The Earth Is a Few Thousand Years Old

[Triumphant_Loser]

I'm a big supporter of saying it how I see it when possible. A spade is a spade, and a dickbag is a dickbag.

Definitely cannot argue with that.

 

[Simurgh]

Being an atheist is not synonymous with being an anti-theist. I do not accept that gods exist, but I am not against gods in general, for many people they serve a purpose. So I am not against them, I simply don’t need them. And to being angry, what has that to do with atheism? Unless you screw with my right to be an atheist, discriminate against me because of it, or attack me for it, why would I be angry? Unless you assume that for every overzealous bible banger there is an equally frustrated and angry phone-book banger (we don’t have holy books to defend and/or believe in, so the phone-book is the best I can do here).

New atheists, and that is they what they consider themselves to be, are those who no longer think that being quiet and taking the abuse that vociferous religionists throw at them silently. Those are the ones who are politically active and speak out against the creeping religionism that is attacking our constitution, for one. They are also the ones who are considered militant in some cases, mostly because they are tired of being considered the enemy. If you are already thought of as less than human, you might as well make some noise about it.

Old atheists are those who believe that to rock the boat and speak out is detrimental to their health—hate mail, attacks on their children in school, etc.—and is not worth the problems it causes. Many live in environments that are not safe for them if they were known to be atheists and they know they will be discriminated against if it were known. A new atheists would say, f*** this, bring it on and I see you in court.

Regarding atheists knowing less about religion than they let on: generally we do know more about religion than theists. First, because many of us are former disciples of some faith and learned enough to know that we do no longer have any reason for blind faith in an invisible power with no power. Then, even those who never believed in the first place actually study the stuff—usually in breadth and depth—primarily in order to understand what the noise is all about—and still reject it as irrational and incompatible with observable reality. Also, come to think of it, why would I need to know more about your religion than you do? Aren’t you supposed to be informed about all that stuff you believe in?


Survey: Atheists, Agnostics Know More About Religion Than Religious : The Two-Way : NPR here is something about how much we know vs. how much the religious know. And, yes, there are other surveys about that out there.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

More than one forum, it's all over the place. But yeah.

And yet, nobody else has managed to come across these mysterious characters... Are you sure you don't mean "bogeyman" and not "anti-theist"?

If you spew stuff like that, how are you not an anti-theist?

I am an anti-theist. It just turns out that not all anti-theists make the same claims that some silly teenager you met online does.

 

[Breathe]

And yet, nobody else has managed to come across these mysterious characters... Are you sure you don't mean "bogeyman" and not "anti-theist"?

Yes.

I am an anti-theist. It just turns out that not all anti-theists make the same claims that some silly teenager you met online does.

And neither did I say all do. Well done.

 

[Slapstick]

Here we go. Ken Ham, a YEC who is of the minority faction and not thought very highly of by other Christians and the scientific community at large.

“Ham's statements and tactics have been criticized by other Christians and old Earth creationists, as well as the scientific community at large. Answers in Creation, an old Earth creationist website, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth, and said that he "deliberately misleads" his audiences on matters of both science and theology.[31] Astronomer Hugh Ross, a progressive creationist, has debated Ham and other Answers In Genesis staff[32] regarding the compatibility of an old Earth with the Bible.[33] BioLogos has also responded to Ken Ham's criticisms of its viewpoint.” Ken Ham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It’s safe to say any argument claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old is a straw man.

 

[shawn001]

Göbekli Tepe's


The assemblage was built some 11,600 years ago, seven millennia before the Great Pyramid of Giza. It contains the oldest known temple. Indeed, Göbekli Tepe is the oldest known example of monumental architecture—the first structure human beings put together that was bigger and more complicated than a hut. When these pillars were erected, so far as we know, nothing of comparable scale existed in the world.

At the time of Göbekli Tepe's construction much of the human race lived in small nomadic bands that survived by foraging for plants and hunting wild animals. Construction of the site would have required more people coming together in one place than had likely occurred before. Amazingly, the temple's builders were able to cut, shape, and transport 16-ton stones hundreds of feet despite having no wheels or beasts of burden. The pilgrims who came to Göbekli Tepe lived in a world without writing, metal, or pottery;.."


