Young Earth

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-29 06:01am

What exactly is it? I am sorry if this has been brought up before, but this is my last post before minimal hours of sleep. Very minimal.

Anyways, what is Young Earthing?

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-11-29 06:33am

Any theory that tries to state the Earth's age as significantly less than the 4½ billion years that is generally excepted in scientific circles.

Usually, it comes from basing the Earth's age from backwards calcualtions derived from the Bible, ending up with something around 10,000 years or less.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-29 12:26pm

Essential Young Earth types believe silly stuff like there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, not to mention believing in Noah's Ark in the first place.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-11-29 12:38pm

Is it them or the creationists who believe all dinosaurs were herbivores?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-29 12:39pm

Is it them or the creationists who believe all dinosaurs were herbivores?

I dunno, Ive never heard someone claim that before.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-11-29 03:22pm

YECs use a mix of illogic. They use outright lies claiming that an old earth was only though up of because Evolution required it (people were beginning to beilieve in an old Earth long before the time of Darwin.

They also use pseudoscience, false dilemma (If the 4.6 billion year age of the Earth isn't exactly correct, then the Earth is less than 10,000 years old), and all sort of wierd stuff.

They either ignore evidence against their theory, or claim it's all part of a massive scientific conspiracy.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-11-29 05:41pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Is it them or the creationists who believe all dinosaurs were herbivores?

I think it's the 'gapists' or Old Earth Creationists. And not just dinosaurs - before the Fall of Eve there was no death in the world, so there could have been no carnivory.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-29 06:47pm

innerbrat wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Is it them or the creationists who believe all dinosaurs were herbivores?
I think it's the 'gapists' or Old Earth Creationists. And not just dinosaurs - before the Fall of Eve there was no death in the world, so there could have been no carnivory.

Which means that they never ate. Remember eating a plant means that it is dead. And if there is no death...

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-29 08:28pm

neoolong wrote:
innerbrat wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Is it them or the creationists who believe all dinosaurs were herbivores?
I think it's the 'gapists' or Old Earth Creationists. And not just dinosaurs - before the Fall of Eve there was no death in the world, so there could have been no carnivory.
Which means that they never ate. Remember eating a plant means that it is dead. And if there is no death...

innerbrat: *bite* So you're saying that ALL the animals that were supposedly in Eden were herbivorous?

neoolong: Eating a plant does not necessarily mean it's dead; only if one eats the entire thing. Sometimes, it will only be necessary for a plant to have roots left for it to survive.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-11-30 05:26am

verilon wrote: innerbrat: *bite* So you're saying that ALL the animals that were supposedly in Eden were herbivorous?

Yep. But don't worry, I've yet to hear a convincing explanation for what happened to their digestive systems, too.

But at least none of them had to grow a uterus like Eve did.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2002-11-30 01:59pm

YEC mostly covers their ears and go "La la la la la, I can't hear you" when you try to explain to them why they are wrong. You can tell that they do this because even after you show why his/her argument is faulty, he/she keeps using the same argument.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-30 02:19pm

verilon wrote:neoolong: Eating a plant does not necessarily mean it's dead; only if one eats the entire thing. Sometimes, it will only be necessary for a plant to have roots left for it to survive.

True, but I bet if you ask the food eaten will include some that will be the entire thing.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-11-30 04:17pm

Anyway, creationists ignore plants. They violate too many YEC 'proofs'.

Plus, they're not mentioned in the Bible...

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2002-11-30 08:57pm

Anyway, creationists ignore plants. They violate too many YEC 'proofs'.

Plus, they're not mentioned in the Bible...

Going by fundie thinking, then therefore ...plants do not exist!

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-11-30 10:48pm

A rebuttal:

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2002-11-30 11:41pm

Thanks innerbrat...I was wondering what the hell...because I knew one group thought of it, and I was just floored by the thought.

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-12-01 02:32am

I think this is very interesting,posts concerning plants in particular.It was plants that were created for the beautification of the earth and to also provide food for man and animals.Death is the seperation of something, either the soul from the body or the soul from God.Plants are simply an extension of the earth, the natural food.They have no significance concerning death.It's fine if you think I'm wrong.Just discussing.
As for the age of the earth, it's simply misinterpretation.The world is young, but the earth is certainly not.Many ancient civilizations hint to the time of the very beginning of civilization, these clues are certainly not widly known.Mesopotamia and others mentioned in science books are the widly known civilizations that are given more credit than they deserve.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-01 02:36am

Priesto wrote:I think this is very interesting,posts concerning plants in particular.It was plants that were created for the beautification of the earth and to also provide food for man and animals.Death is the seperation of something, either the soul from the body or the soul from God.

Only if you are making up your own definitions to fit your deluded claims.

