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.

[SavedByTheLord]

Or, as you would argue from a creationist point of view:

We know creationism and a young Earth are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know creationism and a young Earth are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have been created 6000 years ago because we know creationism and a young Earth are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts creationism and a young Earth must be false because we know creationism and a young Earth are are true.

See, the same words using different premises. Both are circular. I dispute that the first is a fair representation of how evolutionists argue, but the second is pretty accurate.

As should be obvious, neither one proves anything and both depend on the truth or otherwise of the premises, which is what we have all been discussing.

Not true.
I have exactly one assunptip. That God created all things.
And I proved it. No circular reasoning there.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

 

[Alien826]

I notice you've also decided to ignore my questions about why you do this - why you come onto the Internet daily in multiple threads that you have started, and behaving in a way that earns you universal disrespect and condemnation. I wonder why that's not interesting to you. If you presented me with something like that, I'd be all over it whatever my thoughts were. Maybe I'd disagree that I was being disrespected. Maybe I would agree but think that that's OK and could explain why. Whatever my thoughts, I would have no reason to conceal them from you, but rather, I'd have a reason to explain and justify them. After all, they're my reasons and therefore must be good reason to me, right?

I assume you realize that you will never get a response to this. You're asking for an honest appraisal of his own motivations, which, I fear, few of us are capable of. I'm skirting the RF rules with what follows, so I'll start by saying that I have no idea what this particular poster thinks or believes.

When you have based your entire emotional well being on a particular set of beliefs, hearing something that might show that it has all been a waste of time and what's more you have nothing comforting to replace those beliefs with, is uncomfortable to say the least. So the mind retreats and defends itself in various ways, like denial, restatement of the beliefs and anger at those that question them.

It's like the cartoon character that runs off the edge of a cliff. He continues to run until he looks down and realizes that he is standing on nothing. Then, he acknowledges the truth and plunges to the bottom of the cliff, or turns rounds and runs really hard in mid air and manages to get back to the cliff edge.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do you do this? Are you unaware of this?

As you know, those are the questions that keep me interested in this poster. Nothing else is interesting about creationist apologetics to me. I'm trying to understand this behavior and see if there isn't a way to get him to engage me responsively. I've never succeeded with others, and I've reached this point with at least a half dozen here on RF, but the reaction has ALWAYS been this one, as if the words were never written or never read or never conceptualized (filtered out by a faith-based confirmation bias before fully reaching consciousness) or forgotten immediately - one of those - but possibly also something less honorable, like trolling or other malicious, bad faith behavior.

I assume you realize that you will never get a response to this.

I expect that. I'm exploring why that is the case now.

God created everything. And I have proved it.

The god of Abraham has been ruled out empirically. Science has proved it. The god that created reality in six days and the first two human beings before flooding it and having others pay for its engineering failures doesn't and never existed. No building or ruling god exists. The universe assembled itself absent intelligent supervision and operates day-to-day the same way. No all-knowing, all-loving, perfectly loving god exists, nor any channeling scripture through human beings, performing miracles, or answering prayer. You're left with noninterventionist gods like the deist god, who wrote the code and then disappeared. That god hasn't been ruled and cannot be ruled out, but its existence is irrelevant whatever its former ontological status (see apatheism, or the attitude of apathy toward the existence or non-existence of gods). Why? Because nothing changes whatever the answer.

From an anonymous Internet persona: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No matter what answer you give, literally nothing changes. No decision you will ever make in your entire lifetime can ever be influenced by the answer to this question. If nothing changes even in principle with respect to some proposition being true or false, then the distinction between them just vanishes."

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science. This is it in a nutshell.

Like clockwork, and so insight-free of you to keep doing this (fulfilling my "prophecies"), but grist for speculating about what explains your choices. I'm a determinist. There is a physical (neuroelectrochemical) mechanism that keeps you posting like this just as there is one to account for my reactions. Normally, there is a benefit or perceived benefit to any deliberate behavior, but I question that with you. You may be operating with even less insight than that, having no purpose that you can identify or articulate.

But to be that disengaged from reality - doing things with no knowledge of or interest in why or how they might help or harm one - sounds like it ought to be lethal.

How does this discussion NOT pique your interest? Does none of this matter to you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not true.
I have exactly one assunptip. That God created all things.
And I proved it. No circular reasoning there.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

This reminds me of a joke my father told us when my siblings and I were children.

He said, "My mother was frightened by a phonograph record when she was pregnant with me." "But it didn't effect me none, effect me none, effect me none, effect me none..."

HaHaHaHa.

Don't you see the comparison?

 

[Mock Turtle]

God created everything. And I have proved it.

It seems your ego needs restraining or it might fly away like a lost balloon.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems your ego needs restraining or it might fly away like a lost balloon.

I'm still looking for that one I lost when I was 8. It was a good balloon. Real friendly. I like to think it found a good home, got an education in meteorology and became a weather balloon.

 

[Alien826]

How does this discussion NOT pique your interest? Does none of this matter to you?

I would say it matters enormously. So much so that it is avoided at all costs.

