Of course, but then he has to show why they are assumption.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Of course, but then he has to show why they are assumption.
22000 years ago
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
My wife had a friend who was a YEC. She wore a pendant with a fossil "for a laugh." I foolishly mentioned once that I'd taken geology at college. She looked dismissively at me with a mixture of pity and disgust.
Not to quibble but this is not precise. All sciences have base predicate axioms which are assumed, ergo assumptions.
Why assume 6000 years? Is that due to the Ussher timeline that many creationists have abandonded?
So no creationist has ever been able to prove this, but you are? I predict seeing the same old debunked claims and the lack of evidence, with a severe case of science denialism.
Rocks, empty claims, meaningless challenges where the person making the challenge denies evidence against them, the moon, the sun, the stars, living things as a group, dinosaurs, insects as a group, etc., etc., etc.
The burden of proof be upon you.
Sure. Why not?
These are crucial axioms that science (or even our daily lives) can't procede without making. Let's note they are consistently reliable. So what's the problem?
I understand now why the assumption challenge is considered to have a 100% failure rate. The entire post starts with an assumption. That's tricksie.
Work faster. I want to see it.
There's always a way the system has to be rigged to avoid demonstrating their claims by trying to create gaps that failed arguments can appear to thrive in.
I suppose when you cannot support a claim, the best next thing is smear existing knowledge and science.
If one can't make any assumptions, eg, the
scientific method is useful (provide testable
explanations), then no discussion is really possible.
scientific method is useful (provide testable
explanations), then no discussion is really possible.
People that think the Earth is only 6,000 years old do that based on belief contrary to or in denial of reason and evidence. Those that think it is older do so on acceptance of a rational consideration of the evidence. Belief and rational acceptance of evidence are not equivalent.
Was there any doubt of that from the start?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Context matters. You are using an equivocation fallacy here. That was clearly not the meaning of assumption that the OP was using.
I didn't say there was a problem. I noted that axioms rely on being assumptions. Do you have a problem with that?
Colt
Well-Known Member
Any celestial object that is 1 billion light years away.
I'm not equivocating anything. I simply pointed out that scientific axioms are assumptions but the post I responded to said science didn't have assumptions. Science has assumptions. These assumptions are categorically different, but they are assumptions.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Just seems like a cosmic level of stupidity.