Evidences given for a young-earth

[sooda]

We can't say laws in Noah's day were consistent with today. How would you know, for example whether there were any other forces (fundamental) that used to exist that do not now exist? How would you know if there were some law or force we now see that never used to be here?? How would you know if another set of laws were in place in the far past on earth or not? Certainly not by looking at today's nature only!

The Noah flood was relatively recent as I said before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fantasy. Link?

No, but you ran away. Just like you always do. Even if I posted it you would run away again.

 

[gnostic]

Because even though I am not a YEC, I am still against people lying and inventing stuff just to make YEC look bad.

You are kidding, are you?

Look around, Leroy.

The only people lying and are ignorant, are the creationists. They are the ones making things up.

You don’t think so?

Do you really think only atheists and agnostics disagree with YEC creationists, like @dad, @PruePhillip and @Hockeycowboy ?

It isn’t about atheism vs theism, and it isn’t Christians vs atheists too. It is about science vs creationism.

Whether creationism be YEC or OEC, Christian Creationism, Jewish Creationism, Muslim Creationism, or Intelligent Design, there are many Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other theists who disagreed with these creationists more so than with atheists and agnostics, REGARDING THE SUBJECTS OF SCIENCE or OF HISTORY.

Who am I talking about, who are these theists but agree about science or history with atheists and agnostics?

The theists I am talking about (the ones who have posted in this thread) are @sooda and @Dan From Smithville both Christians, @shunyadragon who is Baha’i, are all theists, but are more educated and qualified/experienced in either science or history or both.

If have read their posts, you would often see them disagreeing with creationists, like Hockeycowboy, dad and PruePhillip, on the matters of science vs Creationism.

The reasons being, sooda and Dan, despite believing in God and accepting teaching, also don’t believe the Bible being science or history textbooks. The book or scriptures were written by men, not god, and they both know there are little in terms of scientific and historical evidence in Genesis Creation and Flood. Both sooda and Dan understand science and history better than dad, Hockeycowboy and PruePhillip.

I am agnostic, and yet I have the tendencies to agree with sooda, Dan From Smithville and shunyadragon and disagree with dad, PruePhillip and Hockeycowboy, all because the creationists here don’t have the education in science and in history.

It is the YEC creationists who are not being honest here.

It was never about theism vs atheism, but whether to accept facts from science or the anti-science of creationism.

Well, guess what, Leroy, I agreed with theists like shunyadragon, Dan and sooda about science and history.

 

[PruePhillip]

The reasons being, sooda and Dan, despite believing in God and accepting teaching, also don’t believe the Bible being science or history textbooks. The book or scriptures were written by men, not god, and they both know there are little in terms of scientific and historical evidence in Genesis Creation and Flood. Both sooda and Dan understand science and history better than dad, Hockeycowboy and PruePhillip.
.

I have argued from a purely scientific point in examining Genesis 1.
I employ history and archaeology in talking about the Bronze Age
and Iron Age world of the bible. Even touch upon genetics in talks
about Jews and the tribe of Levi.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Do you really think only atheists and agnostics disagree with YEC creationists, like @dad, I@PruePhillip and @Hockeycowboy ?

I’ve said this many times...I am not a YEC. Please try to remember. Thanks.

 

[shunyadragon]

I’ve said this many times...I am not a YEC. Please try to remember. Thanks.

I do not care if your YEC or OEC the problems remain on how you consider science with a religious agenda are still the elephant in the room.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have argued from a purely scientific point in examining Genesis 1.
I employ history and archaeology in talking about the Bronze Age
and Iron Age world of the bible. Even touch upon genetics in talks
about Jews and the tribe of Levi.

It is a matter of fact in the history of your posts that you only selectively consider science, if at all, archaeology only when it agrees with you, and not serious genetics. If you considered science seriously you would realize that you cannot interpret Genesis from a literal perspective whether YEC or OEC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ve said this many times...I am not a YEC. Please try to remember. Thanks.

For all practical purposes there is no difference between a YEC and a believer in the Noah's Ark myth.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The only people lying and are ignorant, are the creationists. They are the ones making things up.

You sure like your rose-colored glasses!
You talk about ‘accepting facts’, but what you call facts are simply assumptions, assertions, and inferences.

CD is not a fact, however much you wish to believe so.

 

[shunyadragon]

You sure like your rose-colored glasses!
You talk about ‘accepting facts’, but what you call facts are simply assumptions, assertions, and inferences.

CD is not a fact, however much you wish to believe so.

It is the only hypothesis that fits the evidence. Common descent and the evolution from unicellular to multicellular is demonstrated in the Eukaristic (Protista) Kingdom of life. There are closely related Plant-like-Protista, Animal-like-Protista, and Fungi-like Protista. Most are unicellular, but some are transitional to multicellular, and multicellular.

You may read more at The Evolution of Protists: Importance & Evolutionary History - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

This study guide is on the senior high school level

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is the only hypothesis that fits the evidence.

No, it isn’t.

It certainly doesn’t fit what is found in the Cambrian Radiation.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, it isn’t.

It certainly doesn’t fit what is found in the Cambrian Radiation.

Blind assertion without explanation nor a basic knowledge in Biology. I see you clipped my post without responding to the objective evidence cited.

You need to go back to High School Science 101 The Evolution of Protists: Importance & Evolutionary History - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

The Cambrian Radiation comes after the differentiation from the Protista Kingdom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You sure like your rose-colored glasses!
You talk about ‘accepting facts’, but what you call facts are simply assumptions, assertions, and inferences.

