Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Stuu]

The argument over whether we exist or not is a BS argument people like to partake in to sound intellectually superior. Ultimately, the argument is meaningless as when you are done arguing it you have get up, go to the bathroom eat some food, drink some water and eventually head off to work. If you choose to argue that you don't exist and that those things mean nothing, try not doing them. The assumption is meaningless.

No, the assumption is essential because the proof is meaningless. I don't think we are disagreeing about the absurdity of the philosophy, but I don't think you have really grasped the problem either.

Not just the scientific method. The ability to think about things outside the realms of my five senses. Being able to contemplate whether or not the universe makes more sense with or without God.

So, given our earlier discussion points, and my challenges regarding the lack of explanatory power to be found in gods, how can gods possibly cause things to make 'more sense'?

Faith

This is the unproven assumption that there is a god, right?

Because I exist, I can experience God's presence.

But if gods don't exist then you can't.

I believe creation is old, very old. That does not mean that I don't believe that God created it. I don't believe that God is bound by time as we are.

So once again, the assertion (or insertion) of a god in this situation causes things to make less sense, not more.

Only the illusion of strength. The next morning when he awakens all of his problems are still waiting for him. With God, I don't need the illusion of strength alcohol instills. I can enjoy a drink when I wish and I can tackle my problems even when they threaten to swallow me.

Yes, I guess the illusion of god-given strength could give you the psychological edge.

Yes, the brain has a physical and measurable response to the presence of God. Remember, different starting points so I see the results of those tests a bit differently than conventional wisdom decrees.

Then are you pleading for the possession of an exceptional brain? Or do you acknowledge the possibility that the delusions of others when they claim to be Jesus could be the same kind of delusions that direct you to claim you have knowledge of a god that isn't really there?

Yes, the Catholics are VERY good at that. But not perfect. I saw what the Catholics were doing and that is why I turned away from God and religions. It wasn't until some time later I realized that people are not saved by religion, they are saved in spite of religion. What I hated was religion, not God. When I looked for God, I found Him and that changed everything.

I think the Catholics on ToL found it particularly disheartening that Catholic schools produce atheists at higher rates than state schools. And I guess your story doesn't give them much more cause for cheer!

I was depraved and still am to a degree if I am honest with myself (I try to be). I had just reached a point in life where I could honestly set aside all the crap that religions dump on us and actually look for God. I wasn't desperate, I was actually in a very good place, wonderful wife, new baby daughter, gainfully employed, comfortable home, it was a very good time in my life. That is part of why the experience so changed me; I wasn't searching from a place of desperation, I found God in a time of plenty and life got better.

Well, I can't deny you the choices you make to live what you consider to be a good life, nor criticise you for living badly in any respect. And I can't claim to be a perfect model of a human myself, on any front. But I think if I were to accept the tenets of the Judeo-christian scriptures I would have little choice but to call myself depraved, and I think that would be unjust. Of course I do consider christianity to be inherently and outrageously immoral, so I don't feel any danger of succumbing at this or any stage.
Stuu: Why do you put your god off-limits to science?

I don't but I believe that God does. It says in scripture that we are saved by faith. Faith is by definition belief in something that cannot be proven. If we could prove the existence of God then there would be no need for faith and salvation would be lost. God wants us to search for Him not from our intellect and reason, but from our hearts.

Well, I don't put science off-limits. A key part of the story of Western culture over the past 500 years has consistently been that science has been corrosive to the various god claims that have been made. And because most people are honest (although not YECs in my experience) they have been able to admit that phenomena that had been previously assigned to a god were actually natural processes, not specific divine interventions. So a lot of gods of the gaps have been vanquished. I think it would be fair to say that in the minds of the general populus, over the centuries the Judeo-christian god has been made to hide increasingly in the dark corners and recesses of our decreasing ignorance.

From an atheist perspective, as you will no doubt remember yourself, I guess you can have a relationship with an imaginary friend, but in the words of Paul, when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Great.

Yes, it is great. Young earth found to be impossible just by counting annual layers in Greenland ice cores.

Moot affirmed. End of thread, I guess.

Stuart

 

[George Affleck]

Yes, it is great. Young earth found to be impossible just by counting annual layers in Greenland ice cores.

Moot affirmed. End of thread, I guess.

