The impossibilities of YEC

[aefting]

Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. (Gen. 2:7 ESV)

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." (Gen. 2:21-23 ESV)

OK, but these verses do not describe a normal childbirth; they describe the creation of Adam and Eve by the direct act of God. Furthermore, the Bible refers to both man (Gen. 2:7) and animals (Gen. 2:19) as living creatures (or souls, the Hebrew is nephesh). The main distinction, as you noted, was that man was made in the image of God. How would Adam’s parents be different in any significant way from Adam? Why would we not consider them to be made in the image of God? Would it have been wrong to murder Adam’s parents (cf., Gen. 9:6)?

Andy

 

[Meatros]

OK, but these verses do not describe a normal childbirth; they describe the creation of Adam and Eve by the direct act of God. Furthermore, the Bible refers to both man (Gen. 2:7) and animals (Gen. 2:19) as living creatures (or souls, the Hebrew is nephesh). The main distinction, as you noted, was that man was made in the image of God. How would Adam’s parents be different in any significant way from Adam? Why would we not consider them to be made in the image of God? Would it have been wrong to murder Adam’s parents (cf., Gen. 9:6)?

While this is an interesting question, I do believe that we are getting side tracked from the original focus of this thread.

Adam's parents, if real, could have not had intelligence, and thus been different. Seeing as Genesis isn't written in a scientific or historical manner, I don't think the question is all that important. I think the message of Genesis is vastily more important.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
The scientific "facts" indicate that if the earth was 6k-10k years old, there would be no life on it (perhaps simple-celled organisms). If you prefer to be intellectually dishonest in the face of the evidence, that's your choice.

The scientific "facts" indicate no such thing. What you refer to as facts are nothing more than interpretations of the evidence. In your case, the premise for that interpretation is that all things we now see have a strictly and purely naturalistic explaination in the past. It is intellectually dishonest to call something that is simultaneously unobserved and unrepeatable, scientific fact.

Evolution is a system that attempts to explain what exists without relying on a supernatural force to get us here.

Elsewhere you said:

God could have created the earth in however many days God chose,

Your admission that "God could have" done as the Bible and creationists say He did reduces this debate to a philosophical, not scientific, one. The creative acts of God can by your own admission, albeit indirect, explain everything in nature once you stipulate the possibility that God was a direct Creator.

In the past, science has scoffed a "God in the gaps." Now, faced with folks who explain what we see in terms that still allow for a directly creative God, you reintroduce the idea that God could have but you don't believe He did.

the fact though is, he didn't create the world 6-10k years ago.

So your philosophical viewpoint is that an omnipotent, omniscient Creator could have created the earth in a way consistent with a literal interpretation of His infallible Word but since the fallible, limited intellectual opinions of some men say He didn't- He must not have?

God obviously works within the natural laws God created. Therefore, unless God is lieing about the evidence God created, the earth is actually quite old.

You are attempting to use the fallacy of limited alternatives. There is a third possibility that would be the one of my choosing: God established the natural laws as He created the universe and what you would term as a "lie" by God about the evidence is nothing more nor less than a failure by fallen, fallible men to accurately interpret the "evidence God created."

God's evidence of the resurrection was an empty tomb. The fact that many claimed/believed that Christ was stolen by His followers does not make God a liar. It made those men both scientifically and spiritually wrong.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
Seeing as Genesis isn't written in a scientific or historical manner, I don't think the question is all that important. I think the message of Genesis is vastily more important.

This is a notion not proven nor stipulated. I would be interested in what evidence you can show that demonstrates that any biblical writer considered Genesis anything less than historical. Again, I would argue that it is a philosophical presupposition that requires this conclusion and not an incontrovertible proof.

 

[Meatros]

Let's look at your attempt to steer away from facts and evidence shall we:

The scientific "facts" indicate no such thing. What you refer to as facts are nothing more than interpretations of the evidence. In your case, the premise for that interpretation is that all things we now see have a strictly and purely naturalistic explaination in the past. It is intellectually dishonest to call something that is simultaneously unobserved and unrepeatable, scientific fact.

Then by all means try to reinterpret the data. Why should we absurdly assume that meteor strikes were supernatural?

Evolution is a system that attempts to explain what exists without relying on a supernatural force to get us here.

That's great, please read the thread to see what is being discussed here.

Your admission that "God could have" done as the Bible and creationists say He did reduces this debate to a philosophical, not scientific, one. The creative acts of God can by your own admission, albeit indirect, explain everything in nature once you stipulate the possibility that God was a direct Creator.

