God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[BilliardsBall]

I have a good memory and I'm not making it up.

I do remember talking about how much we do know about the cultural anthropology in the ethnogenesis of the Israelite cultures, and you talked about how little we know.

I claimed your opinion was due to your Jewish religious bias, and you claimed you were not Jewish. Maybe your wife was posting under your name?

You better be nice to my Jewish brother or you'll have to deal with me. I have no space or time in this universe for your anti-Semitism. The anti-Christian polemic I understand. You're an atheist in an outhouse and can't help the "crap"!

 

[outhouse]

You better be nice to my Jewish brother or you'll have to deal with me.

You no one to make empty threats

I have no space or time in this universe for your anti-Semitism

Show me an example of anything anti Semitic I have ever posted.

The anti-Christian

Your views are as anti Christian as they can be. Most do not accept your version of such

 

[outhouse]

You'd be better served sticking to facts and data regarding the Earth.

When will you START!

 

[Parsimony]

Interesting, Occam's Razor was developed by a Franciscan monk.

You say that as if it was ironic or something.

The huge bulk of the evidence does not lead to the conclusion. I don't know if I want to get into it. How long have we watched "billion-year stars" birth and die? Billions of years? Of course not. It's like watching Abraham Lincoln blink one time and then writing a biography of him based on our "intense empirical observation". Hopefully I can find the articles on a young sun and post them--

When we see objects that are billions of light-years away, that's a strong indication that the Universe had to be around for billions of years in order for that light to be able to reach us. Anyone who tries explaining that in a 6,000 year-old Universe context by claiming that the speed of light was millions of times faster in the past has a very heavy burden of proof on them (not to mention that such a claim has observable consequences that have already been falsified by existing data). If anyone has come up with evidence of this, it would be nice if I could take a look at it.

although I may not look too hard because I recognize the objections are partly scientific, partly pride, partly spiritual in nature on your end.

What do pride and spirituality have to do with it?

 

[metis]

I have a good memory and I'm not making it up.

I do remember talking about how much we do know about the cultural anthropology in the ethnogenesis of the Israelite cultures, and you talked about how little we know.

I claimed your opinion was due to your Jewish religious bias, and you claimed you were not Jewish. Maybe your wife was posting under your name?

No, I never said I wasn't Jewish, and I do think I would remember if I told such an easily disprovable lie (read what it says under my avatar, plus how many times have you seen me post as a Jew-- lots).

 

[BilliardsBall]

You say that as if it was ironic or something.

When we see objects that are billions of light-years away, that's a strong indication that the Universe had to be around for billions of years in order for that light to be able to reach us. Anyone who tries explaining that in a 6,000 year-old Universe context by claiming that the speed of light was millions of times faster in the past has a very heavy burden of proof on them (not to mention that such a claim has observable consequences that have already been falsified by existing data). If anyone has come up with evidence of this, it would be nice if I could take a look at it.

What do pride and spirituality have to do with it?

I believe the universe is billions of years old. I understand (a little, some) about relativity and time, and the Solar System could be far younger with much of the rest expanding out from it rapidly.

What do pride and spirituality have to do with what? Your skepticism? Much, I should think.

 

[BilliardsBall]

When will you START!

I don't make stuff up from whole cloth. I look and facts and data. Doesn't everyone who isn't a nutcase?

 

[outhouse]

. I look and facts and data.

But your NOT sticking to facts and data regarding the Earth.

Your making up your own anti academic version not followed by anyone credible

 

[outhouse]

No, I never said I wasn't Jewish, and I do think I would remember if I told such an easily disprovable lie (read what it says under my avatar, plus how many times have you seen me post as a Jew-- lots).

That was it, I think I even replied you had stated such in the past.

Maybe I'm dyslexic [know I am]

 

[Parsimony]

I believe the universe is billions of years old. I understand (a little, some) about relativity and time, and the Solar System could be far younger with much of the rest expanding out from it rapidly.

That would require radioactive decay to have proceeded millions of times faster in the past than it does today in order to account for the measured isotope levels. That, in turn, would require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics in order to keep all of the excess heat from melting the Earth's crust and killing all life there at the time. The young Earth model therefore requires a breaking of at least two laws of physics that the old Earth model doesn't. Alternatively, if isotope measurements are "made up" or "fudged" in scientific reports, then I'd like to see evidence of this.

