Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?

It isn't evidence at all, as I will keep asserting against your assertion, it's nothing but speculating, hypothesizing and interpreting.

Right, Gap Theory is an obviously wrong interpretation of Genesis 1, so is Day-Age theory, so is Theistic evolution. Just as geocentrism is not in the Bible, neither are these theories.

All you are saying is that no evidence will ever change your mind. This is a tacit admission that the evidence is against you.

Actually the evidence is just as much on the side of creationist interpretations as evolutionist and old earth interpretations. Since the evidence IS open to interpretation and really doesn't support your conclusions as you think it does. Evidence such as the fossils for instance, the strata for instance, junk DNA even, mutations too. All a matter of how they are interpreted.

In order for this to be true, the creationist interpretations would need to be falsifiable, and they aren't. When any evidence will support your claims, then you don't have any evidence. As you have shown time and again, no evidence will ever change your mind. Your creationist position is a dogmatic one, not a falsifiable one. When you hold to a dogmatic position, you have no right to claim that the evidence is on your side.Even more, how do you determine which interpretation is right? They can't all be right, can they? Just pointing out that there are mutliple interpretations does not tell us which one is right. What type of evidence, as it relates to asteroids, would we have to find in order to change your mind?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The part you are missing is that interpretations can be, and often are, wrong. I can iterpret my wife to not be mad at me all I want, but that doesn't mean I don't have to sleep on the couch. I can interpret the moon to be made of cheese and it won't have any effect on me, allowing me to go on believing that it is, but that doesn't mean that the moon is actually made of cheese. I even have some moon cheese in my closet (at least that's what the guy that sold it to me told me it was).If we continue this train of thought, there is no god since millions of atheists interpret the evidence to there not being a god. Do you still want to use this rationale?Just because you choose to view data through a certain lense doesn't make it correct. Data and reality aren't protected like your faith is. Just because you are just as right in your interpretation of the bible as Catholic Scientist and Devilsadvocate are doesn't mean you can do the same with actual facts, data and reality.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Not missing this at all. Of course some interpretations are wrong, that's the whole point. It's the establishment interpretations I judge to be wrong.' But I haven't used any rationale that says all interpretations are equal. Far from it. I've simply pointed out that the establishment interpretations of the unknowable past are simply that, interpretations and not proven fact though they are claimed to be. And I believe that at least some of the opposing creationist interpretations are the correct ones, but I can't prove those either. We can only argue the case back and forth.And the atheists are looking at the wrong evidence. Never said it did. Sorry, this is rather garbled logic. No idea what you mean by "protected" and there's no such thing as contradictory views being "just as right" as each other.Facts data and reality are just as subject to interpretation as the Bible is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You think pretty much everything is wrong though don't you?Geology, palaeontology, astronomy, biology, genetics, physics and pretty much any natural science. You think all non-religions are wrong as are all religions that are not Christian. You even think that the vast majority of Christians are wrong and even most of those Christians that call themselves creationists and are 'saved' are wrong.In fact, when you get down to it, it's pretty much only what Faith prefers to believe that is right isn't it? I reckon you're in a set of 1. (Or as close as makes no difference.)

You know what would be really really nice of you, and fair and honest and so on, is if you'd include in your periodic restatement of this accusation an acknowledgement of my periodic restatement of my answer to you in which I say how wrong you are? Wouldn't that save a lot of stress and wasted energy?

Your delusion is so entrenched that you don't even know what you're denying - even when it's spelled out to you. But there's no getting away from it, you deny virtually all of science and all but a tiny slice of one religion - you keep telling us this.

Christians do not reject science, REAL science, FAR FROM IT, only the fantasy sciences of the unobservable past.

You really should stop using this phrase, it is logically inconsistent. You believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that man has existed on this earth for all but 5 days of that time. So, there really is NO unobservable past according to your views. So those that see evidence for an old earth are simply misinterpreting "observable" events, according to your position. Everything that has happened in the past, happened while humans were here to observe it ... according to your views.I don't see how you can object to the "unobserved past" since, according to your views, there is none.Are you conceding that there IS an unobservable past that none of us can be sure about??HBD

I would have thought it clear enough that the unobservable past is what the evolutionists and OE people think they are dealing with. They make their assertons about what happened in a past they know nothing about. They certainly deny what we think we know through the Bible, deny it with every theory they have about dates of civilizations and events and the works. The past IS unobservable to them and yet they feel free to declare what happened during it.

That is exactly what you do all of the time, and in the past you have acknowledged doing so. Despite knowing diddly squat about thermodynamics, chemistry, physics, or anything else relevant to geology, you swear that you can date geological features and rocks regardless of whether you have even seen or touched them. Then you call that nonsense process of making up crap - "interpretation".No scientist has any more hubris than that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

But as HBD said, I don't have an unobservable past to deal with, I have an observed past that tells me when some things happened so I can place the Flood in history for instance while secular science ignores all the evidence for it and goes on making up stuff that has NO verification whatever. But I'm still otherwise in the same position of having to interpret things that weren't reported on.