How do you witness to a non-christian about young earth creation? If you click the video forward with a mouse click exactly 2 hours and 26 minutes (2hr:26min) in the play of the video you will find the answers....

You don't.

I'm witnessing to you right now if you die in your sins today you will go to hell and it's not my words but the words of the Bible.

Do religious nuts EVER stop with their nonsense ?! I guess to ask the question is to answer it. WTF

 @ dshlerner

 

 

Got news for  you, Shtal - it ain't gonna make ANY difference !

Shtal you are not witnessing, you are making a fool of yrself and turning people away from your god.

You will go to hell for your false witness.

@vk4

Second Peter Chapter 2
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

 

I don't think God will spare your life my dear vk4.

And it is proven that the earth is way older than the bible says it is. The bible was written in a time when the science of the earth's age was unknown, no worries thou because the next man written version will correct these mistakes with a rewrite or deletion. They will keep rewriting the bible until they get it just right. Old testament vs new testament. Night and day how they sugar coated the vindictive god to be the loving god. The earth is old and no matter how the bible thumpers try and twist it, it is what it is and that is old.

Thanks for bringing up Noah the eighth wonder of stupidity, Noah was so great he gathered animals from all over the world even though he never left his little patch and then after the flood mysteriously dispersed those animals back to their rightful habitats. An amazing fairy tale of the delusional.

@GSDAdmin

You see my dear gsdadmin, in its original form science simply meant “knowledge.” Now, the denial of supernatural events limits the depth of understanding that science can have and the types of questions science can ask. Although naturalistic science claims to be neutral and unbiased, it starts with this bias. Making a distinction between operational (observational) science and historical (origins) science helps us to understand the limitations of these naturalistic presuppositions in science. The Bible is the foundation for science. Non-Christians must borrow biblical ideas—such as an orderly universe that obeys laws—in order to do science. If naturalism were true—if nature is “all there is”—then why should the universe have such order? Without the supernatural, there is no basis for logical, orderly laws of nature.

You see my dear gsdadmin, the chemical origin of life remains the “holy grail” of evolutionists seeking to explain how life randomly emerged. Lifeless randomly interacting chemicals would have to be able to create the informational blueprint for an organism and the code to transmit that information, as well as a system for deciphering and implementing that code. Despite often-sensationalized headlines to the contrary, nothing in biology has ever been observed to do this.

The way I look things my dear gsdadmin, It is because God exists that science is possible. Think about it: the reason the universe is orderly and logical is because a logical God has imposed order on His creation. It’s because God created our minds that we are able to discover the laws of science that He created. It is helpful to distinguish between operational science and origin science, and compare how each one seeks to discover truth. Operational science uses observable, repeatable experiments to try to discover truth. Origin science relies on relics from the past and historical records to try to discover truth.

I already said this many times in the past original form science simply meant “knowledge.” When someone says today that they work in the field of science, a different picture often comes to mind. Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe.

I'm not anti-science Not at all! (like other creationist groups) affirms and supports the teaching and use of scientific methodology, and I believe this supports the biblical account of origins.

Here is something interesting for you to read:

http://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/deceitful-terms-historical-and-observational-

science/

 

Deceitful or Distinguishable Terms—Historical and Observational Science

by Troy Lacey on June 10, 2011

 
Share:

•  
•  
•  
•  

Email Using:
Gmail Yahoo! Outlook Other

Is there a legitimate distinction between historical and observational science, or are we being misleading to use those terms? Troy Lacey, AiG–U.S., explains.

 

 

As a scientist, I never encountered the terms “historical” vs. “observational” science before seeing them on your website. To my knowledge, either a field has data or doesn’t, and it is the patterns in this data that either support a hypothesis or don’t. By your definition, astronomy goes out the window as a subjective “historical” science because we can’t repeat supernovas in a lab, and it took too long for the light to hit our telescope. On your site you say, “Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable,” and therefore neither qualifies as observational science. But in recent articles, Ken is often saying that “observational science confirms that millions of years and evolution can’t be true and how the Genesis account of origins explains the evidence.” So? Which is it? Or is “historical” simply anything which contradicts and “observational” anything that supports you? I predict you won’t answer this question. That’s observational. . . .

–B.G., Canada

 

---

Hi B.G.,

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. The first recent major use of this concept, contrasting operational (observational) science with origins (historical) science, was in The Mystery of Life’s Origin (1984) by Charles Thaxton. I believe you are referring to the article, “Your Tax Dollars at Work—Indoctrination in Millions of Years,” from Ken Ham’s blog.

Not to try to frame things as a semantics debate, but there is some validity to that statement as regards your question. As you pointed out, we have stated that neither creationism nor cosmic evolution nor Darwinian biological evolution is observational science, and they are not observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable events. Therefore, we would state that you cannot “empirically prove” them. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same sets of data, the same evidence, and often the same techniques to examine their evidence. The different conclusions, therefore, must be based on presuppositions (or worldviews). I understand that the following is a simplistic example, but bear with me.

A creationist astronomer sees comets in the universe and realizes they have a limited “existence” of at most 100,000 years. He concludes that the universe must be less than 100,000 years old. A cosmic evolutionary astronomer sees the same thing but concludes there must be a constant source of comets, because he believes the universe is 13.7 billion years old. He would, of course, claim that he arrived at that date due to observational measurements of light from distant galaxies. The creationist astronomer would then hypothesize an explanation for the distant starlight problem, which the evolutionist would rebut, etc.

What we contend is that observational science has many evidences that line up with a young earth or universe but seem contradictory to an old universe. Getting back to Ken’s quote, you’ll notice that he did not say “prove” but “explains the evidence.” I realize the semantics argument creeps in here, but Ken is trying to stress that observational science exhibits evidence that corresponds to a recent creation.

Historical science (creationist or secular) by its very nature is based on a worldview i.e., religion.

• Either the universe started out as a singularity, which billions of years ago exploded and has caused an expanding universe ever since, or God created it ex nihilo.
• Either life evolved out of non-living chemicals, or aliens seeded the universe (but this only raises the question of how the aliens became alive), or God created life as described in Genesis 1–2.

Neither theory is provable (testable, repeatable, etc.). That’s why you’ll often see our articles state something like, “We trust the Word of God who was there” or “We accept God’s Word as a true testimony.”

We must be cautious, however, not to make sweeping generalizations, such as saying that secular scientists do not utilize observational science to make evolutionary models. Neither should we state that all evolutionary models are based only on historical science.

In the example of distant starlight, we see that their model is based on observational science—measurements of light and calculations of how far from earth the stars and galaxies are based on the speed of light. Creationist astronomers would rightly point out that the one way speed of light may be instantaneous, so this would nullify the billions of years light travel assumption. What we should (and I would contend that we do) point out is that even the observational science methods are flawed because of assumptions, unreliable dating methods, unwarranted speculations, etc.

For a better understanding of our viewpoint and for examples of observational science that points to a recent creation, see the article, “Evidence for a Young World.”

From a big picture, what you have set up as contradicting information is nothing of the sort. These are complementary, using the worldview as a framework to view evidences. Looking at specific evidences within this framework is indeed a confirmation of that worldview.

I hope this has been helpful.

Troy Lacey,
Answers in Genesis