Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Stuu]

We all have access to the same data. The problem is that Darwinists use their ideas as evidence. Before the discussion can reach the point out should — where ideas are tested against the data — evolutionists demand that ideas they hate be thrown out.

Ice cores, for example. Stuart demands that the Earth must be accepted as at least 800,000 years old because of his assumptions and will not consider a competing idea.

So you are asking for an idea to be taken seriously when you are claiming that 'Darwinists' insist that others consider their ideas and not evidence??

I am not demanding anything be accepted by anyone, I am appealing to what a reasonable conclusion is to draw. And the assumptions are well-stated, and they are those of Karl Popper and the usual principles of scientific investigation.

First, I haven't dismissed anything.

Good. So either you have evidence that disproves the ice cores, or else you provisionally accept the conclusion. It's not as if you have made any valid interpretations in terms of a young earth.

I ventured a few steps down the road of a conversation before you started demanding my ideas be eradicated. We got nowhere near any evidence.

Please. In our earlier conversation I spent quite a lot of time asking you what you actually believed. I realised after a while that you are very unsure about what you believe, and it looked to me like you really didn't understand what you were saying. Now sorry, but at some point that is going to fall apart, because it is not honest to sustain that halting level of strained logic to get from point to point. I can't remember where that exchange finished, but I suspect you thought that my interest in discovering your opinions was some genuine interest in the validity of your ideas. The truth was that your ideas weren't coherent enough to be convincing, and they weren't supported by any empirical evidence whatever.

Your ideas on the topic of the age of the earth are complete drivel, Stripe. They are so disproved that it is ridiculous we would even be discussing them. And that is pretty much what I was probably saying at the start of this thread. So, what are you going to do about it? Moan on and on? Fight back! Show us evidence. That is the killer stuff here, not personal tanties and other playground stuff. Be a man, and show us the might of your evidence and reasoning. Or be a man and concede that the earth is really old. No one will judge you if you do that, well not anyone whose judgement should be taken seriously.

Don't accuse me or others of wanting to eradicate your ideas. Your young earth idea was already eradicated by other people long before either you or I was even born. It hasn't been valid since Kelvin was determining the age to at least millions of years by measuring the rate of cooling of the earth in the 19th Century, and the discovery of radioactivity and its interpretation by Rutherford put the age even older.

Your move. I reckon, given your persistent whining in this thread and elsewhere, your next post should not make snide comments about anyone. It should just present some study, done by real scientists, published in real journals, that calls into question a really old earth, and supports the age of the earth at less than 10,000 years. Play them at their own game, Stripe. At least 6days sometimes gets off his chuff and does that. Of course he gets it wrong, but the effort is something.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

The problem with laughter and 'idiocy' etc. is that such cheapens one's own field and speculation and then 70% of kids watching begin to doubt. The problem is, scientists don't WANT to field those questions that are equally important or more so to them.

Are you referring to the laughter I was mentioning? You must have misinterpreted, this would be laughter of surprise at the absurdity of someone thinking that these ordinary people, who turn up each morning to melt some ice, extract some samples and run some isotopes in a mass spectrometer are part of some global conspiracy to lie to the public. I don't know how you could possibly get to 'cheapening' from that, or the 'kids' (who are they, this time?) beginning to doubt. Beginning to doubt what? And what question don't scientists want to field?

Have you ever met a scientist? They are ordinary human beings with mortgages and blocked drains to deal with.

Not at all. You are a thinking fellow: Why aren't the two comparable. You tell me. If not, I can help, but I'm more than sure you are capable of seeing the flaws in the equivocation.

I don't understand how it is equivocation, or flawed. I don't think it is a matter of me not being about to see them, either.

Er, science needs to be exacting.

Yes. But Bill Nye talking generally on TV is not science. It is science communication, and that is a specialist skill which demands the audience be taken with the communicator in the limited time available. It should be accurate, but cannot be detailed if it is going to be effective.

Agnostic is closer and even it is not the first position. It is somewhere between pre-knowledge. No child is a-mathematics.

Mathematics has to be taught, because it is a human technology, like writing and mastery of a spoken language. Essentially every child is born with a capacity to adapt to these technologies and learn to use them. But at birth children are a-mathematical, and illiterate, and unable to express themselves.

And all children are atheist at birth. The belief that a possibly real man who lived 2000 years ago was killed on their behalf because a god got angry at something it had made and decided it needed to be punished vicariously, is not something children are born with. And I'd add that the subject material of christianity is unsuitable for those under the age of 18 due to the adult themes, and that actually no human really needs to be bothered with such complete fiction at all. There are better works of fiction to read. And that works fine in most of India and China, and increasingly in Scandinavia and other Western countries, to give a few examples.

Atheism is not the high-ground. Sorry.

Atheism is only a rejection of gods. So it depends which god is being rejected at the time, as to whether rejection of that god is better than acceptance of it. I can't think of an example where god acceptance is the higher ground.

When you said you live where 80% are atheists, Sweden showed up.

Right. Well, I didn't say 80% atheist, it was 80% old earth acceptance.

Has to. You have to compare two different ideas that conflict and try and come up with a solution. However those gymnastics work, it has to happen.

