The Earth Is a Few Thousand Years Old

[metis]

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

Man.

No where in the scriptures themselves have I seen any reference to every word in it being entirely accurate, and even if it were to be true, our understanding is always limited anyway.

I don't think we should be deifying scriptures, imo, but we can read it and use what it teaches without going to that extreme position.

 

[shawn001]

Yes, what of it?

First of all, what is defined as "creationist"? It is measured differently.

For example, theistic evolution is classed, by some, as "creationism". Inaccurately.

And while 46% may hold creationist views, how many of them are YECers? Probably only a fraction of those. I would say a majority are Day-Age or Old Earth Creationists.


Indeed there is, and anti-theists are not helping by making the issue God OR science.


Yes, well done. This is pretty much what I said.
It's polemic.

"While your god would've done that, ours would've done this."
"HA! Your god would've had to FIGHT to create stuff? How weak is he?"

And poetry.

"Indeed there is, and anti-theists are not helping by making the issue God OR science."

This is actually wrong. The ICR and discovery institute is specifically trying to get creationism taught in schools and accepted as some kind of science with their ID movement. Its very well known. Have you ever heard of the Wedge document?

The Wedge Document | NCSE

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Atheists are not blind followers so why do they think science is 100% correct?

The only people who I know who think that atheists hold such a view, are theists. Any atheist worth their salt (read: a rationalist and skeptic), understands that science is a system and process used to constantly and progressively increase our knowledge, and which constantly strives to improve our models to reflect our current, best understanding of how things work, based on all the available evidence and information.

Anybody who claims 100% correctness isn't really interested in understanding reality - whether they espouse religion, science, or anything else.

Is there any reason that you would think that this description somehow fits atheists? You should have been exposed to many atheists on RF communicating what I said above, over the years. I can't think of a single instance of an atheist claiming the infallibility of science, or that it results in perfect knowledge. Just the opposite, in fact.

 

[Tumah]

You have completely misunderstood what I said. Gods law may be perfect, but the time line is from man not God

Now, I'm definitely confused. I don't see any time line mentioned here at all. Maybe its just late and I'm getting tired.

 

[Ouroboros]

I saw that, but chose to forget it. :cover:

Yeah. It's sad. Isn't it.

Yeah. By divorcing the idea of "either/or" would be a start.

Agree. I tend to think of things in a continuous spectrum. Nothing bugs me more than people with categorical black-and-white thinking. Things aren't black-and-white. There's always shades of gray.

Fundamentalism will exist for some time; the issue is who pays attention to them and how much limelight they are given, and how often their views are made out by others as being the standard view of both.

Our church worked hard to get into politics and influence society with our beliefs and ideas. We needed the attention and worked hard to get it.

Oh please, new atheists are the edgy bedfellows of the very thing they claim to hate. The two live in an abusive codependent relationship.

They do. The blame goes both ways, for sure.

I know it hurts to think that the non-theists aren't all blameless, but sometimes you've gotta be a big boy and accept that it's not all the big mean theists responsible for all the evil in the big bad world.

Agree. Humans are the ones responsible, and only by accepting us as humans and our nature can we do something about it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oh please, new atheists are the edgy bedfellows of the very thing they claim to hate. The two live in an abusive codependent relationship.

I know it hurts to think that the non-theists aren't all blameless, but sometimes you've gotta be a big boy and accept that it's not all the big mean theists responsible for all the evil in the big bad world.

And sometimes you have to recognize the transparency of rhetorical language, and the underlying motivations for such tactics.

Incidentally, I don't claim, nor ever claimed, that "big mean theists" are responsible for "all the evil in the big bad world." However, trying to lay equal blame for anti-intellectualism, science denial, and scriptural literalism on atheists is a rather ridiculous stretch, and is somewhat akin to getting mad at someone for pointing out that your fly is open.

