Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[way 2 go]

It was more a rhetorical question.

Darwinists hate trying to explain the origins of things.

Mennosota posted a link he expected us to read
so I posted a link that I expected he would not read

Mennosota did not disappoint me. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

You make it seem like it's impossible to determine radiometric dating if a person doesn't know the origin point.

There's no "seems" about it.

The best you can do is assume the initial conditions and extrapolate. The more you know about the origins, the more likely you are to get a reliable reading.

Do you think God set up measurable laws by which we can observe time from the present back into time or must you have been at the origin point to figure this out?

Neither.

By the way, were you there at the origin point to confirm its origin?

It's called physics. What is the physical process by which radioactive materials are generated?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Mennosota posted a link he expected us to read
so I posted a link that I expected he would not read

Mennosota did not disappoint me. :chuckle:

:chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Mennosota posted a link he expected us to read.

Ugh. A pandering, overly long "introductory" piece that parrots Darwinist ideas while ignoring the fundamentals.

If you aren't willing to discuss origins, you're not qualified to participate in this discussion.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jonahdog]

It's called physics. What is the physical process by which radioactive materials are generated?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Please tell us.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Welcome back, Jonah.

Please tell us.

You know, when someone asks a question, the normal response is to answer that question, not demand that the person answers their own question.

 

[Stripe]

Welcome back, Jonah.

Another Darwinist who claims the moral high ground instead of discussing what they claim ownership of: Science.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jonahdog]

Welcome back, Jonah.You know, when someone asks a question, the normal response is to answer that question, not demand that the person answers their own question.

Stripe brought up the topic. He asked the question. I would like to know the answer. If he doesnt know he can tell us. If he knows he should enlighten us.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe brought up the topic. He asked the question. I would like to know the answer. If he doesnt know he can tell us. If he knows he should enlighten us.

:mock: Dog.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Idolater]

...why would God want to deceive humans?

He has only deceived us if everything is really over 13 billion years old, because HE TOLD US 'six days.'

Spoiler

When I read that it took God six days to create the heavens and the earth, I take it literally.

When those who don't believe He created everything in six days read 'six days,' they don't take it literally.

So when science tells us that everything looks to be over 13 billion years old, those who don't take 'six days' literally think, "See? 'Told you."

And then when you proffer my position, that everything appears to be older than it actually is, these people think, "Then God is deceiving us in making things look older than they are."

But no. I take 'six days' literally. I would argue that if everything actually is over 13 billion years old, then and only then is God deceiving us, because He said 'six days.'

Then God is deceiving us, because He told us He took six days, and not six billion, years. Plus seven billion more.

You can take 'six days' figuratively, or poetically, or rhetorically. I have no issue with people who do, with one exception. When I suggest that the universe appears to be over 13 billion years old, but 'six days' is the reality, they think my view has me making God deceptive---and that's ONLY true, if everything's actually over 13 billion years old. If the age of the universe's closer to 'six days' old, than to 13 billion years old, then there's no deception at all on God's part....

 

[JudgeRightly]

Stripe brought up the topic. He asked the question. I would like to know the answer. If he doesnt know he can tell us. If he knows he should enlighten us.

I'm sure he knows the answer, but like myself, I am sure he is asking questions to obtain a baseline for discussion, which just makes conversation more pleasant.

But if you're not going to bother discussing anything, I guess you don't really care, do you?

If that's the case, then maybe you should quit TOL, because this is a site for discussion, not for harrassment.

 

[Jonahdog]

I'm sure he knows the answer, but like myself, I am sure he is asking questions to obtain a baseline for discussion, which just makes conversation more pleasant.

But if you're not going to bother discussing anything, I guess you don't really care, do you?

If that's the case, then maybe you should quit TOL, because this is a site for discussion, not for harrassment.

He raised a question. If he does not know the answer he can say so. If he knows the answer he can provide it.
That would extend the discussion.

 

[Stripe]

He raised a question. If he does not know the answer he can say so. If he knows the answer he can provide it.
That would extend the discussion.

:mock: Dog

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

He has only deceived us if everything is really over 13 billion years old, because HE TOLD US 'six days.'

Spoiler

This is true if you think God is bound by the earth's rotation and the sun being set as the source of light by which God counts a day.
However, the sun did not exist until the 4th day. So we have 3 days where the sun is not a factor in the earth's function. This would indicate that the earth didn't even have an orbit around the sun until day 4. Therefore, I see no reason to demand of God a 24 hour day as he created and I do not see this as a deception by God.
That being said, I don't really care how long it took. God created as he chose and for whatever time he willed. I simply think that one does not need to demand a 24 hour day from Genesis chapter 1.

 

[JudgeRightly]

This is true if you think God is bound by the earth's rotation and the sun being set as the source of light by which God counts a day.
However, the sun did not exist until the 4th day. So we have 3 days where the sun is not a factor in the earth's function. This would indicate that the earth didn't even have an orbit around the sun until day 4. Therefore, I see no reason to demand of God a 24 hour day as he created and I do not see this as a deception by God.
That being said, I don't really care how long it took. God created as he chose and for whatever time he willed. I simply think that one does not need to demand a 24 hour day from Genesis chapter 1.

Something interesting about the first day, in that it was referred to differently than the other six.

and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one. - Genesis 1:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:5&version=YLT

Moses uses a cardinal number for day one, and ordinal numbers for the second through seventh.

Why make the distinction if "day" doesn't mean a literal 24-hour period?

 

[Stripe]

This is true if you think God is bound by the earth's rotation and the sun being set as the source of light by which God counts a day.
However, the sun did not exist until the 4th day. So we have 3 days where the sun is not a factor in the earth's function. This would indicate that the earth didn't even have an orbit around the sun until day 4. Therefore, I see no reason to demand of God a 24 hour day as he created and I do not see this as a deception by God.
That being said, I don't really care how long it took. God created as he chose and for whatever time he willed. I simply think that one does not need to demand a 24 hour day from Genesis chapter 1.

Switching up the discussion already, huh?

Did you figure out the origin of radioactivity yet?


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Switching up the discussion already, huh?

Did you figure out the origin of radioactivity yet?


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

LOL, you and your foolish need for the origin of radioactivity. Again, I ask you if you were there to record the origin of radioactivity. Unless you were there, you have no idea. However, the measurable evidence from radiometric dating reveals an old earth.

 

[Idolater]

...I simply think that one does not need to demand a 24 hour day from Genesis chapter 1.

But I 'demand' it from Exodus 20:11 KJV

fwiw

 

[Stripe]

...foolish need for the origin of radioactivity...

It's called science; the pursuit of understanding via the exclusion of impossible ideas.

It's telling that you would call such efforts "foolish."

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

It's called science; the pursuit of understanding via the exclusion of impossible ideas.

It's telling that you would call such efforts "foolish."

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Right, which is why radiometric dating is accurate. Science.