Plants are simply an extension of the earth, the natural food.They have no significance concerning death.It's fine if you think I'm wrong.Just discussing.

They still die, thus they have a significance of death.

As for the age of the earth, it's simply misinterpretation.The world is young, but the earth is certainly not.Many ancient civilizations hint to the time of the very beginning of civilization, these clues are certainly not widly known.Mesopotamia and others mentioned in science books are the widly known civilizations that are given more credit than they deserve.

Right, and they are given more credit than they deserve how? And you can prove this how? Oh wait, you're just living up to your title.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-01 02:51am

Priesto. We meet again. How are plants an "extension" of Earth if they are living beings? Living beings are not an extension of anything except their own lineage. If that is the case, then, we could technically be called an "extension of the Earth."

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-01 03:00am

verilon wrote:Priesto. We meet again. How are plants an "extension" of Earth if they are living beings? Living beings are not an extension of anything except their own lineage. If that is the case, then, we could technically be called an "extension of the Earth."

Me thinks the moron has been watching to much Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-01 03:02am

neoolong wrote:
verilon wrote:Priesto. We meet again. How are plants an "extension" of Earth if they are living beings? Living beings are not an extension of anything except their own lineage. If that is the case, then, we could technically be called an "extension of the Earth."
Me thinks the moron has been watching to much Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

heh heh.....I have yet to see that movie, or to play anything past FF2...(btw, I finally got to play it two nights ago....two hours, and only 3 minutes of game play...grr!)

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2002-12-01 03:58am

Priesto wrote:I think this is very interesting,posts concerning plants in particular.It was plants that were created for the beautification of the earth and to also provide food for man and animals.Death is the seperation of something, either the soul from the body or the soul from God.Plants are simply an extension of the earth, the natural food.They have no significance concerning death.It's fine if you think I'm wrong.Just discussing.
As for the age of the earth, it's simply misinterpretation.The world is young, but the earth is certainly not.Many ancient civilizations hint to the time of the very beginning of civilization, these clues are certainly not widly known.Mesopotamia and others mentioned in science books are the widly known civilizations that are given more credit than they deserve.

Sheeit, is this guy for real? Actually, nevermind he is. It's just that this is so funny it seemed almost like it was written to mock creationists. But it's also 2:00 AM and I haven't seen sleep since 7:45 AM yesterday.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-01 04:00am

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
Priesto wrote:I think this is very interesting,posts concerning plants in particular.It was plants that were created for the beautification of the earth and to also provide food for man and animals.Death is the seperation of something, either the soul from the body or the soul from God.Plants are simply an extension of the earth, the natural food.They have no significance concerning death.It's fine if you think I'm wrong.Just discussing.
As for the age of the earth, it's simply misinterpretation.The world is young, but the earth is certainly not.Many ancient civilizations hint to the time of the very beginning of civilization, these clues are certainly not widly known.Mesopotamia and others mentioned in science books are the widly known civilizations that are given more credit than they deserve.
Sheeit, is this guy for real? Actually, nevermind he is. It's just that this is so funny it seemed almost like it was written to mock creationists. But it's also 2:00 AM and I haven't seen sleep since 7:45 AM yesterday.

And now you know why I have my title.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-12-01 04:02am

verilon wrote:
GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
Priesto wrote:I think this is very interesting,posts concerning plants in particular.It was plants that were created for the beautification of the earth and to also provide food for man and animals.Death is the seperation of something, either the soul from the body or the soul from God.Plants are simply an extension of the earth, the natural food.They have no significance concerning death.It's fine if you think I'm wrong.Just discussing.
As for the age of the earth, it's simply misinterpretation.The world is young, but the earth is certainly not.Many ancient civilizations hint to the time of the very beginning of civilization, these clues are certainly not widly known.Mesopotamia and others mentioned in science books are the widly known civilizations that are given more credit than they deserve.
Sheeit, is this guy for real? Actually, nevermind he is. It's just that this is so funny it seemed almost like it was written to mock creationists. But it's also 2:00 AM and I haven't seen sleep since 7:45 AM yesterday.
And now you know why I have my title.

And why Priesto has his.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-12-01 04:10am

Priesto wrote:I think this is very interesting,posts concerning plants in particular.It was plants that were created for the beautification of the earth and to also provide food for man and animals.Death is the seperation of something, either the soul from the body or the soul from God.Plants are simply an extension of the earth, the natural food.They have no significance concerning death.It's fine if you think I'm wrong.Just discussing.
As for the age of the earth, it's simply misinterpretation.The world is young, but the earth is certainly not.Many ancient civilizations hint to the time of the very beginning of civilization, these clues are certainly not widly known.Mesopotamia and others mentioned in science books are the widly known civilizations that are given more credit than they deserve.

??????????

Priesto, you need to work on your presentation skills.