God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[McBell]

exaggeration...now who's being dishonest.

I made no claim.
I asked a question in hopes of getting an answer.
Given your history of avoiding the hard questions, I am not really expecting an answer, but I do remain hopeful.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I made no claim.
I asked a question in hopes of getting an answer.
Given your history of avoiding the hard questions, I am not really expecting an answer, but I do remain hopeful.

"Gang raped". That sounds like an exaggeration to me and therefore a claim. Seeing as you argue petty things without making any decent argument, (I suppose because as an atheist you haven't got one, accept luck!) I don't expect you to either understand this or do anything about it

 

[McBell]

"Gang raped". That sounds like an exaggeration to me and therefore a claim. Seeing as you argue petty things without making any decent argument, (I suppose because as an atheist you haven't got one, accept luck!) I don't expect you to either understand this or do anything about it

Interesting the lengths you go to avoid answering a direct question.
What is it you are scared of?

 

[BilliardsBall]

This thread has been hijacked. A shame.

I'm not ignorant, you should know. I see lots of science indicating an older Earth, however, I'm also aware of contraindicating science demonstrating a younger Earth. We all need clarity here.

 

[gnostic]

I'm also aware of contraindicating science demonstrating a younger Earth. We all need clarity here.

Where does science indicate a young Earth?

There are no scientific evidences to this young Earth that you are talking about. And if there is, can you provide these scientific sources, please?

And please, no biased creationist webpages.

 

[gnostic]

The woman is built for procreation, the man is not. This is not a difficult subject, but boy, nowadays people make it so. Somehow being modern, however weird, has to be followed.

So you are saying that women can physically procreate, so they should be the ones getting raped?

That's disgusting no matter how you look at it, and that you indicating that Lot is doing the right thing in proposing to send his daughters to be raped than his guests, seriously showed how f##### up the bible's morality is.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where does science indicate a young Earth?

There are no scientific evidences to this young Earth that you are talking about. And if there is, can you provide these scientific sources, please?

And please, no biased creationist webpages.

I tell you what, I will provide only unbiased creationist pages if you provide unbiased non-creationist citations. But first--please tell us all by what means you are able to read scientists' minds to determine which creationist and which non-creationists are unbiased.

 

[gnostic]

I tell you what, I will provide only unbiased creationist pages if you provide unbiased non-creationist citations. But first--please tell us all by what means you are able to read scientists' minds to determine which creationist and which non-creationists are unbiased.

Do you even know what "scientific evidence" mean?

It mean that anyone can verify or test the evidence to be TRUE (which of course, verify the theory or hypothesis to be true), OR just as important, demonstrate it to be FALSE, thereby showing the hypothesis or theory have been refuted.

The keywords in there are "verify" and "refute".

The foundation of science is that any explanation, any prediction and any statement is VERIFIABLE, TESTABLE and REFUTABLE. And the only way that can happen - objectively - is through observation - which through tests, experiments or evidences. It is through all that, that you will find fact.

The thing about creationism and even religion in general is that it doesn't rely on evidence to support the scriptures or their belief. All that are required is -- FAITH.

Creationism is not about fact or evidence, it is about faith. And when you believe in what you would call "creation" and "miracle", "prophecy" and "revelation", all of which come some invisible divine beings, then it is taken on as BLIND FAITH.

There is no such thing as "creation science", because "creation" is faith-based and "science" is evidence-based, and they don't go together. And the single most serious major flaw with creationism is that of theism, the belief in the CREATOR deity.

With religion, you can't have creation without the creator (god). And there are no evidences to support this god. And if there are no evidences for the creator, then there are no evidences that a god is involve in such and such "creation".

Thief keep bringing up the cause-and-effect into his argument that creation is the EFFECT and the creator (be that "God" or "spirit") is the CAUSE.

But science doesn't just argue for CAUSE-AND-EFFECT in the way Thief and any religious theist do. And here is the kicker: The CAUSE-AND-EFFECT is supposed to have EVIDENCES for both - evidences for CAUSE and evidences for EFFECTS.

That's what Thief doesn't understand.

