Is defending a 'young' earth necessary?

[rogue06]

Jorge, let me ask you. Where exactly do you see the creation/evolution debate within the hierarchy of Christian belief? Where do you place it's importance?

In today's world, the importance of that debate is very high -- in the top 5% at least.

And that folks says it all.

For Jorge how one reads the creation account is a salvific issue. Hundreds of years ago I'm sure he would have presented similar arguments in favor of geocentrism and argued about the "theological implications" of heliocentrism and how it didn't align with God's Word.

In a nutshell

Precisely where what you say belongs.

[oxmixmudd]

And it IS possible to carry out such a defense to a more-than-adequate extent. What it is not possible to do is to "prove" a young Earth as one would prove a theorem in geometry, nor is there any empirical evidence that "proves" it, only that supports it. Note that exactly the same applies to the ancient Earth position.

Jorge

Your professed belief in the possibility is overshadowed by your absolute inability to actually do it.

You have NEVER presented a scientifically robust argument in support of YEC.

not one time.

Jim

[rogue06]

And it IS possible to carry out such a defense to a more-than-adequate extent. What it is not possible to do is to "prove" a young Earth as one would prove a theorem in geometry, nor is there any empirical evidence that "proves" it, only that supports it. Note that exactly the same applies to the ancient Earth position.

Jorge

Only because science never attempts to "prove" anything. For instance, scientists don't seek to "prove" that the moon is smaller than the earth and that the earth is smaller than the sun. Nor do they try to "prove" that the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound.

Evolutionary theory is one of the most robustly supported theories in all of science. It is backed by cross correlating, corroborating, consilient positive evidence from dozens of different and independent scientific disciplines that keeps amassing on literally a daily basis decade after decade. It has, despite deniers claims to the contrary, been observed in both nature and in the laboratory.

As for the age of the earth... That the earth was far more ancient than a few thousand years old became settled science, and this had been accepted by Christians, even before Darwin published his On the Origin of Species. As YEC spokesperson for AnswersinGenesis (AiG) Terry Mortenson acknowledged "...by 1845 all the commentaries on Genesis had abandoned the biblical chronology and the global flood; and by the time of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), the young-earth view had essentially disappeared within the Church."

[Catholicity]

(1) Yes.

(2) No.

(3) 1 Peter 3:15 & 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

(4) Honestly.

(5) I am not Christ. So I have no idea how essential he places our belief in creation/evolution.

Now That I answered your questions. Can you answer mine? Do you believe it is an essential part of the Christian life to have a firm stance on creation/evolution either way? A simple yes or no answer will do. If so, what priority do you place it in?

He does, but he'll never give a firm yes or no. you just have to read his posts and translate Jorge.

I'll sum it up.
Jorge simplified: "I do, but I can't present a good scientific argument because there isn't one, so I'll just make up big words and call everyone else liars and stupid. I'll pretend I'm smart and they're stupid. That's what Ken Ham tells me to."

[Cow Poke]

Your professed belief in the possibility is overshadowed by your absolute inability to actually do it.

You have NEVER presented a scientifically robust argument in support of YEC.

not one time.

Jim

argument schmargument!
he don't need no stinkin' argument
he has bolding and underlining and you don't!

[Boxing Pythagoras]

For Jorge how one reads the creation account is a salvific issue. Hundreds of years ago I'm sure he would have presented similar arguments in favor of geocentrism and argued about the "theological implications" of heliocentrism and how it didn't align with God's Word.

Well, at least that means that, today, Jorge is a bit more reasonable than Robert Sungenis.

[TheLurch]

argument schmargument!
he don't need no stinkin' argument
he has bolding and underlining and you don't!

I must make a note to pay more attention to the supported tags here.

[Leonhard]

Well, at least that means that, today, Jorge is a bit more reasonable than Robert Sungenis.

Not sure what happened to Robert Sungenis. He was actually a very good apologist as long as he stayed inside his chosen field of expertise. To this day I love listening to him, but he seems to have gotten sidetracked into counterproductive things.

Interestingly enough there are interpretations of the General Theory of Relativity that would allow to place the Earth as an immobile center within an absolute frame of reference, if one wanted to do that. Unlike QM I haven't been as interested in the different interpretations there. I only know how to work relativity in the A-theory and B-theory of time, not much more about subtle distinctions.

[Cow Poke]

I must make a note to pay more attention to the supported tags here.

