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.
there's uncertainty, and it's possible that what we think we know is not very accurate.
what's presented in the link shows pretty clearly that trying to use them according to current understanding to 'prove' a young universe is completely wrong. answersingenesis.org still has this argument posted ((example: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/age-of-the-universe/evidence-for-a-young-world/)), claiming that there are only about 200 known supernova remnants - it's 9 years out of date, actually there are over 6,000 known at this time - and the article i linked to shows that even 200 observed is not proof of a young universe.
so, if you're YEC, don't use a supernova argument. it's wrong.
i like supernovas
just though someone might enjoy reading that, is all. carry on!
From the Wikipedia article on Dean Kenyon:
Dean H. Kenyon (born c. 1939) is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, a young Earth creationist, and one of the instigators of the intelligent design movement. He is the author of Biochemical Predestination.
He became a creationist around 1976, and gave testimony defending creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard court cases. During the latter case, he co-authored the creation science supplementary textbook Of Pandas and People. The case decision went against teaching creation science in public schools, and the authors then altered all references to creationism to refer to intelligent design before the book was published in 1989. He subsequently became a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, and continued to endorse young Earth creationism.
Dean H. Kenyon (born c. 1939) is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, a young Earth creationist, and one of the instigators of the intelligent design movement. He is the author of Biochemical Predestination.
He became a creationist around 1976, and gave testimony defending creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard court cases. During the latter case, he co-authored the creation science supplementary textbook Of Pandas and People. The case decision went against teaching creation science in public schools, and the authors then altered all references to creationism to refer to intelligent design before the book was published in 1989. He subsequently became a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, and continued to endorse young Earth creationism.
Henry Morris, founder of the modern YEC cult and Institute for Creation Research thought so. Morris had Dean Kenyon write the forward for his famous novel What is Creation Science?
Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, is not so fond of Dean Kenyon. He considers him to be a traitor for joining forces with the enemy, one of them anyway.
Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, is not so fond of Dean Kenyon. He considers him to be a traitor for joining forces with the enemy, one of them anyway.
Here is that research paper:
The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences
Now what is it you say this research paper proves about dinosaurs?
What do you other YEC pseudoscientists on this thread say this research paper proves?
The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences
Now what is it you say this research paper proves about dinosaurs?
What do you other YEC pseudoscientists on this thread say this research paper proves?
T
Oh, sadness. I didn't mean the site itself being dangerous. I might be thinking of the Çatalhöyük site, also in Turkey. Why did you find the Gobekli Tepe ruins disappointing? The photos make the site look fascinating! Yes, the ancients sure loved their tells. Thanks for sharing, even if it was a bit of a downer.
Re: Study up...
No...these two creation verbs are NOT synonyms of each other, as born-out through the lexicons.
We already went over this.
Each is used to impart an entirely different mechanism.
Gen 5 follows the same formula as that of Gen 1....in which The Triune Creator creates mankind via 'bara', 'bara', 'bara'...three times over, exemplifying the 'Us' in Gen 1.26...
Study up...
Then, according to your reasoning, Gen 2.4 states that the six 'days' of creation are actually 'one day'....and your YEC worldview implodes upon itself...
And again...no reference whatsoever...
No...these two creation verbs are NOT synonyms of each other, as born-out through the lexicons.
We already went over this.
Each is used to impart an entirely different mechanism.
Gen 5 follows the same formula as that of Gen 1....in which The Triune Creator creates mankind via 'bara', 'bara', 'bara'...three times over, exemplifying the 'Us' in Gen 1.26...
Study up...
Then, according to your reasoning, Gen 2.4 states that the six 'days' of creation are actually 'one day'....and your YEC worldview implodes upon itself...
And again...no reference whatsoever...
there's uncertainty, and it's possible that what we think we know is not very accurate.
what's presented in the link shows pretty clearly that trying to use them according to current understanding to 'prove' a young universe is completely wrong. answersingenesis.org still has this argument posted ((example: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/age-of-the-universe/evidence-for-a-young-world/)), claiming that there are only about 200 known supernova remnants - it's 9 years out of date, actually there are over 6,000 known at this time - and the article i linked to shows that even 200 observed is not proof of a young universe.
so, if you're YEC, don't use a supernova argument. it's wrong.
i like supernovas
just though someone might enjoy reading that, is all. carry on!