Um, did you read what I was responding to? All the evidence indicates an old earth.

In the past, science has scoffed a "God in the gaps." Now, faced with folks who explain what we see in terms that still allow for a directly creative God, you reintroduce the idea that God could have but you don't believe He did.

I hate to burst your bubble, but to me their exists two different magistras operating here. One is a philosophical/religious magistra the other is the scientific magistra. I do not interpret Genesis literally, therefore I do not have to be intellectually dishonest with my faith.

So your philosophical viewpoint is that an omnipotent, omniscient Creator could have created the earth in a way consistent with a literal interpretation of His infallible Word but since the fallible, limited intellectual opinions of some men say He didn't- He must not have?

Nice rhetoric. Again, divorce yourself of the idea that I take Genesis literally, I don't, I don't think anyone who is intellectually honest can. The scripture contradicts itself and requires logical leaps in order to be taken literally.

You are attempting to use the fallacy of limited alternatives. There is a third possibility that would be the one of my choosing: God established the natural laws as He created the universe and what you would term as a "lie" by God about the evidence is nothing more nor less than a failure by fallen, fallible men to accurately interpret the "evidence God created."

Yeah, um...riiigghhhttt. Can you provide any support that science has been severly misdirected for the past several centuries.

Or let's here you reinterpret the evidence for all the meteors that have crashed into this planet.

God's evidence of the resurrection was an empty tomb. The fact that many claimed/believed that Christ was stolen by His followers does not make God a liar. It made those men both scientifically and spiritually wrong.

Funny, no one is debating this issue in this thread. Nice strawman, try to stick to the actual issues instead of creating strawmen to valiantly destroy.

 

[Meatros]

This is a notion not proven nor stipulated. I would be interested in what evidence you can show that demonstrates that any biblical writer considered Genesis anything less than historical. Again, I would argue that it is a philosophical presupposition that requires this conclusion and not an incontrovertible proof.

Would you care to demonstrate how plants can live without the sun?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Meatros:
Would you care to demonstrate how plants can live without the sun?

I knew a guy in HS who grew pot in his closet by a lamp with a special bulb. Was God a lamp with a special bulb? He is an infinite God with infinite power that our puny minds can't begin to fathom.

Would you care to demonstrate how God raised His Son from the dead? Your salvation is based on this belief correct?

You must believe God is limited in His power.

[ June 19, 2003, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: john6:63 ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
Let's look at your attempt to steer away from facts and evidence shall we:

I am not steering away from facts nor evidence. You presented your opinionated conclusions about unidentified facts and evidence. I am engaging you on that level.

Then by all means try to reinterpret the data. Why should we absurdly assume that meteor strikes were supernatural?

There are a number of facets of my answer to this.

First, we should make such an assumption by the same reason that we assume that there is a heaven designed and created by God and that the resurrection and miracles were supernatural.

Second, I am not making any assumptions, absurd or otherwise. I am saying that you nor those whose explainations of this evidence your have adopted were witnesses to the events. I am saying that the conclusions you claim are fallible due to the limitations of the minds from which they originated. I am saying that human concepts of time, space, and matter do not limit God. I am saying that God does what He does for His own sovereign reasons by His own perfect will... man's freedom to misinterpret God's actions notwithstanding.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Evolution is a system that attempts to explain what exists without relying on a supernatural force to get us here.

That's great, please read the thread to see what is being discussed here.</font>[/QUOTE] No need. By this statement, I am simply establishing that evolution is premised on philosophical predispositions, not hard scientific fact.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Your admission that "God could have" done as the Bible and creationists say He did reduces this debate to a philosophical, not scientific, one. The creative acts of God can by your own admission, albeit indirect, explain everything in nature once you stipulate the possibility that God was a direct Creator.

Um, did you read what I was responding to? All the evidence indicates an old earth.</font>[/QUOTE] With all due respect, this is an interpretive opinion, not a reliable, provable scientific fact. If God "could" do something you cannot summararily dismiss explainations of how He did it without evidence that is not open to interpretation or bias.

I hate to burst your bubble, but to me their exists two different magistras operating here. One is a philosophical/religious magistra the other is the scientific magistra.

You have not burst my bubble. You are simply denying reality. These two are not mutually exclusive with regard to evolution. Evolution is not testable, not repeatable, not observable, and not the exclusively valid explaination for origins. It is at its core philosophical, not scientific.

