The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material … So the next time an evolutionist claims to have the “data to prove something,” ask him to set up a lab and show you”
Dismissing the age issue is hyperbole at best. Since evolution requires lots of time … it’s kind of obvious that the time elapsed is not irrelevant.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The linked post seems to understand the young earth argument like this:
If A (earth millions of years old) then B (evolution possible)
Not A (earth much younger)
Therefore not B (evol. not possible)
He takes exception to the first premise, and rightfully so. But the young earth argument does not usually make that assertion. It doesn’t concede that given enough time evolution would be possible. It simply argues that one of the theories requirements is not met.
So the young earth argument is actually…
If not A (earth not millions of yrs old) then not B (evolution not possible)
Not A (earth much younger)
Therefore, not B (evolution not possible)
The reasoning does not reference other conditions that evolution would require or affirm that enough time would would make it possible.
It doesn’t follow that if old earth is not the only requirement for evolution, it is not a requirement at all (and therefore irrelevant)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion
NewMore
The One Thing Evolutionists Don’t Want You to Know
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewHyperbole
Dismissing the age issue is hyperbole at best. Since evolution requires lots of time … it’s kind of obvious that the time elapsed is not irrelevant.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewYoung earth argument
The linked post seems to understand the young earth argument like this:
He takes exception to the first premise, and rightfully so. But the young earth argument does not usually make that assertion. It doesn’t concede that given enough time evolution would be possible. It simply argues that one of the theories requirements is not met.
So the young earth argument is actually…
The reasoning does not reference other conditions that evolution would require or affirm that enough time would would make it possible.
It doesn’t follow that if old earth is not the only requirement for evolution, it is not a requirement at all (and therefore irrelevant)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.