CD is not a fact, however much you wish to believe so.

Oh my, you cannot support any of those claims of yours. Those that accept reality can support their claims. You are conflating the belief that you have in a myth with accepting an extremely well supported theory.

Guess, what, gravity is not a fact either.

 

[PruePhillip]

It is a matter of fact in the history of your posts that you only selectively consider science, if at all, archaeology only when it agrees with you, and not serious genetics. If you considered science seriously you would realize that you cannot interpret Genesis from a literal perspective whether YEC or OEC.

The genetics has to do with the fact there exists
1 - a race of people who are Jews
2 - a tribe within this race who are Levites, of the line to Moses.

Fact.

The Genesis 1 points out stages in the earth's process that correlate
with scientific understanding. And I show how religious people do not
understand this anymore than non-religious people.

Fact.

If there are discrepancies then please point them out and I will amend
my POV.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The genetics has to do with the fact there exists
1 - a race of people who are Jews
2 - a tribe within this race who are Levites, of the line to Moses.

Fact.

No, there is a tribe within that race who are Levites. End of story. Moses was mythical after all.

The Genesis 1 points out stages in the earth's process that correlate
with scientific understanding. And I show how religious people do not
understand this anymore than non-religious people.

Fact.

If there are discrepancies then please point them out and I will amend
my POV.

Only if you count the near hits and ignore the gross misses. Plants before the Sun is a pretty bad error. Or was that in Genesis 2?

 

[PruePhillip]

No, there is a tribe within that race who are Levites. End of story. Moses was mythical after all.


Only if you count the near hits and ignore the gross misses. Plants before the Sun is a pretty bad error. Or was that in Genesis 2?

Yes, about half of all Jews who are named Cohen are related. This has
to do with the Cohanim. This was the priestly caste who served in the
temple and belong to the line of Aaron, the brother of Moses. There
exists a GENTIC MARKER for this line - and most Cohens are like
fourth or fifth cousins removed.

a nice little story The Cohanim - DNA Connection

I have already addressed the repetitions and symbolic language of
Genesis 1. God created the heavens first, meaning everything out
there - stars, moon, sun etc.. and then God created the earth.
And the second verse, if I recall, takes you to the symbolic "day 1"
of the earth - dark, overcast, wet, sterile (but not cold.) The various
stages correlate well with science.
Can you identify any other religion which has managed such a feat?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, about half of all Jews who are named Cohen are related. This has
to do with the Cohanim. This was the priestly caste who served in the
temple and belong to the line of Aaron, the brother of Moses. There
exists a GENTIC MARKER for this line - and most Cohens are like
fourth or fifth cousins removed.

a nice little story The Cohanim - DNA Connection

I have already addressed the repetitions and symbolic language of
Genesis 1. God created the heavens first, meaning everything out
there - stars, moon, sun etc.. and then God created the earth.
And the second verse, if I recall, takes you to the symbolic "day 1"
of the earth - dark, overcast, wet, sterile (but not cold.) The various
stages correlate well with science.
Can you identify any other religion which has managed such a feat?

I am not disputing that. It was the Moses claim that you will not be able to support with evidence. And no, mythical people do not have brothers. There appears to be a priestly line, but there origin story appears to be fictional.

 

[PruePhillip]

I am not disputing that. It was the Moses claim that you will not be able to support with evidence. And no, mythical people do not have brothers. There appears to be a priestly line, but there origin story appears to be fictional.

Not having evidence is not evidence for there not being something.
It's just "evidence" there is yet no evidence. Like the evidence for
black swans before the 1600's.
So we have evidence for the genetic line to Moses.
And we have evidence that about two centuries after Moses the
priests were observing laws ascribed to Moses. Evidence is slowly
accumulating. Will it change anyone's mind? No, never. But that
doesn't matter.
What is frustrating is that there still exists a huge hole in the
chronology of the bible, like the chronology of Egypt. I often
wonder if Moses doesn't go back further to the catastrophe of
Thera and its impact on Egypt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not having evidence is not evidence for there not being something.
It's just "evidence" there is yet no evidence. Like the evidence for
black swans before the 1600's.
So we have evidence for the genetic line to Moses.
And we have evidence that about two centuries after Moses the
priests were observing laws ascribed to Moses. Evidence is slowly
accumulating. Will it change anyone's mind? No, never. But that
doesn't matter.
What is frustrating is that there still exists a huge hole in the
chronology of the bible, like the chronology of Egypt. I often
wonder if Moses doesn't go back further to the catastrophe of
Thera and its impact on Egypt.

No, you have evidence for a genetic line. That Moses was a myth is unrelated to the genetic line. Your logic fallacy fails since your basis of it was faulty. Don't you know what it is thought that Moses was a myth?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Blind assertion without explanation nor a basic knowledge in Biology. I see you clipped my post without responding to the objective evidence cited.

You need to go back to High School Science 101 The Evolution of Protists: Importance & Evolutionary History - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

This is evidence for micro evolution, and has no bearing on common descent.

The Cambrian Radiation comes after the differentiation from the Protista Kingdom.

Yep. And?

There have never been any obvious precursors found linking to the Cambrian biota.

But of course, you believe pakicetus is the forerunner of whales ....you have to believe some land mammal returned to the water, really....so I’m sure a few of you materialists, with your imaginations, will eventually arrive at a conclusion regarding some flimsy, fantastical evidence claiming it supports certain organisms’ evolution into the Cambrian organisms. But I doubt there’ll be consensus...there rarely is.