No, this is just a desperate grasp for anything that might get them off the hook of the reality of an impossible contradiction in scripture. I'm not sure what their god would think about them doing that. If it is a just god, then it should not be very impressed.

It is part of scientific (or just truth seeking) inquiry. It has to happen. If you were a teacher, it'd encourage you, because you'd see they are actually wrestling with the material and interacting with it. Learning takes place at that point of involvement. Guided learning and they may come up with better answers. I've had teachers that do guided learning exceptionally well, and I've had a few lousy teachers who do the mocking thing. Teacher or not, we are responsible for how others perceive our fields of interest. We are. We have to endeavor to do it right. Now, self-admittedly, I've done it wrong at times, even and/or especially on TOL. I endeavor rather to do it right though.

Well clearly learning requires engagement, and there are definitely ways to do that. I think DTF Dave and Patrick Janes threads on the flat earth conspiracy have some educational value, because it is an engaging challenge to come up with an explanation for why it is wrong, in terms of observations that any person could make for themselves. And there is probably value in students of science playing with the ideas of the flat earthers to work out where their stronger points and weaker points lie (the latter dominate, of course).

I don't think the same can be done with evolution by natural selection. That well has already been poisoned by liars. When students in the US are turning up to class with no interest in learning because their churches have already made up their minds for them, it is futile to try and accommodate or consider their nonsense because that will make no difference to their engagement.

...more: We know that many of these were faked and/or allegedly faked in the PNW (Pacific North West). Because of that, one could come to a position that it is all ludicrous based off of the clear debunking we have seen. Yet, and importantly it is not "MY" responsibility nor purview to declare myself anti-sasquatch. In order for me to be such, I personally would have to have been an expert in the topic and thoroughly convinced every single eye-witness is a liar or poor witness.

In the thread about Moses's staff, there has been earnest discussion about chariot remains in the Red Sea, covered in coral. Of course it's just coral plus suggestive graphics, but it is interesting to note that there is not very much debunking on the internet on this claim. It looks like people have moved on and forgotten about it, and it is just assumed to be a hoax. The Sasquatches have a bit more of an internet presence, but the same think seems to apply. Not enough evidence, probably not enough reason to go out and specifically investigate the claim; we know there are many undiscovered species; a large mammal is less likely to have remained undiscovered.

Every last one of them. Point: Atheism is this audacious. It is, in fact, an arrogant and untenable position.

I think that is just the state of mind of the entitled. Because christianity has dominated Western civilisation for so long, those who have become comfortable with its fancies recoil a bit when atheists are audacious enough to challenge that privilege and its arrogant assumptions (to take back general ownership of that language on behalf of the non-deluded). So I could have sympathy on some level, but I think the arrogance and audaciousness of atheists are in the minds of the christian beholders. There are obviously no gods, that is clear to everyone, but you would like the world to see your invisible friends as believable. Not all christians do that. Some agree that it is bonkers but say they believe it despite the absurdities.

....incredibly so. It is like a blind man saying red cannot possibly exist. It is just that bad.

Why didn't you say it's like a sighted person claiming you can't see ultraviolet? That's a much better analogy for your point. Clearly atheists can see the same you can see.

From my point of view god belief is like a sighted person saying to another sighted person 'hey, did you see that giant pink eagle that landed just behind you? Oh dear you must have missed it. I see it all the time.'

Love is intangible. No amount of using robotic arms to fake it will suffice.
It is not a physical commodity.

I stand by what I wrote.

Stuu: I see, you mean like Stripe when he accuses others with the word evidence because he has none of his own.

Er, Stuart, isn't that ALSO projection?

How is it? I'm always stumping up with references from reliable sources. Stripe never does, he just accuses others of not doing it.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Now, you are utilizing a selective bias, in selecting which pre-industrial persons' you accept and which you reject (akin to that used by 6days).

No I'm not. I'm giving you a list of people who cannot be ignored from before the industrial revolution. I haven't rejected anyone by that list. Would you like a list of people from before the industrial revolution whose ideas I think can be rejected?

I assume that you utilize various philosophies of the ancient Greek, no?

In mathematics, and the occasional physics idea like density.

Thus, in rejecting that of the Hebrews, you are being disingenuous. You are not basing the philosophical musings on merit, rather your personal view of their theological stance.

No, they were genuinely ignorant, especially by comparison with other civilisations of the time.

Furthermore, you cannot logically accept some scientific theories, while rejecting others, of various time periods, based on which better suits personal bias. Most pre-industrial scientists prescribed theories in supporting Intelligent Design theory (ID, for shorthand). So, you cannot select which particulars of information and theory, while rejecting ID, and maintain a consistent argument. I cannot accept natural selection and reject Darwinism; that would be illogical. And yet, that is the approach you appear to be making.

No, that is not the approach I am taking. The list of scientists I gave was not selected on personal bias, but on the repeatability of the experiments they first performed and the logical robustness of the theories that they developed. In other words, they were right about gravitational attraction, and heliocentrism, and so forth, but they were wrong about Intelligent Design, which is not a theory but is a disproved hypothesis.

The idea of cause is not a theological construction. You seem to intentionally misapply various concepts as "theological," in order to distance yourself from having to reconcile such concepts with your views.

