Quoted:
It's funny, no one really questions their perception of things as maybe fallible. So, an old looking earth, perception, is proof that materialism is true or God is trying to deceive us.

Quoted:

So you did understand his points?

If I look up confirmation for my flat earth belief on pro flat earth websites I'm likely to get it correct?

Quoted:



No, they did not.  In fact, none of them probably even considered the concept of YEC.  That concept is very recent.

Quoted:

You not though.

Quoted:



My point exactly.

Scientific theories are falsifiable.  As new evidence is discovered, they can be modified to better fit the observed reality.  

YEC is not falsifiable because, by your own admission, it depends on the infallibility of "the Word of God."   No amount of observed reality can modify its teachings because no evidence is considered valid if it might disprove the conclusion.  Its a belief system that assigns value to evidence only if it agrees with the pre-selected conclusion.   In other word, its a belief that relies on faith and cannot be swayed by evidence. I

YEC likes to pretend to be science but it almost instantly reveals itself as an article of faith when put to any kind of scrutiny.

Quoted:



Uh huh.

Who are you going to believe?  Your own lying eyes or Allah's true word?   Stop studying nature... all you need to know about nature is in the Koran.  I mean, Bible.

Quoted:
I think young earth creationism is ridiculous.

Quoted:

Bible mentions flat earth plenty.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-flat-earth/
Maybe your a flat earther?

Quoted:



You keep saying that, but it's simply not true.

Quoted:
It was important to Jesus, He quoted Genesis as history. And believe it or not revealed Genesis to Moses.

Quoted:


Me too

We went to that big Ark thing in Kentucky, the structure was cool but all the young earth stuff was weird

Quoted:
Uh, yeah, huge swaths of academia are wrong about a WHOLE lot of things. The telescopes are machines, they aren't particularly right or wrong, pretty much everyone, creationist/non-creationist is using the same facts, it's ALL in the interpretation of those facts...that's the issue. My old book, says, Thou shalt not murder, is it right about that? I believe God rather than fallible and fallen men. Maybe the article isn't for you.

Quoted:

Oh, so some things are not to be taken literally and some are. Like a six day creation?  Like a 6 to 10 thousand year timeline?  How are you so wise that you can tell literal from not?  Hmmmmm.

Quoted:


Wow... lol

Quoted:
Maybe the Earth is young and flat?  Maybe it's banana shaped?
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/137867/main-qimg-c2652ad8032790119c9c05536f0b56-2993374.JPG

Quoted:
I think young earth creationism is ridiculous.

Quoted:

I am ignorant of where in the bible a straightforward ~complete chronology of the world can be found.

Is there a simple case to be made from scripture?

(asked in earnest)

Quoted:
Allah, ok?

Quoted:

The young earth creationism article said young earth creationism is true.  I don't need to read the article.

That article made you a young earth creationist?

Again how can you tell what's literal and what isn't?

Quoted:
Wow, lol...ok? Academia wants to disarm you, they get that right?

Quoted:
You don't understand the term "falsifiability" as an investigative principle.
It doesn't mean "faking evidence."
It's a metric synonymous with verifiable, testable, empirical.

Quoted:
Some things in the bible are to be taken literally, some not. Context is important.

Quoted:



That's fine.  Its a free country.

Just please don't gaslight us by pretending your "science" is anything but religious dogma.

I mean, you literally just did exactly what I described.   You are completely unable to accept any evidence that contradicts your chosen conclusion.  

Given the notion that physical evidence suggests an old earth... you claim our eyes cannot be trusted.

Quoted:
You know what's really weird to me...that people would believe we evolved from some chemicals in a pond. Weird.

Quoted:


Basic astronomy shows the whole concept of young earth is not possible.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg/1280px-Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg

Quoted:
God is amazing isn't He!

Quoted:


Exactly... and the context of the Bible is an message delivered to a people did not have, or care about, science in any form.  The Bible makes far more sense when this is understood.  This is why we can't use the mystical numerology of the ages of the patriarchs to calculate the age of the universe.

Quoted:

It's always seemed to me that the real conflict between Christianity and science has to do with the idea that human sin brought suffering and death into the world.

If that's just poetry, then what are y'all saved from?

Quoted:
How do you know they weren't interested in the things they saw and experienced. They aren't "mystical numerologies", they are genealogies.

Quoted:
The linked article assumes that young earth creationism is what the Bible teaches.  In fact, this is a misunderstanding of the Bible.  The Bible was written long before the invention of science.  It was written to people who knew nothing about science (which did not exist), geology, biology or anything of the sort... and the audience cared nothing about these non-existent fields of study.  There is no science in the Bible as a result.  Trying to pull scientific information where it does not exist yields absurdities, like saying the earth must be 6,000 years old or so.

No one who wrote or read the Bible (in the original audiences) cared about this, nor was the Bible written to address these topics.

The Bible as written reflects the worldview of the ancient near east audience, and should be read with this in view to prevent confusion.

For example, the seven days of creation have an weird format.

Day 1 is creation of light.  Three days later is the creation of the sources of light (sun and moon).

Day 2 is the creation of the firmament (division between the water and heavens).  Three days later is the creation of the sea and air creatures (winged animals).

Day 3 is the creation of dry land and plants.... three days later is the creation of land animals and people.

Do you catch this pattern?  The days of Genesis are not in any kind of chronological order, they are a poetic structure...

The creation story is in the form on an ancient poem glorifying God for creating the heavens and the earth, it is not supposed to tell us that light was created before the sun... Young earth creationist torture the bible to try and find science that would have just confused ancient people.

If you are interested in learning to read Genesis, and understand it like the original audience did (well, at least as much as we can) there is a really good book that covers this topic, A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture by Carol A. Hill.

I would like to add that I do not think that creationists are stupid, or anything of the sort.  It is a very easy mistake to make when reading the Bible... modern men, who practice and care about science read the Bible and try and work their worldview into it... is natural to us, but would be utterly alien to the original audience of the Bible.

Quoted:
Yes, those at the website believe YEC is true, they've been defending it for years and years, no this article didn't convince me of YEC, I have been convinced of it for years and years. I looked at the arguments over years and years and was ultimately convinced by the scriptures themselves.

One of the ways we know Genesis is history is how Jesus Himself referred to it. He referred to it as history, as you can imagine that has a lot of pull with me. There are other ways. The way it is written...In the beginning God did this, He did that, it's written in a very matter of fact way. The entire Gospel sits on the foundation of a literal Adam and Eve and their literal fall. There are other ways, but I'm not that good at explaining them, I understand what more learned men are saying, I just can't explain it well.

Quoted:


Very good question.  Human beings are not naturally immortal, only God is (1 Timothy 6:16).  Believers are saved from eternal death (annihilation) after the last judgement (Matthew 10:28, Malachi 4:1, 4:3, Isaiah 66:22-24).

Quoted:
If God gave us Genesis as-is, which I believe is the case, then I will accept my inability to answer certain questions and live with them rather than discard my whole faith on account of them.

Quoted:
Dogma and science are antithetical, the conflict is inherent. There isn't any inherent conflict with the existence of God though.

It's always seemed to me that the real conflict between Christianity and science has to do with the idea that human sin brought suffering and death into the world.

If that's just poetry, then what are y'all saved from?

Fundamentalism is always at an advantage in theological discussions, they can just point to the text.

Quoted:


And what of original sin?