Göbekli Tepe - Pictures, More From National Geographic Magazine

 

[Slapstick]

Göbekli Tepe's


The assemblage was built some 11,600 years ago, seven millennia before the Great Pyramid of Giza. It contains the oldest known temple. Indeed, Göbekli Tepe is the oldest known example of monumental architecture—the first structure human beings put together that was bigger and more complicated than a hut. When these pillars were erected, so far as we know, nothing of comparable scale existed in the world.

At the time of Göbekli Tepe's construction much of the human race lived in small nomadic bands that survived by foraging for plants and hunting wild animals. Construction of the site would have required more people coming together in one place than had likely occurred before. Amazingly, the temple's builders were able to cut, shape, and transport 16-ton stones hundreds of feet despite having no wheels or beasts of burden. The pilgrims who came to Göbekli Tepe lived in a world without writing, metal, or pottery;.."


Göbekli Tepe - Pictures, More From National Geographic Magazine

That makes the Bible and National Geographic prove YEC wrong. Including the other half billion + people that live on this planet.

 

[Simurgh]

Göbekli Tepe's

The assemblage was built some 11,600 years ago, seven millennia before the Great Pyramid of Giza. It contains the oldest known temple. Indeed, Göbekli Tepe is the oldest known example of monumental architecture—the first structure human beings put together that was bigger and more complicated than a hut. When these pillars were erected, so far as we know, nothing of comparable scale existed in the world.

At the time of Göbekli Tepe's construction much of the human race lived in small nomadic bands that survived by foraging for plants and hunting wild animals. Construction of the site would have required more people coming together in one place than had likely occurred before. Amazingly, the temple's builders were able to cut, shape, and transport 16-ton stones hundreds of feet despite having no wheels or beasts of burden. The pilgrims who came to Göbekli Tepe lived in a world without writing, metal, or pottery;.."


Göbekli Tepe - Pictures, More From National Geographic Magazine

That makes the Bible and National Geographic prove YEC wrong. Including the other half billion + people that live on this planet.

[FONT=&quot]And in that vein…[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“An international team of scientists led by Dr Dennis O’Rourke from the University of Utah has discovered how Native Americans may have survived the last Ice Age after splitting from their Asian relatives 25,000 years ago.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ancestors of Native Americans Spent 10,000 Years on Bering Land Bridge | Anthropology | Sci-News.com[/FONT]

 

[freethinker44]

Here we go. Ken Ham, a YEC who is of the minority faction and not thought very highly of by other Christians and the scientific community at large.

“Ham's statements and tactics have been criticized by other Christians and old Earth creationists, as well as the scientific community at large. Answers in Creation, an old Earth creationist website, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth, and said that he "deliberately misleads" his audiences on matters of both science and theology.[31] Astronomer Hugh Ross, a progressive creationist, has debated Ham and other Answers In Genesis staff[32] regarding the compatibility of an old Earth with the Bible.[33] BioLogos has also responded to Ken Ham's criticisms of its viewpoint.” Ken Ham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It’s safe to say any argument claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old is a straw man.

It's not a straw man argument if that is actually the argument someone is using. A straw man is when the opposition attacks a misrepresentation of an argument. There is no misrepresentation when attacking YECs, they are actually saying the Earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. That isn't a straw man, that's exactly what they are arguing.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Here we go. Ken Ham, a YEC who is of the minority faction and not thought very highly of by other Christians and the scientific community at large.

“Ham's statements and tactics have been criticized by other Christians and old Earth creationists, as well as the scientific community at large. Answers in Creation, an old Earth creationist website, has called Ham willfully ignorant of evidence for an old earth, and said that he "deliberately misleads" his audiences on matters of both science and theology.[31] Astronomer Hugh Ross, a progressive creationist, has debated Ham and other Answers In Genesis staff[32] regarding the compatibility of an old Earth with the Bible.[33] BioLogos has also responded to Ken Ham's criticisms of its viewpoint.” Ken Ham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It’s safe to say any argument claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old is a straw man.