I don't think you fully appreciate the problem with 'cause'. You can use it in the general case of 'force causes acceleration' say, but if you are going to ask what caused the Big Bang, then you are really asking what happened before the Big Bang that led to the Big Bang. And the problem then is that causal relationships have a time component to them: the cause precedes the effect. But the Big Bang is not preceded by anything, so you can't say it has a temporal cause. I think it is fair to predict that you will make a theological point by your use of the word 'cause', but by all means show me I am wrong about that.

Any cellular replication of DNA requires an innate physical drive for fitness (one could argue this as a biochemistry example, only reducing the cause aspect to a micro-level).

There is no innate drive for fitness in DNA. It's just a molecule. It is a condition imposed from the outside by natural selection that it will not survive if it is not fit for causing survival and reproduction of its carrier species.

You flatter yourself too much. I do not expect you to have the answer. In fact, that is why I posed the question; to demonstrate that due to your lack of evidence, you cannot claim an absolute.

Indeed. Which is why I asserted it. There is no need to provide evidence to deny a positive claim that is made without unambiguous evidence.

However, absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence. So, while I cannot posit absolute evidence of God existing, neither can you posit absolute evidence that God does not exist.

It is well known that negatives cannot be proved. But there is such a thing as the burden of proof, which falls on those who make claims. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence will need to be for the basic principle of the burden of proof to be fulfilled. This is not a scientific principle, but a principle of integrity.

You make an extrordinary claim. Why have you given no unambiguous evidence for it? Christians have done nothing to deserve being believed.

The argument of God is a philosophical or theological discussion. While we could use natural evidence as mitigating or aggravating points, we could not make absolute claims on supernatural (meaning "beyond the natural"), due to lack of supernatural evidence. If you are willing to go into such an arena of discussion, I would be glad to represent the opposition to your stance on God being real or imaginary.

I am happy with any such discussion. But I don't respect your use of the word 'supernatural'. I think you would have to explain how that is not special pleading. Why does there need to be a distinction? Are you claiming that the laws of physics don't apply to some situations? I take it you will be explaining how that works too.

No one has suggested that there are various speeds of light,

It is a young earth creationist claim that the speed of light is dramatically faster in the direction of starlight travelling to earth. They make this claim because stars are as much as billions of light years away, and they believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and they don't like the idea that their god created the light from the stars in transit, complete with the record of the history of the star that the light contains, a history that never happened. They think their god wouldn't try to deceive them like that. So yes, that has been suggested by creationists. There is no reason to believe it, like most creationism.

We are not discussing other users on TOL, we are discussing the evidence that supports your claims and criticisms leveled against creationism. If you are unable to adequately defend your view, then feel free to admit it (or even cease responding to my queries). I will not judge you in any capacity for doing so. In fact, that would place you right alongside most YECists.

I can't remember my crime, but I am most apologetic for whatever it was.

My very intention for being a part of this thread is a discussion with YEC theorists. Yes, I prodded you with a questioning of your evidence, since you so boldly made your assertions against creationists. I have entertained this conversation due to the initiation of conversation being my own post. Thus far, you have demonstrated the same lack of evidence in support of your personally accepted theories as they do.

I hope you have followed the discussion on ice cores, and I have linked to some information there.

By all means, give me another example, and I will happily provide you with citations for evidence. One point at a time is probably all I can manage, I'm sure you won't try to Gish Gallop me.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Now, you are utilizing a selective bias, in selecting which pre-industrial persons' you accept and which you reject (akin to that used by 6days).

No I'm not. I'm giving you a list of people who cannot be ignored from before the industrial revolution. I haven't rejected anyone by that list. Would you like a list of people from before the industrial revolution whose ideas I think can be rejected?

I assume that you utilize various philosophies of the ancient Greek, no?

In mathematics, and the occasional physics idea like density.

Thus, in rejecting that of the Hebrews, you are being disingenuous. You are not basing the philosophical musings on merit, rather your personal view of their theological stance.

No, they were genuinely ignorant, especially by comparison with other civilisations of the time.

Furthermore, you cannot logically accept some scientific theories, while rejecting others, of various time periods, based on which better suits personal bias. Most pre-industrial scientists prescribed theories in supporting Intelligent Design theory (ID, for shorthand). So, you cannot select which particulars of information and theory, while rejecting ID, and maintain a consistent argument. I cannot accept natural selection and reject Darwinism; that would be illogical. And yet, that is the approach you appear to be making.

No, that is not the approach I am taking. The list of scientists I gave was not selected on personal bias, but on the repeatability of the experiments they first performed and the logical robustness of the theories that they developed. In other words, they were right about gravitational attraction, and heliocentrism, and so forth, but they were wrong about Intelligent Design, which is not a theory but is a disproved hypothesis.

The idea of cause is not a theological construction. You seem to intentionally misapply various concepts as "theological," in order to distance yourself from having to reconcile such concepts with your views.

I don't think you fully appreciate the problem with 'cause'. You can use it in the general case of 'force causes acceleration' say, but if you are going to ask what caused the Big Bang, then you are really asking what happened before the Big Bang that led to the Big Bang. And the problem then is that causal relationships have a time component to them: the cause precedes the effect. But the Big Bang is not preceded by anything, so you can't say it has a temporal cause. I think it is fair to predict that you will make a theological point by your use of the word 'cause', but by all means show me I am wrong about that.

