Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[Subduction Zone]

ah see thats just opened the most obvious and easy answer i think i have ever had to make on this forum...

you are left with no option but to adhear to Pascals Wager!

The point is, we all want to live. That i think is a general tendency for humanity. We strive to survive.

Now given that we strive to survive, at the end of the day you are left with a simple binary choice...

Believe in God or not.

Caveats to consider about the philosophical position of God:

Like a club, you are not a member unless you actively choose to become one and engage with that club. Christianity is no different. If it turns out God as described in the proven historical account of the narrative of the Bible turns out to be true...

Unless you actually choose God and actively participate in Christianity, just like the Bible itself states...you cannot be saved.

There is no automatic salvation.

That is the dilemma of pascals wager where it is better to choose Christianity and believe in it faithfully, than not.

Because if you choose "no God" and I choose "God" and i lose, i suffer the exact same fate as you.

However, if there is a God, then you lose and i win!


I know many people who play the lottery with far less at stake than the possibility of life after death.
(so if you want to critically think, id suggest you have some serious thinking to do)

Which God? Pascal's wager fails because he used a false dichotomy. He only considered the Christian God and atheism. And even that was flawed. But it was boneheaded to forget that there could have been countless others gods that was the right god.

 

[YoursTrue]

ah see thats just opened the most obvious and easy answer i think i have ever had to make on this forum...

you are left with no option but to adhear to Pascals Wager!

The point is, we all want to live. That i think is a general tendency for humanity. We strive to survive.

Now given that we strive to survive, at the end of the day you are left with a simple binary choice...

Believe in God or not.

Caveats to consider about the philosophical position of God:

Like a club, you are not a member unless you actively choose to become one and engage with that club. Christianity is no different. If it turns out God as described in the proven historical account of the narrative of the Bible turns out to be true...

Unless you actually choose God and actively participate in Christianity, just like the Bible itself states...you cannot be saved.

There is no automatic salvation.

That is the dilemma of pascals wager where it is better to choose Christianity and believe in it faithfully, than not.

Because if you choose "no God" and I choose "God" and i lose, i suffer the exact same fate as you.

However, if there is a God, then you lose and i win!


I know many people who play the lottery with far less at stake than the possibility of life after death.
(so if you want to critically think, id suggest you have some serious thinking to do)

Hello. I understand you say we all want to live but some people commit suicide. It seems natural to want to live when we're happy.

 

[YoursTrue]

ah see thats just opened the most obvious and easy answer i think i have ever had to make on this forum...

you are left with no option but to adhear to Pascals Wager!

The point is, we all want to live. That i think is a general tendency for humanity. We strive to survive.

Now given that we strive to survive, at the end of the day you are left with a simple binary choice...

Believe in God or not.

Caveats to consider about the philosophical position of God:

Like a club, you are not a member unless you actively choose to become one and engage with that club. Christianity is no different. If it turns out God as described in the proven historical account of the narrative of the Bible turns out to be true...

Unless you actually choose God and actively participate in Christianity, just like the Bible itself states...you cannot be saved.

There is no automatic salvation.

That is the dilemma of pascals wager where it is better to choose Christianity and believe in it faithfully, than not.

Because if you choose "no God" and I choose "God" and i lose, i suffer the exact same fate as you.

However, if there is a God, then you lose and i win!


I know many people who play the lottery with far less at stake than the possibility of life after death.
(so if you want to critically think, id suggest you have some serious thinking to do)

I was raised in a religion. My family observed some traditions but we were not religious. By that I mean there were no biblical discussions about morality or understanding scriptures. That being said, when I left home and went away to college I wanted to investigate various ways of thinking. And religion. I was not moved or impressed by the various religious and philosophical entities so I basically stayed as I was, i.e., within the definition of my birth religion. Later on, however, I changed. Since I like to keep my posts short, I'll just stop there for now. Take care.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The reason that all YEC "science" is pseudoscience is because they do not follow the scientific method

that is bull and you know it is. what is used as fact in your claim is that there are on occasion some who do not follow appropriate method...however, even these claims are in quite a number of cases disputed.

Again, you ignore the usual claim in all of this...the issue is that peer review using secular institutions is largely impossible and its not because there is necessarily anything wrong with the method being used. Its quite often simply because the research aims to prove mainstream scientific interpretations wrong!

