Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Audie]

No chart. Just memory and experience. For example the dinosaur soft tissue criticism is one I have heard for over a decade. Religious apologists in general use common arguments.

As noted, people skilled in the art dont post
pratts or nonsense.

Trying to figure how they justify it.

I think it is like that AIG represents the few
the brave, the godly who stand shoulder to
shoulder against the secular humanist atheist
evolutionist ungodly.

Those who speak for god and the bible would
never practice to deceive. You can trust them.

ToE being false, full of holes, errors and lies
is easy to disprove, and the AIGers have done
just that, many times.

The creationists are not expert s, but they can
quote from the godly who are.

And of course, if all else ever fails, they
can say "Assumption!"

or as need be, "same evidence, different
interpretation" and cap that off with "paradigm"

 

[ecco]

Facts always determine my beliefs, suppositions rarely.
Facts one day will change yours. I hope it won't be to your detriment.

Your facts are like Donald Trump's truths.

It is not a fact that the human eye is too complex to have developed without divine intervention. Behe's "theory" has been debunked over and over. For you to consider it "fact" is ridiculous.

However, I do understand your need to continue to believe in your fairy tale.

 

[Audie]

Your facts are like Donald Trump's truths.

It is not a fact that the human eye is too complex to have developed without divine intervention. Behe's "theory" has been debunked over and over. For you to consider it "fact" is ridiculous.

However, I do understand your need to continue to believe in your fairy tale.

I got a pretty good measure of his immunity to facts
when we "discussed" the "flash frozen mammoths".

The facts: that all of the frozen mammoths are in various
stages of decay, most are partial remains, show
evidence of having been scavenged, and date to
thousands or years apart. That vegetation associated
with them is all of the tundra / taiga.

The belief? They were all quick frozen at the time of
the "flood" and lived in what was a temperate climate
at the time.

I expect it is true that the easiest person for a
person to fool, is oneself.

I wonder what odd linkage between fact and
belief is involved in saying-

Facts always determine my beliefs,

 

[Shad]

As noted, people skilled in the art dont post
pratts or nonsense.

Trying to figure how they justify it.

I think it is like that AIG represents the few
the brave, the godly who stand shoulder to
shoulder against the secular humanist atheist
evolutionist ungodly.

Those who speak for god and the bible would
never practice to deceive. You can trust them.

ToE being false, full of holes, errors and lies
is easy to disprove, and the AIGers have done
just that, many times.

The creationists are not expert s, but they can
quote from the godly who are.

And of course, if all else ever fails, they
can say "Assumption!"

or as need be, "same evidence, different
interpretation" and cap that off with "paradigm"

A lot of Christian arguments from users I see come from AIG so a good example. Although AIG merely parrots most of the arguments it has from other sources.

 

[Audie]

A lot of Christian arguments from users I see come from AIG so a good example. Although AIG merely parrots most of the arguments it has from other sources.

We dont see "creoguments" that spring from an
understanding of the subject matter.

 

[Shad]

We dont see "creoguments" that spring from an
understanding of the subject matter.

Typically no. However there is a rare convert with a relevant expertise from time to time.

 

[Audie]

Typical no. However there is a rare convert with a relevant expertise from time to time.

As lomg as you keep Audie's Principle in mind:

"It is impossible for a creationist to be both informed
and intellectually honest."

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The belief? They were all quick frozen at the time of
the "flood" and lived in what was a temperate climate
at the time.

That's what I believe? Really?

I've posted to you several times that flash frozen wasn't necessary:


Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective


So why have you resorted to lying about me? Have you realized your counter-argument is very weak? (I thought you were above such a tactic.)

In another post, you claimed JW's have "conflicting tenets."
Prove it. (You don't even know - let alone understand - our beliefs!)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I think they might be referring to the AiG Statement of Faith, which includes, amongst other things, this statement:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
SOURCE: Statement of Faith

Thanks for this!

AiG has no bearing on or connection with Drs. Meyer, Axe, or Behe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for this!

AiG has no bearing on or connection with Drs. Meyer, Axe, or Behe.

You do not seem to understand that WIG removes themselves from being of any use in a scientific debate by making their workers take that oath. They are in effect promising to lie to defend their beliefs.

 

[Audie]

That's what I believe? Really?

I've posted to you several times that flash frozen wasn't necessary:


Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective


So why have you resorted to lying about me? Have you realized your counter-argument is very weak? (I thought you were above such a tactic.)

In another post, you claimed JW's have "conflicting tenets."
Prove it. (You don't even know - let alone understand - our beliefs!)

Oh Honestly, Hockey! Here is said "quick frozen" and
then you say I am lying about "flash frozen"?

In the event, the bright line distinction between "flash"
and "quick" frozen is something you could not identify
if you tried, so claiming "lie" is just silly, even if I had
said "flash" in what you quoted. I've said both, other times.
Maybe you have too. What difference does it make?

i do not know or care to know about the "tenets" of
"JW", and it would be unlikely that I'd say they conflict
with eachother.

Why dont you just come out and say for all what you
do believe about the frozen mammoths?

Something about deep cold coming suddenly to a
temperate climate in connection with the "flood"
resulting in the extinction of mammoths thro'
ah, "rapid freezing"?

It would be dreadful to misrepresent such a
fantasy. Set us straight, would you?

You SAY you believe things according to the
facts. but of course that is not so. Not that
I way say you are lying, which is not nice, but
IF what you said is true, then you would
not have anything to say on sudden deep cold,
sudden climate change, not about inordinately
rapid freezing of live mammoths who were
swift o'ertaken by "god's" terrible wrath-flood.