Any cellular replication of DNA requires an innate physical drive for fitness (one could argue this as a biochemistry example, only reducing the cause aspect to a micro-level).

There is no innate drive for fitness in DNA. It's just a molecule. It is a condition imposed from the outside by natural selection that it will not survive if it is not fit for causing survival and reproduction of its carrier species.

You flatter yourself too much. I do not expect you to have the answer. In fact, that is why I posed the question; to demonstrate that due to your lack of evidence, you cannot claim an absolute.

Indeed. Which is why I asserted it. There is no need to provide evidence to deny a positive claim that is made without unambiguous evidence.

However, absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence. So, while I cannot posit absolute evidence of God existing, neither can you posit absolute evidence that God does not exist.

It is well known that negatives cannot be proved. But there is such a thing as the burden of proof, which falls on those who make claims. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence will need to be for the basic principle of the burden of proof to be fulfilled. This is not a scientific principle, but a principle of integrity.

You make an extrordinary claim. Why have you given no unambiguous evidence for it? Christians have done nothing to deserve being believed.

The argument of God is a philosophical or theological discussion. While we could use natural evidence as mitigating or aggravating points, we could not make absolute claims on supernatural (meaning "beyond the natural"), due to lack of supernatural evidence. If you are willing to go into such an arena of discussion, I would be glad to represent the opposition to your stance on God being real or imaginary.

I am happy with any such discussion. But I don't respect your use of the word 'supernatural'. I think you would have to explain how that is not special pleading. Why does there need to be a distinction? Are you claiming that the laws of physics don't apply to some situations? I take it you will be explaining how that works too.

No one has suggested that there are various speeds of light,

It is a young earth creationist claim that the speed of light is dramatically faster in the direction of starlight travelling to earth. They make this claim because stars are as much as billions of light years away, and they believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and they don't like the idea that their god created the light from the stars in transit, complete with the record of the history of the star that the light contains, a history that never happened. They think their god wouldn't try to deceive them like that. So yes, that has been suggested by creationists. There is no reason to believe it, like most creationism.

We are not discussing other users on TOL, we are discussing the evidence that supports your claims and criticisms leveled against creationism. If you are unable to adequately defend your view, then feel free to admit it (or even cease responding to my queries). I will not judge you in any capacity for doing so. In fact, that would place you right alongside most YECists.

I can't remember my crime, but I am most apologetic for whatever it was.

My very intention for being a part of this thread is a discussion with YEC theorists. Yes, I prodded you with a questioning of your evidence, since you so boldly made your assertions against creationists. I have entertained this conversation due to the initiation of conversation being my own post. Thus far, you have demonstrated the same lack of evidence in support of your personally accepted theories as they do.

I hope you have followed the discussion on ice cores, and I have linked to some information there.

By all means, give me another example, and I will happily provide you with citations for evidence. One point at a time is probably all I can manage, I'm sure you won't try to Gish Gallop me.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

So you are asking for an idea to be taken seriously.

No.

I'm asking that if you want to discuss an idea, you do so sensibly.

You can mock an idea all you like, but to approach things scientifically, you have to stick to the rules.

So either you have evidence that disproves the ice cores, or else you provisionally accept the conclusion. It's not as if you have made any valid interpretations in terms of a young earth.

False dichotomy, and you could try reading. :up:

Please. In our earlier conversation I spent quite a lot of time asking you what you actually believed. I realised after a while that you are very unsure about what you believe, and it looked to me like you really didn't understand what you were saying. Now sorry, but at some point that is going to fall apart, because it is not honest to sustain that halting level of strained logic to get from point to point. I can't remember where that exchange finished, but I suspect you thought that my interest in discovering your opinions was some genuine interest in the validity of your ideas. The truth was that your ideas weren't coherent enough to be convincing, and they weren't supported by any empirical evidence whatever.

:rotfl:

Your ideas on the topic of the age of the earth are complete drivel.

That's nice.

They are so disproved that it is ridiculous we would even be discussing them.

Then don't. :up:

Don't accuse me or others of wanting to eradicate ... ideas.

Don't say you're looking forward to such things.

Play them at their own game.

Join your irrational nonsense? No thanks.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stuu]

No.

I'm asking that if you want to discuss an idea, you do so sensibly.

You can mock an idea all you like, but to approach things scientifically, you have to stick to the rules.

False dichotomy, and you could try reading. :up:

:rotfl:

That's nice.

Then don't. :up:



Don't say you're looking forward to such things.



Join your irrational nonsense? No thanks.

Well, even though we continue with another day with no evidence for any of your absurd claims, perhaps it is a small improvement that you managed to post without calling me playground names.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

No evidence.

:yawn:

:mock: Stuu-pid.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

They make this claim because stars are as much as billions of light years away

Evolutionists always confuse distance with time. Do you believe light travelled trillions of times faster in the past as some secular astronomers have speculated? Do you believe in quantum gravity? Is inflation real? Do you need dark energy so your house of cards doesn't tumble? How about dark matter... why do you believe it exists... to prop up other beliefs? How about cold matter....oh but wait, then there is warm dark matter to consider.


