The Danger of Creationism

[Estrid]

There are atheists on here who really know their facts and make intelligent informed comments and engage in serious discussion then there is you. You are in a category all by yourself

Hilarious, seeing who you have agreeing with you.
The guy who says excess water from noahs flood was wafted
to neptune where it shines to this day as a warning beacon
against incoming rogue angels.

As previously noted no better judge than specimen

 

[Estrid]

That comment actually made sense. You should try that more often. I am impressed

I will try to change.
I will change just for you.
I will write short declarative sentences.
No subordinate clauses or even subjunctives
There will just be one main idea.
You will be able to make sense.

I even promise not to write in Cantonese.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If life is the result of random chance what value does life have? It's survival of the fittest.

I accept your surrender on the previous topic with your giant dodge to counter-counter-apologetic tropes.

 

[BPPLEE]

I will try to change.
I will change just for you.
I will write short declarative sentences.
No subordinate clauses or even subjunctives
There will just be one main idea.
You will be able to make sense.

I even promise not to write in Cantonese.

I knew it wouldn't last

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is the history of Israel going back to the roots

Of Iron age Canaan.

 

[BPPLEE]

I accept your surrender on the previous topic with your giant dodge to counter-counter-apologetic tropes.

Yeah. Put a feather in your cap. You really changed my mind .Not. I must give you credit though you present facts and intelligent arguments and not personal attacks unlike other unnamed posters on this forum

 

[BPPLEE]

Yeah. Put a feather in your cap. You really changed my mind .Not. I must give you credit though you present facts and intelligent arguments and not personal attacks unlike other unnamed posters on this forum

Your previous post excluded you couldn't help yourself

 

[Estrid]

Yeah. Put a feather in your cap. You really changed my mind .Not. I must give you credit though you present facts and intelligent arguments and not personal attacks unlike other unnamed posters on this forum

Its ok to admit, confession is good for the soul

 

[Estrid]

I knew it wouldn't last

Rats.STILL going over your head!

 

[BPPLEE]

Its ok to admit, confession is good for the soul

Speaking of unnamed posters

 

[Astrophile]

I truly do not know
And professional geologists don't say absolutely unquestionably without a doubt that they know exactly how old the earth is

The geologically accepted age of the Earth is 4540±20 million years. Do you think that this age range is likely to be correct?

 

[BPPLEE]

The geologically accepted age of the Earth is 4540±20 million years. Do you think that this age range is likely to be correct?

I don't know

 

[Astrophile]

Until about two hundred years ago they believed the earth was about 6000 years old and that the flood caused the fossil record. Then they believed in universalism and that it millions of years for the layers to form. Then radiometric dating dated meteorites 4.5 billion years old. Next something else will come along and the theory will change again .I have no problem with you believing the earth is 4.5 billion years old but for some reason it's dangerous if I don't

The geologically accepted age of the Earth has been in the range 4550±50 million years since the 1950s, and this age has been confirmed by radiometric dating of lunar and Martian rocks, and of meteorites. It is unlikely that this age will change significantly.

 

[Occams Barber]

Ok so everything came from absolutely nothing?

You're confusing Big Bang Theory with the abiogenesis hypothesis. One is an early phase in the formation of the Universe. The other deals with the formation of life from non-life.

They are two completely different topics.

(Note that the third topic in the series is Evolution which follows on after abiogenesis)

None of them involve 'something from nothing'.

Many Creationists lump all three together under the heading of 'Origins'. This is the easy way to tell that a Creationist doesn't understand the topic(s).

OB

 

[BPPLEE]

You're confusing Big Bang Theory with the abiogenesis hypothesis. One is an early phase in the formation of the Universe. The other deals with the formation of life from non-life.

They are two completely different topics.

(Note that the third topic in the series is Evolution which follows on after abiogenesis)

None of them involve 'something from nothing'.

Many Creationists lump all three together under the heading of 'Origins'. This is the easy way to tell that a Creationist doesn't understand the topic(s).

OB

I don't think he's a creationist

 

[Occams Barber]

I don't think he's a creationist

I don't think so either. However he (and you) have confused the concepts.

OB

 

[BPPLEE]

I don't think so either. However he (and you) have confused the concepts.

OB

But life began through some process no one controlled? It started on its own?

 

[Hans Blaster]

But life began through some process no one controlled? It started on its own?

Sure, why not.

The basic components of cells are self-organizing and/or self-replicating molecules like RNA, lipid capsules, amino acids, etc. A lot of progress has been made in origin-of-life research.

 

[BPPLEE]

You're confusing Big Bang Theory with the abiogenesis hypothesis. One is an early phase in the formation of the Universe. The other deals with the formation of life from non-life.

They are two completely different topics.

(Note that the third topic in the series is Evolution which follows on after abiogenesis)

None of them involve 'something from nothing'.

Many Creationists lump all three together under the heading of 'Origins'. This is the easy way to tell that a Creationist doesn't understand the topic(s).

OB

Actually the Big Bang Theory was moving closer to the Biblical account because it admitted there was a beginning. The Steady State suggested the universe had always existed. So something out of nothing does apply to the Big Bang I agree

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually the Big Bang Theory was moving closer to the Biblical account because it admitted there was a beginning. The Steady State suggested the universe had always existed. So something out of nothing does apply to the Big Bang I agree

The Steady State theory was clearly wrong, so it was discarded.

The Big Bang is *not* a theory of something from nothing. It is not even a theory of the origin of the Universe. It is a theory of the expansion of the Universe from an earlier, high density state.