What do pride and spirituality have to do with what? Your skepticism? Much, I should think.

You said, "I recognize the objections are partly scientific, partly pride, partly spiritual in nature on your end." Could you please elaborate what you meant by this?

 

[gnostic]

I have a good memory and I'm not making it up.

I do remember talking about how much we do know about the cultural anthropology in the ethnogenesis of the Israelite cultures, and you talked about how little we know.

I claimed your opinion was due to your Jewish religious bias, and you claimed you were not Jewish. Maybe your wife was posting under your name?

No, I never said I wasn't Jewish, and I do think I would remember if I told such an easily disprovable lie (read what it says under my avatar, plus how many times have you seen me post as a Jew-- lots).

That was it, I think I even replied you had stated such in the past.

Maybe I'm dyslexic [know I am]

I remember that metis is retired anthropologist (or was that archaeologist?) and he is Jewish.

I don't recall that he ever said he wasn't a Jew.

But then again I don't read every single posts or threads that either you or metis write in.

Do you recall which thread you were referring to?

 

[metis]

That was it, I think I even replied you had stated such in the past.

Maybe I'm dyslexic [know I am]

I don't recall you telling me as such in the past, and if you had, I would show you both with what's under my avatar plus myriads of posts whereas it's clearly obvious I'm Jewish. What might be confusing you is that I have on some occasions mentioned that I'm a "Jew by choice", namely that I converted to Judaism roughly 20 years ago, so maybe it's this that has thrown you off.

In Judaism, when one converts they become a member of the "family" as if they were borne Jewish, much like I became a member of my wife's Italian "family" when we got married. Besides being part of Judaism, it's also sort of a Mediterranean thingy.

 

[outhouse]

Do you recall which thread you were referring to?

I looked and couldn't find it after 40 minutes it wasn't worth it.

 

[outhouse]

I don't recall you telling me as such in the past, and if you had, I would show you both with what's under my avatar plus myriads of posts whereas it's clearly obvious I'm Jewish. What might be confusing you is that I have on some occasions mentioned that I'm a "Jew by choice", namely that I converted to Judaism roughly 20 years ago, so maybe it's this that has thrown you off.

In Judaism, when one converts they become a member of the "family" as if they were borne Jewish, much like I became a member of my wife's Italian "family" when we got married. Besides being part of Judaism, it's also sort of a Mediterranean thingy.

Again I would take the stand, and state that in a thread you had stated that as we argued. Why I believe is another story, I'm probably wrong and had you mixed up with another poster who had a similar argument as you

I get semi dyslexic at times, and im happy to chalk it up to that for sake of argument.


In no way am I stating you are dishonest, I know your honest, despite arguing over possible certainties of anthropology.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That would require radioactive decay to have proceeded millions of times faster in the past than it does today in order to account for the measured isotope levels. That, in turn, would require a violation of the second law of thermodynamics in order to keep all of the excess heat from melting the Earth's crust and killing all life there at the time. The young Earth model therefore requires a breaking of at least two laws of physics that the old Earth model doesn't. Alternatively, if isotope measurements are "made up" or "fudged" in scientific reports, then I'd like to see evidence of this.

You said, "I recognize the objections are partly scientific, partly pride, partly spiritual in nature on your end." Could you please elaborate what you meant by this?

Our doctrines regarding Bible doctrines are not done wholly based on logic (and as we know, that is true of our doctrines on all things/anything).

If you object to a young Earth, hopefully you are open-minded. If you remain closed minded, the lock is spiritual/prideful.

 

[Parsimony]

Our doctrines regarding Bible doctrines are not done wholly based on logic (and as we know, that is true of our doctrines on all things/anything).

Perhaps so, but it is best to make an effort to have doctrines that are logically sensible when possible. Otherwise, anything goes.

Also, was this meant to be a refutation against anything I said? "Nobody's completely logical" isn't a particularly good refutation against anything.

If you object to a young Earth, hopefully you are open-minded. If you remain closed minded, the lock is spiritual/prideful.

