The YECs' Dilemma

[BilliardsBall]

Yet can't get any closer to 13.4 billion years, than 6 days, in it's explanation, and even more perplexing, it needed a day to rest at the end, even though it had limitless power?

You are unaware the Sabbath rest points to Jesus Christ as per Hebrews?

You are unaware that the universe can be old but the Solar System can be relatively new?

 

[ppp]

You are unaware that the universe can be old but the Solar System can be relatively new?

You mean the 4.5 billion year old solar system?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You mean the 4.5 billion year old solar system?

Have you searched information on the Young Sun Paradox?

Besides that paradox, are you aware that while life was forming on Earth billions of years ago, the Sun itself would have been large enough to extend past the orbit of Mars?

 

[ppp]

Have you searched information on the Young Sun Paradox?

Besides that paradox, are you aware that while life was forming on Earth billions of years ago, the Sun itself would have been large enough to extend past the orbit of Mars?

As those statements are in direct contradiction with each other I will not comment on how confused you are.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As those statements are in direct contradiction with each other I will not comment on how confused you are.

Sorry for being unclear. Modern evolutionary theory presupposes an old Solar System. An old Solar System would have today's sun past the orbit of Mars a few billion years ago--there would have been no Earth or life on Earth. The Sun is not "right" for an old Solar System.

 

[ppp]

Sorry for being unclear. Modern evolutionary theory presupposes an old Solar System. An old Solar System would have today's sun past the orbit of Mars a few billion years ago--there would have been no Earth or life on Earth. The Sun is not "right" for an old Solar System.

I read each one of those sentences, and none of them is true. Except, perhaps the first.

 

[nPeace]

So, did all those mothers have a soul? If yes, what is so special about what you call "Eve"?

Ciao

- viole

What is a soul? Is is a person? Yes. Hence, those mothers were all souls. Did the have a soul? They all had life. My understanding of soul, in the Bible, is it is the person, or animal., or life of the person or animal.
Hence, contrary to the common view, the soul does not live on after the person dies. Unless... the person is remembered by God.
In that case, they are living... to him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, did all those mothers have a soul? If yes, what is so special about what you call "Eve"?

Ciao

- viole

She was the one that was convinced by the talking snake to eat from the magical fruit?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry for being unclear. Modern evolutionary theory presupposes an old Solar System.

Actually, evolution theory predicts an old solar system.

And every field involved in dating the solar system, demonstrates that predictions to be spot on.

An old Solar System would have today's sun past the orbit of Mars a few billion years ago--there would have been no Earth or life on Earth. The Sun is not "right" for an old Solar System.

Citation needed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is a soul? Is is a person? Yes. Hence, those mothers were all souls. Did the have a soul? They all had life. My understanding of soul, in the Bible, is it is the person, or animal., or life of the person or animal.
Hence, contrary to the common view, the soul does not live on after the person dies. Unless... the person is remembered by God.
In that case, they are living... to him.

You forgot to answer the second question in the post you are replying to.
Your answer to the first was "yes". The follow up question was:

If yes, what is so special about what you call "Eve"?

I'm quite curious myself...

 

[nPeace]

You forgot to answer the second question in the post you are replying to.
Your answer to the first was "yes". The follow up question was:

If yes, what is so special about what you call "Eve"?

I'm quite curious myself...

So, did all those mothers have a soul? was the question.
Did I answer yes to that? Could you show me where I did?
I want to be certain you understand what I actually stated.
If you do understand, that would render the question irrelevant... to me, at least.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, did all those mothers have a soul? was the question.
Did I answer yes to that? Could you show me where I did?

Sure.

So, did all those mothers have a soul? If yes, what is so special about what you call "Eve"?

In your reply:

What is a soul? Is is a person? Yes. Hence, those mothers were all souls.

The second part of the question was what is so special about what you call "Eve"

Why do you refuse to address this part?

 

[nPeace]

Sure.



In your reply:





The second part of the question was what is so special about what you call "Eve"

Why do you refuse to address this part?

I need to ask. Do you have trouble seeing? Or is it a matter of understanding?
The question asked was... So, did all those mothers have a soul?
My response... What is a soul? Is is a person? Yes. Hence, those mothers were all souls.

Still having trouble seeing the difference?
Let me know, and I will try to make it more simple specially for you.
The second part of the question is irrelevant if the first is lost. Understand?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

You know, after reading the posts of atheists here I have to ask a non scientific question that I doubt they really think about...

If the Bible says you must have faith in Jesus and follow his gospel to be saved...

What happens if it turns out that atheism is wrong,? Can you be absolutely certain that that vaste wealth of historical information we have in many museums around the world that supports the Bible narrative is all mythical?
So here's the deal...
I believe that the Bible is right and correctly explains my existence and my future (if I faithfully choose to accept it), the atheist refuses...so in the event I turn out to be right, what have I gained and the atheist lost?
What did it cost me to have that faith exactly?

I use an analogy that I think illustrates the two options here...
We have a thing called the Lotto. All those who play want to win (even though the odds against winning are tiny), and yet non Christians are willing to play that game in the hope that they win...millions of people around the world play lotteries every week, giving up money each time even though most (practically everyone) irrefutably know they will loose...yet they still play anyway!

So who really are the dumb ones here...the Christians or the atheists?