I do not interpret Genesis literally,...

Your acceptance or rejection of Genesis, again, is philosophical and has absolutely nothing to do with whether creation occurred in a way consistent with a literal interpretation. You are not dealing in the realm of fact. You have accepted opinions as fact and argue from that premise.

... therefore I do not have to be intellectually dishonest with my faith.

I couldn't disagree more. You have already demonstrated intellectual dishonesty by claiming that anyone who disagrees with your interpretations makes God a liar.

Having no more information on what your "faith" actually is, I couldn't go any further on your side but I suspect that your insenuation is that YECreationists are intellectually dishonest. I would reject that as well. Searching for theories of how creation was performed with respect to natural science while accepting the premise of an active, direct creator is no less valid than searching for answers while denying this same premise. In either case, the philosophical starting point goes a long way towards limiting what can be acknowledged as a viable option.

Operating under my beliefs on sotierology, evolution negates original sin and therefore the need for a Savior. Paul's explaination takes more faith than YEC as it is not proven by scripture, science, nor history. It is an assumption based on a presupposition. How can you say that this is more intellectually honest than accepting that because God could do something and said He did it... He did it?

Nice rhetoric. Again, divorce yourself of the idea that I take Genesis literally, I don't, I don't think anyone who is intellectually honest can.

That is an philosophical opinion not based in fact of any kind. Your rejection of a literal Genesis is by no means authoritative or conclusive. You seem to be the one now intent on steering the conversation away from the weaknesses in your position. Your presuppositions are philosophical and they do not limit science nor religion for anyone but you. In my opinion, you are simply denying these realities for convenience sake.

The scripture contradicts itself and requires logical leaps in order to be taken literally.

The scripture does not have unexplainable contradictions (the logical leaps you suppose). In my opinion, any form of evolution requires far more extreme leaps of logic whether dealing with the scientific or philosophical aspect.

Can you provide any support that science has been severly misdirected for the past several centuries.

How long did popular science say that Mt. St. Helens' ecosystem would take to recover? Compare to how long it did. How many fraudulent and misinterpretted "human ancestors" have been discovered and discredited within the secular scientific community itself? How many different estimates have been forwarded as scientific fact? How about that very simple black box that Darwin conjectured?

There are numerous examples where science has catagorically declared something true then found it to be false. You don't even need the creationists to find numerous examples.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />God's evidence of the resurrection was an empty tomb. The fact that many claimed/believed that Christ was stolen by His followers does not make God a liar. It made those men both scientifically and spiritually wrong.

Funny, no one is debating this issue in this thread. Nice strawman, try to stick to the actual issues instead of creating strawmen to valiantly destroy. </font>[/QUOTE]Not a straw man at all. It is simply a very valid demonstration that man's rejecting something supernatural based on a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence does not make God a liar.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
Would you care to demonstrate how plants can live without the sun?

I know of no plant that cannot survive without sun for several days. The northern dark winters demonstrate that some plants can survive for months without direct sunlight. Do you need further demonstrations or more specific illustrations?

 

[Meatros]

I knew a guy in HS who grew pot in his closet by a lamp with a special bulb. Was God a lamp with a special bulb? He is an infinite God with infinite power that our puny minds can't begine to fathom.

Would you care to demonstrate how God raised His Son from the dead? Your salvation is based on this belief correct?

You must believe God is limited in His power.

Oh please, spare me your 'holier then thou' attitude.

 

[john6:63]

This is a moot point anyway since God created plants on day 3 and the sun on day 4; plants can very easily survive a 24-hr period, as demonstrated by Scott J.

Under the millions of years to create theory. I’d like to know how did Adam, being created on day 6, only live to be 930 yrs old? Under the millions of year’s theory, Adam should be millions of years old. Somewhere, someone goofed. I’m betting my marbles on science.

 

[Meatros]

I am not steering away from facts nor evidence. You presented your opinionated conclusions about unidentified facts and evidence. I am engaging you on that level.

I have provided links to the evidence in other threads. I suppose I could have put them in this thread as well, but I honestly didn't think that anyone unfamilar with the evidence would check this thread.

There are a number of facets of my answer to this.
First, we should make such an assumption by the same reason that we assume that there is a heaven designed and created by God and that the resurrection and miracles were supernatural.

I see, so you have biblical support for the meteor strikes? Let's see it then.

