Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 74:
Line 74: + + + + + + + + + +
→YEC v. OEC
::::It just seems like a rather shaky way to interpret the Bible, is all. Genesis can be true without being literal, and you don't have to fight against all of this seemingly contrary evidence. If He could make the universe however he wanted, why would God have made it to look like something other than what He has layed down in the Bible? You may dissagree with conclusions of traditional scientists, but you can't deny that it sure looks like the earth is billions of years old, and God would have known this when he layed down the scripture. It does explain why people try so hard to compare 21st century science to a 10th century BC unattributed doccupment.
::::It just seems like a rather shaky way to interpret the Bible, is all. Genesis can be true without being literal, and you don't have to fight against all of this seemingly contrary evidence. If He could make the universe however he wanted, why would God have made it to look like something other than what He has layed down in the Bible? You may dissagree with conclusions of traditional scientists, but you can't deny that it sure looks like the earth is billions of years old, and God would have known this when he layed down the scripture. It does explain why people try so hard to compare 21st century science to a 10th century BC unattributed doccupment.
::::And all of this really goes back to TheisticEvolution's question: who cares? Must you declare your belief in a young earth before you ask God to redeem your sins? Can you go to heaven if you believe the scientific explanation of creation? In the scheme of things this is the much more important question, and the one that gets overlooked because of all the disagreement over the rest. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 15:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::And all of this really goes back to TheisticEvolution's question: who cares? Must you declare your belief in a young earth before you ask God to redeem your sins? Can you go to heaven if you believe the scientific explanation of creation? In the scheme of things this is the much more important question, and the one that gets overlooked because of all the disagreement over the rest. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 15:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
First of all, Mr. Jazzman, I shall ask you to produce your "seemingly contrary evidence"--more on that word ''seemingly'' later on. I ask this to challenge you. But I am not challenging you to fight. I am merely challenging you to think, and think ''hard'', about the quality of what you take to be the evidence contrary to a young earth.
This will probably surprise you, but much of the evidence from the solar system ''is not consistent'' with an old system, and an old earth to be a part of it. For example: the planet [[Mercury (planet)|Mercury]] ought not have a magnetic field. And yet it does. For another example: the rings of [[Saturn]], as seen by [[Voyager I]], have an intricate pattern that no [[Astronomy|astronomer]] has ever been able to explain. And for that matter, the Great Red Spot on [[Jupiter]] and the Great Dark Spot on [[Neptune]] ought to have dissipated long ago, but have not. These do not add up to an old solar system.
Indeed, were the solar system half as old as the traditional scientists pretend, then the [[moon]] ought to have touched the earth that long ago. If the earth were much older than ''ten'' thousand years, its own magnetic field ought to have been strong enough to tear it apart.
In short, I don't have to fight contrary evidence. I have examined it and found much of it to be based on either:
# Groundless supposition, or:
# Outright fraud.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 17:10, 6 July 2007 (EDT)