So without evidences for both, the theist's position on CAUSE-AND-EFFECT are no scientific basis, and their faith is based on wishful thinking or on superstition. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can claim "cause-and-effect", but the claim is meaningless, if you don't have the evidences to support both CAUSE and EFFECT.

My point is that in order for you to provide evidences that the creation happened in the way the bible say it did, you have to provide evidences that a creator is involved with the "creating". The Bible doesn't provide any, and science can't because Genesis 1 & 2 is based on hearsay and on superstition.

If you have read JOB, then it is clear that God is sprouting nothing more than superstitions in Job 38 to 41.

So what possible creationist webpages are not "biased"? What webpages from creationism that can provide VERIFIABLE evidences for the creator and its creation?

If you no one can verify the evidence to support creation and its creator, then it is just personal belief, which in essence, nothing more than personal opinion, and that's not worth much.

 

[viole]

This thread has been hijacked. A shame.

I'm not ignorant, you should know. I see lots of science indicating an older Earth, however, I'm also aware of contraindicating science demonstrating a younger Earth. We all need clarity here.

So, if you are not ignorant, what do you not ignore? The age of the earth?

Fine, what is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you even know what "scientific evidence" mean?

It mean that anyone can verify or test the evidence to be TRUE (which of course, verify the theory or hypothesis to be true), OR just as important, demonstrate it to be FALSE, thereby showing the hypothesis or theory have been refuted.

The keywords in there are "verify" and "refute".

The foundation of science is that any explanation, any prediction and any statement is VERIFIABLE, TESTABLE and REFUTABLE. And the only way that can happen - objectively - is through observation - which through tests, experiments or evidences. It is through all that, that you will find fact.

The thing about creationism and even religion in general is that it doesn't rely on evidence to support the scriptures or their belief. All that are required is -- FAITH.

Creationism is not about fact or evidence, it is about faith. And when you believe in what you would call "creation" and "miracle", "prophecy" and "revelation", all of which come some invisible divine beings, then it is taken on as BLIND FAITH.

There is no such thing as "creation science", because "creation" is faith-based and "science" is evidence-based, and they don't go together. And the single most serious major flaw with creationism is that of theism, the belief in the CREATOR deity.

With religion, you can't have creation without the creator (god). And there are no evidences to support this god. And if there are no evidences for the creator, then there are no evidences that a god is involve in such and such "creation".

Thief keep bringing up the cause-and-effect into his argument that creation is the EFFECT and the creator (be that "God" or "spirit") is the CAUSE.

But science doesn't just argue for CAUSE-AND-EFFECT in the way Thief and any religious theist do. And here is the kicker: The CAUSE-AND-EFFECT is supposed to have EVIDENCES for both - evidences for CAUSE and evidences for EFFECTS.

That's what Thief doesn't understand.

So without evidences for both, the theist's position on CAUSE-AND-EFFECT are no scientific basis, and their faith is based on wishful thinking or on superstition. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can claim "cause-and-effect", but the claim is meaningless, if you don't have the evidences to support both CAUSE and EFFECT.

My point is that in order for you to provide evidences that the creation happened in the way the bible say it did, you have to provide evidences that a creator is involved with the "creating". The Bible doesn't provide any, and science can't because Genesis 1 & 2 is based on hearsay and on superstition.

If you have read JOB, then it is clear that God is sprouting nothing more than superstitions in Job 38 to 41.

So what possible creationist webpages are not "biased"? What webpages from creationism that can provide VERIFIABLE evidences for the creator and its creation?

If you no one can verify the evidence to support creation and its creator, then it is just personal belief, which in essence, nothing more than personal opinion, and that's not worth much.

I beg your sincere pardon, but since you just told us that no creationist can provide verifiable, testable, falsifiable scientific evidence--I'd be wasting my time posting citations for you to review, yes? You already also said NOT to post creationist site-given citations.

Sounds a little too pat for me. Sounds like you don't want to hear any witnesses before resting your prosecution. Sounds like you are closed-minded and biased. If I got an inkling that you are more open to scientists who are both atheists and theists...

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, if you are not ignorant, what do you not ignore? The age of the earth?

Fine, what is it?

Ciao

- viole

I don't know the exact age of the Earth. I'm aware that currently science posits Earth as billions of years old. This is the face of some good evidence it is far younger.

