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.
Re: Study up...
We don't call people absolute morons and trolls just because they do not agree with us.
We don't need to insult YECs.
They humiliate themselves with their nonsensical arguments.
Now, what about this ICR article on Dinosaur DNA?
Prove to us that you are a big critical thinker as you have bragged on numerous occasions.
We don't call people absolute morons and trolls just because they do not agree with us.
We don't need to insult YECs.
They humiliate themselves with their nonsensical arguments.
Now, what about this ICR article on Dinosaur DNA?
Prove to us that you are a big critical thinker as you have bragged on numerous occasions.
P
Re: Study up...
Originally Posted by JackH
This is the YEC predicament.
They get their talking points from websites like AIG and ICR.
But their argument ultimately falls apart because they are relying almost exclusively on faulty information.
And then, in a hissy fit, they resort to calling people names like absolute morons and trolls and try to get people banned or go off in a huff back to hide under their 6,000-year-old rock.
And then another thread is started and the YECs post the same talking points, link to the same YEC websites, and say the same things no matter how many times they have been refuted effectively.
You basically agreed with childish juvenile behavior and that the bible is FAULTY INFORMATION
This is the YEC predicament.
They get their talking points from websites like AIG and ICR.
But their argument ultimately falls apart because they are relying almost exclusively on faulty information.
And then, in a hissy fit, they resort to calling people names like absolute morons and trolls and try to get people banned or go off in a huff back to hide under their 6,000-year-old rock.
And then another thread is started and the YECs post the same talking points, link to the same YEC websites, and say the same things no matter how many times they have been refuted effectively.
You basically agreed with childish juvenile behavior and that the bible is FAULTY INFORMATION
R
for some reason i seem to have to remind the old earth creationists how science works on a regular basis...
scientific models distinguish themselves by making testable predictions... when one of those predictions fails...that particular model is discarded... when a testable prediction is confirmed...a theory is strengthened...
hugh ross made testable predictions on neanderthals...one of the few occasions when an old earth creationist has -ever- openly made a testable prediction... his predictions failed...so the hugh ross 'reasons to believe' model can be safely discarded in favor of others that have not failed on this point...
while there are other old earth creationist models...they are all self endangered in the same basic way as ross' model... what ross did was to use secular scientific opinions on neanderthals as the basis for part of his pseudo exegetical scenario development...all other old earth models have done virtually the same thing only with different secular scientific opinions... this is simply -bad hermeneutic- as well as -bad science-
scientific models distinguish themselves by making testable predictions... when one of those predictions fails...that particular model is discarded... when a testable prediction is confirmed...a theory is strengthened...
hugh ross made testable predictions on neanderthals...one of the few occasions when an old earth creationist has -ever- openly made a testable prediction... his predictions failed...so the hugh ross 'reasons to believe' model can be safely discarded in favor of others that have not failed on this point...
while there are other old earth creationist models...they are all self endangered in the same basic way as ross' model... what ross did was to use secular scientific opinions on neanderthals as the basis for part of his pseudo exegetical scenario development...all other old earth models have done virtually the same thing only with different secular scientific opinions... this is simply -bad hermeneutic- as well as -bad science-
R
here is part of the abstract of the paper in question...
"Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI). Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals."
this is exactly what i described it as...
and i wouldn't rely on that article too much...i don't know much about 'discovery news' in general...but the quotation you just posted has a major factual error...as any middle schooler these days knows proteins are not DNA...so the phrase 'proteins that are chemically consistent with being DNA' is gobbledygook...
anyway the bottom line is this...if the dinosaur bones are 70 million years old then either schweitzer is wrong or allentoft et al are wrong...your model is at most able to incorporate only one of these two pieces of data... young earth creationist models on the other hand are able to accommodate -both- pieces of data in this case...in science the theory that can make sense of more data is the better theory...
"Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI). Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals."
this is exactly what i described it as...
and i wouldn't rely on that article too much...i don't know much about 'discovery news' in general...but the quotation you just posted has a major factual error...as any middle schooler these days knows proteins are not DNA...so the phrase 'proteins that are chemically consistent with being DNA' is gobbledygook...
anyway the bottom line is this...if the dinosaur bones are 70 million years old then either schweitzer is wrong or allentoft et al are wrong...your model is at most able to incorporate only one of these two pieces of data... young earth creationist models on the other hand are able to accommodate -both- pieces of data in this case...in science the theory that can make sense of more data is the better theory...
R
in case you didn't notice i called him out more than once for flooding that thread...
oh and regarding the 'danger' of being called a neanderthal...young earth creationists accept the scientific evidence that establishes that most modern humans are part neanderthal...
regarding that paper...they did not date the fossils...instead they dated the calcite growths around it...i would question the suitability of calcite growths for radiometric dating regardless of the dates they produced...
oh and regarding the 'danger' of being called a neanderthal...young earth creationists accept the scientific evidence that establishes that most modern humans are part neanderthal...
regarding that paper...they did not date the fossils...instead they dated the calcite growths around it...i would question the suitability of calcite growths for radiometric dating regardless of the dates they produced...
