God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[outhouse]

I wouldn't rely on things like ice cores to try to disprove the Flood

We don't, common sense and reason tells us what obvious mythology is.

You have zero credible evidence to support the known mythology by ALL academia

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wunderbar!



Yeah, that's just an aside. Don't get lost in it.
I'm still just waiting on your rebuttals for why we shouldn't trust radiometric dating.



I assure I don't rely on ice cores to discredit the flood assertion... You have yet to make an argument for it's actual occurrence, other than simply asserting that it is so.
Once you make an actual defense of your position, I will choose an appropriate method for discrediting it.

What do you rely on? You mentioned the ice cores. You've also mentioned your confirmatory bias regarding all things paranormal, perhaps even anomalous.

 

[Looncall]

These two subsequent sentences of yours above read as a contradiction to me.

Also, of course we will find different methods arriving at the same approximate datings for similar items, as long as the same uniform assumptions are also employed. Personally, if I were you, I wouldn't rely on things like ice cores to try to disprove the Flood. They are many issues with ice core theory, or at least several painfully glaring issues IMHO.

How about some details? Just what are your objection to these dating techniques? Please be specific. If you cannot, we will know that your attitude is just confidant ignorance.

 

[Thief]

... of the gaps.

None for me...thanks.

 

[Thief]

When all other explanations fail, the god one must still be justified.

"Dead things do not beget the living": a gross assumption.

Show me something living....and a dead thing made it so.

 

[Thief]

This debate is obviously religion only due to how easily it can be destroyed by science.

However, even in an only religious debate you need to cite your religious items such as the bible.
Through those citations you should then make a logical argument, what you call an interpretation.

You cannot reason that the first person to meet God was Adam.
You would need proof for that.
Such as,

Where in what book it said that.
Or my interpretation of this leads me into this point, which in turn proves my argument.

I'm assuming you mean the second definition of reasoning, which involves logic.
If we were to use logic at all then this topic never would have came up.

Reasoning involves finding out something through various processes such as the process of elimination.
Wherein you destroy every outcome that doesn't make sense or is impossible.

You cannot reason that God showed himself to Adam without referring to the bible,
Therefore would be citing the bible.

Citing proof.

Peace.

Nay...I have reason....it was straightforward.

 

[Deathbydefault]

"I believe" does not get me too far at RELIGIOUSFORUMS.com? Really? You are joking?

However, it's more than "I believe", rather I have reasons to believe and to continue to believe.

I said "this community" not "this website".

I was referring to the more scientific, and higher level logically sound, portion when I mentioned "community".
The Earth being recreated, as was said, was easily destroyed by that same community.

As a matter of fact that whole post was an effort on my part to level this guy up so I wouldn't have to see this argument as much.

I believed I very heavily implied what side I am on in this argument given the "Pro Science" under my name.

Therefore, it should also have been heavily implied that I was throwing out basic tips to better his arguments against my side.

I honestly thought it was very obvious that I was referring to "this community" as "my community".
You simply misinterpreted.

"I believe" probably would get you pretty far among the gullible,
but the 'Science and Religion' section doesn't enjoy such gullible people.

Places like this you have to PROVE yourself right, whether scientifically or logically.
There is no room for an only "I believe" argument, not sad to say.

Like you said, "However, it's more than "I believe", rather I have reasons to believe"

The underlined is what I look for before I get into a real debate.
Salvador provided only the "I believe" not the "I have reasons to believe" .

What are the reasons? What's the proof? The logical background?
Those are what I want to see.
I can never take an only "I believe" argument seriously.
So, I still feel correct in giving him the advice, and also in this reply.

Until the "reasons to believe" come to light,

Peace.

 

[Thief]

'I believe'....is a required notation here at the forum.

I've heard so.....repeatedly.

 

[Thief]

Let's see.....'reasons to believe'......

Yup!...gotta have them!
Not much of a faith without some reasoning....

and I reiterate......if God EVER spoke to ANYONE.....someone had to be first.

That would be Adam.

 

[Deathbydefault]

"'I believe'....is a required notation here at the forum.

I've heard so.....repeatedly.
Let's see.....'reasons to believe'......

Yup!...gotta have them!
Not much of a faith without some reasoning....

and I reiterate......if God EVER spoke to ANYONE.....someone had to be first.

That would be Adam."

Of course you have to believe various things to have your personal stance on a subject or the world.

However, using "I believe (this and that)" repeatedly in an argument gives it zero validity.
The best it can do is waste my time in the reading of it.
If I could just throw "I believe" at the the begging of every controversial statement and be taken seriously I would have done it by now.

But, it doesn't work that way, friend.

"I believe" flying gigantic alligators ruled the earth 2 million years ago.
"I believe" the earth was re-created 6,000 years ago.

