Your tooth fairy not mine

@divegeester said
So when at the top of the page, you said:

”Where have you seen me argue for a young Earth in this, or anywhere for that matter?”

You must have been being dishonest. How else would several diverse posters here remember that you believed it?

Perhaps a better thing to do would have been to firstly admit that you DO in fact believe that the earth is about 6,00 ...[text shortened]... literalist), which is the key point, and then maybe say you don’t remember saying so in this forum.

I don't agree that there is necessarily dishonesty involved. Taking something on faith, without argument, is a valid position. It's called "fideism." I don't argue with fidesists because there's no point in it; fideists don't believe what they believe based on arguments anyway, so no argument is likely to get them to abandon their worldview. Fideists are impervious to logic and evidence; either one shares their worldview or one doesn't, but there's nothing to argue there.

@kellyjay said
Yes, I had to change my mind years ago, I even argued for it but had to change my mind after some study of scripture. As scripture starts by saying, "In the beginning God..." that does not set down a marker of time that we can then go on say meant day one when God starts working on the rest of the universe, it is an indefinite amount of time, so now, I don't know it the true answer.

Fair enough.

@kellyjay said
Yes, I had to change my mind years ago, I even argued for it but had to change my mind after some study of scripture. As scripture starts by saying, "In the beginning God..." that does not set down a marker of time that we can then go on say meant day one when God starts working on the rest of the universe, it is an indefinite amount of time, so now, I don't know it the true answer.

"Years ago"? You were still trotting out the YEC line in 2022.

@moonbus said
I don't agree that there is necessarily dishonesty involved. Taking something on faith, without argument, is a valid position. It's called "fideism." I don't argue with fidesists because there's no point in it; fideists don't believe what they believe based on arguments anyway, so no argument is likely to get them to abandon their worldview. Fideists are impervious to logic and evidence; either one shares their worldview or one doesn't, but there's nothing to argue there.

I was referring to KellyJay pretending that he hadn’t mentioned in this forum that he was a YEC, not the doctrine of YEC itself.

@fmf said
"Years ago"? You were still trotting out the YEC line in 2022.

My point exactly.

@divegeester said
I was referring to KellyJay pretending that he hadn’t mentioned in this forum that he was a YEC, not the doctrine of YEC itself.

Yes, but I'm referring to whether he has ever presented an argument for it. I don't think he has. I think he believes it without argument or evidence, and he says he can't prove it. That's a fideist, in my opinion.

@moonbus said
Yes, but I'm referring to whether he has ever presented an argument for it. I don't think he has. I think he believes it without argument or evidence, and he says he can't prove it. That's a fideist, in my opinion.

There is no argument for it, other than a literal interpretation of certain Biblical verses. Which is KJ’s argument I suppose.

But as ghost of a Duke says, as Rajk999 will say (and has done on many occasions, as FMF says and as I say and as KellyJay has (since the post in question) acknowledged in this very thread… he has in the past stated that he is a YEC.

So my point about about his honesty top of the page, stands.

@moonbus said
I don't agree that there is necessarily dishonesty involved. Taking something on faith, without argument, is a valid position. It's called "fideism." I don't argue with fidesists because there's no point in it; fideists don't believe what they believe based on arguments anyway, so no argument is likely to get them to abandon their worldview. Fideists are impervious to logic and evidence; either one shares their worldview or one doesn't, but there's nothing to argue there.

Faith comes from fidelity, taking something and believing it is trustworthy. That is not a matter of blind loyalty to someone or something.

@moonbus said
Yes, but I'm referring to whether he has ever presented an argument for it.

"The fact that the Earth is 4,500 years old can be deduced from a careful reading of the text of the Bible which is self-evidently true because of its divine source".

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I'm going to take you back to the snooker table. When a new game begins and the cue ball smashes into the reds (played by a poor snooker player) will the balls end up in exactly the same places they did in the previous game? Why not? It was the same player breaking off using a similar amount of power, played on the same table?

No doubt a ball or two will end up in ...[text shortened]... niverse is different from the one that proceeded it, even if it is constructed from the same matter.

Stop trying to snooker me, and let me take you back to your eternal repetitive universe, one where the amount of matter is not infinite. Exact repetition is not only possible, it's a must. After all possible combinations of the limited amount of matter is exhausted, with an infinite amount of repetitions it will all be repeated, over and over and over....... in eternity. Perhaps Deja Vu occurs in us as an indication of precise and identical repetition(s)? Maybe! Maybe not.

Are there not instances where chess games played by different chess players are identical in moves throughout the entire game, a "completely repeated game?" If there are an infinite amount of games played, repetition cannot be helped due to the limited number of chess pieces, and a limited board of limited squares to move from, in and out.

That's my opinion, one given from the standpoint of a limited brain, limited knowledge, and limited time. It's all in my mind, I suppose.

@fmf said
"Years ago"? You were still trotting out the YEC line in 2022.

Did you buy into the YEC when you were a faithful believer?

@pettytalk said
Stop trying to snooker me, and let me take you back to your eternal repetitive universe, one where the amount of matter is not infinite. Exact repetition is not only possible, it's a must. After all possible combinations of the limited amount of matter is exhausted, with an infinite amount of repetitions it will all be repeated, over and over and over....... in eternity. P ...[text shortened]... standpoint of a limited brain, limited knowledge, and limited time. It's all in my mind, I suppose.

It's the butterfly effect. The universe (following a Big Crunch) would never be the same as the one that proceeded it as just one slight change in variables would ripple across the entire universe.

We still have a lot to learn about dark matter and the significant role it will play in bringing to an end the expansion of the universe and the start of its collapse.

And you are just going to confuse yourself further talking about chess and limitations. (The total number of chess positions after just 7 moves is 3,284,294,545, so imagine how many there are in a full game).

@fmf said
"The fact that the Earth is 4,500 years old can be deduced from a careful reading of the text of the Bible which is self-evidently true because of its divine source".

You can't deduce your way out of a clear plastic bag with a big red exit sign in it.

it's written that with the Lord a day is as a thousand years. If the Lord took 6 of his days to create everything, that's 6,000 right there. Then we add another day of rest, and it's 7,000 now. Then we do the genealogy addition, which adds another approximate 6,000 years. It's more like 13,000 years, plus an estimated 4.5 billions of years, to keep science in the loop of an eternal repetitive universe.

Revelation's mention of a new earth and a new heaven could be adducing to the coming Big Crunch, and another quickly following Big Bang?

"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

@fmf said
"The fact that the Earth is 4,500 years old can be deduced from a careful reading of the text of the Bible which is self-evidently true because of its divine source".

That's not an argument, because it's not a fact that the earth is 4,500 years old, nor is there any credible empirical evidence that the earth is only about 4,500 years old. That's dogma, based on faith without argument. To have an argument, you have to present at least some prima facie empirical evidence, not cite a bronze age myth.

@pettytalk said
Stop trying to snooker me, and let me take you back to your eternal repetitive universe, one where the amount of matter is not infinite. Exact repetition is not only possible, it's a must. After all possible combinations of the limited amount of matter is exhausted, with an infinite amount of repetitions it will all be repeated, over and over and over....... in eternity. P ...[text shortened]... haps Deja Vu occurs in us as an indication of precise and identical repetition(s)? Maybe! Maybe not.

Matter isn't limited. The eternal universe isn't repetitive.