Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Stuu]

A link to evidence, which you are trying extremely hard to ignore.

What evidence? You still haven't said. Maybe you should quote the bit you mean.

The article linked above in this comment does.

I'm quite impressed by your persistence. You cannot tell me a single point that I should look for in that website, but you are maintaining that there is something in there.

What one point disproves a 4.54 billion year old earth, and how does it do it?

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

Lumping flat-earthers in with the rest of Biblical creationists is an insult to Biblical creationists.

They're basically the same....faith-based denial of long-established science.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well yes, most christian festivals are pagan holidays that have been assimilated.

But what I really mean is the ridiculousness of believing that a man walked again after he had been executed by the Romans,

The only one that's important, especially today:

That Christ rose from the dead.

Stuart, the best way to determine if Christianity is the correct religion? Is it's founder still in the grave?

I guarantee that if you were to go to the Garden tomb in Jerusalem today, you could go in and see that the tomb is indeed empty.

or that someone could be born of only one parent,

Born of a virgin, that's what the Bible says. Maybe you should read how that occurred...

or could walk on the surface of water,

Called a miracle, something that cannot be explained within the bounds of the universe.

or that you can know anything of what Jesus said,

The Bible is a good record of what He said...

or know anything about his childhood when there are no eyewitness accounts for anything that Jesus did.

Why is this an issue?

If you believe that list, you will believe anything.

Stuart

I could provide a list of things from the Big Bang camp that if you believe them, you could believe anything...

 

[Jose Fly]

So while I agree with you about people being turned off by nonsense, there may also be a way to rehabilitate the fraudsters by destroying the nonsense and embracing the good.

While it's always possible, it's also extremely rare. As the data shows, the change is occurring not via individual conversion, but by generational replacement.

 

[JudgeRightly]

They're basically the same....faith-based denial of long-established science.

One is founded on conspiracies, one is founded on evidence.

[sarcasm]Yeah, they're the same.[/sarcasm]

 

[Jose Fly]

You cannot tell me a single point that I should look for in that website, but you are maintaining that there is something in there.

Years ago, a creationist linked to an article about human/chimp genetic data from that site. I responded by pointing out several errors, which prompted the creationist to challenge me to email the site directly. I did, and guess how they responded? They literally said "The Bible is either the word of God or it isn't".

That's should tell you all you need to know about the site.

 

[Jose Fly]

One is founded on conspiracies, one is founded on evidence.

So what's your explanation for why the world's earth scientists have concluded that the earth is ancient for well over 200 years?

 

[Stuu]

That Christ rose from the dead.

Humans don't walk again after being successfully executed. It has never happened, and it will never happen. It would be perverse to deny that, so christianity is perverse.

Stuart, the best way to determine if Christianity is the correct religion? Is it's founder still in the grave? I guarantee that if you were to go to the Garden tomb in Jerusalem today, you could go in and see that the tomb is indeed empty.

There are many empty tombs. I could build one for you, if you like. Then, who shall I claim isn't in it? You see how christianity is absurd? It makes you believe that this is a valid way to think about the problem.

And, what if no religion is 'correct'? After all, that is what you believe about every other religion. Why should this branch of Abrahamism be any different?

Born of a virgin, that's what the Bible says. Maybe you should read how that occurred...

It doesn't say. There are many reasons why humans need two biological parents, and there is no explanation for how a non-diploid zygote could implant and produce a viable embryo in any of the gospels, not even in Mark.

Called a miracle, something that cannot be explained within the bounds of the universe.

So once you have accepted the nonsense of walking again after execution, you are further softened up with a whole list of absurdities...none of which are mentioned by Paul, the one writer who lived closest to the time of the 'miracles'.

What you are doing is called special pleading, and I can specially plead just as well. I specially plead that christianity is all lies. So we are even in our claims.

The Bible is a good record of what He said...

Because you say so?

Stuu: ...or know anything about his childhood when there are no eyewitness accounts for anything that Jesus did.

Why is this an issue?