Yes, there are galaxies billions of light years away. There may be galaxies 50 billion light years away. Believers don't need invent rescue devices to explain away evidence which shows we live on a planet designed for life consistent with the Bible.

 

[Lon]

First, I'm quite familiar with theology and the Christian faith. But more importantly, I don't debate theological issues here.

Let me clarify further then: I personally, with a superior theology knowledge, find yours lacking. Turn-about is, after all, fair play. You assert your science prowess all the time. I had nothing but A's in science, but my classes were limited. I didn't go the extra two years, but I started them. Again, A's. I'd say a sight better than what passes for theology understanding out of your mouth.

...and then act offended and exasperated when people laugh at you.

Your disdain is showing. It is often beyond and over the top. Something, someone did a number on you and you've over reacted and it shows.

Let it be known then....To Lon, the notion of understanding a subject before trying to debate it is "absurd". That's priceless and won't be forgotten.

You are going to remember your own poor rendition and attribute it to me? :think:

Again, somebody, somewhere did a number on you. Your prejudice is unreasonable otherwise.

Yes, within Christianity the shape of the earth is a matter of debate just like the age of the earth.

Wait, is the age of the earth argued outside of Christianity? :think:

And once again, Lon just can't get past my signature line. Awesome.

Correct. For me, there is no Jose Fly. Just a guy embracing H.L. Mencken's quote on TOL and can't seem to help himself. Yeah, he is that veneer. You can't help yourself. It oozes from your pores.

 

[Stuu]

Evolutionists always confuse distance with time. Do you believe light travelled trillions of times faster in the past as some secular astronomers have speculated? Do you believe in quantum gravity? Is inflation real? Do you need dark energy so your house of cards doesn't tumble? How about dark matter... why do you believe it exists... to prop up other beliefs? How about cold matter....oh but wait, then there is warm dark matter to consider.


Yes, there are galaxies billions of light years away. There may be galaxies 50 billion light years away. Believers don't need invent rescue devices to explain away evidence which shows we live on a planet designed for life consistent with the Bible.

Ok, give us one, and only one unambiguous piece of evidence that shows 'we live on a planet designed for life consistent with the Bible'. If you Gish Gallop, like your post did, then I think it will be fair to consider only the first one in your list. Unambiguous evidence means there is no other reasonable interpretation than the action of a god, which of course you will define in terms of exactly what gods are and how they do things, at least to the level of explanation of the scientific theory you are disproving.

Stuart

 

[genuineoriginal]

I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently. My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years. For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away. That means that when we look at Andromeda, we don't see it as it is today. We see what it looked like two-and-a-half million years ago. (It takes the light from that galaxy that long to reach us.)

It takes a lot of assumptions to come up with the idea that the stars are farther away than 6,000 light years.
We can only identify distances up to 326 light years away using reliable measurements.

[video]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax[/video]
Once a star's parallax is known, its distance from Earth can be computed trigonometrically. But the more distant an object is, the smaller its parallax. Even with 21st-century techniques in astrometry, the limits of accurate measurement make distances farther away than about 100 parsecs (roughly 326 light years) too approximate to be useful when obtained by this technique.​

My friend, who is a Christian (but not a YEC) agreed with me, but introduced me to a bit of apologetics that says this: just as God made Adam in a mature state, so too he made the cosmos appear mature. I guess this works, but it sounds a little bit like squaring the circle. After all, in doing this, God has given anyone with a telescope very good reason to doubt the literal accounts in Genesis. My friend even added a nice counter argument along this same vein: we can see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years years away enter their dying phase. By creationist logic, when we see this, we are in fact seeing stars die that were never born in the first place. That makes no sense!

Why would God have to grow a universe for billions of years when He could just make the entire thing in a day?

Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible. But my reason for starting this thread wasn't just to push that point. My question is for YECs: Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that it is. Can you really fault anyone for coming to that very sensible conclusion? After all, even if the accounts in Genesis ARE literally true, God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise. Whether it turns out to be true or not, isn't it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism?

Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that man's assumptions about an old age of the universe is wrong and that any appearance of an old age of the universe is merely a case of confirmation bias on the part of the people who want to believe in an old universe?

 

[George Affleck]

I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently. My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years. For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away. That means that when we look at Andromeda, we don't see it as it is today. We see what it looked like two-and-a-half million years ago. (It takes the light from that galaxy that long to reach us.)

My friend, who is a Christian (but not a YEC) agreed with me, but introduced me to a bit of apologetics that says this: just as God made Adam in a mature state, so too he made the cosmos appear mature. I guess this works, but it sounds a little bit like squaring the circle. After all, in doing this, God has given anyone with a telescope very good reason to doubt the literal accounts in Genesis. My friend even added a nice counter argument along this same vein: we can see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years years away enter their dying phase. By creationist logic, when we see this, we are in fact seeing stars die that were never born in the first place. That makes no sense!

Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible. But my reason for starting this thread wasn't just to push that point. My question is for YECs: Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that it is. Can you really fault anyone for coming to that very sensible conclusion? After all, even if the accounts in Genesis ARE literally true, God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise. Whether it turns out to be true or not, isn't it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism?

