Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?

[RachelBibleStudent]

You don’t seem to grasp the futility of your YEC position.

Go ahead and directly quote ANY portion of your googled Hugh Ross link, and attempt to refute why it is that homo sapiens sapiens are dated back to BEFORE 6K years.

you don't seem to grasp the futility of trying to distract me from the focus here...

the bottom line is that a key distinguishing point of hugh ross' model is just plain -wrong-

no amount of diversionary tactics from you is going to change that...

 

[Bowman]

you don't seem to grasp the futility of trying to distract me from the focus here...

the bottom line is that a key distinguishing point of hugh ross' model is just plain -wrong-

no amount of diversionary tactics from you is going to change that...

Like what...?

Its not like he is wrong about the age of the Universe, or of mankind....which is the heart of your 'denial'....lol...

 

[JackH]

i said in my description of schweitzer's paper that she reported finding -evidence- of DNA...again this difference between evidence and proof seems to elude you...

reading her abstract...she used certain DNA identifying indicators that then indicated positive for DNA...the same way that you can use benedict's solution to test for sugars... so unless she is incompetent at using and analyzing the results of these indicators...this is very strong evidence for the presence of DNA...

i have no doubt that schweitzer disagrees with allentoft et al...likewise allentoft et al directly question reports of finding DNA in dinosaur fossils...

a false dichotomy would be to assume that one of them must be right and one of them must be wrong...either allentoft et al are wrong or else schweitzer didn't really find DNA...

but you can avoiding that dichotomy by doing away with the insistence that we assume the dinosaur fossils in question are 70 million years old...if dinosaur fossils are not nearly as old as commonly thought...then both of these credible studies can be correct...

Schweitzer's paper does not say she found DNA.

There is a big difference between "might be" and "is."

Here's another article of interest on the subject:

Mysteriously Intact T. Rex Tissue Finally Explained : Discovery News

Please note the following statement in the article:

"They've even found proteins that are chemically consistent with being DNA, though Schweitzer is quick to note that she hasn't proven they are really DNA."

She is quick to note what?

Nobody has found DNA in dinosaur bones.

 

[JackH]

here is a link... Hugh Ross, Neanderthals and trusting changing science - Denver Christian Perspectives | Examiner.com

i fail to see why you couldn't have found that yourself...was google broken or something?

is there a reason you insist on wasting people's time by repeatedly playing dumb and helpless?

you have crossed the line into obvious trolling...it is a common tactic of internet debate trolls to try to 'run out the clock' by insisting that everything be spoon fed to them and thereby becoming such a time wasting nuisance that the other side gets frustrated and quits...

Who is a time-wasting nuisance?

How about popeye?

Remember what he did recently?

Like four pages of posts of just him quoting from some Dr. Dino propaganda.

Back to Neanderthals, my favorite subject.

(I recognize the danger that one of you YECs is going to suggest that I am one.)

It seems to me that the first question to answer is: When did Neanderthals walk the Earth?

Here is a recent research paper in a journal where the oldest Neanderthal fossil from which DNA has been extracted is dated at 130,000 to 170,000 years old:

The Neanderthal in the karst: First dating, morphometric, and paleogenetic data on the fossil skeleton from Altamura (Italy)

 

[BettyAnn]

I am curious though what it is that has convinced yec believers.

if you guys could post a website or two?

I'm yec but I don't have any websites or fancy talk to go by. I just believe. Tho I will say that I've been watching Genesis Science Network which seems to be yec and it's very interesting.

 

[JackH]

I'm yec but I don't have any websites or fancy talk to go by. I just believe. Tho I will say that I've been watching Genesis Science Network which seems to be yec and it's very interesting.

That network is great comedy.

Dr. Dino is the only one funnier, before he went to prison.

 

[JackH]

You don’t seem to grasp the futility of your YEC position.

Go ahead and directly quote ANY portion of your googled Hugh Ross link, and attempt to refute why it is that homo sapiens sapiens are dated back to BEFORE 6K years.

Kennewick Man is not older than dirt, but he is older than 6,000 years.

DNA Links 8,500-Year-Old Kennewick Man to Native Tribes : Discovery News

 

[Bowman]

Re: Study up...

the text uses 'bara' and 'asah' synonymously in multiple places...some of which i pointed out...'bara' and 'asah' being used to refer to the same acts...'asah' being used to refer to the making of things that were previously said to be 'bara' created...and so on...

You keep on shoplifting your material from answers-in-genesis.

Stop this....it really makes you look silly.

You are merely regurgitating what is said at their website without any comprehension of the implication or effort on your part.

If 'bara' and 'asah', two entirely separate terms, are used in close proximity to one another, it means two entirely different events. It does not Mean that they are synonyms of one another.

You are putting forth the very same argument as 'answers-in-genesis'.....and their clip was about 'asah' referring to an ancient earth....that is NOT my argument at all....remember, the verb used on 'Day 4' to represent that the sun and moon were created BEFORE 'day 4'.....

But....you lost control of your train of thought and are now fighting an 'old age' strawman....