 

[Subduction Zone]

that is bull and you know it is. what is used as fact in your claim is that there are on occasion some who do not follow appropriate method...however, even these claims are in quite a number of cases disputed.

Again, you ignore the usual claim in all of this...the issue is that peer review using secular institutions is largely impossible and its not because there is necessarily anything wrong with the method being used. Its quite often simply because the research aims to prove mainstream scientific interpretations wrong!

Nope, it's the truth. If I am wrong then why are your only responses to me your whimpers of "bull"?

And no, you are extraordinarily wrong with your conspiracy theory nonsense. The reason why creationist papers are rejected is because they are riddled with errors. Just think how they could use an improper rejection for their own publicity. They know if they made such claims that publishers would explain in depth what was wrong with their garbage. That is why they started their own publications that are laughed at by scientists and still publicly ridiculed for their errors at times.

I explained just a very small fraction of the evidence for an old Earth and you had no answer. I challenged you to find any evidence for creationism and you couldn't find any.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nope, it's the truth. If I am wrong then why are your only responses to me your whimpers of "bull"?

And no, you are extraordinarily wrong with your conspiracy theory nonsense. The reason why creationist papers are rejected is because they are riddled with errors. Just think how they could use an improper rejection for their own publicity. They know if they made such claims that publishers would explain in depth what was wrong with their garbage. That is why they started their own publications that are laughed at by scientists and still publicly ridiculed for their errors at times.

I explained just a very small fraction of the evidence for an old Earth and you had no answer. I challenged you to find any evidence for creationism and you couldn't find any.

It is censorship that creationist papers are rejected.
Read Robert Gentry’s book as he gives detailed evidence of the censorship he encountered

I have peer reviewed and fact checked all scientists that claim anything is older than 6000 years, and they have a false conclusion in this area of knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is censorship that creationist papers are rejected.
Read Robert Gentry’s book as he gives detailed evidence of the censorship he encountered

I have peer reviewed and fact checked all scientists that claim anything is older than 6000 years, and they have a false conclusion in this area of knowledge.

How so? They can't meet the standards for publication. That happens when even very bright people act like idiots.

You do not even have a clue as to what peer review is.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is censorship that creationist papers are rejected.

No, it's because they don't meet the required standards. And it's quite obvious why not.

I have peer reviewed and fact checked all scientists....

Since you have shown time and time again that you know **** all about science, this is nothing but hilarious!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is the dilemma of pascals wager where it is better to choose Christianity and believe in it faithfully, than not. Because if you choose "no God" and I choose "God" and i lose, i suffer the exact same fate as you. However, if there is a God, then you lose and i win!

Your fallacy: false dilemma. You're not considering the cost of being a Christian. How much of your time and money has been given to religion that could have been used otherwise? My wife wouldn't have had me were I a Christian. And I probably would have been raising children with a Christian wife, something I opted out of with my humanist wife. We preferred travel, music, and restaurants over braces, school recitals, and soccer practice.

You have also dismissed out of hand any cost of guessing wrong if there's an afterlife. If I were a judgmental deity into punishing humans for being human like the Abrahamic god, my criteria would be pretty much the opposite, rewarding reason but not belief by faith.

Unless you actually choose God and actively participate in Christianity, just like the Bible itself states...you cannot be saved. There is no automatic salvation.

Thanks for your concern, but that's for you and others willing to believe what you do to worry about.

Now given that we strive to survive, at the end of the day you are left with a simple binary choice... Believe in God or not.

OK. Not. And look, I've survived for decades since leaving theism and religion. Thrived, even. This religion has nothing to offer a person who is complete and content without it, so why would such a person want to saddle himself with it, which applies even more so with one who has already successfully left that life.

Again, you ignore the usual claim in all of this...the issue is that peer review using secular institutions is largely impossible and its not because there is necessarily anything wrong with the method being used. Its quite often simply because the research aims to prove mainstream scientific interpretations wrong!