ETA Keep Audie's Principle in mind.

 

[ecco]

AiG has no bearing on or connection with Drs. Meyer, Axe, or Behe

Yeah, that's mostly true. Behe, et al, are ID'ers who stretch some aspects of scripture. AiG, on the other hand, is strict Biblical Literalism. Behe belongs to the more "liberal" Discovery Institute.

 

[Jos]

All this debating about the age of the Earth only serves as a distraction to prevent us from practicing the important things.

What are those important things?

 

[Ellen Brown]

What are those important things?

I've said this often enough that perhaps I should just make a file that I could cut and paste?

The essentials, I think, are:

The 10 Commandments, Micah 6:8, and
The Great Commandment is a term used to describe the first of two commandments cited by Jesus in  Matthew 22:35–40 and  Mark 12:28–34.

The great commandment and the other commandment that is spoken just under it in Matthew 22:39 and Mark 12:31 are in response to an unnamed Pharisee, who was described as a scribe, or lawyer. This scribe/lawyer was testing Jesus, trying to trick Jesus into saying something disreputable, or scandalous according to their religion. Jesus responded by saying the greatest commandment was "And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30-31)

In Matthew 22:40, Jesus explains the reason behind these being the greatest commandments; one, or both are the root of all the other commandments that are given to his followers.

 

[Jos]

I've said this often enough that perhaps I should just make a file that I could cut and paste?

The essentials, I think, are:

The 10 Commandments, Micah 6:8, and
The Great Commandment is a term used to describe the first of two commandments cited by Jesus in  Matthew 22:35–40 and  Mark 12:28–34.

The great commandment and the other commandment that is spoken just under it in Matthew 22:39 and Mark 12:31 are in response to an unnamed Pharisee, who was described as a scribe, or lawyer. This scribe/lawyer was testing Jesus, trying to trick Jesus into saying something disreputable, or scandalous according to their religion. Jesus responded by saying the greatest commandment was "And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30-31)

In Matthew 22:40, Jesus explains the reason behind these being the greatest commandments; one, or both are the root of all the other commandments that are given to his followers.

Sorry, I didn't know you already said this.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Oh Honestly, Hockey! Here is said "quick frozen" and
then you say I am lying about "flash frozen"?

In the event, the bright line distinction between "flash"
and "quick" frozen is something you could not identify
if you tried, so claiming "lie" is just silly, even if I had
said "flash" in what you quoted. I've said both, other times.
Maybe you have too. What difference does it make?

i do not know or care to know about the "tenets" of
"JW", and it would be unlikely that I'd say they conflict
with eachother.

Why dont you just come out and say for all what you
do believe about the frozen mammoths?

Something about deep cold coming suddenly to a
temperate climate in connection with the "flood"
resulting in the extinction of mammoths thro'
ah, "rapid freezing"?

It would be dreadful to misrepresent such a
fantasy. Set us straight, would you?

You SAY you believe things according to the
facts. but of course that is not so. Not that
I way say you are lying, which is not nice, but
IF what you said is true, then you would
not have anything to say on sudden deep cold,
sudden climate change, not about inordinately
rapid freezing of live mammoths who were
swift o'ertaken by "god's" terrible wrath-flood.


ETA Keep Audie's Principle in mind.

I guess I should have added an -ly...quickly frozen.

Interesting that no one has an explanation that meets with consensus. Let's see...the 4 main hypotheses are 'overkill,' 'overill,' 'overchill,' and 'overgrill'; lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess I should have added an -ly...quickly frozen.

Interesting that no one has an explanation that meets with consensus. Let's see...the 4 main hypotheses are 'overkill,' 'overill,' 'overchill,' and 'overgrill'; lol.

And even with that concession you still cannot support your beliefs with valid sources.

That should tell you something.

 

[Looncall]

Thanks for this!

AiG has no bearing on or connection with Drs. Meyer, Axe, or Behe.

They are involved with the Discovery Institute, which is connected to the "Wedge Document". That document lays out their dishonest political agenda.

Wikipedia has a rather thorough description of the. Wedge Document.

 

[Audie]

I guess I should have added an -ly...quickly frozen.

Interesting that no one has an explanation that meets with consensus. Let's see...the 4 main hypotheses are 'overkill,' 'overill,' 'overchill,' and 'overgrill'; lol.

I guess you should avoid unjustly calling other people
liars.

But never mind that bit of childishness.

As for your consensus on an explanation...explanation for
what? The extinction of the mammoths?

Do you have some point to make about the lack of any
certainty as to why they went extinct?

You seem eager to claim that I am "lying" about
your beliefs in this regard. Would it be too much
trouble for you to just say what your beliefs are?

Subzie said that you still cannot support your beliefs with valid sources.

Ya gonna just gracefully accept that fact, or, are
you going to put up some of them "facts" that you
say are the basis for your beliefs?

 

[ecco]

Interesting that no one has an explanation that meets with consensus. Let's see...the 4 main hypotheses are 'overkill,' 'overill,' 'overchill,' and 'overgrill'; lol.

Here...

Stock Photo - When the Berezovka mammoth was discovered sticking out of a river bank in Siberia, the flesh of its skull was partially eaten away by wolves, but its body and hugs front legs

... is a picture and a brief article of the mammoth in question. The actual photo shows something quite different from what we could envision from HC's "flash frozen" accounts. The article also rebuts HC's "no explanation" assertion.