It is quite reasonable for an atheist/agnostic to doubt YEC. In fact, it is a requirement. If there is no God, naturalism is all that is left. The TOE is a systematically logical approach to the question; "How did we get here naturally?". It is just as reasonable for those who do not limit themselves to natural answers only, to embrace YEC.

This is just another way of saying that, the worldview that one accepts as plausible is dependent on pre-conceptions. We have been saying this for a long time now. Evolutionists embrace atheism long before they do evolution. And Creationists embrace God long before they see the merits of YEC.

Evolution is the darling of atheism. I have never heard of an atheistic YEC. lol

So the answer is - It is not only reasonable that you, as a non-believer, would say that the universe is more than 6,000 years old. It is your only option. It is a requirement of the house you have shut yourself up to which is why we call it a tautology. But notice that it is also a requirement of the human condition to come to a logical conclusion within that framework.

It is impossible for man to not exercise faith in something. The atheist has no answer for this phenomenon except; that's the way we are. The believer says that it is evidence of a futile desire to find our way back to the source of our existence by foolishly negating the source.

I also agree that creating a new universe to look antique would be deceitful and not a very good answer. But I have no problem understanding that things, in the past, happened much quicker. If we imagine sitting in a living room and seeing particles of smoke drift slowly by us, how can we presume to measure their current speed and calculate when our uncle lit his cigar and blew a great cloud across the room? Regardless of how wonderfully accurate our calculations appear to be, they will yield an incorrect answer. Then add to that the artificially imposed requirement that uncles do not exist and you've got an even bigger problem.

In fact, the big bang presumes greater acceleration in the past just as we do. You call it the big bang; we call it creation week. A whole lot happened in a super short period of time.

 

[Lon]

Are you referring to the laughter I was mentioning? You must have misinterpreted, this would be laughter of surprise at the absurdity of someone thinking that these ordinary people, who turn up each morning to melt some ice, extract some samples and run some isotopes in a mass spectrometer are part of some global conspiracy to lie to the public. I don't know how you could possibly get to 'cheapening' from that, or the 'kids' (who are they, this time?) beginning to doubt. Beginning to doubt what? And what question don't scientists want to field?

Ahem "idiocy" is left then. Whenever you use language trying to address science speculation and hypothesis, you stop the inquiry process of science and thus, yes, cheapen it. It stops the very thing you'd foster. You aren't a teacher so it doesn't matter, but again, I've seen this from professors. They ruined scientific inquiry by squelching it as 'idiocy.' As far as the laughter, again, imho premature. If one has a slight grasp, immature questions are to be expected. I suppose I'd laugh if a kid without Algebra asked if 3n + 4 = 7 but I haven't to date, not even as a teacher, that I'd seen it that often, but it did occasionally come up with grade school kids, looking on.

Have you ever met a scientist? They are ordinary human beings with mortgages and blocked drains to deal with.

I'm not really sure how to answer your question meaningfully. Do you know of many people who have never met a scientist? :idunno:

I don't understand how it is equivocation, or flawed. I don't think it is a matter of me not being about to see them, either.

Forensics is about what is known. We have viable DNA. We have current fingerprints. If you wait for even 10 years, those may no longer be viable. A thousand years? Less. We still cannot find out who Jack the Ripper was or see the DNA on the bullets that killed JFK.

So no, I'm not questioning forensics because it is genuinely removed from age extrapolations. We know the age of trees by their rings, for instance. Or do we? If you can't do it with a tree that is only hundreds of years old....

Yes. But Bill Nye talking generally on TV is not science. It is science communication, and that is a specialist skill which demands the audience be taken with the communicator in the limited time available. It should be accurate, but cannot be detailed if it is going to be effective.

Agreed. It was but for example of the mention. I still enjoy the show.

And all children are atheist at birth. The belief that a possibly real man who lived 2000 years ago was killed on their behalf because a god got angry at something it had made and decided it needed to be punished vicariously, is not something children are born with. And I'd add that the subject material of christianity is unsuitable for those under the age of 18 due to the adult themes, and that actually no human really needs to be bothered with such complete fiction at all. There are better works of fiction to read. And that works fine in most of India and China, and increasingly in Scandinavia and other Western countries, to give a few examples.

No, I'd call that 'pre-theist' not a-theist. The "a" means 'against' as well as without, so it isn't as accurate. That is why I often tell atheists to adopt a more appropriate moniker. "Atheist" is terrible, although you certainly express yourself as 'against' Christianity so it may best apply to you in particular.

Atheism is only a rejection of gods. So it depends which god is being rejected at the time, as to whether rejection of that god is better than acceptance of it. I can't think of an example where god acceptance is the higher ground.

There you go, "Atheist" is an apt moniker for you in particular.

Right. Well, I didn't say 80% atheist, it was 80% old earth acceptance.

Not a problem, just a bit nebulous in initial expression. Nothing lingering at this point. Thanks.

No, this is just a desperate grasp for anything that might get them off the hook of the reality of an impossible contradiction in scripture. I'm not sure what their god would think about them doing that. If it is a just god, then it should not be very impressed.

You are just prognosticating off your own platform. I disagree with you. ALL good thinking starts with speculation. ALL good science begins with speculation. A flat-earth isn't bad science, it is just 'beginning' science. It is bad when evidence points away and the evidence is not followed. Same with all things. As a teacher 'there is no such thing as a bad question.' There are such things as ignorant questions, but those aren't to be trounced. That said, I do appreciate that it is exasperating when the class clown that never pays attention asks a question that you covered yesterday.