Stuart

https://creation.com/do-greenland-ice-cores-show-over-one-hundred-thousand-years-of-annual-layers

 

[Lon]

You have a strange way of saying, 'Ok, I see what you mean, the difference between the 65+ age group and it's 50% belief in creationism, and the 18-29 group (all of whom are adults) and its 28% belief in creationism, is quite radically large.'

Stuart

Yes, but the point is, the author himself told you the statistics haven't changed, according to age groups.

 

[George Affleck]

Well said JR

 

[Stuu]

https://creation.com/do-greenland-ice-cores-show-over-one-hundred-thousand-years-of-annual-layers

This video shows the changes in CO₂ that are seen in ice cores and correspond to a regular variation in the earth's orbit.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Yes, but the point is, the author himself told you the statistics haven't changed, according to age groups.

Nope. There is no written analysis by age group.

I do note it says this: Those with less education are most likely to espouse the creationist view.

That ties in well with the fact that the writers of Genesis, whoever they were, all had dismally low levels of education by comparison with today. Of course they had a better excuse for believing myths than a creationist does today.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Yes, it is great. Young earth found to be impossible just by counting annual layers in Greenland ice cores.

Moot affirmed. End of thread, I guess.

Stuart

Nope.

As you well know, layers cannot be counted reliably back far enough and the year-to-layer correspondence is assumed, not proven.

So declaring victory is just another assertion that you imagine is absolute, but you will run from a discussion over the evidence.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Those with less education are most likely to espouse the creationist view.

Therefore, something.

Even if this was true, it would do nothing to advance the discussion.

Evidence: That is what you need.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stuu]

Therefore, something.

Even if this was true, it would do nothing to advance the discussion.

Evidence: That is what you need.

The evidence was that people with lower education are more likely to hold creationist views. Did you miss that evidence?

Your interpretation was 'something'. I don't think a very high level of education would be needed to come up with that, and you are a creationist, so

something...

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

As you well know, layers cannot be counted reliably back far enough and the year-to-layer correspondence is assumed, not proven.

No, as we established in our previous conversation, the layers can be counted reliably because these are real scientists who actually do the work and know their work, and unlike creation 'scientists' they are paid to be professional and give the best quality of information, and it is the professional job of an independent expert to peer-review the work and find mistakes in error analysis, and of course they are not idiots: if, for example, an amateur creationist was actually able to find holes in their work then that is the end of their professional reputation, so they are quite cautious about what they report in proper journals.

Furthermore, the ice cores shown in the video above date back 400,000 years, and the oldest Antarctic cores count back 800,000 years. In the case of the 400,000 year cores, the CO₂ analyses match the independently established variations in orbital patterns of earth. So you would have to demonstrate that there is some conspiracy between astronomers and ice core analysts.

So declaring victory is just another assertion that you imagine is absolute, but you will run from a discussion over the evidence.

No, here I am, ready to discuss anything relevant to ice cores, or any young earth fantasy.

These real, accountable scientists say you are wrong Stripe. You are either calling them liars or calling them incompetent. Can you justify either accusation?

Stuart

 

[JudgeRightly]

The evidence was that people with lower education are more likely to hold creationist views. Did you miss that evidence?

Your interpretation was 'something'. I don't think a very high level of education would be needed to come up with that, and you are a creationist, so

something...

Stuart

Those with higher level of education tend to reject God because the education system they are placed into from when they are young is Godless. It's also part of the reason we're seeing more and more violence every day, because people reject that there is a God.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nope. There is no written analysis by age group.

I do note it says this: Those with less education are most likely to espouse the creationist view.

That ties in well with the fact that the writers of Genesis, whoever they were, all had dismally low levels of education by comparison with today. Of course they had a better excuse for believing myths than a creationist does today.

Stuart

Moses, the main author (even if there was more than one) of the first five books of the Bible, was highly educated in Egypt. As it was said in Acts:

And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds. - Acts 7:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts7:22&version=NKJV

And yet Moses still wrote about the one true God.

A high level education system, when it constantly rejects that there is a God, wears down someone who goes through it, wears down their beliefs.

Yet a high level education system, when it affirms the existence of God (and yes, they do exist, though few in number), strengthens beliefs in God.

So no, that most who accept God are not highly educated does not mean that if they were to receive a high level of education they would reject God.