Both are equally ridiculous, both equally implausible.

And, as I've said, if God EVER spoke to ANYONE you would need proof of that.
How exactly would you know God ever spoke to Adam without SH-knowledge or the Bible? (or whatever book)

Can you prove it without said book?
Can you even offer a supporting statement to it?
Plausible logic?
A basic hypothesis?
Understandable reasoning?

Can you in any way logically state the God spoke to Adam first without any form of second hand knowledge?

Without that book or second hand knowledge you wouldn't even "know" Adam ever existed. (assuming he did)
So to say that God spoke to Adam first without using those, God himself must have told you.

Or you're a liar.
And I would opt for the later.

Until you have an actual argument,

Peace

 

[BilliardsBall]

I said "this community" not "this website".

I was referring to the more scientific, and higher level logically sound, portion when I mentioned "community".
The Earth being recreated, as was said, was easily destroyed by that same community.

As a matter of fact that whole post was an effort on my part to level this guy up so I wouldn't have to see this argument as much.

I believed I very heavily implied what side I am on in this argument given the "Pro Science" under my name.

Therefore, it should also have been heavily implied that I was throwing out basic tips to better his arguments against my side.

I honestly thought it was very obvious that I was referring to "this community" as "my community".
You simply misinterpreted.

"I believe" probably would get you pretty far among the gullible,
but the 'Science and Religion' section doesn't enjoy such gullible people.

Places like this you have to PROVE yourself right, whether scientifically or logically.
There is no room for an only "I believe" argument, not sad to say.

Like you said, "However, it's more than "I believe", rather I have reasons to believe"

The underlined is what I look for before I get into a real debate.
Salvador provided only the "I believe" not the "I have reasons to believe" .

What are the reasons? What's the proof? The logical background?
Those are what I want to see.
I can never take an only "I believe" argument seriously.
So, I still feel correct in giving him the advice, and also in this reply.

Until the "reasons to believe" come to light,

Peace.

I believe neither in a recreated Earth nor an age gap theory. Please confine our discussion to my posts if you are addressing me.

And I also NEVER take an "I believe therefore it's true" argument seriously. After all, many people believe there is no Hell, no Heaven. And...?

I always have reasons to believe, because reasons help improve my trust.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How about some details? Just what are your objection to these dating techniques? Please be specific. If you cannot, we will know that your attitude is just confidant ignorance.

At least you can see my confidence!

Ice compacts under its own weight. Ranges of estimates for the validity of VISIBLE, un-compacted ice core layers go from 2,000 to around 10,000 years. And you know I'll go with 5,000!

The "dating" for ice cores in Greenland and etc. to 800,000 is taking layers of snow compacted under its own weight, not seeing any true layers, and then saying "oh, yeah, look at the dust here and here, it must be X years old." I wonder sometimes what's so threatening about saying the Greenland cores are 5,000 BP? That wouldn't prove their was a Flood, only that the last ice age receded further than previously assumed, right?

 

[jonathan180iq]

What do you rely on?

Substantiated consensus.
Over-lapping date ranges from independent fields.
The most accurate data.
Academia.

You mentioned the ice cores.

Indeed I did...
I mentioned Ice Cores as one of many dating methods used to compile a comprehensive data set. That data set is then analyzed and scrutinized in order to determine the age of things, from the whole Earth down to a single specimen that you might dig up in your back yard.

Go for a hike, find an exposed rock layer, do a little fossil digging, and you can use a whole host of resources on the internet to find out when and where that fossil came from. You can do this because of the hundreds of thousands of hours of work put into these studies by professionals in the respective fields. Your use of those resources and the conclusions that you gather from them will be infinitely more accurate than simply guessing at an age because of a predisposed assumption based on 2,000 year old religious people's writings...

If you think I'm wrong on this, then show me where.

You've also mentioned your confirmatory bias regarding all things paranormal, perhaps even anomalous.

Show me something with any shred of legitimacy proving the paranormal exists... That's all that any theist needs to do, really. Just provide anything at all to validate these claims of fantastic magic and I'll change my tune. The problem is that there is nothing with any academic credibility regarding paranormal or supernatural claims, at all. Humans have been playing this game for thousands of years and there is absolutely nothing to prove it. So the ball is in your court, if you want to call me out on my bias against supernatural claims. Show me something more substantial than some guy saying he married bigfoot's daughter, or a bright-eyed beleiver saying Jesus spoke to them in a near-death experience. If you can do that, then we can communicate under the assumption that paranormal supernatural events are possible.

 

[Looncall]

At least you can see my confidence!

Ice compacts under its own weight. Ranges of estimates for the validity of VISIBLE, un-compacted ice core layers go from 2,000 to around 10,000 years. And you know I'll go with 5,000!