 

[gnostic]

I beg your sincere pardon, but since you just told us that no creationist can provide verifiable, testable, falsifiable scientific evidence--I'd be wasting my time posting citations for you to review, yes? You already also said NOT to post creationist site-given citations.

No, BilliardsBall.

You said that you will cite "unbiased" creationist pages, while you said I should cite "unbiased" non-creationist pages. Let me re-quote what you had written:

I tell you what, I will provide only unbiased creationist pages if you provide unbiased non-creationist citations.

The keywords here, are not just "unbiased", but also "creationist" versus "non-creationist".

My reply to that earlier quote is about "creationist" webpages and that creationists will never objectively look at evidences as they are, and they would ignore evidences if they can, if it doesn't fit into their belief in creationism. And they can't provide evidences for this creator god, that anyone can "verify", whether they be non-theists or theists.

My reply also indicate that there are no such thing as "creation science", because the two words used together is an oxymoron; creationism and science are polar positions to each other, because creationists rely on faith, not evidences/facts, and science rely on verifiable evidences, not on faith and belief.

Your reply indicate that you will provide impartial creationist webpages, but I don't see how that can happened.

And you are confusing creationists with theists in the 2nd half of your reply:

Sounds a little too pat for me. Sounds like you don't want to hear any witnesses before resting your prosecution. Sounds like you are closed-minded and biased. If I got an inkling that you are more open to scientists who are both atheists and theists...

While all creationists are theists, NOT ALL theists are creationists, and even among Christians not all of them follow the literal creationism.

There is a large number of Christians don't believe that the creation happened the way it is narrated in Genesis 1 to 8 (including the Flood), historically or scientifically. That because they ("they" as in non-creationist, non-literalist Christians) view Genesis as allegory, with messages and meanings that have nothing do with science or history.

Many theists don't reject science. Many of them that do have background like in biology and really understand the theory, accept evolution as factual reality.

Creationists don't accept evolution, only because it doesn't fit into strict and literal interpretations of the bible, namely Genesis creation myth (1 to 8). Some of it is due to their belief or faith clouding their judgment and rationality. But most of it, it is out of sheer ignorance on the subject of evolution.

Ignorance like them (creationists) believing that evolution is about the origin of (first) life. That a myth that the creationists have created themselves. Evolution is biology, and it is not about how life came to be, eg from inorganic matters to organic matters; that's abiogenesis, not evolution. In evolution, you don't need to learn about first life.

To give you a practical example. Biologists who study or research viruses in order to create vaccines, don't need to investigate the very first virus on earth in order to understand why viruses change or mutate. Because viruses multiply quickly from one generation to the next 1 or more generations, in order for new strains of viruses, clearly demonstrated evolution in action.

Two mechanisms are involved in this evolution of viruses - mutation and natural selection.

Natural selection occurs, because external forces are trying to neutralise or eliminate the viral strain, and this force is vaccine or antibiotic. The viral strain will attempt to survive, by changing its properties, so that the next strain is immune to the new antibiotic or vaccine. This will force scientists to understand the new strain, to produce another new vaccine to combat it.

Like I said, you don't have to know anything about the very first virus, in order to understand viruses that exist in the last 5 years, 10 years, a century, etc. and it is the same with studying evolution of any animals.

Yes, there are many scientists who are theists and religious, but these are the one who can separate what they believe in (eg God) and science separately.

I am in no way denying that theists (like Christians) can't be scientists. But scientists and creationists? No, creationists are different type of theists; not all theists are like creationists.

It is the creationism that gives bad name to theism. They are Christianity's worse enemy, because they cannot distinguish between science and their own brand of theology.

So no, BilliardsBall. It is not about theists versus atheists; it is about creationists versus non-creationists, and most of those non-creationists are actually theists.

 

[gnostic]

I don't know the exact age of the Earth. I'm aware that currently science posits Earth as billions of years old. This is the face of some good evidence it is far younger.

Aren't there Earth scientists, geologists and stratigraphers who would know how to find out the Earth is ancient?

The fossils of the dinosaurs, showed that all datings are before the 65 million-year extinction. That alone showed that the Earth is older than any claims of creationists for a Young Earth.