 

[Stripe]

The evidence was that people with lower education are more likely to hold creationist views.

Therefore, something.

Even if this is true, it does nothing to advance the conversation.

Evidence.

We know why you want to talk about issues that resolve nothing.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

The layers can be counted reliably because these are real scientists who actually do the work and know their work, and unlike creation 'scientists' they are paid to be professional and give the best quality of information, and it is the professional job of an independent expert to peer-review the work and find mistakes in error analysis, and of course they are not idiots: if, for example, an amateur creationist was actually able to find holes in their work then that is the end of their professional reputation, so they are quite cautious about what they report in proper journals.

And yet again, it's all blah blah blah.

Fact: At depth, ice is squashed beyond where presumed annual layers can be reliably identified.

Oh, but you believe a scientist. Ignore the facts then.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[George Affleck]

Those with less education are most likely to espouse the creationist view.

Congratulations!

You have just proved that the evidence supports the Bible.

1 Cor 1:26 - 30KJV

 

[CabinetMaker]

No, the assumption is essential because the proof is meaningless. I don't think we are disagreeing about the absurdity of the philosophy, but I don't think you have really grasped the problem either.

I do not see the question of existence as a problem. Why don't you start with the assumption that you don't exist and see where that gets you.

So, given our earlier discussion points, and my challenges regarding the lack of explanatory power to be found in gods, how can gods possibly cause things to make 'more sense'?

By explaining the things that hard science is not equipped to deal with. They why of existence. Science just explains how things work. That is all science can do. But why should I care about the people around me? Evolutionary theory says that I should you and your family under the bus so that my family does better. According to evolution (survival of the fittest) there is no benefit to me in caring for those who cannot make my life better..

This is the unproven assumption that there is a god, right?

It is not unproven to me. I have experienced His hand on my soul and I know it to be real. It is not my job to convince you of God's existence. Your faith is between you and God. My job is to answer your questions regarding the hope that lives within me. You must make your own decisions.

But if gods don't exist then you can't.

God exists. You see Stuu, I was not argued into believing by some crafty Christian. If I can be argued into belief then I can be argued out of belief. My faith comes from God so it stands up to human wisdom.

So once again, the assertion (or insertion) of a god in this situation causes things to make less sense, not more.

Maybe to you but certainly not to me.

Yes, I guess the illusion of god-given strength could give you the psychological edge.

The problem here is that you cannot prove that it is an illusion. There are brain scans showing that the human brain has a physical response when people pray. Argue it any way you will but when I see that, I see that we have a brain that has evolved to physically respond to God.

Then are you pleading for the possession of an exceptional brain? Or do you acknowledge the possibility that the delusions of others when they claim to be Jesus could be the same kind of delusions that direct you to claim you have knowledge of a god that isn't really there?

People who claim to be Jesus incarnate can be tested against scripture. When they fail that test, they need to be helped. I also hold that the human bran is exceptional.

I think the Catholics on ToL found it particularly disheartening that Catholic schools produce atheists at higher rates than state schools. And I guess your story doesn't give them much more cause for cheer!

Probably not.

Well, I can't deny you the choices you make to live what you consider to be a good life, nor criticise you for living badly in any respect. And I can't claim to be a perfect model of a human myself, on any front. But I think if I were to accept the tenets of the Judeo-christian scriptures I would have little choice but to call myself depraved, and I think that would be unjust. Of course I do consider christianity to be inherently and outrageously immoral, so I don't feel any danger of succumbing at this or any stage.

God knows that we are not and cannot be perfect. He knows that no matter how hard we try, we will always fall short. That is why He sent Jesus. So even though I am far from perfect, I will stand before God as though I am. Read what Paul has to say about freedom in Christ. Scares the bloody hell out people, especially Christians. But it is an incredible example of how completely we are forgiven by God when we stand in Christ.

Well, I don't put science off-limits. A key part of the story of Western culture over the past 500 years has consistently been that science has been corrosive to the various god claims that have been made. And because most people are honest (although not YECs in my experience) they have been able to admit that phenomena that had been previously assigned to a god were actually natural processes, not specific divine interventions. So a lot of gods of the gaps have been vanquished. I think it would be fair to say that in the minds of the general populus, over the centuries the Judeo-christian god has been made to hide increasingly in the dark corners and recesses of our decreasing ignorance.