Second, I am not making any assumptions, absurd or otherwise. I am saying that you nor those whose explainations of this evidence your have adopted were witnesses to the events. I am saying that the conclusions you claim are fallible due to the limitations of the minds from which they originated. I am saying that human concepts of time, space, and matter do not limit God. I am saying that God does what He does for His own sovereign reasons by His own perfect will... man's freedom to misinterpret God's actions notwithstanding.

In other words the only way we can tell if something is true is if we actually observe something? Is this your contention?

No need. By this statement, I am simply establishing that evolution is premised on philosophical predispositions, not hard scientific fact.

As I am not arguing evolution in this thread, I'm going to completely disregard this comment.

With all due respect, this is an interpretive opinion, not a reliable, provable scientific fact. If God "could" do something you cannot summararily dismiss explainations of how He did it without evidence that is not open to interpretation or bias.

You can handwave it away all you want, that doesn't make you correct.

You have not burst my bubble. You are simply denying reality. These two are not mutually exclusive with regard to evolution. Evolution is not testable, not repeatable, not observable, and not the exclusively valid explaination for origins. It is at its core philosophical, not scientific.

Again I'm going to ignore you completely false assertions on evolution and wonder why you still insist in arguing it in this thread, which is not about evolution.

Your acceptance or rejection of Genesis, again, is philosophical and has absolutely nothing to do with whether creation occurred in a way consistent with a literal interpretation. You are not dealing in the realm of fact. You have accepted opinions as fact and argue from that premise.

I am dealing in the realm of "fact", you are trying to bait me into a philosophical argument by disagreeing with what is commonly known as scientific fact. I notice that you haven't provided an ounce of support behind the assertion that the meteor craters are not "facts". You simply handwave it away.

I couldn't disagree more. You have already demonstrated intellectual dishonesty by claiming that anyone who disagrees with your interpretations makes God a liar.

How is that intellectual dishonest? If you accept a young earth then you have to dismiss all the evidence to the contrary. This thread is PRECISELY about one piece of evidence, the life ending meteors that have hit earth over the years. Instead of dealing with this issue you appear to want to side track it.

Having no more information on what your "faith" actually is, I couldn't go any further on your side but I suspect that your insenuation is that YECreationists are intellectually dishonest. I would reject that as well. Searching for theories of how creation was performed with respect to natural science while accepting the premise of an active, direct creator is no less valid than searching for answers while denying this same premise. In either case, the philosophical starting point goes a long way towards limiting what can be acknowledged as a viable option.

Again you are trying to side track the issue.

Operating under my beliefs on sotierology, evolution negates original sin and therefore the need for a Savior. Paul's explaination takes more faith than YEC as it is not proven by scripture, science, nor history. It is an assumption based on a presupposition. How can you say that this is more intellectually honest than accepting that because God could do something and said He did it... He did it?

Again, what does this have to do with this thread?

That is an philosophical opinion not based in fact of any kind. Your rejection of a literal Genesis is by no means authoritative or conclusive. You seem to be the one now intent on steering the conversation away from the weaknesses in your position. Your presuppositions are philosophical and they do not limit science nor religion for anyone but you. In my opinion, you are simply denying these realities for convenience sake.

Handwave it away all you'd like. But refute it, you can't.
You are creating a strawman out of my position and out of science. My opinion on Genesis isn't really relevent to this thread, as I'm dealing with facts and science.

The scripture does not have unexplainable contradictions (the logical leaps you suppose). In my opinion, any form of evolution requires far more extreme leaps of logic whether dealing with the scientific or philosophical aspect.

Good for you, again I'm not arguing evolution in this thread. What you are doing is trying to argue evolution in this thread, thereby absolving you of actually tackling the issue at hand. Can you explain the meteors or are you content with handwaving them away?

I know of no plant that cannot survive without sun for several days. The northern dark winters demonstrate that some plants can survive for months without direct sunlight. Do you need further demonstrations or more specific illustrations?

Yes I do. What does "without direct sunlight" mean? Does this mean they get the benefit of the moon's light? Also, without the sun you have to remember that the temperature on earth gets a little bit colder then that of the north.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I knew a guy in HS who grew pot in his closet by a lamp with a special bulb. Was God a lamp with a special bulb? He is an infinite God with infinite power that our puny minds can't begine to fathom.

Would you care to demonstrate how God raised His Son from the dead? Your salvation is based on this belief correct?

You must believe God is limited in His power.

Oh please, spare me your 'holier then thou' attitude. </font>[/QUOTE]Why do you jump to this conclusion rather than dealing with the objection?