 

[Bowman]

Re: Study up...

you have flat out ignored the fact that 'bara' is not used in genesis 5:2 in the way that you insist it is always used...

And how is it used differently than in Gen 1..?

I already explained this to you, don't ignore it.

But...you can't answer that because 'answers-in-genesis' makes your same remark without ever elaborating, either...thus, this likewise will be a dead-end on your assertion as well, no doubt.

If the teleprompter is not in front of you...well, you just don't know what to say...

 

[Bowman]

Re: Study up...

and you have flat out ignored the example of exodus 20:11 and attempted to merely respond to genesis 2:4 again...

What about Exo 20.11...?

How does it support your assertion in the first place?

Need to consult 'answers-in-genesis' yet again for a reply...?

it is ironic that you continue to demand references when you yourself have not been providing references...all you have done is to repeatedly use the 'no you're wrong' argument by assertion in response to every argument or evidence that contradicts your view...that is when you -do- respond and not just attempt to play for time...

anyway...for the benefit of anyone who legitimately didn't know this and wasn't sure how to find out...unlike you who just play dumb and helpless as a stalling tactic...

Repeated character defamation and name calling is not necessary.

Your position fails regardless...

 

[Bowman]

Re: Study up...

the idiomatic character of the hebrew phrase 'in the day' is made obvious in numbers 7... the leader of the twelve tribes of israel are described as each bringing offerings in turn for twelve consecutive days...but numbers 7:84 says that this happened 'in the day' that the altar was anointed... the only way that this can be non contradictory is if the phrase 'in the day' just means 'at the time'...

And...?

another example is numbers 3:1 which has 'in the day' referring to the time when God spoke with moses on mount sinai...as we all know God spoke to moses on mount sinai on multiple separate occasions and for -many- days...so again 'in the day' must be an idiom meaning 'during the time'...

And...?

numbered days clearly refer to definite points in time in exodus 12:3...exodus 12:6...exodus 12:15...exodus 12:18...exodus 16:1...exodus 16:5...exodus 16:22...exodus 16:26...and i could list literally dozens if not hundreds more...

And...?

in any case...regarding genesis 2:4 you are dishonestly using rhetoric that you don't even believe in...-of course- we can use genesis 2:4 to help interpret genesis 1...unless you actually -do- think there is a real contradiction there that makes this comparison 'off limits'...

You already agree that Gen 2.4 makes all the creation days 1, 24hr day....is this what you really want?

 

[Bowman]

i am sure many of us can...

but to point them out would just result in you stalling for ten pages or more...because you aren't actually here to discuss the topic in good faith...

Give another YEC a try.....you've failed at every attempt thus far...

 

[Tintin]

Hugh Ross' beliefs are absolutely moronic. Enough said.

 

[JackH]

Give another YEC a try.....you've failed at every attempt thus far...

I see Tintin stepped up to the plate to strike out.

 

[Tintin]

I'm yec but I don't have any websites or fancy talk to go by. I just believe. Tho I will say that I've been watching Genesis Science Network which seems to be yec and it's very interesting.

You may not need them, but there are three great websites out there and one of them has a regular 30 minute YouTube show called "Creation: Live".

Creation Ministries International:
Articles - creation.com

Creation: Live (TV series)
https://www.youtube.com/user/CMIcreationstation/videos


Answers in Genesis:
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/


The Institute for Creation Research:
Resources | The Institute for Creation Research

 

[JackH]

Hugh Ross' beliefs are absolutely moronic. Enough said.

What's your source?

Pat Robertson says Ken Ham is an idiot:

Even Pat Robertson Thinks Ken Ham Is an Idiot

 

[JackH]

three great websites


The Institute for Creation Research:
Resources | The Institute for Creation Research

Since you have everything at ICR memorized for your YEC talking points, which you never can defend effectively, what is your critique of this article entitled "DNA in Dinosaur Bones" at ICR.

DNA in Dinosaur Bones? | The Institute for Creation Research

If it sounds familiar it should be, because this is where RachelBibleStudent got her spiel on the subject.

Is this a great article from one of your great websites?

Or is it full of distortions and misrepresentations and erroneous information?

 

[JackH]

Re: Study up...

You keep on shoplifting your material from answers-in-genesis.

Stop this....it really makes you look silly.

You are merely regurgitating what is said at their website without any comprehension of the implication or effort on your part.

If 'bara' and 'asah', two entirely separate terms, are used in close proximity to one another, it means two entirely different events. It does not Mean that they are synonyms of one another.

You are putting forth the very same argument as 'answers-in-genesis'.....and their clip was about 'asah' referring to an ancient earth....that is NOT my argument at all....remember, the verb used on 'Day 4' to represent that the sun and moon were created BEFORE 'day 4'.....

But....you lost control of your train of thought and are now fighting an 'old age' strawman....

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.

 

[Bowman]

Re: Study up...

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.

Agreed....!

You'd think they were still in junior high school...

 

[Tintin]

Re: Study up...

Agreed....!

You'd think they were still in junior high school...

Yes, you're quite perceptive. You two do offer the same arguments, insult biblical creationists and act like junior high schoolers. Grow up!