Evidences given for a young-earth

[PruePhillip]

We sure won't learn it from you.

Certainly when I quote from Dawkins you won't.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

I generally think of the cause of my existence being more local: that my parents had sex.

 

[Wandering Monk]

481 posts. Has any evidence for a young earth been presented?

 

[sooda]

481 posts. Has any evidence for a young earth been presented?

Nope..No evidence.

 

[dad]

Certainly when I quote from Dawkins you won't.

OK. Add that to the list of religious fanatics who failed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. Add that to the list of religious fanatics who failed.

Dawkins is not religious, he is not a fanatic, nor did he fail. You are out doing yourself. Three huge errors in one sentence. Oddly enough all if those claims are correct when it comes to describing your posts here at this forum. Projecting much?

 

[dad]

Dawkins is not religious, he is not a fanatic, nor did he fail.

Oh, I thought he believed in evolution, my bad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I thought he believed in evolution, my bad.

No, "belief" is your flaw He knows that life is the product of evolution. Knowledge trumps mere belief.

 

[PruePhillip]

Dawkins is not religious, he is not a fanatic, nor did he fail. You are out doing yourself. Three huge errors in one sentence. Oddly enough all if those claims are correct when it comes to describing your posts here at this forum. Projecting much?

If someone presented a religious "argument" half of what Dawkins presented
you would call them a "religious fanatic."
So let be fair, better still, let's be honest - Dawkins is a fanatic.

ps I read his book and took down a load of notes. My main beef with this guy
is his use of strawman arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If someone presented a religious "argument" half of what Dawkins presented
you would call them a "religious fanatic."
So let be fair, better still, let's be honest - Dawkins is a fanatic.

ps I read his book and took down a load of notes. My main beef with this guy
is his use of strawman arguments.

No, just because you cannot understand Dawkin's work does not make him a fanatic.

You may have read his book, I don't think you understood it.

 

[dad]

No, "belief" is your flaw He knows that life is the product of evolution. Knowledge trumps mere belief.

So he did believe in it. As I thought. I am not asking you to admit what you are in denial about. I merely mention it for the sake of lurkers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So he did believe in it. As I thought. I am not asking you to admit what you are in denial about. I merely mention it for the sake of lurkers.

Wrong, he knows. You unfortunately do not appear to know what knowledge is either. The lurkers know of your failures and the fact that you are afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence.

You keep falsely accusing others of your sins. You must be thankful that your God does not exist.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, just because you cannot understand Dawkin's work does not make him a fanatic.

You may have read his book, I don't think you understood it.

I read his book.
I understand his "arguments"
He engaged in many logic fallacies.
And avoided the bible, avoided examination of where the Big Bang came from
and avoided the philosophy of why we are here - other than as expressions of
genes. I have read better atheist arguments.
Ridiculing religious people and referring to hallucinations I found to be offensive
and suggestive of ad hominem fallacies. And of course, speaking of his own
research was nothing more than Appeal to Authority fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read his book.
I understand his "arguments"
He engaged in many logic fallacies.
And avoided the bible, avoided examination of where the Big Bang came from
and avoided the philosophy of why we are here - other than as expressions of
genes. I have read better atheist arguments.
Ridiculing religious people and referring to hallucinations I found to be offensive
and suggestive of ad hominem fallacies. And of course, speaking of his own
research was nothing more than Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Rather than making empty claims why don't you quote and link to his book? There are pdf's of it on line. A desktop should be able to do that. My tablet unfortunately insists on downloading pdf's and putting them in the Kindle app. But if you do so I can respond when I get home.

 

[dad]

Wrong, he knows.

He no more knew flatworms shared an ancestor with man than you do. You make stuff up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He no more knew flatworms shared an ancestor with man than you do. You make stuff up.

No, that would be a lie on your part. There is no need to "make up stuff" when evidence is on one's side. Making up stuff is your sin. You run away from knowledge. It appears that you know you are wrong when you do so.

And the offer is still there. When you are ready to learn what is and what is not evidence I will gladly help you.