I have some read some of the most ridiculous excuses from creationists.

One of these excuses in which some creationists would say that the Earth is actually "young", but God made the rocks and fossils looked "older" than they really are. That's sort of claims are not evidences, just wishful thinking or superstition.

I had debated with some creationists about some years ago, not about the age of the Earth, but the age of the universe. The current estimates and data is that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. They were arguing that the whole universe is about the same age of the Earth (around 6000 years old). I have brought up the counter argument that the nearest spiral galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away. If the entire universe was only 6000 years old (like the Young Earth) then we shouldn't be able to see the Andromeda Galaxy, even with a telescope, because the light from Andromeda would take about 2.5 million years to reach us. Their answers were something like God put the light in space, so just like the explanation to the fossil, the light weren't that old.

Sorry, but I find creationists' education in matters of astronomy, geology and biology sadly lacking, because their bible and church teachings have reduced their intelligence to that of the people of the Dark Ages, where their superstitions, not education, rule.

 

[metis]

I don't know the exact age of the Earth. I'm aware that currently science posits Earth as billions of years old. This is the face of some good evidence it is far younger.

Which "evidence", and please make certain that it's from a reputable scientific source and not a pseudo-science one.

 

[viole]

I don't know the exact age of the Earth. I'm aware that currently science posits Earth as billions of years old. This is the face of some good evidence it is far younger.

If you don't know it then you ignore it. Ergo, you are ignorant about the issue, by definition.

It is not an insult. Just a statement of facts. I am ignorant about many things, but not the order of magnitude of the age of the earth.

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, BilliardsBall.

You said that you will cite "unbiased" creationist pages, while you said I should cite "unbiased" non-creationist pages. Let me re-quote what you had written:



The keywords here, are not just "unbiased", but also "creationist" versus "non-creationist".

My reply to that earlier quote is about "creationist" webpages and that creationists will never objectively look at evidences as they are, and they would ignore evidences if they can, if it doesn't fit into their belief in creationism. And they can't provide evidences for this creator god, that anyone can "verify", whether they be non-theists or theists.

My reply also indicate that there are no such thing as "creation science", because the two words used together is an oxymoron; creationism and science are polar positions to each other, because creationists rely on faith, not evidences/facts, and science rely on verifiable evidences, not on faith and belief.

Your reply indicate that you will provide impartial creationist webpages, but I don't see how that can happened.

And you are confusing creationists with theists in the 2nd half of your reply:

While all creationists are theists, NOT ALL theists are creationists, and even among Christians not all of them follow the literal creationism.

There is a large number of Christians don't believe that the creation happened the way it is narrated in Genesis 1 to 8 (including the Flood), historically or scientifically. That because they ("they" as in non-creationist, non-literalist Christians) view Genesis as allegory, with messages and meanings that have nothing do with science or history.

Many theists don't reject science. Many of them that do have background like in biology and really understand the theory, accept evolution as factual reality.

Creationists don't accept evolution, only because it doesn't fit into strict and literal interpretations of the bible, namely Genesis creation myth (1 to 8). Some of it is due to their belief or faith clouding their judgment and rationality. But most of it, it is out of sheer ignorance on the subject of evolution.

Ignorance like them (creationists) believing that evolution is about the origin of (first) life. That a myth that the creationists have created themselves. Evolution is biology, and it is not about how life came to be, eg from inorganic matters to organic matters; that's abiogenesis, not evolution. In evolution, you don't need to learn about first life.

To give you a practical example. Biologists who study or research viruses in order to create vaccines, don't need to investigate the very first virus on earth in order to understand why viruses change or mutate. Because viruses multiply quickly from one generation to the next 1 or more generations, in order for new strains of viruses, clearly demonstrated evolution in action.

Two mechanisms are involved in this evolution of viruses - mutation and natural selection.

Natural selection occurs, because external forces are trying to neutralise or eliminate the viral strain, and this force is vaccine or antibiotic. The viral strain will attempt to survive, by changing its properties, so that the next strain is immune to the new antibiotic or vaccine. This will force scientists to understand the new strain, to produce another new vaccine to combat it.

Like I said, you don't have to know anything about the very first virus, in order to understand viruses that exist in the last 5 years, 10 years, a century, etc. and it is the same with studying evolution of any animals.