It's ridiculous for atheists to make such claims given they themselves play lottery games...it's clear that innately, people (including atheists) place their hope in something that will give them a better life...it's built into all of us.

At the end of the day, I choose God and if I'm right, I get the reward offered in the Bible...if I'm wrong I haven't lost anything as I still live and breathe and work and play just like every atheist does.
Conversely, if the atheist is right we both end up exactly the same...however if the atheist is wrong...well isn't he just going to be really pissed with himself for not putting in that Lotto ticket!!!! (and that will be the last thing he ever thinks before he died for all eternity whilst Christians who did believe live on)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Wow, @nPeace , how did I miss your thread?
Sorry....

Yes, I guess that’s their claim, that the Bible in using “yom” means a literal 24 hours. But it falls apart under scrutiny.
The Bible implies no such thing....

If “yom” equals 24 hours, what does “yom” equal in Genesis 1:5 then? No 24 hours....

So the Bible itself debunks that idea!

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Never mind that, if the universe is just a few thousand years old, as YEC's claim, then how can we observe the light from stars hundreds of millions of light years away? Did a deity create the light en route?

What is time at the speed of light? At what speed is the universe expanding?

You seem to have ignored my questions.

 

[Audie]

You know, after reading the posts of atheists here I have to ask a non scientific question that I doubt they really think about...

If the Bible says you must have faith in Jesus and follow his gospel to be saved...

What happens if it turns out that atheism is wrong,? Can you be absolutely certain that that vaste wealth of historical information we have in many museums around the world that supports the Bible narrative is all mythical?
So here's the deal...
I believe that the Bible is right and correctly explains my existence and my future (if I faithfully choose to accept it), the atheist refuses...so in the event I turn out to be right, what have I gained and the atheist lost?
What did it cost me to have that faith exactly?

I use an analogy that I think illustrates the two options here...
We have a thing called the Lotto. All those who play want to win (even though the odds against winning are tiny), and yet non Christians are willing to play that game in the hope that they win...millions of people around the world play lotteries every week, giving up money each time even though most (practically everyone) irrefutably know they will loose...yet they still play anyway!

So who really are the dumb ones here...the Christians or the atheists?

It's ridiculous for atheists to make such claims given they themselves play lottery games...it's clear that innately, people (including atheists) place their hope in something that will give them a better life...it's built into all of us.

At the end of the day, I choose God and if I'm right, I get the reward offered in the Bible...if I'm wrong I haven't lost anything as I still live and breathe and work and play just like every atheist does.
Conversely, if the atheist is right we both end up exactly the same...however if the atheist is wrong...well isn't he just going to be really pissed with himself for not putting in that Lotto ticket!!!! (and that will be the last thing he ever thinks before he died for all eternity whilst Christians who did believe live on)

Just say "Pascals wager"

 

[Kenny]

You seem to have ignored my questions.

Not really ignoring. There is so much we really still don't know. I'm not saying that the earth is 6,000 years old it could be a lot older in as much as when we view what we see, we view it in our time frame which is just one standard. One day on our planet is not one day in another planet and, at the speed of light, time may be next to insignificant.

Then again, do we really know all there is to know about light. Can light have an elasticity property?

So, basically what I am saying is that scripture doesn't really state how long God took to create what we see (in light of human terms and standards)

 

[Sheldon]

Not really ignoring.

Actually you did ignore it, as you did not answer.

I'm not saying that the earth is 6,000 years old it could be a lot older

The earth is in fact 4.543 billion years old, and the universe is 13.8 billion years old. These facts are supported by objective scientific evidence.

at the speed of light, time may be next to insignificant.

The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer, and the speed of light does not vary with time or place. You understand there is an entire scientific theory predicated on the fact that the speed of light is a constant? The relative time it takes the earth to revolve once is irrelevant to my question, since YEC's claim the earth and universe are merely thousands of (earth) years old, so vague alternative time frames are not relevant to that claim.

So again, if as YEC's claim, the universe is merely thousands of (earth) years old, then how is light visible from stars that are billions of light years away? We know how long a year on earth is, and that is what YEC's are using, and we know what the speed of light is, and it does not change, as it is a constant.

 

[Kenny]

The earth is in fact 4.543 billion years old, and the universe is 13.8 billion years old. These facts are supported by objective scientific evidence.

And?

The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer, and the speed of light does not vary with time or place. You understand there is an entire scientific theory predicated on the fact that the speed of light is a constant? The relative time it takes the earth to revolve once is irrelevant to my question, since YEC's claim the earth and universe are merely thousands of (earth) years old, so vague alternative time frames are not relevant to that claim.

So again, if as YEC's claim, the universe is merely thousands of (earth) years old, then how is light visible from stars that are billions of light years away? We know how long a year on earth is, and that is what YEC's are using, and we know what the speed of light is, and it does not change, as it is a constant.

You are basing on what we currently know as if we know all things. You may be right but, like the discovery of quantum mechanics, information can change. (Not that it matters to me - time-frame is irrelevant as there is not enough information in Genesis.)

We do know that if you tavel into space you don't age as fast as a person on the earth:
Say you have a twin, and you go off into space, traveling near the speed of light, when you return, will your twin have aged more?

So, my point is simply that our perspective may be different from what is presented in Genesis.