I'm willing to investigate evidence that is offered to me. I don't assume any viewpoints to be unassailable, only supported or unsupported.

Likewise, one could ask you if you are closed-minded in regards to an old Earth.

 

[outhouse]

Our doctrines regarding Bible doctrines are not done wholly based on logic

Glad to see you admit to deviating from logic.

 

[gnostic]

Our doctrines regarding Bible doctrines are not done wholly based on logic (and as we know, that is true of our doctrines on all things/anything).

If you object to a young Earth, hopefully you are open-minded. If you remain closed minded, the lock is spiritual/prideful.

You talk of being "open-minded"...

But you want others to be "open-minded" to the possibility of a young Earth, and those who argue with you of Old Earth as being "close-minded", right?

But aren't you being close-minded for not looking at all the evidences that are indicating Old Earth?

Astronomy, Earth science, geology (especially stratigraphy) all (evidences) points to Old Earth, a planet that is over 4.5 billion years old. And then there fossils of dinosaurs, primitive reptiles, mammals, birds and fishes that predates your Young Earth claims.

So why should I believe in your wishful thinking of Young Earth that are based on nothing but your biased religious view, over the experts in the fields of science.

Being "open-minded" is great, but at the end of the day, a person must distinguish the difference between reality and supernatural, and religions often ask people to believe things that defy reality, hence the "supernatural" of miracles.

I am not saying that science can everything or that it is 100%, but just because science cannot answer always certain questions, doesn't mean science have to say "God did it".

You want us to be open-minded to wishful thinking or unsubstantiated personal belief, but how is that really open-minded when totally ignore the reality, the natural world?

 

[outhouse]

Being "open-minded"

Pseudoscientist always claim this rhetoric out of desperation.

Its more like PLEASE make the same mistake I am so I'm not lonely.

 

[gnostic]

Back to my original post--when apologists say, "This isn't a Bible contradiction because logically speaking, it could have occurred in X manner, breaking the contradiction hypothesis," skeptics freak out and get annoyed.

It is not a (scientific) hypothesis.

In science, a hypothesis still need to be falsifiable and testable.

In science, if you can't even test a statement, explanation or prediction, then it is not even hypothesis.

A hypothesis, in science, the scientist writing the paper, need not only provide explanation, but also method of HOW TO ACQUIRE the evidences or method of HOW THE explanation/prediction TO BE TESTED.

A person, like you for example, can quote any verse of interest from the Bible, and you can make claim about this or that, but without any science background and experience, nothing you claim can be anything more than your interpretation, your personal opinion, your personal belief. So whatever you might claim about the bible, it is not scientific.

It is not scientific, because you don't know to set up a process of acquiring evidences or data from test results. If that's the case, it isn't a scientific hypothesis (or scientific theory).

Now I've remarked that even Sagan had an issue with a young Sun--and even though it's NOT like Sagan thought "Hey, the Sun is 6,000 or 8,000 years old," the skeptics get in line to say their MIGHT be SOME plausible explanations for the issues Sagan was having.

If you are quoting to Sagan, then please quote the sources (like the article, books, interview, or wherever it come from). Just saying his name, without any mean of us looking it up for the whole detail, is terribly lazy and shoddy.

Beside that, if you find artifacts, remains (fossils or not), rocks, etc, that are older than 10,000 years, then everyone have the rights to be skeptical of creationists' claims of young sun or young earth.

The city of Uruk, or Erech in the bible (Genesis 10, about Nimrod) stated that the city was found after the Flood. That would mean the city should not be older than 4000 to 4200 years old. But the oldest foundation of Uruk is 7000 years (or 5000 BCE). That would mean Uruk is older than by the creationist's young sun, by at least 1000 years.

And Jericho is even older than Uruk (11,000 years or 9000 BCE). Jericho even had a wall build around the town 8000 BCE). If the Earth and Sun were only 6000 years, then Jericho shouldn't exist.

In Australia, there were people here as early of at least 40,000 years (about 45 to 48,000 years).

Yes, people should be skeptical about whatever is written in the bible. Clearly it isn't a history book, let alone a science one.