Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?
- Thread starter Preach2u
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Just want you to think this out because I didn't. I have (past tense) ignored E_G. It was a mistake. I judged too quickly. (I also think E_G judges too quickly at times too.) So, recommendation -- don''t ignore until all other options have been exhausted. Disagreement is a dumb reason to ignore. Just something from someone who has made the same mistake.
A
Okay, so I thought archaeologists were pretty good with post-flood carbon dating as well as figuring out where an historic site fits into history. (And history in comparison to prehistory judged by when we have the most ancient of writings.) So, why would they think it's younger than Moses if it's antediluvian?
Still, totally cool if that is it. lol
Still, totally cool if that is it. lol
A
This is the first time I've ventured into a creationism debate thread. This isn't the first time I've run into Bowman. I'm not good at remembering what people said where, but when I see a name I've seen before, I get a vibe of memory. (More a feeling about a person, than actually remembering why.) Bowman raises a slight sour taste in my vibe-o-meter. Slight sour isn't a good reason to iggy. lol
Really hard to pinpoint, since the continental United States has 4 or more time zones and Australia is confusing. (How does it make a two hour jump, plus have half hour jumps? 
)
)
Last edited:
who likes supernovae?
this is kind of a thick read, but understandable without any special background, and IMO, pretty interesting.
Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ
the numbers are a bit off in a couple places, since the link was last updated in 2003, and since that time, more pointed & dedicated searches of the sky have gotten underway, bringing the number of observed supernova into the thousands (instead of around 200, as described in the link). over a thousand new supernovae were discovered in 2012 alone.
also, another study published in 2006 pinned the rate of supernova events in the milky way much closer to 1 every 50 years ((total, not observable)).
there may be other updates, but that's all i'm aware of at the moment.
this is kind of a thick read, but understandable without any special background, and IMO, pretty interesting.
Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ
the numbers are a bit off in a couple places, since the link was last updated in 2003, and since that time, more pointed & dedicated searches of the sky have gotten underway, bringing the number of observed supernova into the thousands (instead of around 200, as described in the link). over a thousand new supernovae were discovered in 2012 alone.
also, another study published in 2006 pinned the rate of supernova events in the milky way much closer to 1 every 50 years ((total, not observable)).
there may be other updates, but that's all i'm aware of at the moment.
Do a significant number of well-known YECs identify themselves as IDers?
And what about the scam with the Panda book?
That stuff is hilarious.
Here come da judge, from his opinion:
[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD]As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times, were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content .... The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision.
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cquotecite, colspan: 3"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
And what about the scam with the Panda book?
That stuff is hilarious.
Here come da judge, from his opinion:
[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD]As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times, were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content .... The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision.
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: cquotecite, colspan: 3"]
[/TD][/TR]
[/TABLE]
Is your real name atwhatcost?
Is that eternally-gratefull's real name?
Is Jimbone the name on his birth certificate?
Talk about a Larry, Curly, and Moe "do you want some cheese with that whine?" moment.
One subject?
I guess you missed me on women in the ministry (I'm with the women), wine is grape juice, and KJV Onlyists.
I just have this problem with people spouting nonsense.
Cutting grass is good therapy for my problem.
I'm going out to cut the grass now.
And then I'm going to smoke it.
And then I'll be back, hallucinating just like a YEC.
Is that eternally-gratefull's real name?
Is Jimbone the name on his birth certificate?
Talk about a Larry, Curly, and Moe "do you want some cheese with that whine?" moment.
One subject?
I guess you missed me on women in the ministry (I'm with the women), wine is grape juice, and KJV Onlyists.
I just have this problem with people spouting nonsense.
Cutting grass is good therapy for my problem.
I'm going out to cut the grass now.
And then I'm going to smoke it.
And then I'll be back, hallucinating just like a YEC.