By what naturalistic means is God limited? What is your proof of that limitation?

I don't assume that you believe that God is limited in His power but you have certainly limited His options by stating definitively that God did not do what Genesis says.

 

[Meatros]

This is a moot point anyway since God created plants on day 3 and the sun on day 4; plants can very easily survive a 24-hr period, as demonstrated by Scott J.

Funny how you just rush to accept his flimsy point. Keep in mind that there was no moon, and you still have the "heat" problem to contend with.

Under the millions of years to create theory. I’d like to know how did Adam, being created on day 6, only live to be 930 yrs old? Under the millions of year’s theory, Adam should be millions of years old. Somewhere, someone goofed. I’m betting my marbles on science.

First it's a few billion, second seeing as I don't take genesis literally, why do you continue in your effort to try to force me to try to explain Adam living to 930 years?

 

[Meatros]

Why do you jump to this conclusion rather than dealing with the objection?

We've discussed this in other threads.

By what naturalistic means is God limited? What is your proof of that limitation?

I see, so now you are going to assume that I believe God is limited.

I don't assume that you believe that God is limited in His power but you have certainly limited His options by stating definitively that God did not do what Genesis says.

Seems like you just did.

Why am I limiting his options? God created the natural laws. If God is not operating under natural laws and has given the earth the "appearance of age", then I have to wonder why God would be deceitful.

 

[Meatros]

Here are a few sources for the meteor impacts:
Impact Database
Vredefort
Terrestrial Impacts
The Cambridge Conference
Hubble telescope site
Vredefort description
KT boundary
Radar revels killer crater
Yet another meteor
Gravity measurements over the Chicxulub crater

I'm sure I could go on, but I get the distinct feeling that you are going to handwave them all away.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There are a number of facets of my answer to this.
First, we should make such an assumption by the same reason that we assume that there is a heaven designed and created by God and that the resurrection and miracles were supernatural.

I see, so you have biblical support for the meteor strikes? Let's see it then.</font>[/QUOTE] No. I am arguing that there is biblical support for the conclusion that "In the beginning God created..." followed by a timed account of that creation given in a manner that is not allegorical in nature nor assumed allegorical by other writers of scripture.

I am not arguing mechanics since events can be explained in all sorts of highly improbable but none the less possible ways. I am arguing presuppositions and their bearing on what you regard to be "fact" in this case and others.

In other words the only way we can tell if something is true is if we actually observe something? Is this your contention?

No. I am saying that you can only say something unobserved is absolutely true if it is provable to the exclusion of all other options.

You cannot demonstrate that what you observe as a meteor strike is not some other act of God that resembles a meteor strike. Perhaps it is simply the detail that God created from the beginning without the use of meteors.

If you acknowledge an omnipotent God then you cannot discount these possibilities even if you think their probability is remote.

If you cannot disprove all possibilities that do not contradict God's direct creation of the earth in six days then your premise that YEC is impossible fails.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No need. By this statement, I am simply establishing that evolution is premised on philosophical predispositions, not hard scientific fact.

As I am not arguing evolution in this thread, I'm going to completely disregard this comment.</font>[/QUOTE] I see. So unless those that disagree with you submit to your presuppositions while debating this issue then you will close your ears and sing "Lalalalalalalala..."?

You can handwave it away all you want, that doesn't make you correct.

Right back at you. You can claim your naturalistic presuppositions as fact all you want (handwave) but that does not make them correct.

I am dealing in the realm of "fact", you are trying to bait me into a philosophical argument by disagreeing with what is commonly known as scientific fact.

Common knowledge does not conclude a "fact". As rightly pointed out, many people in the past "commonly knew" that the earth was flat. And who says it is commonly known? If you accept an active omnipotent Creator these "commonly known" scientific facts fly out the window.

I notice that you haven't provided an ounce of support behind the assertion that the meteor craters are not "facts".

That was not my intent nor seemingly the purpose of the thread you started. You submitted that natural occurrences that appear to be meteor craters disprove YEC. I rejected your presuppositions that limit explainations because I disagree with you first and foremost on a philosophical level. We could go out and measure these craters and compare them to known craters and conjecture about their history and environmental impact all day long. You would favor explainations that agreed with your philosophical starting point and I would just as surely favor explainations that do not contradict the Genesis account of creation.

You simply handwave it away.

You continue to assert this but I am not the one who is offhandedly limiting your possible explainations nor denying the plausibility of their philosophical underpinnings- That would be you.