The "dating" for ice cores in Greenland and etc. to 800,000 is taking layers of snow compacted under its own weight, not seeing any true layers, and then saying "oh, yeah, look at the dust here and here, it must be X years old." I wonder sometimes what's so threatening about saying the Greenland cores are 5,000 BP? That wouldn't prove their was a Flood, only that the last ice age receded further than previously assumed, right?

For information, you can look here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html;

Sure ice core dating is hard: who would expect otherwise? That does not mean it gives no information. Sure estimates come with a confidence interval. That does not mean you can pick any value within that interval that suits your superstition.

How about the good consilience among disparate dating methods? This is an important point and one that creationists studiously avoid.

What are your objections to radiometric methods? That's closer to my own area of expertise. I'll be interested to see what you have to say.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I believe neither in a recreated Earth nor an age gap theory. Please confine our discussion to my posts if you are addressing me.

And I also NEVER take an "I believe therefore it's true" argument seriously. After all, many people believe there is no Hell, no Heaven. And...?

I always have reasons to believe, because reasons help improve my trust.

I wasn't addressing you as much as I was defending an earlier post of mine from you.
Remember when you thought the words "this community" meant "this website"?
Yeah, that's what I took as the topic of discussion.

Secondary discussion: that only "I believe" arguments do not work in this part of the forums.
But, it seems that we are mostly in agreement there.

People out there believe there is a hell, a heaven, a god...

I always believe in scientific facts, because science gives me a reason to believe.

Looks like we're on opposite sides of that particular argument.
However, we both "know" who's right on either side.

Last thing, "Please confine our discussion to my posts if you are addressing me."

I would confine "our discussion" to your post when addressing you, but I don't feel like it.
You never gave me a reason to feel like it. As far as I can see most points you've made on this thread are destroyed already.
There is nothing notably special about anything you've said, just re-runs of those before you.

Also, I simply don't have an interest in anything to do with you.
All I was here to do was defend my post, you just happened to be the only one with an issue towards it.
But you seem like you have an issue with just about everything, so I'll just leave now.

Peace.

 

[outhouse]

I wonder sometimes what's so threatening about saying the Greenland cores are 5,000 BP?

Scientist try not to lie.

They follow the evidence they find before them. They don't make imaginative claims based on mythology.

 

[Thief]

"'I believe'....is a required notation here at the forum.

I've heard so.....repeatedly.
Let's see.....'reasons to believe'......

Yup!...gotta have them!
Not much of a faith without some reasoning....

and I reiterate......if God EVER spoke to ANYONE.....someone had to be first.

That would be Adam."

Of course you have to believe various things to have your personal stance on a subject or the world.

However, using "I believe (this and that)" repeatedly in an argument gives it zero validity.
The best it can do is waste my time in the reading of it.
If I could just throw "I believe" at the the begging of every controversial statement and be taken seriously I would have done it by now.

But, it doesn't work that way, friend.

"I believe" flying gigantic alligators ruled the earth 2 million years ago.
"I believe" the earth was re-created 6,000 years ago.

Both are equally ridiculous, both equally implausible.

And, as I've said, if God EVER spoke to ANYONE you would need proof of that.
How exactly would you know God ever spoke to Adam without SH-knowledge or the Bible? (or whatever book)

Can you prove it without said book?
Can you even offer a supporting statement to it?
Plausible logic?
A basic hypothesis?
Understandable reasoning?

Can you in any way logically state the God spoke to Adam first without any form of second hand knowledge?

Without that book or second hand knowledge you wouldn't even "know" Adam ever existed. (assuming he did)
So to say that God spoke to Adam first without using those, God himself must have told you.

Or you're a liar.
And I would opt for the later.

Until you have an actual argument,

Peace

'I believe' is required....we get wrote up for not using it.
I realize the down side....would like to see a change in the rules....but until then....
I will put up with it....so will you.

Adam would be the first to walk with God.
The only dismissal possible.....God never walked ( or spoke)with anyone.

Now...if you don't believe in God.......oh well......

 

[BilliardsBall]

Substantiated consensus.
Over-lapping date ranges from independent fields.
The most accurate data.
Academia.



Indeed I did...
I mentioned Ice Cores as one of many dating methods used to compile a comprehensive data set. That data set is then analyzed and scrutinized in order to determine the age of things, from the whole Earth down to a single specimen that you might dig up in your back yard.

Go for a hike, find an exposed rock layer, do a little fossil digging, and you can use a whole host of resources on the internet to find out when and where that fossil came from. You can do this because of the hundreds of thousands of hours of work put into these studies by professionals in the respective fields. Your use of those resources and the conclusions that you gather from them will be infinitely more accurate than simply guessing at an age because of a predisposed assumption based on 2,000 year old religious people's writings...

If you think I'm wrong on this, then show me where.