Well clearly learning requires engagement, and there are definitely ways to do that. I think DTF Dave and Patrick Janes threads on the flat earth conspiracy have some educational value, because it is an engaging challenge to come up with an explanation for why it is wrong, in terms of observations that any person could make for themselves. And there is probably value in students of science playing with the ideas of the flat earthers to work out where their stronger points and weaker points lie (the latter dominate, of course).

Agreed. The space program is so dependent upon so few, that I at least understand where the conspiracy theory is coming from (always does with government).

I don't think the same can be done with evolution by natural selection. That well has already been poisoned by liars. When students in the US are turning up to class with no interest in learning because their churches have already made up their minds for them, it is futile to try and accommodate or consider their nonsense because that will make no difference to their engagement.

I've done so, meaningfully. I don't tend to excuse teacher who have very good instruction for 'how' to stimulate inquiry. I have no patience, myself, for that inept teacher.

In the thread about Moses's staff, there has been earnest discussion about chariot remains in the Red Sea, covered in coral. Of course it's just coral plus suggestive graphics, but it is interesting to note that there is not very much debunking on the internet on this claim. It looks like people have moved on and forgotten about it, and it is just assumed to be a hoax. The Sasquatches have a bit more of an internet presence, but the same think seems to apply. Not enough evidence, probably not enough reason to go out and specifically investigate the claim; we know there are many undiscovered species; a large mammal is less likely to have remained undiscovered.

I wouldn't even know how to start investigating bigfoot. Seems a lot like luck for those who eyewitnesses of even the hoaxters.

I think that is just the state of mind of the entitled. Because christianity has dominated Western civilisation for so long, those who have become comfortable with its fancies recoil a bit when atheists are audacious enough to challenge that privilege and its arrogant assumptions (to take back general ownership of that language on behalf of the non-deluded). So I could have sympathy on some level, but I think the arrogance and audaciousness of atheists are in the minds of the christian beholders. There are obviously no gods, that is clear to everyone, but you would like the world to see your invisible friends as believable. Not all christians do that. Some agree that it is bonkers but say they believe it despite the absurdities.

:nono: Some of these statements of yours are just wrong. I KNOW God exists. You can ask me how, but these blanket statements disallow even the presentation of counterfactuals. In a nutshell, I am either magic, or there is a God. I'm not magic. Not even remotely. Therefore, somebody than me did some incredible things. They are anecdotal for you, undeniable for me. At the very least, you need to augment your statements to include 'most of us.' I'm not one of you. "There are no gods." I know no such thing. :nono: Clear evidence points exactly to its contrary.

Why didn't you say it's like a sighted person claiming you can't see ultraviolet? That's a much better analogy for your point. Clearly atheists can see the same you can see.

Not if that evidence that was presented to me, was never presented to you. Scriptures talk about 'faith' as a sensory perception that is missing from your possession. It is more like 'red' to a blind man.

From my point of view god belief is like a sighted person saying to another sighted person 'hey, did you see that giant pink eagle that landed just behind you? Oh dear you must have missed it. I see it all the time.'

It certainly can be, but when you have 20 or 30 seemingly rational people telling you the same thing, it is you, the one in 99 that might want to recheck yourself.

I stand by what I wrote.

It doesn't matter. Between us, love is an intangible commodity. You cannot touch love. You cannot taste love. You cannot see something an call it 'love' just the action as attributed to it. You cannot hear love or smell it. You see but the effects of it. You cannot quantify or qualify it, because what isn't love in my home, may be in yours.

Stuu: I see, you mean like Stripe when he accuses others with the word evidence because he has none of his own.

How is it? I'm always stumping up with references from reliable sources. Stripe never does, he just accuses others of not doing it.

Yes, but again the projection is to cast what was said to you, upon another. We cannot help projection, but we can work to understand how another is different from us and in so doing, be a bit less projecting of our own being. It isn't easy because we have to listen a lot more, and pay attention a lot more, and try to assimilate their viewpoint a lot more.

With you, I know you are an atheist, and that more than many others, the term does apply to you. You don't always seem to be an 'angry' atheist, although at times that does come out. You aren't as snarky, which is why I don't ignore you. I have other atheists on ignore simply because there is never any discussion, just posturing and snarky/mean comments and stabs. That isn't my idea of productive or worth my time. I'm more people oriented. If I can make a connection, it is worth my time, even if a bit frustrating at times. That vaguely summarizes my interactions with you. We don't see eye to eye, but you do address the material where I can see meaningful dialogue that does interact with what the other says without disdaining it too untowardly. Obviously as an atheist/Christian, some of it cannot be helped.

-Lon

 

[Jose Fly]

Let me clarify further then: I personally, with a superior theology knowledge, find yours lacking.

Given that I rarely, if ever, discuss theology here, I'm curious to hear what your assessment is based on. Be specific please.

You assert your science prowess all the time.

Where? Be specific please.

You are going to remember your own poor rendition and attribute it to me?

Let's take a look....

In THIS EXCHANGE, I stated "A general good rule of thumb is to learn a subject first, then see if you can debate it." You responded "Your 'rule' is absurd."

