Evidences given for a young-earth

[PruePhillip]

Correction, science has nothing to say about the meaning of life. That does not mean it says that there is no meaning to life. Your use of the word "accidental" is not really correct, but even if that is the case that does not mean that life would be meaningless.

No, life doesn't have to be meaningless. You can accept an animist or religious person's
take on "meaning of life" or you can accept the modern existentialist's belief that you
create your own meaning - but this sort of life defining "meaning" has no place in the hard
sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The patterns that layers were laid down in are what is important. How those patterns came to be is a matter of belief only. The oil doesn't come from your belief. Geology has interpreted the patterns a certain way using certain beliefs...i.e. that the present is the key to the past.

dad, you once again break the Ninth Commandment by making false statements about that that know better than you do. You have mere belief, they have knowledge. Geologists do not have just beliefs, they have testable concepts. That means that they have evidence, something that you neither have nor understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, life doesn't have to be meaningless. You can accept an animist or religious person's
take on "meaning of life" or you can accept the modern existentialist's belief that you
create your own meaning - but this sort of life defining "meaning" has no place in the hard
sciences.

Exactly. The sciences say nothing about the meaning of life pro or con. You seem to think that saying nothing is denying. That is not the case.

 

[dad]

Appreciate the time you put into this. You are the first to seriously tackle
my point in the last twenty years.
Hebrews referring to the flood is actually referring to its reading of Genesis.

How the bible was written was weird - it's essentially theological. Recall
the seven days of creation - Genesis gets the sequence perfectly correct
but adds seven days to the account.

Not true. By the first verse of chapter two everything was over and done. Finished. The recap and details looked at there are not anything added to the creation order. It is just details of what was already done.

In the genealogy of Jesus many names
are removed to make seven generations, or two times seven.

That's fine. But I have heard that at the temple, they had the complete records also.

And Revelations
speaks of seven churches - despite the NT naming other churches not counted
in this seven.

The particular seven He spoke about seem to represent traits that would be found in churches through the ages, and was not some complete list of churches.

And like reading of Adam's two sons, things don't make sense
unless you read them in the context of symbolic and theological sense.

? Makes perfect sense to me.

Certainly I don't accept a talking snake or Noah coming to Australia to collect
animals.

I assume the ark landed on Pangaea and that the continents rapidly separated sometime after Babel. The animals got a free ride.

 

[dad]

Geologists do not have just beliefs, they have testable concepts. .

None of these involve testing what nature was. Try to be honest.

 

[PruePhillip]

Exactly. The sciences say nothing about the meaning of life pro or con. You seem to think that saying nothing is denying. That is not the case.

If there is supposed to be "meaning" outside of religion, something everyone
should know about then I am sure what that is - I suppose evolution's "meaning"
is that you rear kids, kill other people's kids and then quickly get out of the road
by dying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of these involve testing what nature was. Try to be honest.

Watch the false accusations. You are the one that needs to show that there was a change. Geology, and the finding of oil that you rely upon, is based upon physical laws being constant. I posted elsewhere evidence that the laws were the same in the past, unfortunately you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence. Making it pointless for me to link it for you again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there is supposed to be "meaning" outside of religion, something everyone
should know about then I am sure what that is - I suppose evolution's "meaning"
is that you rear kids, kill other people's kids and then quickly get out of the road
by dying.

So you do not understand the theory that you oppose. You cannot refute that which you do not understand.

 

[PruePhillip]

So you do not understand the theory that you oppose. You cannot refute that which you do not understand.

Yes, I understand evolution. It's like this: You are a guy who pairs up
with a woman who already has kids to another man. You must not
invest your energy in raising foreign DNA - those kids must be killed
and your partner must raise YOUR kids. And evolution suggests that
it might be beneficial for your Dawkins genes if you could sneak out
and have sex with another man's woman as well so HER man can
inadvertently raise YOUR kids as well.

That's about it - the meaning of life to a Dawkins style, selfish-gene
atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I understand evolution. It's like this: You are a guy who pairs up
with a woman who already has kids to another man. You must not
invest your energy in raising foreign DNA - those kids must be killed
and your partner must raise YOUR kids. And evolution suggests that
it might be beneficial for your Dawkins genes if you could sneak out
and have sex with another man's woman as well so HER man can
inadvertently raise YOUR kids as well.

That's about it - the meaning of life to a Dawkins style, selfish-gene
atheist.

Oh my, so much fail. Once again you cannot refute that which you do not understand.

Instead of repeating your errors why not try to learn?

 

[Polymath257]

Science says there is no meaning to life.

No, actually, it says nothing at all about the meaning of life one way or the other.

Life just happened
Accidental coming together of elements
and direction to evolution.

Using the word 'accidental' is misleading. I would say it is the *natural* coming together of elements with subsequent evolution.

Like, a meteorite knocked out the dinosaurs. Without that chance
encounter humans would not be here. That kind of thing.

So? How does that make life meaningless?

 

[dad]

Watch the false accusations. You are the one that needs to show that there was a change. Geology, and the finding of oil that you rely upon, is based upon physical laws being constant. I posted elsewhere evidence that the laws were the same in the past, unfortunately you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence. Making it pointless for me to link it for you again.

Link?

 

[PruePhillip]

So? How does that make life meaningless?

It's merely as example - had it not been for a chance meteorite
hitting earth in a precise spot and angle YOU would not be here.
You owe your presence to that? And how many more chance
events can you thank?

 

[PruePhillip]

Oh my, so much fail. Once again you cannot refute that which you do not understand.

Instead of repeating your errors why not try to learn?

No, I read the Selfish Gene, didn't you?
The meaning of life is to procreate.
It's all gospel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Link?

As soon as you learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I read the Selfish Gene, didn't you?
The meaning of life is to procreate.
It's all gospel.

Reading is not necessarily understanding.

 

[PruePhillip]

Reading is not necessarily understanding.

I reckon "Lack-of-Specifics" ought to be called a Logic Fallacy.

 

[dad]

As soon as you learn what is and what is not evidence.

We sure won't learn it from you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I reckon "Lack-of-Specifics" ought to be called a Logic Fallacy.

Not when someone fails in such an epic manner.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We sure won't learn it from you.

Other people will, you . . . not so much. If you can get over your fear I will gladly help you to learn what is and what is not evidence. Then you can ask for links. But until then you disqualified yourself.