Question for YECers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-01-2014, 03:49 PM (This post was last modified: 09-01-2014 03:57 PM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: Question for YECers.
(09-01-2014 12:22 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  Shouldn't it be YECists? Consider

Besides this answer is easy. God can do anything, including break the law of conservation of energy/matter. Bringing the water into creation and taking it out is nothing for a god such as Yahweh. There is no reason that a YECist would assume that the earth operates as a closed system.

This is what I always wonder and ask whenever they spend so much time trying to square the bible with science. On one hand, they are recognizing the weight of science, and that it cannot simply be ignored or dismissed, but needs to be addressed. And they are obviously feeling constrained by science/reality and so in response invent this crazy nonscience to rectify and dispute the actual science, in order comply(?) with science. Obviously that doesn't make any sense, but that is what they are attempting to do.

If they really believe that "God" can do anything, and is all powerful, then why feel the need to bend "God" to science at all. It seems antithetical to what their responses should be, these things like we see in AiG. In a weird sort of way, an all powerful "god" just “magicing it all” makes a lot more sense than these crazy contortionist efforts to square science away with the bible and with their version of "science".

But even if accepting the concept of "God" magicing it away, one still must ask, if “he” could simply create matter, and disappear it, as to solve these problems (such as where did the water come from/go) then would it not have still been far simpler for "him" to simply magic the "wicked" human beings off of the planet into nonexistence, or whatever he wanted to do with them? That would have been a far cleaner event, in all accounts and aspects, then the insanity of a global flood. It would have been just as much of a bending of the laws of conservation of energy/matter, without the extra problems we are still left with, which still require explanations such as fitting all the animals and their food into the ark, the mixing of fresh and saltwater, no surviving vegetation on land for animals to eat once they exited the ark, ect...

Perhaps they see that that problem is still there even if they simply magic it away, so they just swing the pendulum the other direction, because if they call it their own "science", they can co-op the weight and authority that actual science/reality holds, and simply rely on the ignorance and desire to believe of their followers to simply choose the version of "science" vs science that they like best, knowing they will never actually research any of it anyway. I don't know...

PS...Technically the Earth is not a closed system.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
09-01-2014, 03:59 PM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2014 04:00 PM by anonymous66.)
RE: Question for YECers.
(09-01-2014 11:41 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Or, anyone who can answer like a YECer.

How do YECs reconcile the fact that there is a sustained, renewing amount of water on the Earth, and that amount of water could in no way cover the entire Earth during the Great Flood.

Where did all the rest of that water go?

I grew up as a YEC (I'm now an atheist). I seem to remember thinking that there was less water on the earth before the flood, and that it took a while for the floodwaters to evaporate and soak into the earth.

I also remember being told that the water was suspended in our atmosphere (before the flood), thus blocking out harmful rays... that's why people lived longer before the flood.

I had it all worked out. A lot of the animals were babies, they why they fit on the ark so easily, plus (I think this was my own theory), some animals evolved after the flood, so there didn't have to be as many animals on the ark to begin with.

Of course, it all looks a little silly to me know. I read quite a bit about the creationism vs evolution debate, and lately the Intelligent Design vs evolution debate. There are just wayyyyy too many problems with the entire food story. I find it hard to believe that anyone could seriously claim the story is true, unless they are profoundly anti-science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes anonymous66's post
12-01-2014, 02:29 PM
RE: Question for YECers.
It evaporated! It's in the clouds now. That's why there are always clouds somewhere in the atmosphere at any given point. As you know it never rained before the flood so there was no need for clouds. I don't know if I made that up or if I heard somewhere but if you pass this on to any creationist friend you might have I'd bet he or she would run with it!
By the way.. I know Waterworld wasn't a very successful movie but I liked it. It was a much more interesting story than the silly Noah myth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2014, 11:33 PM
RE: Question for YECers.
(09-01-2014 03:59 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  I had it all worked out. A lot of the animals were babies, they why they fit on the ark so easily, plus (I think this was my own theory), some animals evolved after the flood, so there didn't have to be as many animals on the ark to begin with.

This always bothered the shit out of me. Humans are not apes, we didn't evolve over millions of years; but somehow one set of 'bears' managed to evolve in black, brown, polar, panda, red, Russian blue, etc.? Dodgy








[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2014, 11:39 PM
RE: Question for YECers.
(12-01-2014 11:33 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This always bothered the shit out of me. Humans are not apes, we didn't evolve over millions of years; but somehow one set of 'bears' managed to evolve in black, brown, polar, panda, red, Russian blue, etc.? Dodgy

Yabut, they're all still the bear kind. You so silly.Tongue

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-01-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: Question for YECers.
(12-01-2014 11:33 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 03:59 PM)anonymous66 Wrote:  I had it all worked out. A lot of the animals were babies, they why they fit on the ark so easily, plus (I think this was my own theory), some animals evolved after the flood, so there didn't have to be as many animals on the ark to begin with.

This always bothered the shit out of me. Humans are not apes, we didn't evolve over millions of years; but somehow one set of 'bears' managed to evolve in black, brown, polar, panda, red, Russian blue, etc.? Dodgy








LOL. I know. AND it's supposed they evolved very quickly over only a few thousand years, despite all the evidence that suggests evolution takes millions of years. But, I guess if that's how God wants to do it, then who are we to argue? God can do anything He wants (even though it makes Him look dishonest).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: