YEC without the bible, possible?

Stealing from a Panda's Thumb article I read a while back . . .If this is how you view things then I hope you are on my jury if I am ever indicted. You see, in the US a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. According to you, we must view evidence from this preconception. That is, you must view all evidence with the preconception that I am innocent.If the prosecution demonstrates that my fingerprints, DNA, and fibers were at the crime scene you must, by rule, view that evidence through the prism of my innocence. This means that this evidence actually points to my innocence in some way if you first believe that I am innocent, as you must by rule.Like I said, I hope you are on my jury.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I don't think you would want that, he's more likely to decide you are guilty because you are an "evil evolutionist" and will look at evidence from this preconception.

Minority has so far been courteous and open-minded, and I have yet to hear him/her call evolutionists "evil". Your post is a mischaracterisation.

Sorry, I tried a little humor but it sucked... Just tried to point out that he wasn't bound to decide that he was innocent and I exagerated to make a point (it appears to have the opposite effect though).
Taq thought the reason Minority Report would decide he was innocent was because of "presumed innocent until proved otherwise" so I wanted to give a reason why MR could decide Taq would be guilty beforehand. My example was bad but couldn't think of any other.

Hello Meldinoor,
Still trying to catch up with reply's to your earlier posts. In the meantime, for those still crying for evidences for young earth(though not suitable to debate in this thread), published today was an article titled '101 evidences for a young age of earth' at Age of the earth - creation.com, for anyone interested. Yes I agree. When I first read this part, there initially seemed to be a contradiction. Henry Morris in his book 'The Genesis Record' states;'The primary warning is undoubtedly that of spiritual death, or separation from God. But this also entails physical death, since God is the source of physical life as well as spiritual life. Literally the warning could be read: "Dying, thou shalt die!" The moment Adam disobeyed God, the principle of decay and death would begin to operate in his body.'Now I know this explanation might seem bit weak to you, but I have also read elsewhere that a hebrew scholar agrees the verse could be translated 'Dying, thou shalt die', though can't confirm yet. Need more time to research. If this is the case then it makes much more sense & no more problem interpreting day as metaphorical in this verse.ps. Also found this excerpt at The page you requested was not found on our site - creation.com'The fruit of the tree of knowledge is said to kill within a day of being eaten, yet Adam and Eve don’t die after eating it.
Relevant Scripture: Genesis 2:16—17, 3:1—24.Answer: Young’s Literal Translation makes this a bit clearer:And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of itdying thou dost die.’
‘Dying thou dost die’ indicates progressive death, not immediate death. The Hebrew provides the nuance this objection overlooks by reading Scripture like an English newspaper. The Fall began ‘in the day’ with Adam and Eve’s separation from God (3:24), the spiritual death, and later they experienced the physical death at the end of their life on Earth. ‘In the day’ (beym) is a Hebrew idiom for ‘when’, which is why the NIV translates: ‘but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’I know we are starting to get a little off track with this, but the case I'm trying to present is this; Though believing to have evidence for a young universe/earth, YEC is still dependant on infallible Bible as basis for belief. OEC believe Bible not clear on age(disagree), and does not exclude possibility of old earth (does not explicitly say this either), and is mostly based on man's fallible interpretation of physical evidence.Edited by Minority Report, : Addition of information.

Are you familiar with the term "Gish Gallop"?Not only is this rubbish heaped on rubbish, but they have to start off with a disclaimer that no-one can establish what is really true.Why do you suppose that they have to do that?When someone begins their argument by saying that no-one can tell the truth, I brace myself for a thumping great lie. As Dr Johnson put it: "If he does really think that there is no distinction between virtue and vice, why, sir, when he leaves our houses let us count our spoons."

I disagree with your characterization of Minority Report. He/she refuses to answer the tough questions. I have asked twice for evidence for assertions made in Message 32, with no response. This is neither courteous or open minded. This is deceitful and hiding. If a person wants to make assertions they need to be ready to back them up with evidence. I have seen NO evidence from Minority Report. MR has shown condescension by his behaviour and lack of answers to questions about his sources.From Message 48This shows a lack of attempt and/or ability to debate openly. This also shows a attitude of condescension, because of the belief that anyone would question him is out of line. If you can't back up your assertions, don't make them in the first place."evolutionists" is a bad term. I am no more an evolutionist than I am a gravitationist or atomicist or germist. Belief in science and the scientific method is right and proper. I

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hello Meldinoor, The point I was trying to make, was that as christians, we should give precedence to God's word, over our interpretation of God from the natural world. When a point of conflict occurs between what God has said, and what we interpret from nature, we should give the benefit of doubt to God's word, and not immediately assume it wrong and in need of a different interpretation. I believe evidence found in nature should confirm what is written in the Bible, and I believe it does. Sometimes it will appear to contradict, but I put that down to our lack of complete knowledge of the situation.Regarding Dr Scott Todd's statement. Yes I do understand what he meant in context, that science, as a method, can only look for natural explanations, which does not necessarily rule out a supernatural God. I completely understand that this is the role of science. However, because science can only look for a natural explanation, it can come to faulty conclusions about our past. For example, the global flood, being an event started & perhapps maintained supernaturally, would leave behind vast quantities of sedimentary layers containing dead plants & animals. Now if we can only look for natural explanations, to explain the evidence left behind by this supernatural event, how could it ever be interpreted correctly?Back to your statement that 'God could have made it clear in the rocks'. I believe that He has, but if scientists disregard the flood they will never see it, and if you accept these naturalistic conclusions as fact, neither will you.