 

[shawn001]

I don't play the blame game, believers thought this hundreds of years ago and many will still think this 100's of years from now. Right now we have a push shove game going on.
I don't worship science, but then again I am not a YEC either. I see fault in everything.
No perfect science, no perfect religious book. :no:

All I know is, I see us breath oxygen and exhale carbon monoxide, I see trees take in carbon monoxide and give us oxygen. I see a balance of nature and have to believe there was some kind of design here not a big bang from nothing.
No scientist yet has told me what caused the big bang so we all are a bunch of self proclaimed know it alls and we all would be incorrect to one degree or another.
Atheists are not blind followers so why do they think science is 100% correct?

Just to know the Oxygen on Earth came from Evolution of cynobacteria, the very early Earth would NOT support life at the time. Due to radiation, meteor bombardment and many other factors.

Rev, well we have the after glow of the bang. The from nothing are possible new theories to help explain a possible cause without breaking any laws of nature. Its also not from No-thing, if you understood the science on it, its actually from something, as there is NO no-thing.

 

[Ouroboros]

Forgive me for being a nit-picker Reverend, but we exhale carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is one nasty gas.

Right.

But cars "breathe" oxygen and "exhale" CO and other things.

 

[Breathe]

Where? I've talked to and listened to a lot of atheists, anti-theists even, and I have never once heard a single one of them say evolution disproves religion.

All over the place; usually the less educated of atheists and anti-theists. Where I live, irreligion is the norm, and so I've met some pretty hardcore stupid non-believers.

These places are around, even online. I'd just rather not mention two of them.
Even on atheism.about, subtly implies it even after saying "no":

Why would the god of Christianity, Judaism or Islam produce us humans through a process which has required such untold death, destruction, and suffering over the course of hundreds of millennia? Indeed, what reason is there to think that we humans are the purpose of life on this planet — we've only taken up a small fraction of time here. If were were to use time or quantity and a standard of measurement, other life forms are much better candidates for the "purpose" of terrestrial life; moreover, maybe the "purpose" is yet to come and we are but one more stage on that path, no more or less important than any other.

Thus while accepting evolution may not cause atheism or even necessarily make atheism more likely, there is a good chance that it will at least force a revision of what one thinks about their theism. Anyone who consciously considers and accepts evolution should think about it long and hard enough to cause them to seriously question some of their traditional religious and theistic beliefs. Such beliefs may not be abandoned, but they may not continue untouched.

Evolution & Atheism - Does Evolution Require Atheism?​

I've heard some say evolution disproves young earth creationism, but just about every branch of science disproves creationism so I don't know if that counts.

But evolution does discount creationism.

The only people I've ever seen argue that either god exists or evolution is true were creationists. They are the only people I've seen say "god or evolution".

Mine is the opposite; offline, anyway.

However, America is still a generally religious place, and a lot of people are still brought up with religion and the culture is still religious.

Drop that a few generations and you'll start to get non-religious people who're thickos when it comes to religion, to the point where I've been asked, with a straight face, if aliens would destroy my faith in God, and when I said no, they said I could only believe in God or aliens.

For reference (not based on evolution):

Survey finds British children and adults are biblically illiterate - The Washington Post

This is actually wrong.

But it's not.

The ICR and discovery institute is specifically trying to get creationism taught in schools and accepted as some kind of science with their ID movement.

This is unrelated to what I was saying.

This is something fuels itself, in vanity, based on being in the limelight and revelling in perceived "persecution" and then trying to legitimize itself using the same perceived tactics they feel atheism is using. It's called being an attention whore.

Its very well known. Have you ever heard of the Wedge document?

Yes and yes.

 

[shawn001]

and sometimes you have to recognize the transparency of rhetorical language, and the underlying motivations for such tactics.

Incidentally, i don't claim, nor ever claimed, that "big mean theists" are responsible for "all the evil in the big bad world." however, trying to lay equal blame for anti-intellectualism, science denial, and scriptural literalism on atheists is a rather ridiculous stretch, and is somewhat akin to getting mad at someone for pointing out that your fly is open.

lol

 

[Reverend Rick]

You can say that again.



Where? I've talked to and listened to a lot of atheists, anti-theists even, and I have never once heard a single one of them say evolution disproves religion. I've heard some say evolution disproves young earth creationism, but just about every branch of science disproves creationism so I don't know if that counts.

