Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[shunyadragon]

I was one and am still relatively sympathetic to it (so you are actually talking to somebody who knows you are full of nonsense) and I have other friends that are fine with it. Can I have references from your friends? Phone numbers and addresses please.

Not remotely a suitable answer. Vague references do not qualify.

We have been discussing this for five pages. We have had links and I have reported the most recent find myself. Want to quibble based on a selection of words in one post? Have at it if thats the best you can do as a response. You are not informing anyone of anything just arrogantly assuming you are. but thank you we are all now blessed because you reminded us again that fossils are fossilized....lol

Yes, misrepresenting scientific references 'with a few word' to justify a religious agenda is more than 'quibble.

Yes, fossils fossilized and millions of years old.

[Mikeenders]

No-one is doing that. The end. It is. But that's a logical fallacy - it should say that either radiometric dating or the improbability of organic material lasting that long is wrong.It may have been the consensus opinion but AFAIAA it was merely opinion and not actual fact. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise by providing citations to published results.Then provide the support. Citations of published results.If in fact it may be able to survive then the claim that it can't is not only unsupported but possibly false. You just refuted your own argument. Scientists have been amazed by lots of things, from continental drift to ulcer-causing bacteria. But being amazed is not the same as having established knowledge overturned. It means there is no support. Can you provide some? If not, it's unsupported. Good luck.Then why did you use it?1) "3 years"? Whether that should be 3 days or 2 years, you've just lost a mark.
2) "multiple more"? Multiply by more than what? Another mark lost.
3) If you meant 2 years to 300ky you're comparing the wrong numbers. If you meant 3 days then you're simply wrong - you have to multiply by the same amount. Either way that's 3 marks lost. Failed. Flunked. F-.
Roy

Hey Roy...Good news if you were going for my award for the most babbling nonsense in a post in 2015 - good news. you are in HOT contention....lol

[Mikeenders]

Your wording implied that hundreds of thousands of years was an acceptable position among YECs. This implies that at least some YEC leaders would be comfortable with this position.

KB I have no hesitance in saying it - you meet all kinds online and you are just being a bared face liar here. these are my words

I know creationists that are fine with even hundreds of thousands of years. of course they would still be considered YEC.

That implies nothing about YEC leaders. You are just lying to save face. it relates my personal knowledge of some that even (A word denoting an extreme I actually used no less) go as far as a few hundred thousand years. ride on in infamy. truth is not your thing.

The are certainly YECs with all sorts of crazy ideas. There are YECs who are geocentrists (at least one has participated in discussions here on TWeb) and YECs who hold to a flat earth. But we aren't talking here about what some fringe individuals may believe. We are talking about accepted, standard YEC positions.

there is no one accepted standard for all YECs. You made that up and you really don't have any power to limit what other people may be included in YEC. You get no vote. Theres a whole lot of trying to herd everyone into your stereotypes in this thread even backed by a mod that should know better but as with all stereotypes - they don't hold up intellectually. People go from 6,000 years to 50,000 all the time and I like I said I know some who go beyond that as well. In today's world anyone that even goes a smidgen under a million shucks even ten would still be considered to be a YEC. As for metioning crazy things People believe who are YEC...crazy people are OEC as well. Sorry

If you take this position, you are not YEC. You do not insist on a young earth.

Congratulations. You got it on the 6th or 7th time. I have said long ago I am not A YEC

There certainly is a "YEC camp"; Snoeberger calls it "the young-earth creationist community", "the young-earth community", and "the YEC 'guild'". (I probably should have used his wording and said "guild"). If you haven't read all of his paper yet, I recommend it. Here is his last paragraph:

Don't care to its logically of no consequence. You are seemingly oblivious to common sense on the issue. one man cannot determine the rules for an entire belief system unless his name is Christ. Its meaningless. Thats just another bit of circularity on your part. You assume there is one central authority so think you are quoting one as proof. Must be something in the water here - circular thinking abounds.

[Mikeenders]

Not remotely a suitable answer. Vague references do not qualify.

Its possible. I mean I think the universe is vast enough there could be many inhabitable worlds and so it IS conceivably I guess that on one of them in a distant galaxy far far far away a no name poster on a forum such as yourself could conceivable be in a position of real importance for it to even possibly matter what you consider suitable. Alas poor lad on this planet with me

This is not that planet.

Dream a better dream tonight. I missed you giving me the phone number of your friends. we can talk when you oblige what you suppose you have any ooomph to require.

