Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?

I was afraid you wouldn't get the point. Tectonic plates moving at several feet per day would have happened in the "observable past", according to your view. 3,000 + feet of sediment in the GC was laid down in the "observable past", according to your view. Dinosaurs would have lived in the "observable past" according to your view. And the list goes on and on ...If you really believe that your view is correct, there is no "unobservable past". You have everything happening in the "observable past", so it should be completely knowable - even without the Bible to tell us what happened.However, when we look at the evidence that we can see TODAY, in the present, and try to understand what happened in the past, we get a very different picture.So we have 3 options:1. The Bible is wrong.2. We have misunderstood what the Bible teaches about these things.3. The "knowable past" is actually "unknowable".The third choice is a logical inconsistency, so that is not the correct choice. But that is the one you keep falling back on.My personal position is #2.HBD

So how would you know if your interpretation is wrong? What evidence, if found, would falsify your interpretation with respect to asteroids? First you were saying that we just have different interpretations. Now you are saying that we aren't allowed to interpret the facts at all. Which is it?Can we reconstruct the past using evidence found in the present? Yes or no? I would be happy if you at least tried to demonstrate that the interpretations are consistent with the facts we do have. If you can't do that, then what good are those interpretations? Even worse, if you can't show that the interpretation is falsifiable, then it isn't even an interpretation.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

How do you know that it was observed?

Fair enough, but you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get an interpretation that matches reality. Geocentrism is a particularly bad example. While the Bible might not specifically dictate geocentrism, it certainly doesn't specify otherwise either. It's vague enough that you could shoehorn almost any shape of universe into it.

You most certainly do reject science. You've invented a fantasy called "REAL science" but you most certainly do reject the science that scientists do.And please don't drag all Christians down to your level.

Don't be ridiculous. Who observed the Grand Canyon forming or Adam being formed from dust or the creation of the moon and the lesser lights.You argue that materialistic evidence supports your position on those things all the time.Further you don't require observation before you spout silly stuff anyway.Every time we look at Alpha Centauri we are observing how it appeared 4.3 years ago. That is from the observable and knowable past. And when we view the andromeda galaxy, we are viewing directly the state of that galaxy 2.5 million years ago. Not unobservable in any sense.You can 'interpret' that stuff to conform to a 6000 year old universe only because you don' t have any ability to check your work.

EXACTLY! The Bible is not trying to teach ANY particular "shape" for the universe; it's not concerned about the shape of the universe.I believe the same is true for the age of the universe. The Bible is not trying to teach ANY particular timetable for creation. The Bible is concerned about WHO created the universe and WHY, not WHEN or HOW. (Note: Genesis does appear to explain "how" God created the universe, but this is a "how" in theological terms, which addresses more the "why" and the "who". It is not a "how" in modern scientific, mechanistic terms.)

Exactly, Exactly. Therefore scientific experiments which provide a more detailed picture of the Big Bang have no Biblical implications, because they deal with an issue that is of no concern of the Bible.I knew we'd agree on something.

2A. The Bible actually makes no attempt to teach about those things.

So day-age scenarios and gap scenarios are as big a waste of time as young-earth creationism.

No, my statement doesn't imply this. These scenarios do not try to derive a timetable for creation from the Bible. They get their timetables from modern science.These scenarios (as well as the "Framework", "Days of proclamation", and "Ancient near eastern cosmology" views) are useful in trying to think through the issues and in trying to see how the biblical account can be consistent with modern science. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

The whole problem, though, is in trying to make the Bible consistent with modern science. It isn't. It was never meant to be.

Are you familiar with the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy?In a nutshell, energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Merely transformed from type to another.What people in religious circles have difficulty grasping is that while the universe as we know it had a point of origin, the energy that comprises space and time had no point of creation by virtue of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Energy, by its inherent properties cannot be created.If one wants to ascribe a divine source for creation of the universe, they have to concede that while god could have potentially set certain things in motion, he actually could have not 'created' anything. At least, not in the sense of creation from scratch, so to speak.

Yes, conservation of mass-energy is very basic physics. We seem to agree that our universe had a beginning. But I don't follow where you are going from here. Are you suggesting that the mass-energy that makes up our universe did NOT have a beginning, that it was eternal? If so, how do you reconcile this with our universe having a beginning? Or are you using conservation of mass-energy to reject the Big Bang?

The universe as we know it had a beginning. But what I am stipulating is that it was not a 'poof' into existence scenario. It was more akin to a state change from one form to another.The fallacy most are making when they examine the Big Bang is that they make an assumption that it was a something from nothing scenario. That is false. The Big Bang was actually an expansion event where space-time formed from the energy resident in the singularity. A good analogy is to consider states of matter: gases, liquids and solids. An ice cube 'came into existence' as an ice cube. But it originally began as liquid water. It changed states.Note that this is in no way a 'rejection' of the Big Bang. The Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy follows along perfectly with the notion of the Big Bang. However, the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy is a refutation of the creation supposition, since it automatically refutes the notion of the universe having simply been created from scratch.There are of course other avenues the creation argument can go. That god used part of his own 'energy' to form the universe. However, this does not seem to conform to scripture.