Not to mention Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, Jerry Falwell (as well the entirety of Liberty University), Bob Jones Jr., Bob Jones Sr., (as well as Bob Jones University), Don Batten, Answers In Genesis, Creation Ministries International, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Creation Research Society. Just to name "a few" more.

 

[McBell]

One question, who said any religious book is without error, God or man?

King James Onlyists claim that the original 1611 King James Bible is the inerrant infallible direct word of god.
In fact, King James Onlyists believe that if the originals deviate from what is written in the KJV, then we are to correct the original writing with the KJV says.

 

[Ouroboros]

It’s safe to say any argument claiming the earth is only a few thousand years old is a straw man.

That's not an example of a strawman argument. I think you're misunderstanding what a strawman argument is.

A strawman argument is when you make up a thinned out claim about someone else's views, and then beat down this simplified and incorrect version.

In other words, to make a claim "the Earth is young" is not a strawman in itself. A strawman is used when someone is trying to argue against someone else's claim.

I'd say that your first post in this thread is in itself a strawman because you're misrepresenting and simplifying both sides of the issue and then argue that they're wrong based on your simplification.

Sorry to be so frank...

 

[Slapstick]

That's not an example of a strawman argument. I think you're misunderstanding what a strawman argument is.

A strawman argument is when you make up a thinned out claim about someone else's views, and then beat down this simplified and incorrect version.

In other words, to make a claim "the Earth is young" is not a strawman in itself. A strawman is used when someone is trying to argue against someone else's claim.

It can be both. The first one is when someone creates it. The second one is a response to it.

1) "To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

2) The so called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ("knock down a straw man,") instead of the original proposition." Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd say that your first post in this thread is in itself a strawman because you're misrepresenting and simplifying both sides of the issue and then argue that they're wrong based on your simplification.

Sorry to be so frank...

We just have differing views and I understand your point. If the claim "The earth is a few thousands years old" isn't a straw man then what is it?

 

[McBell]

If the claim "The earth is a few thousands years old" isn't a straw man then what is it?

The claim "the earth is a few thousand years old" is an unsubstantiated claim of belief.

 

[freethinker44]

If the claim "The earth is a few thousands years old" isn't a straw man then what is it?

the claim " The Earth is a few thousand years old" isn't a straw man because it is the actual argument being put forth.

A straw man is a misrepresentation of the argument. By attacking that argument, they aren't attacking a straw man, they are attacking the argument as it is actually being represented.

 

[Slapstick]

the claim " The Earth is a few thousand years old" isn't a straw man because it is the actual argument being put forth.

A straw man is a misrepresentation of the argument. By attacking that argument, they aren't attacking a straw man, they are attacking the argument as it is actually being represented.

This is the problem I have with it. The argument itself is a misrepresentation of the Bible, because nowhere in the bible does it give the age of the earth or when it was created. It is an unsubstantiated claim that is made-up, fabricated, false and not even supported by the bible itself. That is why I say the argument itself is a straw man to begin with. It is a misrepresentation of the facts if you take the bible at face value as is, an exaggeration of disinformation. That is my take on it - because its not even an argument, just a bunch of malarkey.

 

[Ouroboros]

It can be both. The first one is when someone creates it. The second one is a response to it.

1) "To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

2) The so called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ("knock down a straw man,") instead of the original proposition." Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"... and then..."

Not just

"... someone believes something wrong..."

Strawman is twofold. It requires first a claim of some kind (Claim A), and the someone making a claim that's a modification of Claim A (Claim A-). Then, this someone attacks and demolishes Claim A- instead of Claim A and declares that Claim A has been refuted.

That someone is making a false or wrong claim isn't a strawman.

The term strawman comes from the fact that a strawman is a simplified version of a man, and that it's easy to burn down. There's a reason to the madness behind the term itself. A strawman is easier to beat down and defeat than a real man. Simplify the argument someone makes, and then attack the simplified argument, and declare victory of the complex argument.

We just have differing views and I understand your point. If the claim "The earth is a few thousands years old" isn't a straw man then what is it?

It's just a non-scientific claim. Has nothing to do with strawman. What exactly is the "The earth is a few thousand years old" as strawman of? There has to be an original claim or argument that it attacks. Which one is it?