In fact, I'm actually the most anti-theist person I know. I don't really make it that obvious on here because it's pretty extreme sometimes and I don't want to get banned, but just take my word for it, I am not a fan of religion at all. But even I wouldn't say evolution disproves the existence of God, and in fact I would argue against another atheist who says evolution does. Evolution isn't even a factor in whether or not god exists, in my opinion.

The only people I've ever seen argue that either god exists or evolution is true were creationists. They are the only people I've seen say "god or evolution".

LOL, you don't have to worry about getting banned for Atheist beliefs. The founder of RF is an Atheist. Half of our staff is Atheist.

I thank you for saying evolution does not disprove the existance of God.

My true opinion is, the only facts are we just don't know one way or the other for sure.

 

[Breathe]

And sometimes you have to recognize the transparency of rhetorical language, and the underlying motivations for such tactics.

Of course, it's best to recognise that passive-aggressive whining and a "no true Scotsman" is not helpful.

Incidentally, I don't claim, nor ever claimed, that "big mean theists" are responsible for "all the evil in the big bad world." However, trying to lay equal blame for anti-intellectualism, science denial, and scriptural literalism on atheists is a rather ridiculous stretch, and is somewhat akin to getting mad at someone for pointing out that your fly is open.

Not what I said. You're the only one throwing around "equal blame" and all that.

Then again, I expected as much.
Perhaps if you go back and read my posts, it may then sink in what I said. Maybe then you can actually answer that, instead of attacking a strawman.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Now, I'm definitely confused. I don't see any time line mentioned here at all. Maybe its just late and I'm getting tired.

Perhaps I am the one unclear. I am addressing how old the earth is.

 

[shawn001]

All over the place; usually the less educated of atheists and anti-theists. Where I live, irreligion is the norm, and so I've met some pretty hardcore stupid non-believers.

These places are around, even online. I'd just rather not mention two of them.
Even on atheism.about, subtly implies it even after saying "no":

Why would the god of Christianity, Judaism or Islam produce us humans through a process which has required such untold death, destruction, and suffering over the course of hundreds of millennia? Indeed, what reason is there to think that we humans are the purpose of life on this planet — we've only taken up a small fraction of time here. If were were to use time or quantity and a standard of measurement, other life forms are much better candidates for the "purpose" of terrestrial life; moreover, maybe the "purpose" is yet to come and we are but one more stage on that path, no more or less important than any other.

Thus while accepting evolution may not cause atheism or even necessarily make atheism more likely, there is a good chance that it will at least force a revision of what one thinks about their theism. Anyone who consciously considers and accepts evolution should think about it long and hard enough to cause them to seriously question some of their traditional religious and theistic beliefs. Such beliefs may not be abandoned, but they may not continue untouched.

Evolution & Atheism - Does Evolution Require Atheism?​

But evolution does discount creationism.


Mine is the opposite; offline, anyway.

However, America is still a generally religious place, and a lot of people are still brought up with religion and the culture is still religious.

Drop that a few generations and you'll start to get non-religious people who're thickos when it comes to religion, to the point where I've been asked, with a straight face, if aliens would destroy my faith in God, and when I said no, they said I could only believe in God or aliens.

For reference (not based on evolution):

Survey finds British children and adults are biblically illiterate - The Washington Post


But it's not.


This is unrelated to what I was saying.

This is something fuels itself, in vanity, based on being in the limelight and revelling in perceived "persecution" and then trying to legitimize itself using the same perceived tactics they feel atheism is using. It's called being an attention whore.


Yes and yes.

"But evolution does discount creationism."

It discounts the Earth being 6000 or 10,000 yada yada.

There are a LOT of theists who understand and even study evolution. There should be more.

It has nothing to do with how the bang happened, which is at the core of this dialogue between science and religion and has been since the development of the big bang theory which was in part brought to us by a theist.

There is no evidence what so ever for "creationism", if your a theist, atheist, agnostic or anyone. When anyone of them gets some evidence, then we can go from there. But there is a difference between the cause of the Bang and evolution and Time line of Earth.