R
Re: Study up...
actually i haven't referred to answers in genesis all through this entire debate...i didn't even know they -had- an article on the use of 'bara' versus 'asah'...
but if you want to add -flagrant lying- to the list of other tactics that indicate that you are not participating in good faith...it is only yourself you will be discrediting...
your insistence that two different terms used in close proximity -must- indicate two entirely different events is absolutely ridiculous...no sane literary critic would ever demand such a thing...-especially- not one versed in hebrew literature...use of different terms and phrasings in synonymous parallelism to express the same meaning is a -key feature- of hebrew style...
actually i haven't referred to answers in genesis all through this entire debate...i didn't even know they -had- an article on the use of 'bara' versus 'asah'...
but if you want to add -flagrant lying- to the list of other tactics that indicate that you are not participating in good faith...it is only yourself you will be discrediting...
your insistence that two different terms used in close proximity -must- indicate two entirely different events is absolutely ridiculous...no sane literary critic would ever demand such a thing...-especially- not one versed in hebrew literature...use of different terms and phrasings in synonymous parallelism to express the same meaning is a -key feature- of hebrew style...
R
Re: Study up...
exodus 20:11..."For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."
this verse uses the term 'asah' to refer to the making of...
the heavens...
the earth...
the sea...
all that is in them...
however in genesis 1:1 it says the heavens and earth were 'bara' created...the sea creatures which would be included in the 'all that is in them' of exodus 20:11 were also said to be 'bara' created in genesis 1...and as we already know the humans are said to have been 'bara' created in genesis 1:27...
so several things that were reported to have been 'bara' created in genesis 1 are now said to have been 'asah' made in exodus 20:11...proving that the two terms can mean the same thing...
which shows that your artificial distinction you insist on between 'bara' and 'asah' is refuted by scripture's own usage of these two words...
...and to defame your character you would need to have had character to begin with!
exodus 20:11..."For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."
this verse uses the term 'asah' to refer to the making of...
the heavens...
the earth...
the sea...
all that is in them...
however in genesis 1:1 it says the heavens and earth were 'bara' created...the sea creatures which would be included in the 'all that is in them' of exodus 20:11 were also said to be 'bara' created in genesis 1...and as we already know the humans are said to have been 'bara' created in genesis 1:27...
so several things that were reported to have been 'bara' created in genesis 1 are now said to have been 'asah' made in exodus 20:11...proving that the two terms can mean the same thing...
which shows that your artificial distinction you insist on between 'bara' and 'asah' is refuted by scripture's own usage of these two words...
...and to defame your character you would need to have had character to begin with!
R
Re: Study up...
you keep saying 'and?' as if you have forgotten your own claim that was being systematically refuted...
you insisted that i cannot use genesis 2:4 without making all of the creation days of genesis 1 into a single day...which i -disagree- with...contrary to your knowingly false claims otherwise...
i pointed out that genesis 2:4 uses the phrase 'in the day' which is a hebrew idiom that only conveys general 'around that time' information... i also pointed out that this is different from numbered days which indicate a specific time...
then you demanded references...although you probably already knew the scripture references that support what i was saying and i suspect you were just once again stalling...
in any case i -gave- you those references...
and all you have to say in reply to the references is to say 'and?' three times and then repeat your lie that i 'agree' with something i never agreed with...
yet again this is an obvious indicator that you are not participating in good faith...honestly if you are unwilling to contribute anything other than dead weight then you need to just excuse yourself from this discussion and let the adults talk...
you keep saying 'and?' as if you have forgotten your own claim that was being systematically refuted...
you insisted that i cannot use genesis 2:4 without making all of the creation days of genesis 1 into a single day...which i -disagree- with...contrary to your knowingly false claims otherwise...
i pointed out that genesis 2:4 uses the phrase 'in the day' which is a hebrew idiom that only conveys general 'around that time' information... i also pointed out that this is different from numbered days which indicate a specific time...
then you demanded references...although you probably already knew the scripture references that support what i was saying and i suspect you were just once again stalling...
in any case i -gave- you those references...
and all you have to say in reply to the references is to say 'and?' three times and then repeat your lie that i 'agree' with something i never agreed with...
yet again this is an obvious indicator that you are not participating in good faith...honestly if you are unwilling to contribute anything other than dead weight then you need to just excuse yourself from this discussion and let the adults talk...
R
well pat robertson also says God tells him who is going to win presidential elections in the united states...and i think he also was the one that said the earthquake in haiti was because the haitian people had made a deal with the devil to practice voodoo or something like that...
so he isn't exactly in a position to challenge anyone's beliefs...
so he isn't exactly in a position to challenge anyone's beliefs...
R
um actually it isn't...in fact i didn't know the institute for creation research even had an article mentioning the allentoft study...i found that study by looking up 'dna degradation rate' on google because i knew i would need a empirical data if i was going to do anything other than say 'there is no way DNA can last that long' over and over...