My ex wife's daughter married a very fundie Christian and took the whole can of worms on uncritically, despite being a quite intelligent person in general. The husband and his family were part of a like community, which supported her delusion. She had five daughters that she home schooled to avoid the possibly of their being contaminated by contradictory scientific ideas. Her mother (my ex) had her access to her grand children strictly constrained. They were not allowed to see her without there being a parent present. She (the mother) was told that she was "of the devil" because she didn't share these beliefs. The oldest grandchild was a remarkably intelligent kid that could have gone far. Last I heard, she was on a track to be missionary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true.
I have exactly one assunptip. That God created all things.
And I proved it. No circular reasoning there.

You never even came close to proving it. You only demonstrated that you do not understand logic or even reasoning.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

That is a strawman argument. That is not what scientists say. We know that the Earth is old regardless of evolution. We know that the universe is old, regardless of evolution. You use a dishonest argument where you try to claim everything that refutes your flawed religious beliefs "evolution".

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You never even came close to proving it. You only demonstrated that you do not understand logic or even reasoning.

That is a strawman argument. That is not what scientists say. We know that the Earth is old regardless of evolution. We know that the universe is old, regardless of evolution. You use a dishonest argument where you try to claim everything that refutes your flawed religious beliefs "evolution".

That refute all of my many proofs because you have yet to do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That refute all of my many proofs because you have yet to do it.

Incorrect. your inability to understand the refutations given does not mean that they did not happen.

And I need to remind you that You were the one that confirmed that your arguments were refuted when you ran away from the discussion on them. You saw that you lost so you ran away in order to keep posting your nonsense.

But once you run away you have already admitted defeat. You have already admitted that you were wrong by running away.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Incorrect. your inability to understand the refutations given does not mean that they did not happen.

And I need to remind you that You were the one that confirmed that your arguments were refuted when you ran away from the discussion on them. You saw that you lost so you ran away in order to keep posting your nonsense.

But once you run away you have already admitted defeat. You have already admitted that you were wrong by running away.

You have nothing for any real answer and cannot refute.
Why? Because evolution is false.

 

[F1fan]

You have nothing for any real answer and cannot refute.
Why? Because evolution is false.

Not to the educated and experts in science. Evolution is only false to the fringe Christians who have adopted a flawed interpretation of the Bible.

So who told you this flawed interpretation, and why did you believe them? Why can't you defend what your religious beliefs say about a God creating a world that includes defects and diseases? You are ignoring these questions for a reason: you have no answers.

Evolution actuallu explains why living organisms have defcts and diseases, and if you accepted the science like most other Christians and citizens of the world you would have a way to get your God off the hook for immoral acts and murders. I don't see you caring. It's as if you don't even believe God exists.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Not to the educated and experts in science. Evolution is only false to the fringe Christians who have adopted a flawed interpretation of the Bible.

So who told you this flawed interpretation, and why did you believe them? Why can't you defend what your religious beliefs say about a God creating a world that includes defects and diseases? You are ignoring these questions for a reason: you have no answers.

Evolution actuallu explains why living organisms have defcts and diseases, and if you accepted the science like most other Christians and citizens of the world you would have a way to get your God off the hook for immoral acts and murders. I don't see you caring. It's as if you don't even believe God exists.

The Bible is crystal clear that God did not use evolution or billions of years.

BTW, have you or anyone yet met the challenge?

 

[John53]

2 Peter 3:8​

 

[SavedByTheLord]

2 Peter 3:8​

And that makes the Earth about 6000 years old also.

 

[John53]

6 days then had smoko on the 7th = 7,000. Even the bible refutes the nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have nothing for any real answer and cannot refute.
Why? Because evolution is false.

I am not the one running away and moving the goalposts. That would be you.

If you are so sure of yourself why do you always run away when you are shown to be wrong?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I am not the one running away and moving the goalposts. That would be you.

If you are so sure of yourself why do you always run away when you are shown to be wrong?

You are running away.

What was the first living creature?
How many amino acids did it have?
The smallest living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
Pick a number.
No number will work.
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or 5000 or 2500?

 

[F1fan]

The Bible is crystal clear that God did not use evolution or billions of years.

Which is why it is dismissed as factual and true as a way to describe our world.

You have yet to show us why anyone should interpret the Bible literally versus symbolically. The facts and evidence shows us a literal interpretation is untrue. You don't care, but we do because we are interested in knowing what is true about the universe.

BTW, have you or anyone yet met the challenge?

Not even you can anwer many of your questions, so why would it matter? Science follows the evidence, and some things we don't know. One thing we do know is the Bible is not literally true.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Which is why it is dismissed as factual and true as a way to describe our world.

You have yet to show us why anyone should interpret the Bible literally versus symbolically. The facts and evidence shows us a literal interpretation is untrue. You don't care, but we do because we are interested in knowing what is true about the universe.

Not even you can anwer many of your questions, so why would it matter? Science follows the evidence, and some things we don't know. One thing we do know is the Bible is not literally true.

Come back in 6 minutes and I will give you the proof.