So you see conspiracy and turf wars there - unfairness to the creationists for their would-be papers being rejected by respected biological journals? They're free to publish their papers in creationist journals. If there are none, they can start some. And they can reject science and its standards that reject them in their own creationist journals. Go ahead and compete rather than ask for special consideration for what is seen as pseudoscience by the scientific community and now the American courts as well. Go for it. Show the world what you've got and why people should heed or respect it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, it's because they don't meet the required standards. And it's quite obvious why not.

Since you have shown time and time again that you know **** all about science, this is nothing but hilarious!

How did the giraffe get its long neck?

There was no reason for a longer neck as there was plenty of food at the ground and lower levels even up to 10 feet. A few giraffes that were a foot taller does not provide any survival advantage, as they cannot reach the upper vegetation.

And a longer neck presents all kinds of blood pressure and blood flow problems between a giraffe with head bent to the ground and a neck stretched up.
In fact, the giraffe has special valves in its neck to allow such, but how did they evolve?
That change is too complex to have evolved all at once and provides no advantage until all in place.
In fact, it would cause a real problem with survival if only partially formed.
So, God made the giraffe with the longer neck and the special valves.

 

[ratiocinator]

How did the giraffe get its long neck?

Repetition is just running away. There is no point in giving you answer because you shamelessly ignore them.

Once you have the basic courage to face up to the answers you already have, perhaps people might give you further answers, but why would anybody bother to answer somebody who seems to be far too scared to face up to them?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There was no reason for a longer neck as there was plenty of food at the ground and lower levels even up to 10 feet. A few giraffes that were a foot taller does not provide any survival advantage, as they cannot reach the upper vegetation. And a longer neck presents all kinds of blood pressure and blood flow problems between a giraffe with head bent to the ground and a neck stretched up. In fact, the giraffe has special valves in its neck to allow such, but how did they evolve? That change is too complex to have evolved all at once and provides no advantage until all in place.

It seems that you consider giraffes stupidly designed, having height that does nothing for them but to create physiological problems. That's one view.

Another is that you are wrong about all of it - that there was no stupid designer, that the extra height confers a survival advantage, and that evolution solved these hydrodynamic problems.

Which hypothesis comports best with your religious beliefs and worldview - stupid design or naturalistic evolution?

 

[McBell]

you are left with no option but to adhear to Pascals Wager!

Not true.
I simply dismiss your bold empty claims for the bold empty claims they are.
Now if you are going to follow the atypical protocol, your next step is a bold empty threat.

Which I will also dismiss because of the "bold empty" part.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is censorship that creationist papers are rejected.
Read Robert Gentry’s book as he gives detailed evidence of the censorship he encountered

I have peer reviewed and fact checked all scientists that claim anything is older than 6000 years, and they have a false conclusion in this area of knowledge.

Whereas you should know by now that I think your questions are good in reference to evolution, I find there is definitely evidence I accept for the age of the earth such as rocks and soil to be older than 6,000 years. The the use of the word day in the Bible does not always mean a 24-hour period. It can mean a period of time with a beginning and an end. And remember please -- the 7th 'day' as noted in the creation account in Genesis is not said to have ended. It is the only day of the 7 'days' described of creation that has no closure to it yet.
I hope you will see to it eventually to change your outlook on the timing. I have a problem with dating, too, about the soil and spillovers and tools and all that because I think scientists have a real problem with dating things like that, including cities and structures and tools. I think they're wrong in many cases. But I do believe that the earth is far older than 6,000 years. Not mankind. Not gorillas. Not birds. But the earth.
(Have a good day... I mean that.)

 

[ratiocinator]

Whereas you should know by now that I think your questions are good in reference to evolution, I find there is definitely evidence I accept for the age of the earth such as rocks and soil to be older than 6,000 years. The the use of the word day in the Bible does not always mean a 24-hour period. It can mean a period of time with a beginning and an end. And remember please -- the 7th 'day' as noted in the creation account in Genesis is not said to have ended. It is the only day of the 7 'days' described of creation that has no closure to it yet.
I hope you will see to it eventually to change your outlook on the timing. I have a problem with dating, too, about the soil and spillovers and tools and all that because I think scientists have a real problem with dating things like that, including cities and structures and tools. I think they're wrong in many cases. But I do believe that the earth is far older than 6,000 years. Not mankind. Not gorillas. Not birds. But the earth.
(Have a good day... I mean that.)