Yes, fossils fossilized and millions of years old.

Oh goodie now we know that we have been talking about millions of years. you have informed us of the obvious again. You missed an opportunity though. You forgot to tell us this was a forum. Next time perhaps?

P.S. soft biological tissue is fine. If you read anything you'd actually see how nonsensical your point is. Soft tissue is exactly how scientist refer to it and only a fool would quibble with the remains of animals as not being biological. Its really quite hilarious you trying to claim thats wrong....lol....apparently you know of animals that are not biological. expound upon that brilliant analysis on your part and I may be impressed before the men in coats come to take you away.

[Kbertsche]

... Let me give you the 411. The real heart of why there are creationists is because of biblical literalism among evangelicals and yet absolutely no evangelical really needs or base line cares for the earth to be young (okay maybe Ham) because the Bible gives no indication of the age of the universe or the earth - nada. Where biblical literalism even begins to cause any real issues is with how old Adam is. Ussher's 6,000 years old earth is based as you must know on tracing back to Adam not day one of creation. So even his system (weak as it was because genealogies are known to skip generations) doesn't trace back to the creation of earth proper.

SO its not even remarkable or worthy of a blip that there are some who have no issue with a few hundred thousand. You all don't even understand the basic issues. The real issue is how long since the creation of Adam has it been? Thats precisely why I, as a biblical literalist, have no issue whatsoever with an earth even a 100 billion years old - yawn and shrug. There is no "let there be earth" in genesis one. its there already. THe natural order of things doesn't even start until day 7 so theres nothing even remotely remarkable about creationists having varied views of the age of the earth itself. no what really drives this issue is Human evolution and the claim of man being around for a million years plus (both of which I reject) or the whole issue would have been a wimper for most when you really get down to it. You have to understand what really drives an issue and most of you clearly do not.

1) Sorry, but your description of creationism is somewhat confused. "creationism" is not based on biblical "literalism". The YEC version may be based on literalism, but OEC and TE are not. Yet OEC and TE are as "creationist" as YEC.

2) you are correct that there are a number of separate issues at play here:
A) the age of the earth
B) the age of mankind
C) the nature and length of the Days of Genesis 1
But your contention that B) is the only concern ("the real issue") is clearly false. YECs are very concerned about A) and C) as well. Most of the YEC "scientific" arguments are centered on A), not on B) or C).

YECs generally conflate these three issues. But they are logically separate questions, as you imply. Those who hold to the Gap Theory, for example, view issues B) and C) almost identical to YECs, but hold to an old earth. Thus they are OEC, not YEC.

From the tenor of your responses, you seem to (nearly) agree with YECs on issue C). I.e. You view the Days of Genesis as contiguous literal 24-hour days in which God created everything. (Except that YECs say that this includes the earth itself, whereas you seem to view the earth as a prior creation, not included in the six Days.). Does this fairly describe your view?

What is your view of issue B)? How old is man?

And what about animals? Do you believe that they were here for millions of years before man, or that they are about as old as man?

[Kbertsche]

KB I have no hesitance in saying it - you meet all kinds online and you are just being a bared face liar here. these are my words

I know creationists that are fine with even hundreds of thousands of years. of course they would still be considered YEC.

That implies nothing about YEC leaders. You are just lying to save face. it relates my personal knowledge of some that even (A word denoting an extreme I actually used no less) go as far as a few hundred thousand years. ride on in infamy. truth is not your thing.

You say that "they would still be considered YEC". But considered by who? By someone who truly understands YEC (e.g. YEC leaders), or by some crackpot who has no clue of what language means or of the history of the YEC/OEC debate? Your wording ("would be considered") implies the former, that most people who understand the issues would consider them YEC. If you meant the latter, this is communicated in English by "could be considered", not "would be considered."

And your statement is simply false. Those who hold to hundreds of thousands of years normally would not

there is no one accepted standard for all YECs. You made that up and you really don't have any power to limit what other people may be included in YEC. You get no vote. Theres a whole lot of trying to herd everyone into your stereotypes in this thread even backed by a mod that should know better but as with all stereotypes - they don't hold up intellectually. People go from 6,000 years to 50,000 all the time and I like I said I know some who go beyond that as well. In today's world anyone that even goes a smidgen under a million shucks even ten would still be considered to be a YEC. As for metioning crazy things People believe who are YEC...crazy people are OEC as well. Sorry

YEC means young-earth creationist. Yes, "young" is a vague term. But Snoeberger surveys the usage of the term pretty well. Some YECs insist on 6,000 years while others would accept a few tens of thousands. He does not mention anyone who would go as far as 100,000.