 

[Ouroboros]

This is the problem I have with it. The argument itself is a misrepresentation of the Bible, because nowhere in the bible does it give the age of the earth or when it was created.

Actually it does. Since all the "beget" is in there, just count the ages of each person having a child and how old they got and you'll get to about 6,000 years. There's only one or two missing generations in there or so.

Ussher did this calculation a couple hundred years ago. I recreated it in my youth to check. And yeah, that's how the Bible makes it. The world is only 6,000 years old according to the literal interpretation of the genealogies.

It is an unsubstantiated claim that is made-up, fabricated, false and not even supported by the bible itself.

Only if you take the genealogies to be wrong. If you read them literally and assume them to be historical facts, then Adam was born 6,000 years ago (rounded number).

That is why I say the argument itself is a straw man to begin with. It is a misrepresentation of the facts if you take the bible at face value as is, an exaggeration of disinformation. That is my take on it - because its not even an argument, just a bunch of malarkey.

But it's not an argument against another argument. What argument is it a strawman off?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This is the problem I have with it. The argument itself is a misrepresentation of the Bible, because nowhere in the bible does it give the age of the earth or when it was created. It is an unsubstantiated claim that is made-up, fabricated, false and not even supported by the bible itself. That is why I say the argument itself is a straw man to begin with. It is a misrepresentation of the facts if you take the bible at face value as is, an exaggeration of disinformation. That is my take on it - because its not even an argument, just a bunch of malarkey.

I don't think very many people will argue with you that young earth creationism, biblical inerrancy, or any relative of such views are misrepresentations of the intent of scripture, and are untenable not only on scientific grounds, but literary ones as well- it seems pretty clear that the intent of the writer(s) of Genesis is NOT to give a factual, literally true historical account of "how things actually happened". But freethinker44 pretty much hit the nail on the head- something is a "straw man" if and only if it is a misrepresentation of someone's argument or position, which is then criticized in lieu of the actual argument or position. But young earth creationists aren't misrepresenting scripture to criticize it, they are misrepresenting it to endorse it- ultimately not a huge distinction, but it means that technically speaking, YEC is not a "straw man". It is, however, most certainly "a bunch of malarkey", as you quite adequately put it.

 

[Slapstick]

Actually it does. Since all the "beget" is in there, just count the ages of each person having a child and how old they got and you'll get to about 6,000 years. There's only one or two missing generations in there or so.

Ussher did this calculation a couple hundred years ago. I recreated it in my youth to check. And yeah, that's how the Bible makes it. The world is only 6,000 years old according to the literal interpretation of the genealogies.



Only if you take the genealogies to be wrong. If you read them literally and assume them to be historical facts, then Adam was born 6,000 years ago (rounded number).



But it's not an argument against another argument. What argument is it a strawman off?

The bible isn’t intended to be interpreted or taken as literal historical facts starting from Genesis to the present day. If it is then someone must gave up on keeping track of their fable 2,000+ years ago. The problem is this. Most people, whether they are creationist, Christians, Catholics, Jewish, Islam, Hindu, the scientific literate, and the majority of people on this planet do not believe or hold false beliefs that the earth is only a few 1000 years old. People, YEC or whoever arguing against YEC are trying to make the bible out to be something that it isn’t: a chronological timeline of events that is somehow suppose to correspond to record history, not some made up fable. It is people twisting their beliefs in ways they are not intended to be twisted.

“The Bible's internal chronology places Abraham around 2000 BCE,[4] but the stories in Genesis cannot be related to the known history of that time and most biblical histories accordingly no longer begin with the patriarchal period.” Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You also have to believe that people lived for hundreds, if not thousands, too tens of thousands years old. If Abram is “father of the multitudes” then Adam and Eve are what exactly? It is a small world, but it isn’t that small, and you have to have a tiny brain (or mind) to believe that.

YEC is purely the case of what “someone wants to believe” vs. “everything that contradicts their false interpretations.” In other words, they will manufacture their own beliefs to fulfill the insecurities they have with their own religion.
That is your straw man.