Evidence For A Young Earth

"Dr." Brad Harrub debunked
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUlvuR6revn_TGeky1wHtyf9cuwifx5oE

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"Dr." Brad Harrub debunked
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUlvuR6revn_TGeky1wHtyf9cuwifx5oE

These appear like debunking strawmen to me. None of this so-called debunking has anything to do with disproving YEC.

Originally posted by RJHinds
These appear like debunking strawmen to me. None of this so-called debunking has anything to do with disproving YEC.

"These appear like debunking strawmen to me"
you don't understand or do not wish to understand any of it. why would it be a surprise to anyone?

"none"
"so-called"

Where is the debunking of the following?

Fossils in Layers Made By Mt. St. Helens

YouTube

Geo-Blunder: No "Millions of Years"! (Dr. Steven Austin)

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Where is the debunking of the following?

Fossils in Layers Made By Mt. St. Helens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wR7jg0UQ14

Geo-Blunder: No "Millions of Years"! (Dr. Steven Austin)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsvVMjsnDVU

"dr"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"dr"

"Dr" is a title of respect that one has earned by high acheivement in any field of academics related to the arts and sciences that is recognized by an institute of higher learning.

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLQdd-JURjE

I looked at this video up to 11:38. The only passage of the Bible I have heard so far is a portion of Genesis 1:1 -

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Its interesting. But so far all that I could say is infallibly true is Genesis 1:1.

Is he going to provide a verse for the date of when " the beginning " was on our calenders ?

At 16:42 he goes on to quote more of the first chapter.

I am now up to 22:18 and he has gone on to discuss Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 14.

He is attempting to show the illogic of Day Age and acceptance of a Big Bang theory.

I would like to ask him a question now, and you RJHinds.

Genesis 8:20-21 speaks of the time immediately after the flood of Noah.

"And Noah built an altar to Jehovah and took of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

And Jehovah smelled the satisfying fragrance; and Jehovah said in His heart, I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I ever again smite everything living as I have done."

Do you know what chemicals were in that smoke that ascended up to the air that God found so pleasing a fragrance ?

Can you tell me about how high that smoke went up to the sky before Jehovah could smell the "satisfying fragrance" ?

Originally posted by sonship
I looked at this video up to 11:38. The only passage of the Bible I have heard so far is a portion of Genesis 1:1 -

[b]"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Its interesting. But so far all that I could say is infallibly true is Genesis 1:1.

Is he going to provide a verse for the date of when " the beginning " was on our calenders ?[/b]

No. His purpose is not to provide the exact date of the creation of the earth. His purpose is to show evidence from science that shows the earth is young and not billions of years old as some scientists, like Hugh Ross, would have you believe.

Originally posted by sonship
At 16:42 he goes on to quote more of the first chapter.

I am now up to 22:18 and he has gone on to discuss Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 14.

He is attempting to show the illogic of Day Age and acceptance of a Big Bang theory.

I would like to ask him a question now, and you RJHinds.

[b]Genesis 8:20-21 speaks of the time immediately after the fl ...[text shortened]... igh that smoke went up to the sky before Jehovah could smell the "satisfying fragrance" ?[/b]

No. That is not relevant to the point of the video.

Now he is on Romans 1:20. This is suppose to prove a specific century or decade that God created the universe ?

I would like to know exactly what chemicals in the smoke of Genesis 8:21 that He found so a "satisfying fragrance."

Would it not due then according to hyper literalism to make some incense out of those chemicals ?

You see you get into nonsensical things in not realizing that some poetic license it being used by the Holy Spirit probably, in a number of utterances in Genesis.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. That is not relevant to the point of the video.

I take that to mean "No" you cannot tell me what chemicals were pleasing to God's nostrils or how high they had to go.

It is relevant to whether a hyper literal interpretation should govern every passage we read in Genesis.

Thou dodgests the issue.

Originally posted by RJHinds

No. His purpose is not to provide the exact date of the creation of the earth.

Then why insist that it has to be 6,000 years ago ?

His purpose is to show evidence from science that shows the earth is young and not billions of years old as some scientists, like Hugh Ross, would have you believe.

I did not find his discussion of tree stumps in mud at Mt. Saint Helens or somewhere else prove a young universe of not much more than 6,000 years.

Even if he has something of a case with layers laid down around trees, it still doesn't insist on a 6,000 year old universe.

Ross may be partially right about some cosmology and partially wrong.
So your man also could be partially with valid observations and partially incorrect.

I know you see "red meat" when he starts talking about these things, but there is no reason to jump to a conclusion that he is infallible as the Scripture themselves.

Originally posted by sonship

No. His purpose is not to provide the exact date of the creation of the earth.

Then why insist that it has to be 6,000 years ago ?

His purpose is to show evidence from science that shows the earth is young and not billions of years old as some scientists, like Hugh Ross, would have you believe.

I did not fin ...[text shortened]... ut there is no reason to jump to a conclusion that he is infallible as the Scripture themselves.

I did not say this man was infallible as the scripture, however he submitted some information from science that supports the scripture in my opinion.

But why do you refuse to treat the following portions of scripture as infallible?

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

(Genesis 1:31; 2:1-3 NASB)

This fact was important enough to God that He included a reference to it in His ten commmandments to the children of Israel as follows:

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

(Exodus 20:8-11 NASB

The heavens and earth were made in six days, not in billions of years, according to this command from God.