Show me something with any shred of legitimacy proving the paranormal exists... That's all that any theist needs to do, really. Just provide anything at all to validate these claims of fantastic magic and I'll change my tune. The problem is that there is nothing with any academic credibility regarding paranormal or supernatural claims, at all. Humans have been playing this game for thousands of years and there is absolutely nothing to prove it. So the ball is in your court, if you want to call me out on my bias against supernatural claims. Show me something more substantial than some guy saying he married bigfoot's daughter, or a bright-eyed beleiver saying Jesus spoke to them in a near-death experience. If you can do that, then we can communicate under the assumption that paranormal supernatural events are possible.

1. You are creating a straw man because you request evidence for paranormal things but then give qualifiers! I had this awesome proof about a friend who married bigfoot's daughter, but you knocked it out before I could present it! Sorry.

2. YES, you have a confirmatory bias, demonstrated with statements like "You can do this because of the hundreds of thousands of hours of work put into these studies by professionals in the respective fields." You bet, and I could also take thousands of radiometric readings, and get the same numbers on my mass spectrometer as they do, and then I will go to the same table where it shows radiometric data against age, and come up with the same readings, sure. Doing the wrong thing 100 times doesn't enhance it's rightness. You still refuse to acknowledge (perhaps you don't understand, for which I apologize) my main point. I say 100 degrees and you say 212 degrees and we have a big fight until we assess the scales we're using to right them and at least define terms. I AGREE that scientists accurately measure many things via a number of dating rubrics. I just disagree regarding the accuracy of the age numbers on their charts.

Do you really want to define terms? That's a BIG thing in any debate. Will you begin by admitting that ALL radiometric data ever recorded will undergo a DATING change if it is discovered that there were huge fluctuations in solar radiation in the past?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure ice core dating is hard: who would expect otherwise? That does not mean it gives no information. Sure estimates come with a confidence interval. That does not mean you can pick any value within that interval that suits your superstition.

I think you're missing some facts:

1. That's exactly what someone(s) did with the FIRST ice core dating beyond visible layers. They gave the reasoning behind their assumptions, and eventually, their rubric was accepted via an admittedly rigorous peer-review process.

2. By analogy, I hand you an ice sample and say, "I'm unsure how old it is, but if we look at very, very discrete samples, we can see trapped particles and dust and etc., maybe even some radiometric particles indicating great age--I'm thinking that via comparison to Greenland ice core work, this sample is circa 350,000 years old." Then I tell you it came from my freezer at my science lab, which was disturbed in an accident where there was dust displaced and radiation leaked...

 

[jonathan180iq]

1. You are creating a straw man because you request evidence for paranormal things but then give qualifiers! I had this awesome proof about a friend who married bigfoot's daughter, but you knocked it out before I could present it! Sorry.

Well shouldn't evidence have some sort of burden of accuracy?

Construct a house with 20,000 toothpicks, and you'll have pretty substantial proof that toothpicks can build houses.
Try to stack that house on a handful of loosely placed pebbles and you'll get a mixed up pile of toothpicks and pebbles... That's what creationism accounts to; toothpicks and pebbles.
Just build the house and let the structure stand for itself. If it can't stand, then so goes your argument.

For clarification, the only thing you have to do is provide cohesive evidence and theories... The fact that you (or anyone else in the creationist community) can't do so should tell you everything you need to know about creationism. You can argue against my point of view all day long, telling me that it's founded on strawmen and conjecture, but let's not avoid the fact that you've yet to present a single piece of evidence against dating methods or for a global biblical deluge. The closest you've come is making the statement that 5,000 BCE is when the flood happened, and that dinosaur soft-tissue has been found in sparse amounts in a T-tex femur... That's nothing.

2. I just disagree regarding the accuracy of the age numbers on their charts.

Why?
Based on what?

Do you really want to define terms? That's a BIG thing in any debate. Will you begin by admitting that ALL radiometric data ever recorded will undergo a DATING change if it is discovered that there were huge fluctuations in solar radiation in the past?

Anytime that more new discoveries are made, information and data gets reconciled through those discoveries.
So, yes. If/when data gets more accurate then those numbers will change... This is not some ground-breaking assertion. It's the very foundation of science.
Please note that, thus far, all corrections to geologic and radiometric dating have shown the Earth to be much older than previously thought, not younger.

What you're asserting (with this 7,000 year old flood leading to a complete re-population of the world in just a few generations) would require simply incredible adjustments to all current models of understanding.

Given that you're asking me to replace our current model of understanding, which very substantially suggests that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, with one suggesting that all life adapted and spread within the lifetime of some Joshua Trees, you'll forgive me if I require a little more supporting data than you simply saying "Jesus will reveal it to you. The Bible tells me so. I don't trust current science."

Right?