How can YEC's ignore ALL the data of old Earth?

Originally posted by C Hess
In the beginning something as of yet unknown, seems more plausible to me.

LOL okay
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
Interesting way to look at it. I have only one problem with it. If none of the authors had any knowledge of previous authors, and if the stories told were consistent with physical reality, I'd be a believer now. But we know that every author existed in a cultural context that was partly shaped by what earlier authors had said, so I don't find it particularly ...[text shortened]... eated the world and everything in it in six days. I'm sorry, but that doesn't quite convince me.

You find 40 different people today that all reference the same person and
see if you can get the agreement on what they write. I'd also point out the
diversity of these people to, they came from every walk of life and vocation.

The Bible stands alone in all the world for its beginning, all other scripture
came from single sources during the same time. So I do find it very
singular and particularly spectacular.

You don't believe that God who is everywhere at once in His completeness
could have the ability to speak and create in a small amount of time, okay!
I find that our limitations upon God are just our lack of faith in the One
whose only limitations are His nature and Word. He can do anything that
can be done, so six days doesn't seem like a stretch to me in the least.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
Plausibility is really all I need. Evolution therefore, I accept as true.

Plausible is not the word I use when thinking about evolution taking life
from its unbelievable beginning without help in a sterile environment to
what we see today.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
Plausibility is really all I need. Evolution therefore, I accept as true.

It is plausible that the earth is only 6000 years old, which would make evolution not plausible.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is plausible that the earth is only 6000 years old, which would make evolution not plausible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L72h2R4FO0k

No, a 6000 year old Earth is not plausible.

Carbon dating alone, and plate tectonics alone, argue that it's not plausible.

Why can't God use the already existing physics in the universe He created to create Earth and man? What is time to God? Why must it be true that He spoke a word and >poof!<, things simply "came to be"? Why limit God?

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, a 6000 year old Earth is not plausible.

Carbon dating alone, and plate tectonics alone, argue that it's not plausible.

Why can't God use the already existing physics in the universe He created to create Earth and man? What is time to God? Why must it be true that He spoke a word and >poof!<, things simply "came to be"? Why limit God?

Carbon dating and plate tectonics do not argue anything my dear.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Plausible is not the word I use when thinking about evolution taking life
from its unbelievable beginning without help in a sterile environment to
what we see today.
Kelly

Why must it occur without help? I believe Evolution uses the already-existing physics to create man, but it is a virtual crap-shoot without a guiding hand. Surely you can see the wisdom in creating a system that maintains the possibility that it could have happened without help, so that the Free Will of Man is maintained. Guided Evolution satisfies the agendas of both theist and atheist. One is free to believe either it was guided or it was not, and to satisfy their own curiosity and belief of how it all came to be. If either side is "proven", Free Will disappears. We all still have a choice to make, and we are free to choose based on our own faith, instead of having the truth handed to us with the evidence.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Carbon dating and plate tectonics do not argue anything my dear.

This is why others here accuse you of holding your fingers in your ears and saying "Nya nya nya, I can't hear you".

Your talents could be better used in figuring out how it could have happened in spite of the accepted evidence. And yes, whether you believe it or not, carbon dating and plate tectonics are part of the accepted evidence. You cannot argue from ignorance. It makes your argument unbelievable.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't believe that God who is everywhere at once in His completeness could have the ability to speak and create in a small amount of time, okay! I find that our limitations upon God are just our lack of faith in the One whose only limitations are His nature and Word. He can do anything that can be done, so six days doesn't seem like a stretch to me in the least.
Kelly

By the same token 13+ billion years, in the case of the universe, or 4.5 billion years, in the case of Earth, is not a stretch either. Different minds tend to place different limitations on God. I think saying that it could not have taken billions of years, but MUST have happened in six days, is its own kind of limitation on God as well. I'm just thinking it really could be either, BUT we also have the overwhelming evidence that it took much longer than six days to account for. Thus, I'm leaning that way. If it took only six days, there would be evidence of that, but we don't see it. Throwing away the baby with the bathwater (which is what creationists do with science) doesn't help anyone.

Originally posted by Suzianne
By the same token 13+ billion years, in the case of the universe, or 4.5 billion years, in the case of Earth, is not a stretch either. Different minds tend to place different limitations on God. I think saying that it could not have taken billions of years, but MUST have happened in six days, is its own kind of limitation on God as well. I'm just thinkin ...[text shortened]... ay the baby with the bathwater (which is what creationists do with science) doesn't help anyone.

If I put my fingers in my ears, then you put your hands over your eyes and say, "I can't see it."

The helium in the rocks demonstrates that those rocks are not millions of years old. They're much younger -- thousands of years old.

In June 1980 the eruption of Mount St. Helens volcano laid down 25 feet of at least 200 layers in 190 minutes. Later a canyon system was formed in a day. Before that day, scientists claimed it would take tens of millions of years to gouge out such canyons.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Why must it occur without help? I believe Evolution uses the already-existing physics to create man, but it is a virtual crap-shoot without a guiding hand. Surely you can see the wisdom in creating a system that maintains the possibility that it could have happened without help, so that the Free Will of Man is maintained. Guided Evolution satisfie ...[text shortened]... ee to choose based on our own faith, instead of having the truth handed to us with the evidence.

I'm not interested in what makes either the Theist or Atheist happy, basically
I'd like the truth and if that makes them both unhappy so be it.

I see no reason why God would have had to start a process to create life
when He could have just done it as it is written. Why is one more believable
than the other with God involved? If God can do anything, than neither of
them on just the merits of God's skill sets should be taken off the table.

So if God can do anything, why would that not included creating life several
different types of life forms (kinds) and use them to evolve into others, and
putting them in a ready made universe equipt with stars and planets in place?

The only argument I see against that is how people view time and what is
currently used to measure it. This all could be billions of years old, I don't
know for a fact it isn't. I just don't see the need for it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Suzianne
By the same token 13+ billion years, in the case of the universe, or 4.5 billion years, in the case of Earth, is not a stretch either. Different minds tend to place different limitations on God. I think saying that it could not have taken billions of years, but MUST have happened in six days, is its own kind of limitation on God as well. I'm just thinkin ...[text shortened]... ay the baby with the bathwater (which is what creationists do with science) doesn't help anyone.

I don't believe you can look at anything and tell how old it is, if it was created
by God fully developed. He put the stars in place to light up the sky, if you
read the story and take that as a fact, than the star light was hitting the
earth as soon as He made them. If that is true, can you check the distance
between the earth and any of the stars and glean the age of the star, no.

I love science, I cannot do what I do for a living if it were not for it. Yet it
does have built in blinders to the divine, it cannot see it to measure it or
acknowledge it. Does that mean that God isn't real, no, only that science
cannot find Him no matter what it does, unless God reveals Himself. It is
just as true for God's works too.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
The helium in the rocks demonstrates that those rocks are not millions of years old. They're much younger -- thousands of years old.

http://www.trueorigin.org/henke_helium_archive2.asp

😴

Originally posted by RJHinds
In June 1980 the eruption of Mount St. Helens volcano laid down 25 feet of at least 200 layers in 190 minutes. Later a canyon system was formed in a day. Before that day, scientists claimed it would take tens of millions of years to gouge out such canyons.

http://www.chem.tufts.edu/science/franksteiger/grandcyn.htm

Weirdly, creationists consider the Mount St. Helens/Grand Canyon argument one of their best examples of refuting "evolutionism."

Weirdly indeed.

Originally posted by C Hess
Self-contradictory.

What is "self-contradictory"?