You don't even have to use evolution for the debate, plate tectonic blows the Early earth issue out of the water completely among billions of more facts. Like the formation of our entire solar system.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Of course, it's best to recognise that passive-aggressive whining and a "no true Scotsman" is not helpful.

Oh, I recognize all the argumentative and logical fallacies that people employ. It's not that difficult when you're engaging with people who argue from emotion, and not reason.

Not what I said. You're the only one throwing around "equal blame" and all that.

Then again, I expected as much.
Perhaps if you go back and read my posts, it may then sink in what I said. Maybe then you can actually answer that, instead of attacking a strawman.

Okay, then exactly how much blame are you claiming that the "new atheists" have?

 

[Breathe]

"But evolution does discount creationism."

It discounts the Earth being 6000 or 10,000 yada yada.

There are a LOT of theists who understand and even study evolution. There should be more.

It has nothing to do with how the bang happened, which is at the core of this dialogue between science and religion and has been since the development of the big bang theory which was in part brought to us by a theist.

There is no evidence what so ever for "creationism", if your a theist, atheist, agnostic or anyone. When anyone of them gets some evidence, then we can go from there. But there is a difference between the cause of the Bang and evolution and Time line of Earth.

You don't even have to use evolution for the debate, plate tectonic blows the Early earth issue out of the water completely among billions of more facts. Like the formation of our entire solar system.

Considering you're agreeing with me, why does it seem like you're preaching to me?

 

[shawn001]

Breathe, what do you know about the formation of our solar system? What age do you believe the Earth is and why?

 

[Reverend Rick]

The only people who I know who think that atheists hold such a view, are theists. Any atheist worth their salt (read: a rationalist and skeptic), understands that science is a system and process used to constantly and progressively increase our knowledge, and which constantly strives to improve our models to reflect our current, best understanding of how things work, based on all the available evidence and information.

Anybody who claims 100% correctness isn't really interested in understanding reality - whether they espouse religion, science, or anything else.

Is there any reason that you would think that this description somehow fits atheists? You should have been exposed to many atheists on RF communicating what I said above, over the years. I can't think of a single instance of an atheist claiming the infallibility of science, or that it results in perfect knowledge. Just the opposite, in fact.

Fair enough. There are some recent Atheist members that like to paint some of us theists as homophobic and uneducated. I sure don't think dinosaurs roamed the earth a few thousand years ago, thats for sure.

I don't have any problems with you KT. You have always been straight up and fair.

The bottom line, labels suck.

 

[Breathe]

Oh, I recognize all the argumentative and logical fallacies that people employ. It's not that difficult when you're engaging with people who argue from emotion, and not reason.

Totally. I see it all the time from people who think they are enlightened rationalists and the pinnacles of human intellect.

Okay, then exactly how much blame are you claiming that the "new atheists" have?

Who's "blaming" anyone? And why would I need to quantify "how much" blame? That's some real insecurity, right there.

You're making it more complex than it is. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

1. Creationists exist
2. Anti-theists love to focus on them
3. A large chunk of anti-theists equate creationists with "true believers"
4. Creationists love to revel in the limelight
5. Creationists will play the martyr
6. Creationists will then tell everyone that they're true believers and push it on others
7. A few gullible people will believe them, with a "why else would they be being persecuted?" mindset
8. Anti-theists will then get more upset
9. The cycle continues

Is that simple enough?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Fair enough. There are some recent Atheist members that like to paint some of us theists as homophobic and uneducated. I sure don't think dinosaurs roamed the earth a few thousand years ago, thats for sure.

I think very few people probably do, in fact. However, your comment gets to a root problem, I think. People have a tendency to personalize attacks that may not be actually directed at them. This applies to atheists and theists. Most of us have a tendency, at least from time to time, to perceive that somebody is including us in their attack or judgment, by association. Although, in fact, they are probably just attacking people who fit very specific criteria.

I don't have any problems with you KT. You have always been straight up and fair.

The bottom line, labels suck.

I appreciate the acknowledgment, and I think that labels do often tend to cause more conflict and confusion than help facilitate understanding.