" A series of moments that has begun and not ended cannot be eternal, because even if it were to continue for the rest of (infinite) time, there would still be time prior to the initial moment in the series. The series of moments could not ever exist for all eternity because no matter what happened during the series of moments, nothing would ever cause the series of moments to have existed since the beginning of "eternity", and thus could never achieve the status of eternal or even potentially eternal."

It seems to confirm my point--the point in which I raised to Hoops showing my disagreement with her.

If there is something in the link that resolves the issues I've raised, then by all means, I'm all ears (or eyes).

The only thing your quote confirms to me is that you view time as linear. Eternity, presumably, is not linear. Sometimes people speak of eternity as everything being in the present. I used to think that's what Joseph Smith was talking about when he used his famous "one eternal round" ring analogy. Cut the ring in half, and you have a beginning and an end. But there is no end to a ring or circle.

In my Mormon days, I imagined Eternity as a great, expanding circle, with God at the center. He could see everything from His position, and it was all present. For us, we might simply occupy a ray in that expanding circle, and thus time appears linear.

I haven't thought about this stuff in quite a while. But suffice it to say, eternity doesn't make sense only if you conceive of time as having a beginning and end.

What I'[m saying, Runtu, and it appears the snippet from the article is saying to me anyway, is if there is a beginning to a series of events, like creation, then there must be something before that begining. It just must be so.

[_Runtu]

What I'm saying, Runtu, and it appears the snippet from the article is saying to me anyway, is if there is a beginning to a series of events, like creation, then there must be something before that begining. It just must be so.

It must be so only if time is always linear.

Alma 40:8 explains that time is a condition of mortality:

8Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

Religiously speaking, eternity exists outside of time, so it's more proper to speak of something outside the beginning, not before the beginning.

In the end, it's difficult for humans to conceive of eternity or an infinite universe because we see things in terms of our finite understanding. If the universe, for example, has an outer boundary, we wonder what is on the other side of that boundary. But what if the universe goes on infinitely or turns in on itself or is simply constructed in a way that we can't comprehend? It's the same with the notion that there must always be a "before."

[_Tarski]

I have fear all right. I fear for our nation.

Now I can picture your sadly offended face at this point but, really,
must we respect every and any idea just because it is expressed with a polite and sincere face?

No, you surely do not. But adults do respect other people with whom they are discussing. Fortunately, I don't really care how you regard me. Never have, never will. I'm just curious why the discussion inevitably, consistently, and without variation descends to that. .

I explained why: The idea is absurd and known to be false for innumerable reason. All of science would fall if this fantasy were accepted.

Reason 1 of a billion reasons: Light from distance galaxies wouldn't have had time to get here unless you are ready to challenge the speed of light and thereby Maxwell's equations and thereby TV, satellites, computers etc.

Reason 2 of a billion reasons: The Grand Canyon ( erosion rates etc. Kinda obvious)

Reason 3 of a billion reasons: Plate Tectonics (do the math).

Reason 4 of a billion reason: Particle physics (radioactivity). Note that many many many independent dating methods tell the same story; the earth is very very old--several orders of magnitude older than 6000 years. Errors and inaccuracies can't turn 10 billion into a few thousand especially since the errors in the many independent methods and evidential strands would have to all tell the same false story as if conspiring to fool us.


The list cannot be exhausted but my patience can be.

That says more about you than it does about me

It does say something about me.....something good.

[_Buffalo]

No, it can't.

Or rather it can, but not honestly or intelligently.

Interesting timing here. I was just wondering why it is that criticism (I've yet to find an example of one that does not do this) of YEC is riddled with sarcasm and ridicule. Not of the ideas, just the people that have them.

What are you so afraid of?

What's interesting here is that no personal insults were made, and yet you acted just as offended as if they had been.

What are you so afraid of?