Yes, there are many scientists who are theists and religious, but these are the one who can separate what they believe in (eg God) and science separately.

I am in no way denying that theists (like Christians) can't be scientists. But scientists and creationists? No, creationists are different type of theists; not all theists are like creationists.

It is the creationism that gives bad name to theism. They are Christianity's worse enemy, because they cannot distinguish between science and their own brand of theology.

So no, BilliardsBall. It is not about theists versus atheists; it is about creationists versus non-creationists, and most of those non-creationists are actually theists.

My reply to that earlier quote is about "creationist" webpages and that creationists will never objectively look at evidences as they are...

This is a slur. If you weren't an avatar but posted your real name and number, I would pray about following up with you regarding an apology. You are demonizing all creationist PhD's, be they Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian. THIS is why it doesn't matter what I post. You will judge the post before you read it.

Nicodemus challenged his colleagues with this statement in John 7: "Is it legal to convict a man before he is given a hearing?"

You are doing this. Please stop. I will post to you when you become open-minded.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Aren't there Earth scientists, geologists and stratigraphers who would know how to find out the Earth is ancient?

The fossils of the dinosaurs, showed that all datings are before the 65 million-year extinction. That alone showed that the Earth is older than any claims of creationists for a Young Earth.

I have some read some of the most ridiculous excuses from creationists.

One of these excuses in which some creationists would say that the Earth is actually "young", but God made the rocks and fossils looked "older" than they really are. That's sort of claims are not evidences, just wishful thinking or superstition.

I had debated with some creationists about some years ago, not about the age of the Earth, but the age of the universe. The current estimates and data is that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. They were arguing that the whole universe is about the same age of the Earth (around 6000 years old). I have brought up the counter argument that the nearest spiral galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away. If the entire universe was only 6000 years old (like the Young Earth) then we shouldn't be able to see the Andromeda Galaxy, even with a telescope, because the light from Andromeda would take about 2.5 million years to reach us. Their answers were something like God put the light in space, so just like the explanation to the fossil, the light weren't that old.

Sorry, but I find creationists' education in matters of astronomy, geology and biology sadly lacking, because their bible and church teachings have reduced their intelligence to that of the people of the Dark Ages, where their superstitions, not education, rule.

That is a ridiculous excuse (from those Christians, not you). I don't believe God is a liar who fakes the age of things.

I do believe in things like relativity as it affects time--so that it is possible to have a Galaxy far older than ours, especially given post Big Bang conditions. Science complements the Bible--they're not in a fight. We're ALL in a fight against the superstitions you are citing. I agree!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which "evidence", and please make certain that it's from a reputable scientific source and not a pseudo-science one.

Wow, that must be convenient. So if you like what I post, it's science, if not, it MUST be pseudo-science. You seem very sure. I'd not hesitate to say you are indicating a strong anti-theism, anti-God, anti-SCIENCE bias by doing so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you don't know it then you ignore it. Ergo, you are ignorant about the issue, by definition.

It is not an insult. Just a statement of facts. I am ignorant about many things, but not the order of magnitude of the age of the earth.

Ciao

- viole

I don't ignore it. But you asked for a date setting, not a range. A simple search on Wikipedia will demonstrate that everyone, from young Earth creationists to secular scientists has a range. For example:

4.54 ± 0.05 billion years - "± 0.05 billion years" indicates a scientific uncertainty spanning 100 million years in total. If you can tell me the EXACT age of the old Earth, it should be reasonable for me to tell you the EXACT age of the young Earth. Do you not agree?

 

[viole]

I don't ignore it. But you asked for a date setting, not a range. A simple search on Wikipedia will demonstrate that everyone, from young Earth creationists to secular scientists has a range. For example:

4.54 ± 0.05 billion years - "± 0.05 billion years" indicates a scientific uncertainty spanning 100 million years in total. If you can tell me the EXACT age of the old Earth, it should be reasonable for me to tell you the EXACT age of the young Earth. Do you not agree?

I cannot tell you the space difference between Los Angeles and New York with absolute precision.

Should I take seriously claims that the distance between the two cities is comparable to a few yards because of that?

Ciao

- viole