Because you are claiming a narrative as history, so it is important to analyse as a good historian would. Your claim is hearsay, which historically is of very low quality. The best points about it are that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist, which is better quality if you think about why christians would report on the removal of sins from the one who was sinless, and it is reasonable (but not certain) from triangulating various claims of christians that Jesus was actually executed by crucifixion. The rest is unreliable, to put it mildly.

I could provide a list of things from the Big Bang camp that if you believe them, you could believe anything...

Go on then.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

One is founded on conspiracies, one is founded on evidence.

JF is right. Both are pseudoscience. They are lies dressed up in the language of science.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Years ago, a creationist linked to an article about human/chimp genetic data from that site. I responded by pointing out several errors, which prompted the creationist to challenge me to email the site directly. I did, and guess how they responded? They literally said "The Bible is either the word of God or it isn't".

That's should tell you all you need to know about the site.

Nice work.

I suppose they were in the 'is' camp, and not the 'isn't' camp.

Stuart

 

[Greg Jennings]

200,000 years.

Stuart

Older, if you count non Homo sapiens

 

[Greg Jennings]

Like before, you rely on hypothetical potential resolutions to support your house of cards. Explaining away the evidence is not science.

How about you explain to me HOW sharks can survive on vegetation, as you've suggested on a sinless world? Don't give me "God can do it." If I said "evolution can do it" you'd throw a fit, and rightly so because that's not even an attempt at an explanation.

So please EXPLAIN your theory as to how carnivores used to be able to process and live entirely off of plant matter?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Here's a piece of evidence that contradicts a 4.54 billion year old earth.

http://kgov.com/carbon-14-and-dinosaur-bones

JR, I think you've been made aware before that C-14 breaks down completely in less than 100,000 years. Nothing in the Bible disputes that. And thousands of individual scientists have confirmed it

Do you see how you might not be able to accurately measure a millions year old fossil with that method? It's like breaking open a diamond to look for coal: that stuff is long gone

You can't reject dating methods, then claim an improperly used dating method supports you. That's just silly

 

[Greg Jennings]

What's truly funny is how with the above you seem to understand that bias in interpreting evidence is a bad thing. Yet you continue to employ an extremely biased framework yourself.

It's simply astounding. Jesus hated (as much as Jesus could hate, anyway) hypocrites too. I guess 6 cherry-picked that part of his bible

 

[Greg Jennings]

If some Christians want to run around telling everyone that to be a Christian you have to believe the earth is flat and only 6,000 years old, I say let 'em.

I'd rather not let a few dullards tear down my religion

 

[Greg Jennings]

7000, and to be a Christian, you have to have a relationship with God, not believe the earth is young or old.

The issue is this: if a large percentage of Christians continue to insist on obvious falsehoods, that will turn the young, now primarily educated generation away from it.

 

[Greg Jennings]

He is correct.

Did you, as 6days does, believe that sharks and lions once were vegetarians? And that only sin turned them to the food that they were physically designed to eat?

 

[Greg Jennings]

For themselves perhaps. But the survey data is pretty clear...Christianity's anti-scientific stance is driving people away from the faith, especially young people.

So when they want to argue a flat and young earth, let them take the stage and give 'em a microphone.

Precisely my fear

 

[Greg Jennings]

Lumping flat-earthers in with the rest of Biblical creationists is an insult to Biblical creationists.

Have you missed the flat Earth threads here? There are more than couple of you on this site alone who share the flat-Earth view

 

[JudgeRightly]

JR, I think you've been made aware before that C-14 breaks down completely in less than 100,000 years. Nothing in the Bible disputes that. And thousands of individual scientists have confirmed it

Well aware, and agreed. Which is why it's part of my argument.

Do you see how you might not be able to accurately measure a millions year old fossil with that method? It's like breaking open a diamond to look for coal: that stuff is long gone

It's the fact that you CAN find C14 in fossils and diamonds that we know that they are not millions of years old. You may want to go read the article yourself, because you've clearly missed the point of my argument.

You can't reject dating methods, then claim an improperly used dating method supports you. That's just silly

If there is significant amounts of C14 in fossils, diamonds, and other places which are claimed to be millions of years old, then those items cannot, I repeat, CANNOT be millions of years old, BECAUSE C14 breaks down completely (to levels which are insignificant) in less than 100,000 years.