Changes

::::Since this debate seems to be cooling down, we are left as we started. But why should the YEC viewpoint have to incorporate having a singular landmass at creation? Chinese history which is dated near or soon after the YEC start date makes mention of Chinese geography that is inconsistent with either rapid tectonic movement and non supportive of a super-continent that close in the past. Young Earth Creation has always found itself against the entire breath of scientific theory since accepting this viewpoint means assuming that many fundamental constants used by science are not, while presenting no evidence that the constants are in flux. YEC currently cannot combat the scientific argument on scientific grounds but remains untouched on Faith. Perhaps that is where we should leave it. One either accepts that the laws of chemistry, physics, and geology are constant or one does not. However I must insist that anyone who casts out the basis of modern scientific thought without understanding the concepts will have great difficulty in obtaining expertise in any field requiring a Bachelor of Science or further scientific credentials, as one would have to learn topics which their worldview considers false. Perhaps this is why the majority of the  Abrahamic religions have moved away from a literal interpretation of a young earth. Genesis states that the sun was created on the 4th "day" and who are we to assume that days 1-3 were solar in length? No sun means that the earth was not orbiting, with it not orbiting, then it was not spinning. If it was not spinning, then a solar day as we experience it was not occurring. Maybe we should all embrace the concept that god's day was perhaps a great deal longer than a current day.--[[User:RichB|RichB]] 13:45, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Since this debate seems to be cooling down, we are left as we started. But why should the YEC viewpoint have to incorporate having a singular landmass at creation? Chinese history which is dated near or soon after the YEC start date makes mention of Chinese geography that is inconsistent with either rapid tectonic movement and non supportive of a super-continent that close in the past. Young Earth Creation has always found itself against the entire breath of scientific theory since accepting this viewpoint means assuming that many fundamental constants used by science are not, while presenting no evidence that the constants are in flux. YEC currently cannot combat the scientific argument on scientific grounds but remains untouched on Faith. Perhaps that is where we should leave it. One either accepts that the laws of chemistry, physics, and geology are constant or one does not. However I must insist that anyone who casts out the basis of modern scientific thought without understanding the concepts will have great difficulty in obtaining expertise in any field requiring a Bachelor of Science or further scientific credentials, as one would have to learn topics which their worldview considers false. Perhaps this is why the majority of the  Abrahamic religions have moved away from a literal interpretation of a young earth. Genesis states that the sun was created on the 4th "day" and who are we to assume that days 1-3 were solar in length? No sun means that the earth was not orbiting, with it not orbiting, then it was not spinning. If it was not spinning, then a solar day as we experience it was not occurring. Maybe we should all embrace the concept that god's day was perhaps a great deal longer than a current day.--[[User:RichB|RichB]] 13:45, 28 June 2009 (EDT)