It's really quite amusing watching people argue about how much baseless superstition to accept and how much of evidence-based science they want to pretend isn't valid to fit in with it....

 

[McBell]

There was no reason for a longer neck as there was plenty of food at the ground and lower levels even up to 10 feet. A few giraffes that were a foot taller does not provide any survival advantage, as they cannot reach the upper vegetation.

So why then did God make the giraffes neck so long?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How did the giraffe get its long neck?

There was no reason for a longer neck as there was plenty of food at the ground and lower levels even up to 10 feet. A few giraffes that were a foot taller does not provide any survival advantage, as they cannot reach the upper vegetation.

And a longer neck presents all kinds of blood pressure and blood flow problems between a giraffe with head bent to the ground and a neck stretched up.
In fact, the giraffe has special valves in its neck to allow such, but how did they evolve?
That change is too complex to have evolved all at once and provides no advantage until all in place.
In fact, it would cause a real problem with survival if only partially formed.
So, God made the giraffe with the longer neck and the special valves.

Arguments from ignorance with the default value being whatever you choose to believe. I call it the default paradigm and the answer varies with the whatever ignorance is applied by whatever random creationist. So, it is a null answer.

Congratulations.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Which God? Pascal's wager fails because he used a false dichotomy. He only considered the Christian God and atheism. And even that was flawed. But it was boneheaded to forget that there could have been countless others gods that was the right god.

ah but that isnt accuate either. documented history shows that the bible is the most consistently supported religion historically, it is internally the most consistent with its own and it dates older than others.
But hey, i dont care which religion you use...its the same outcome if one doesnt choose to follow it.

Nope, it's the truth. If I am wrong then why are your only responses to me your whimpers of "bull"?

And no, you are extraordinarily wrong with your conspiracy theory nonsense. The reason why creationist papers are rejected is because they are riddled with errors. Just think how they could use an improper rejection for their own publicity. They know if they made such claims that publishers would explain in depth what was wrong with their garbage. That is why they started their own publications that are laughed at by scientists and still publicly ridiculed for their errors at times.

I explained just a very small fraction of the evidence for an old Earth and you had no answer. I challenged you to find any evidence for creationism and you couldn't find any.

You have ignored the fact that Pascals Wager sets 2 parameters...its only dicussing a wager between religion and atheism and that is the point here.

Also, your complaint about the cost to the individual is also bull...you aren't a Christian or religious right? So how would you even know? Heresay?

Next time you want to copy Redit answers (ie its a false dichotomy)...at least reference them

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ah but that isnt accuate either. documented history shows that the bible is the most consistently supported religion historically, it is internally the most consistent with its own and it dates older than others.
But hey, i dont care which religion you use...its the same outcome if one doesnt choose to follow it.

You have ignored the fact that pascal wager sets 2 parameters...its only dicussing a wager between religion and atheism.

Your co.plaint about the cost to the individual is also bull...you aren't a Christian or religious right? So how would you even know? Heresay?

Next time you want to copy Redit answers (ie its a false dichotomy)...at least reference them

The fact that it is recognized as a false dichotomy doesn't ignore that it is two choices. It highlights that fact. Pascal's Wager is about the choice between living as if God exists and living as if God does not exist. It is a false dichotomy, since it ignores the possibility of a third option.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Arguments from ignorance with the default value being whatever you choose to believe. I call it the default paradigm and the answer varies with the whatever ignorance is applied by whatever random creationist. So, it is a null answer.

Congratulations.

Yes but when you think about it...when did the giraffe evolve such a long neck and why? Is there any evidence it needed such a long neck when there are food sources and other animals that eat similar foods lower to the ground?
That's (diversity) a problem for evolution generally I think...there are countless examples of diversity that don't really fit. More importantly, these creatures appear to exist at around the same time and not millions of years apart. So why did that diversity suddenly evolve all at once?
Also, when a functioning system works, wouldnt it be expected thst such a system would replicate itself in a universal way (because it works). In evolution, we have systems thst should be the same but are not. Intelligent design has a perfect explanation for this, but for evolution, again it's problematic...why isn't it the same everywhere? Why are the different animals in similar systems around the world? We can't use the survival of the fittest or extinction defenses...I dont think that explains it well.

Creationists have a consistent answer for that, however, i think its problematic for evolution.