 

[PruePhillip]

Rather than making empty claims why don't you quote and link to his book? There are pdf's of it on line. A desktop should be able to do that. My tablet unfortunately insists on downloading pdf's and putting them in the Kindle app. But if you do so I can respond when I get home.

Yeah, wish I had the notes. An academic friend loaned me the book. During train
commuting I would go through a chapter a day and write it all down. I noticed I
was repeating myself, meaning I was answering the same points Dawkins raised
many times, but in different words.
Explaining how evolution works has little to do with whether there is a God or not.
The bible itself says life came from the earth itself. Here Dawkins is attacking the
beliefs of some religious groups - which has little to do with the existence of God.
He wouldn't let others get away with such logic, but then engages in it himself.

Reading this at the moment
Hawking talks about no clear Big Bang and no boundary to space-time – NextBigFuture.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, wish I had the notes. An academic friend loaned me the book. During train
commuting I would go through a chapter a day and write it all down. I noticed I
was repeating myself, meaning I was answering the same points Dawkins raised
many times, but in different words.
Explaining how evolution works has little to do with whether there is a God or not.
The bible itself says life came from the earth itself. Here Dawkins is attacking the
beliefs of some religious groups - which has little to do with the existence of God.
He wouldn't let others get away with such logic, but then engages in it himself.

Claims that one cannot substantiate are worthless. At best it looks as if one did not understand the person that one is attacking. At worst it looks as if one is lying about the person one is attacking.

 

[PruePhillip]

Claims that one cannot substantiate are worthless. At best it looks as if one did not understand the person that one is attacking. At worst it looks as if one is lying about the person one is attacking.

No, not lying. Just a bit disappointed. I thought Dawkins might drill down through
claims in the bible - but alas, he admitted he hadn't really read most of the bible.
Someone on this forum recently went into some depth about Noah and the flood
and my claim the "earth" was a local concept. Good argument was given that I
am wrong - and I appreciated that. Hitchens gave a much better arguments than
Dawkins - would have been better to read HIS book, had Hitchens written one.

I am fine with Darwin's "Origin." Suspicious of Hawkins. But Dawkins is a just a
tad embarrassing. It's not a matter of not understanding Dawkins - he's easy to
get your head around because his arguments are not sophisticated, and in any
case, they are borrowed arguments and he has NO ORIGINAL ARGUMENTS.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, not lying. Just a bit disappointed. I thought Dawkins might drill down through
claims in the bible - but alas, he admitted he hadn't really read most of the bible.
Someone on this forum recently went into some depth about Noah and the flood
and my claim the "earth" was a local concept. Good argument was given that I
am wrong - and I appreciated that. Hitchens gave a much better arguments than
Dawkins - would have been better to read HIS book, had Hitchens written one.

I am fine with Darwin's "Origin." Suspicious of Hawkins. But Dawkins is a just a
tad embarrassing. It's not a matter of not understanding Dawkins - he's easy to
get your head around because his arguments are not sophisticated, and in any
case, they are borrowed arguments and he has NO ORIGINAL ARGUMENTS.

Frankly it looks as if at best you have had a severe attack of cognitive dissonance when it comes to Dawkin's work. You did yourself no favors by referring to your previous failures in interpreting Genesis and trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

Once again, why not quote and link the places where Dawkins used the arguments that you claim that he did? I have never seen anyone else make those claims. In fact here is a recent article on the book and the only negative comment they have is:

"Dawkins showed some draft chapters to Tom Maschler of Jonathan Cape, who strongly urged that the title be changed to 'The Immortal Gene'. Today, Dawkins regrets not taking the advice. It might have short-circuited the endless arguments, so beloved of his critics and so redolent of the intentional stance (in which we tend to impute mental abilities to unconscious things, from thunderstorms to plants), about whether selfishness need be conscious. It might even have avoided the common misconception that Dawkins was advocating individual selfishness."


In retrospect: The Selfish Gene

Your mischaracterization of his arguments looked like you were making exactly that error.