ANY evidence to support this? Remember you are in a Science Forum, so assertions should be backed with some sort of evidence. So you feel scientists should ignore the facts? Reminds me of an old saying.
"Don't confuse me with the facts my mind is made up"

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

To which the answer would be: we should give precedence to God's actual creation over how men interpret the book that they say is God's word.If there is a God at all, then God is, by definition, the author of the universe, and that is what he wrote.That follows by definition of God, whereas your pastor's favorite interpretation of your favorite book may just be your pastor's favorite interpretation of your favorite book. Because it would leave behind evidence. Even if someone was so narrow-minded as to think that magical impossible floods that don't actually happen don't actually happen, that person would still be able to tell, from the evidence, that a global flood had occurred.But it didn't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Wouldn't man's interpretation of scripture be just as fallible as man's interpretation of nature?Also, you seem to be making a big mistake here. As the old saw goes, the map is not the territory. Let's say you are reading a map, and from your reading you expect to see a massive mountain range just 5 miles ahead. When you look up you don't see any mountains. Now which is wrong? The territory or the map? Is the territory wrong because it does not match the map? That sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? And yet, that is exactly what you are suggesting here.So you have two choices. Either you are reading the map wrong or the map is just plain wrong. Which do you choose?Lastly, I think you have proven the point made in the opening post. The only way in which someone can conclude that the Earth is young is because of their previously held beliefs that are independent of the evidence.

I will go on record as saying that the Bible is not needed forto be a YEC, but either the Bible or one of the other ~1000 creation myths.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hello Minority, I think you'll find that the above quote elicited quite a few responses. And I agree with them. You seem to be neglecting the fact that what you are comparing is an interpretation with an interpretation. Not an interpretation and an absolute.Let me explain. We both hold the Bible to be the infallible word of God. AND, we both agree that the Bible contains metaphorical as well as historical information. Where we disagree is on what is metaphor, and what is not.Both of us believe that the Bible is a source of absolute truth, but our interpretations differ, meaning that one or both of them does not coincide with this "Truth". Both of us can provide "valid arguments" to support our positions. But you can not prove which one is correct. You claimed this yourself in an earlier post: Both interpretations of Genesis are based on incomplete knowledge, so there is always the element of doubt. Both could be wrong.And it doesn't matter how many theologians agree with you. It doesn't matter how well versed they are in scripture. Using the logic that you applied to science, as long as I can present a valid argument for my interpretation (as I indeed did in message 69) the truth will be indiscernable.Your own logic now has you in a vicegrip. You can not choose between any two scientific theories if both sides present valid arguments. And you can not choose between our two interpretations of Genesis for the same reason. You are stuck, and its a matter of flipping a coin, or going with the prettier theory.Wanna borrow a penny?Edited by Meldinoor, : Added rhetorical question

---

Ecclesiastes 3:18-20
18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath [b] ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.

First, I need to inform you that bare links are not ever acceptable. If you want to use another site to support your claims, you need to actually state that claim on your own.However, Coyote has started a thread based on your bare link. As we demolish each and every one of those PRATTs, we fully expect you to be right there supporting each and every one of those claims. If you refuse to do so, then that is a tacit admission on your part that you were lying through your teeth. Are any of your claims sincere? If so, then defend them. If not, then we do know where you're coming from!

Hello Meldinoor, I've noticed. I guess I'd expect criticism of this statement from non-beleivers, if I was asking them to accept it. But it was strictly an appeal to a fellow believer. Yes, but it appears you claim a verse is metaphorical, whenever that verse is in disagreement with an interpretation of nature, regardless of actual context of the text. Don't you think this can be seen as a convenient escape clause?I know you claim textual support, but your support has to be read into the text, it is not self evident from a plain reading. Basically this approach allows you to escape the implications of all the difficlt verses in the Bible. It can allow non-believing scientists to re-interpret the Bible for you. If you allow an interpretation of nature to controll your interpretation of the Bible, where will it end, and what will remain of the Bible and your faith?Nature reveals to us that people do not rise again from death, yet our whole faith is based on this actually occuring to Jesus. Why do you not also interpret those passages referring to Jesus's ressurection as metaphoric? To be consistent in your approach to scripture, wouldn't you have too?Also to be consistant you would have to claim that Jesus was mistaken, or a liar, regarding Noah's Ark & worldwide flood. Read Luke 17:26&27. If a worldwide flood did not occur, why did Jesus refer to it as if it did? Read John 5:46&47. If Jesus & moses were mistaken on matters of history, why should we trust them about spiritual truth? Well played. I guess I can't blame you for this reasoning, for I would probably done the same if I were you. But if you remember, I originally was only applying this to scientific arguments from the perspective of when I was an agnostic. And I put in a disclaimer '...if we were to rely on scientific evidence alone', implying that the Bible gave me additional information to help decide.But you are right, we can go on arguing endlessly, as everything is seemingly open to debate, and our beliefs seem to be just as arbitarily decided by a coin, as by reason. I really don't know where we can go on from here. I guess we would need a foundation, a yard stick, something which we both agree on to act as an judge on who is right. I thought our shared beleif in God's inerrant word would suffice, but it looks like the matter has come down to debating whether Genesis is metaphorical or Historical.I could continue to debate the OP along the line 'I believe YEC is clearly implied in Bible because....', if you think that it would still be relevant, or unless that particular debate already exists on another thread?Edited by Minority Report, : Re-phrasing question.