I encouraged him to use red letters -- it worked for Jesus!

[Juvenal]

argument schmargument!
he don't need no stinkin' argument
he has bolding and underlining and you don't!

And 15,000 posts, and ... and ... and ... look at the views!

[Jorge]

(1) Yes.

(2) No.

(3) 1 Peter 3:15 & 1 Thessalonians 5:21.


(4) Honestly.

(5) I am not Christ. So I have no idea how essential he places our belief in creation/evolution.

Now That I answered your questions. Can you answer mine? Do you believe it is an essential part of the Christian life to have a firm stance on creation/evolution either way? A simple yes or no answer will do. If so, what priority do you place it in?

Okay on 1, 2 and 3.

On 4: yes, honestly!

On 5: Let's not be silly, okay? Only Christ is Christ. I believe that I have stated a fairly decent case as to how and why God would consider this a very important issue FOR THOSE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. If a person (you?) aren't able to do something about it then you are excused in the sense of not being accountable to God for having the talents to combat the 'evil' yet choosing to do nothing. I explained all of that quite clearly.

As for, "... can you answer mine?" :
I was pretty dang sure that I had answered it in spades! See below ...

As for "a simple yes or no will do" :
No, a simple "yes or no" answer cannot do this question justice.
The issue is more complex than what a "yes or no" can communicate.
In a few words: it will be "essential" to some and not so for others.

As for what priority I place it in :
Once again, I had answered that already - clearly answered it!

Please re-read my previous two-posts and spare me having to repeat myself.
You are repeating here questions that I have amply answered. Thanks!

Jorge

[Jesse]

Okay on 1, 2 and 3.

On 4: yes, honestly!

On 5: Let's not be silly, okay? Only Christ is Christ. I believe that I have stated a fairly decent case as to how and why God would consider this a very important issue FOR THOSE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. If a person (you?) aren't able to do something about it then you are excused in the sense of not being accountable to God for having the talents to combat the 'evil' yet choosing to do nothing. I explained all of that quite clearly.

As for, "... can you answer mine?" :
I was pretty dang sure that I had answered it in spades! See below ...

As for "a simple yes or no will do" :
No, a simple "yes or no" answer cannot do this question justice.
The issue is more complex than what a "yes or no" can communicate.
In a few words: it will be "essential" to some and not so for others.

As for what priority I place it in :
Once again, I had answered that already - clearly answered it!

Please re-read my previous two-posts and spare me having to repeat myself.
You are repeating here questions that I have amply answered. Thanks!

Jorge

But you didn't answer my question. I just needed a direct yes or no from you and where you placed this within Christian belief. But you seem to be refusing to give one. Which is okay, you don't have too.

[Jorge]

The last time i presented evidence that your favored young Earth model was physically impossible (one that involved a 700-year ice age), you said something about metaphysics and walked away from the discussion. So i've seen no evidence that it's possible to a "more-than-adequate extent."

I'll take your word for it but if I had received the above, I would undoubtedly have referred you to numerous sources [as I'm doing now] that give far more elaborate answers than I could give you. There is a ton - literally a TON - of articles, papers, books and presentations on the topic you mention above. I will be happy to supply you with the links that will address and answer your question. If you don't find it there, I will submit your question to scientist(s) [at ICR, CMI, AiG, CRS and others] that will answer it for you. If you read something and don't understand it, I will be happy to examine it with you. Just please don't ask me to waste my time doing work that has been done many times before by others more qualified than I. Besides, I have many other things to do (including posts like these).

To be clear : I am NOT "walking away" and leaving you with nothing. I've merely stated that the answer you seek is already in existence and I don't want to waste time re-inventing the wheel.

Jorge

[Jorge]

And that folks says it all.

For Jorge how one reads the creation account is a salvific issue. Hundreds of years ago I'm sure he would have presented similar arguments in favor of geocentrism and argued about the "theological implications" of heliocentrism and how it didn't align with God's Word.


Precisely where what you say belongs.

I see that in the integrity department you haven't Evolved past a sea urchin, R06. So sad.

You horrendously misrepresent what I've said by taking my words out of their full context. Just be thankful that I have neither the authority nor the power to 'lock you up' for such acts. Otherwise, you'd be doing one-to-three years in striped pajamas for that little stunt.

Jorge

[Duragizer]

argument schmargument!
he don't need no stinkin' argument
he has bolding and underlining and you don't!

Not to mention ALL CAPS and bright primary colours.