nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→YEC v. OEC: Extensive reply to Jazzman831
:By the way, the internet is not a great medium for having a civil conversation; civility is often in the tone. I assure you that I am not trying to attack, but I am trying my hardest to remain civil. I believe that you are as well and I thank you for not resorting to low-ball attacks on my character. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:32, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
:By the way, the internet is not a great medium for having a civil conversation; civility is often in the tone. I assure you that I am not trying to attack, but I am trying my hardest to remain civil. I believe that you are as well and I thank you for not resorting to low-ball attacks on my character. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:32, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::''And no fair using sources from a creationist; the scientific community is peer-reviewed...'': No fair drawing a distinction between "creationist" and "scientific community" and between "creationist" and "peer-reviewed". Creation scientists are part of the scientific community, and their work is peer reviewed just as much (if not more) than that of non-creationists.
::I'll let TerryH respond regarding fraud, but there ''is'' a motive for what is not claimed to be a "conspiracy", but for a "ruling paradigm". The motive is a spiritual one—atheists, trying to promote their religious beliefs, ''want'' to push an old Earth, simply because it contradicts the Bible.
::Regarding your examples of incorrect creationist arguments, you have actually misrepresented the creationist arguments. They don't argue that because something can't be explained, the old-Earth idea is incorrect. Rather, they argue that because the old-Earth idea can't explain something, the old-Earth idea is not as certain and absolute as it's usually made out to be. Similar with the Mississippi-delta-type arguments. They are not claiming that these arguments disprove an old Earth; they are claiming that old-Earth-type arguments produce results that are not always consistent with an old Earth, and are therefore ''not reliable'' (note that I didn't say ''not correct'').
::''Why would God create a world with 800,000 layers of ice, when he could create a world with 6,000?'': Why should he create a world with one and only one layer of ice per year?
::''Why would he make stars more than 6,000 light years away?'': Why not? The bigger the universe is, the greater He shows His power to be (up to a point).
::''And why is the earth round?'': A) Because that's the way he designed it. B) Because that shape is a good shape for an Earth. Otherwise, there would be some ridiculously-high "mountains" on the corners of the cube (if it was as cube, for example). God makes thing according to (His) good design, not according to whimsical fantasy.
::''Revelations has horsemen in four corners of the earth...'': And we still use such ''metaphors'' today. So what?
::''...all of the world's population will whitness Jesus come down from the sky.'': Possible if (a) all the world's population has television or similar, or (b) there is some supernatural display allowing this on a near-spherical planet.
::''Shouldn't the earth be flat?'': Why?
::''And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that neccessitate that Jesus was not our savior?'': See my chronologically-previous post above about correctness vs. trustworthiness.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 6 July 2007 (EDT)