You assume there is one central authority so think you are quoting one as proof. Must be something in the water here - circular thinking abounds.

No, there is not one central authority. There are numerous experts and authorities. But I know of none who consider someone who accepts hundreds of thousands of years as a YEC. Again, if you know of some recognized authority who defines YEC in this way, please give us a link or a reference. But don't expect us to simply believe what you say with no supporting evidence!

[Mikeenders]

You say that "they would still be considered YEC". But considered by who? By someone who truly understands YEC (e.g. YEC leaders), or by some crackpot who has no clue of what language means or of the history of the YEC/OEC debate? Your wording ("would be considered") implies the former, that most people who understand the issues would consider them YEC. If you meant the latter, this is communicated in English by "could be considered", not "would be considered."

You have no authority to lecture on English. Keep dreaming. You can't even meet basic standards of honesty abusing that same english to claim in your bare faced lie that I implied something I never did. I stand by my phrase as any sufficiently educated person would understand that in an earth popularly accepted as hundreds of millions of years old and up to the billions anyone who thought the universe was under a single million would consider that a young date. Since I have to spell out the rudimentary things with you - Young and old are relative terms. Only in your dream world would a single million not be young when compared relatively to a billion. its such a vastly silly point you are trying to make and flopping horribly doing it. If everyone were 1 thousand years old how would a 40 year old not be considered young. Buy a clue ...or something ...anything ...to make a good point

Yes, "young" is a vague term. But Snoeberger surveys the usage of the term pretty well.

No he didn't. the usage of the term transcends whats in print and reaches millions of evangelicals who hold their positions on YEC. for everyone thats published or on the air there are hundred that are not - Pastoring in pulpits all over the world, lay people and Sunday school teaches and on and on. You ARE clueless because to you its merely a debate point online and in public but there are millions who are not engaged in your OEC vs YEC war for you to even know of which is why its so VASTLY stupid to proclaim such a position is not held by any YECs. In any other forum on a non religious subject you would be considered a complete fool for thinking you knew what everyone holding any position thinks .. It is so ignorant as to be baffling. Thats why you can beg to the cows home that one person has authority to speak for all of them and why you flop again on purely logical grounds

But don't expect us to simply believe what you say with no supporting evidence.

As I have stated before i really don;t care what you wish to believe. You are neither singularly nor corporately that important to me. I merely stated the facts of people i know. Its not central to our discussion but your lack of integrity insisting that I was implying a well known leader when I did no such thing does affect your credibility to honestly have any discussion.

SO maybe you can dig down deep into the christian character youclaim to have and show us all where I implied a leading figure in the creationist was one of the people i know. Until then your just a liar on a forum posting - because I said no such thing.

[Mikeenders]

1) Sorry, but your description of creationism is somewhat confused. "creationism" is not based on biblical "literalism". The YEC version may be based on literalism, but OEC and TE are not. Yet OEC and TE are as "creationist" as YEC.

No confusion whatsoever. The context of the creationism I referred to was young earth creationist as was clear (although all creationism IS based on some level of literalism. If you don't literally believe God created the world you are not a Creationist and if you do not believe any of the Bible is literal then you are not even a christian. Its a fair point that I will specify that but again its pretty clear from the context. it was more a short cut in typing than any misunderstanding.

2) you are correct that there are a number of separate issues at play here:
A) the age of the earth
B) the age of mankind
C) the nature and length of the Days of Genesis 1
But your contention that B) is the only concern ("the real issue") is clearly false.

not at all its just above your comprehension level. You think surface and I was relating deeper causes. Since literalism is at the heart of YEC the less real contention with the biblical text the less YEcs there would be. No YEC really gives a rip about the age of the earth besides them thinking there is a contradiction of the Biblical text (thats the underlying cause that flies over your head) and yet no biblical text relates the age of the earth at all. so what you are looking at and of course cannot see is that is a reaction to an attack on Bible. Plain and simple. Thats the real issue . it snot that they do not care about the issue at all but as i should have known you would miss is whats the REAL thing that bothers them is - not the secondary issue. the primary one. When I relate my position on Genesis one I rarely have anyone seriously offended with me even if its a YEC/ It probably makes some OECs upset because many of their atheistic assumptions are dismantled (and yes quite a few OECs have atheistic ideologies wrapped in there). Why are YEC's relatively okay with me? because I maintain literalism (and my literalism even goes beyond some YEC). so I don't really care what you think. its not up for your vote and its pretty clear from these posts I know and understand YECs better than any of you in this thread. Your war against them puts you out of the loop as an adversary looking on not a friend.