Let's narrow the playing field.
Can you think of ANY scientific 'argument' used by YEC's that actually promotes their worldview...?
Here is the link for Dr. Mary Schweitzer's paper:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~mhschwei/Research_files/SchweitzerEtAl2012.pdf
No, she didn't prove it was DNA, and she says so herself. She found proteins that are chemically consistent with DNA.
Also, her paper criticizes the conclusions of the Allentoft et al paper.
I already provided the link to the Allentoft et al paper.
Your statement that "therefore the dinosaur fossils from the first paper are not 70 million years old" is quite amusing, and of course wrong.
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~mhschwei/Research_files/SchweitzerEtAl2012.pdf
No, she didn't prove it was DNA, and she says so herself. She found proteins that are chemically consistent with DNA.
Also, her paper criticizes the conclusions of the Allentoft et al paper.
I already provided the link to the Allentoft et al paper.
Your statement that "therefore the dinosaur fossils from the first paper are not 70 million years old" is quite amusing, and of course wrong.
E
Why do people seem so narrow minded when trying to look at certain things? We are talking about things which certainly no man or science can even begin to understand. the creation of the universe.
God created the universe, He created man to inhabit one planet in the unverse.
The creation process is said to take 6 days, Who is to say God did not create "bara" the earth and on the first day we get its shape and everything needed for it to be as it will be when complete in place. and then form "asah" the earth. Everything was placed on the first day, but the following 5 days it was being shapped (it was already created in it just now comming to fruition, ie plant life, the seed was in the ground on day one, but the ground was under water because it had not yet been lifted)
as for man, God created the sun for light in day, and moon and stars for light at night, what good is it if God did not create the starts where their light did not shine on earth on day 1. It would be useless. Same with plants and animals. what good is it if God places man on earth, yet the earth does not have time to "age"properly to sustain life? Is God so powerless he can not create the earth as an "aged" creation? So your little supernova argument is meaningless. If God created a universe were supernovas were already occuring at the moment of borth (considering an aged creation) then there is no argument.
This is why we have to open our minds, and be open to all possibilities, and not just throw them down as useless and laughable.
God created the universe, He created man to inhabit one planet in the unverse.
The creation process is said to take 6 days, Who is to say God did not create "bara" the earth and on the first day we get its shape and everything needed for it to be as it will be when complete in place. and then form "asah" the earth. Everything was placed on the first day, but the following 5 days it was being shapped (it was already created in it just now comming to fruition, ie plant life, the seed was in the ground on day one, but the ground was under water because it had not yet been lifted)
as for man, God created the sun for light in day, and moon and stars for light at night, what good is it if God did not create the starts where their light did not shine on earth on day 1. It would be useless. Same with plants and animals. what good is it if God places man on earth, yet the earth does not have time to "age"properly to sustain life? Is God so powerless he can not create the earth as an "aged" creation? So your little supernova argument is meaningless. If God created a universe were supernovas were already occuring at the moment of borth (considering an aged creation) then there is no argument.
This is why we have to open our minds, and be open to all possibilities, and not just throw them down as useless and laughable.
No.
Oh no.
No is too short.
A reply has to be 10 characters.
But "No" sums it up so nicely.
Ken Ham has recently promised to fix this problem.
He has bragged that he has this dinosaur fossil that he is going to rock the world with and prove it thousands of years old as opposed to millions of years old.
I'm surprised Ham didn't say that he then is going to bring the dinosaur back to life and it is going to walk onto Ham's Ark (replica of Noah's Ark he is building scheduled to open next year) with him.
Oh no.
No is too short.
A reply has to be 10 characters.
But "No" sums it up so nicely.
Ken Ham has recently promised to fix this problem.
He has bragged that he has this dinosaur fossil that he is going to rock the world with and prove it thousands of years old as opposed to millions of years old.
I'm surprised Ham didn't say that he then is going to bring the dinosaur back to life and it is going to walk onto Ham's Ark (replica of Noah's Ark he is building scheduled to open next year) with him.