Given the above, please explain how my characterization of that exchange is inaccurate.

Wait, is the age of the earth argued outside of Christianity?

I believe some other faiths have differing beliefs on that, but as with what we see here, they directly extend from theology rather than science.

Correct. For me, there is no Jose Fly. Just a guy embracing H.L. Mencken's quote on TOL and can't seem to help himself. Yeah, he is that veneer. You can't help yourself. It oozes from your pores.

Again, you keep acting as if I put that quote in my signature and have since tried to distance myself from it. That makes no sense, because if that were the case I could simply delete it myself.

So my observation remains....that signature line has clearly touched a nerve with you.

 

[Stripe]

Give us one ... unambiguous piece of evidence that shows 'we live on a planet designed for life consistent with the Bible'.

First, give us an unambiguous question.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Ok, give us one, and only one unambiguous piece of evidence that shows...

There is no such thing as one unambiguous piece of evidence that shows fish can evolve into philosophers.

Nor is there one unambiguous piece of evidence that shows the big bang happened... or that life can come from non life... or that land animals evolved into whales. You can't even show one unambiguous piece of evidence showing reduced function of an organ from a 'common ancestor'. (vestigial). All, you have Jose Fly is beliefs...interpretations that science often shows are false.

The best piece of evidence showing we lived in a created...designed...fine tuned universe is God's Word. The evidence from the world around us is supporting evidence (such as magnetic field, earth’s gravity, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, sophistication of vision in Anomalocaris ETC ETC)

 

[6days]

In fact, the big bang presumes greater acceleration in the past just as we do.

He alone has spread out the heavens Job 9:8

 

[Jose Fly]

There is no such thing as one unambiguous piece of evidence that shows fish can evolve into philosophers.

Nor is there one unambiguous piece of evidence that shows the big bang happened... or that life can come from non life... or that land animals evolved into whales. You can't even show one unambiguous piece of evidence showing reduced function of an organ from a 'common ancestor'. (vestigial). All, you have Jose Fly is beliefs...interpretations that science often shows are false.

The best piece of evidence showing we lived in a created...designed...fine tuned universe is God's Word. The evidence from the world around us is supporting evidence (such as magnetic field, earth’s gravity, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, sophistication of vision in Anomalocaris ETC ETC)

Not sure why you mentioned me in that post, but your response does put me in mind of something. In all the years I've been in various message boards and forums, I've seen countless threads started where someone attempts to get creationists to make a positive case, directly from the data, for creationism. No "evolution/physics/cosmology is wrong, therefore creationism is right" type stuff, just a strictly positive argument that shows how a ~6,000 year old earth with separately-created organisms and a global flood are logical conclusions that naturally extend from the data.

And every single time, those threads turn into exercises in evolution and science bashing, with no positive cases made for creationism.

So again, there's a reason the world's earth and life sciences community rejected young-earth creationism over 200 years ago. There's a reason no private research groups utilize young-earth creationism. There's a reason no private companies (e.g., fossil fuel companies) use young-earth creationism.....and it's the same reason creationists can't make a positive case for young-earth creationism.

It simply doesn't match the data.

 

[Stripe]

Not sure why you mentioned me in that post, but your response does put me in mind of something. In all the years I've been in various message boards and forums, I've seen countless threads started where someone attempts to get creationists to make a positive case, directly from the data, for creationism. No "evolution/physics/cosmology is wrong, therefore creationism is right" type stuff, just a strictly positive argument that shows how a ~6,000 year old earth with separately-created organisms and a global flood are logical conclusions that naturally extend from the data.

And every single time, those threads turn into exercises in evolution and science bashing, with no positive cases made for creationism.

So again, there's a reason the world's earth and life sciences community rejected young-earth creationism over 200 years ago. There's a reason no private research groups utilize young-earth creationism. There's a reason no private companies (e.g., fossil fuel companies) use young-earth creationism.....and it's the same reason creationists can't make a positive case for young-earth creationism.

It simply doesn't match the data.

:blabla:

Another Darwinist venting evidence-free nonsense.

I provided evidence just a few posts ago.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[KingdomRose]

Because of CONTEXT!!!

Not just of the verses surrounding a word's use, not just the chapter, the book, or the testament it's in, but the entire Bible. Genesis 1 uses the word "day" DIFFERENTLY than Genesis 2:4.

THEREFORE:

The meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1 is DIFFERENT than Genesis 2:4. Things that differ are not the same, and you're still insisting that both chapters are using "day" the exact same way, when they are clearly not!

Jesus said, and I quote Him directly:

[JESUS]But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[/JESUS] - Mark 10:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark10:6&version=NKJV

Day (literal 24-hour period) 6 of Week 1 is for all intents and purposes at the beginning of 7000 years.

Day (epoch) 6 of however many millions or billions of years is NOT at the beginning of a 13.4 billion year old universe (or however old you think the universe is).

There are only two options, KingdomRose, either call Jesus a liar by saying that the word "day" in Genesis 1 means "an epoch of time," or you accept what Jesus said, that He created man at the beginning of creation (on Day (literal 24-hour period) 6, and not 6 epochs of time later.

I don't agree with your line of thinking. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinion and you can respect mine, right?