From the tenor of your responses, you seem to (nearly) agree with YECs on issue C). I.e. You view the Days of Genesis as contiguous literal 24-hour days in which God created everything. (Except that YECs say that this includes the earth itself, whereas you seem to view the earth as a prior creation, not included in the six Days.). Does this fairly describe your view?

lol....thats a common game of sophistry and dishonest to say the least. IF you have to ask a question then ask it. don't try to summarize what I seem to be saying , tell me what my view is and then ask me after the fact of stating what it is when you clearly do not know what it is. You don't know what it is then ask first. Stop being arrogant like you have any data to tell me what my position on the days are and no to your question - you are dead wrong. I hold that a day is a reference to light not a 24 hour period because the text directly says so

is your view of issue B)? How old is man?

Well i don't affix a strict date but I'd say a 100,000 years tops.

And what about animals? Do you believe that they were here for millions of years before man, or that they are about as old as man?

don't have a firm opinion on that. the text is fine with them being around for far longer than man. Now at this point I am sure I will hear about how rock solid human evolution is but of all the species the evolution of humans is probably the weakest in scientific terms (and yes I am sure i will hear otherwise). Its just a mess compared to other evolutionary research filled with more outright fraud, embarrassing misindentifications, missteps and fairy tale stories. I've debated the subject with professors so although I know you collectively cannot resist the canard that anyone that doesn't agree hasn't looked at the issue - you can all spare me that nonsense. probably the best that could be offered was ERVs and that was more compelling when we hadn't realized that hot spots affected those.

[HMS_Beagle]

I see our mouthy newfound Creationist can't come up with a single name or organization who thinks "young Earth" means the planet is 100,000 years old. Looks like another knob who loves the sound of his own voice much more than any honesty or accuracy.

[Mikeenders]

I see our mouthy newfound Creationist can't come up with a single name or organization who thinks "young Earth" means the planet is 100,000 years old. Looks like another knob who loves the sound of his own voice much more than any honesty or accuracy.

Typical Darwinsist. Bare face Lies even when it is obvious he is bare face lying because he can show no claim anywhere that any well known organization or person was referenced. I don't mind though - as a bonus it shows Sam Harris wrong. You do need a strong sense of Religion to have a moral compass. You don't so you commit to lying. exhibit A for Sam's thesis being dismantled. Thanks

[HMS_Beagle]

Typical Darwinsist. Bare face Lies even when it is obvious he is bare face lying because he can show no claim anywhere that any well known organization or person was referenced. I don't mind though - as a bonus it shows Sam Harris wrong. You do need a strong sense of Religion to have a moral compass. You don't so you commit to lying. exhibit A for Sam's thesis being dismantled. Thanks

Sorry booby, moral outrage and indignation doesn't work when you just face planted on your ridiculous claims. This one was almost as funny as when you stepped on the rake over radiometric decay being "circular logic".

[Mikeenders]

Sorry booby

HAHAHAHA. there might be a time when your brain cells mature enough that you remember that response and realize how true it must have been for me to say you literally have me shaking with laughter at the sheeer epic levels of noob you have just demonstrated.

and on that high note of juvenile hilarity from the young pup Beagle himself I'll see you guys in a week or two.

[Roy]

I'm expecting you to fail at finding supporting references too. I'm not even sure you'd recognise one. Feel free to exceed my expectations.

Hey Roy...Good news if you were going for my award for the most babbling nonsense in a post in 2015 - good news. you are in HOT contention....lol

Just another arrogant ignoramus who runs away when asked to support his braggadocio.

[Duragizer]

You do need a strong sense of Religion to have a moral compass. You don't so you commit to lying.

So diehard YECs are closet atheists working hard to make Christianity look as stupid as possible.

I've always suspected as much, but thanks for the confirmation.

[Mikeenders]

Just another arrogant ignoramus who runs away when asked to support his braggadocio.

oh look...how cute... the old sophomoric internet claim that if you can't commit to logging in several times for the week to a forum because your mommy doesn't pay your bills you are running away. Thats original....