You said that this damage could not have been done within two days. Why? Is it physically impossible? Do you assume the same natural limitations for the world while being directly formed by God that we now see?

You said that it would raise too much dust for life to exist a few days later. However, this assumption discounts the supernatural completely and assumes to a great extent a uniformitarian model for natural history... a model that evolutionists are willing to dispense with if it becomes too inconvenient. We do not know what other completely natural forces might have been at play during this time.

I am not even drawing a conclusion that this is what occurred. I am saying that it is possible and as long as alternative explainations are possible your contention about the impossibility of YEC falls flat.

YEC is an impossibility for you, not because it is physically impossible but because it contradicts your presuppositions. Since your presuppositions are philosophical opinions and not unquestionable facts of any type, your argument fails.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Meatros:

Why am I limiting his options? God created the natural laws. If God is not operating under natural laws and has given the earth the "appearance of age", then I have to wonder why God would be deceitful.

First, God demonstrates throughout the scripture that He is not limited by natural laws.

Second, you still miss the point- purposefully I suspect. The "appearance of age" is an interpretation. Your fallible interpretation does not require God to be a liar if your interpretation is incorrect.

 

[Scott J]

Yes I do. What does "without direct sunlight" mean?

You are kidding, right? It means that there are short periods of twilight for parts of the northern winter that would be of little benefit to the plants.

Also, without the sun you have to remember that the temperature on earth gets a little bit colder then that of the north.

This presupposes that God was not directly active in the first three days of creation. Since I accept that a literal interpretation is not only possible but preferrable, I reject this fallible presupposition.

 

[Meatros]

No. I am arguing that there is biblical support for the conclusion that "In the beginning God created..." followed by a timed account of that creation given in a manner that is not allegorical in nature nor assumed allegorical by other writers of scripture.

I am not arguing mechanics since events can be explained in all sorts of highly improbable but none the less possible ways. I am arguing presuppositions and their bearing on what you regard to be "fact" in this case and others.

If you do not wish to argue what is in the OP, then by all means start a new thread.

No. I am saying that you can only say something unobserved is absolutely true if it is provable to the exclusion of all other options.

You cannot demonstrate that what you observe as a meteor strike is not some other act of God that resembles a meteor strike. Perhaps it is simply the detail that God created from the beginning without the use of meteors.

If you acknowledge an omnipotent God then you cannot discount these possibilities even if you think their probability is remote.

If you cannot disprove all possibilities that do not contradict God's direct creation of the earth in six days then your premise that YEC is impossible fails.

I see what you are saying, but in order for me to accept God creating the meteor strikes/craters for no discernable reason with no explanation, I would have also just created a deceitful God. What you are basically arguing is "God dunnit".

I see. So unless those that disagree with you submit to your presuppositions while debating this issue then you will close your ears and sing "Lalalalalalalala..."?

What I am saying is this: This forum has many other threads. Some of these thread are on the topic of evolution. This one is not. You are detracting from the topic in order to argue something completely irrelevant to the OP. Thereby creating a strawman and avoiding the issue in the OP entirely. I am asking you to start another thread about evolution.

Right back at you. You can claim your naturalistic presuppositions as fact all you want (handwave) but that does not make them correct.

Difference being, of course, is that I have evidence on my side while you have nothing.

Common knowledge does not conclude a "fact". As rightly pointed out, many people in the past "commonly knew" that the earth was flat. And who says it is commonly known? If you accept an active omnipotent Creator these "commonly known" scientific facts fly out the window.

In other words believe and do so blindly, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

That was not my intent nor seemingly the purpose of the thread you started. You submitted that natural occurrences that appear to be meteor craters disprove YEC. I rejected your presuppositions that limit explainations because I disagree with you first and foremost on a philosophical level. We could go out and measure these craters and compare them to known craters and conjecture about their history and environmental impact all day long. You would favor explainations that agreed with your philosophical starting point and I would just as surely favor explainations that do not contradict the Genesis account of creation.

Point being though is you don't even have biblical support for your disbelief. You believe what you want to believe because you assume that Genesis is literal.

You are attempting to appeal to ignorance. If you had biblical support for some of these blasts that might be something. But you are just asking us to believe that God created these craters for....what reason exactly?

You offer no evidence, either biblically or scientifically to refute my claims, you just handwave it away trying desperately to assert that it's my philosophy to accept what science is "guessing at".

Well tell me, what else could these craters be? What purpose do they serve for God?