I don't believe in a God of the Gaps, rather I believe that we catch glimpses of God through those gaps. Science is used to turn people away from God. That is not the intent of an honest scientist but it certainly does happen. But since I see the study of science as the study of how GOd did things, each new discovery leads me to say, "Wow! God is incredibly smart and detailed!" Many people don't want there to be a God because they do not want to be judged for their actions. Yes, God will judge us. By denying the existence of God they can feel safe that they can do what they will with no chance of retribution.

From an atheist perspective, as you will no doubt remember yourself, I guess you can have a relationship with an imaginary friend, but in the words of Paul, when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Stuart

Paul was most certainly not saying that faith in God is a childish thing. Taking things out of context is never a wise thing to do. And God is not imaginary to me. I feel His presence every day in my life. I am not ashamed to say that. God has made me a better person.

 

[6days]

... because we know how the illusion of design comes about simply by the action of natural forces, including gravity, wind, and mutation with natural selection.

Nonsense. It isn't difficult to tell the difference between something created by intelligence, and something eroded by the wind.


You remind me of a funny YouTube video (I think I have it saved). Richard Dawkins and another fellow are discussing anatomy. They both keep using the word 'design'. But Dawkins kept 'correcting' the other fellow and himself.Dawkins would say 'But it isn't designed, it only has the appearance of design'. (Darwinism is religion)

However, I don't think you have addressed the fact that we can think of many examples of things that could be much better designed, if they had been designed.

Repeating failed arguments doesn't make it true. Would you like examples where evolutionists pompously made that same argument, but later proven wrong by science? (Pompous because they assume they know everything there is to know and that it fits their belief system)

The biochemistry that makes our cells work and cooperate, has been around for up to billions of years.

The biochemistry of our cell is strong evidence of an intelligent creator. The mutation rate and genetic load is clear evidence that your belief system in billions of years is false and illogical.

The 'design' in biological systems is characterised by 'making do', and 'getting stuck', and 'inventing elaborate work-arounds because of getting stuck'.

Same failed pompous argument. Science keeps proving there is purpose... design... function in what evolutionists thought was useless, shoddy and junk.

Are you proud of your designed, given how limited its engineering or imagination appears to be?

Proud? I am humbled to think that He who designed me, willingly suffered a brutal death in my place. Amazing Love!

Darwin didn't know about the vast range of such examples we have of this, but we just have to apply his principles and everything we observed is entirely consistent with them.

Darwinism = religion.

It is not the wastefulness of the 'poor design' in the giraffe that is the main point about the recurrent laryngeal nerve. The point is that the nerve was a good 'design'/adaptation in our fish ancestors.

Again... your arguments against design are no different than all the other evolutionist failed 'design's arguments, that are now proven wrong by science. You start with lack of knowledge on the design.... add in your belief about fish ancestors...and VOILA, another false evolutionary conclusion.

By the way, have you used your plantaris muscle recently? Do you even have one? I can't tell if I have one or not. Talk about vestigial.

Haha....Well, I may, or may not have used my plantaris vut it would be psuedoscience to then imagine that muscle is a remnant from a "fish like ancestor'. SURE, lets talk vestigial.... i thought evolutionists were abandoning that faulty belief?

And again, as I explained to you in some detail, it is not evidence against a creator. It is evidence against an omnipotent, omniscient, benign creator.

Your 'explanations' are evidence that you are unwilling to follow evidence to our Creator. You start with a conclusion, then invent stories to TRY make things fit... until science forces yet another change in the story.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The follow-up question... 'If physical death existed before first Adam sinned, (and was part of a very good creation) then why did Last Adam have to defeat physical death?'.

Because you desperately want the history of Earth to read like a Hollywood script instead of a scientific reality

 

[Lon]

Yes, it is great. Young earth found to be impossible just by counting annual layers in Greenland ice cores.

Moot affirmed. End of thread, I guess.

Stuart

WW 2 Planes found in centuries old layers? :think:

Question: Who is ACTUALLY doing science? The 'scientists' or those comparing supposed results with counterfactuals?

Better question: Do you want to just be a dupe or do you want to have actual, well-thought-out answers? Sometimes being an atheist makes you a dupe (all the time?). :e4e: -Lon

Did cavemen fly planes?