Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[Ophiolite]

Obviously you are looking at the data incorrectly.

However, it appears that you are not even looking at the data, merely promoting beliefs.

Thanks. This means that billions of years could be wrong, and you are trusting something that could later be proven incorrect.

Could be wrong, yes, but the chances that it is wrong by even an order of magnitude is miniscule and the chance that that it could be wrong by several orders of magnitude practically non-existent. i.e. the Earth is not "only a few thousand years old".

Two questions for you:
1. What do you mean in this context by "trusting something"?
2. If I do have to "trust" in something I would far rather trust the best possible current explanation as determined by exhaustive, evidence based research than any of the alternatives. Why do you reject that approach?

 

[Halbhh]

However, it appears that you are not even looking at the data, merely promoting beliefs.

Could be wrong, yes, but the chances that it is wrong by even an order of magnitude is miniscule and the chance that that it could be wrong by several orders of magnitude practically non-existent. i.e. the Earth is not "only a few thousand years old".

Two questions for you:
1. What do you mean in this context by "trusting something"?
2. If I do have to "trust" in something I would far rather trust the best possible current explanation as determined by exhaustive, evidence based research than any of the alternatives. Why do you reject that approach?

I haven't been following this thread at all, and only saw this most current post alone, but it's good to remember (as perhaps you would already, but I like to say this now and then...) that these discussions are often just an argument between young earth creationists and those that think a young earth (such as under 10,000 years, or anything under 4.55bn for that matter) -- that this young earth theory (not in the bible) is not fitting physical evidence as we best understand it, and that whole debate really has nothing to do with Genesis chapter 1. (though some try to misuse the chapter for it!....)

Of course, the text in Genesis doesn't say how old the earth is.

The wording even seems poetical already in verse 2. And...verse 2 in the text is some moment that finally comes after having the unspecified amount of time in verse 1:

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

1:2 Now the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

....that's not saying how old the Earth was there...where it's already settled down into being a water world, which since 2017 evidence has been found that an early condition of Earth hundreds of millions of years after it accreted was apparently it was a water world.......

So, just a helpful reminder even to those that already know it: this debate of evolution vs YEC has nothing to do with Genesis 1 in the real intent of the wording (which is evident if one reads through the chapter: that God made Earth a "good" for us... (or selected it?...)) -- even if someone thinks it says YEC and says so however many times in whatever way, etc., etc., etc. That's just their mere pet theory.

 

[Hammster]

Thanks for demonstrating confusing scientific evidence with belief in bible stories.

You mean historical accounts.

 

[Hammster]

Two questions for you:
1. What do you mean in this context by "trusting something"?

Belief, reliance, confidence, etc.

2. If I do have to "trust" in something I would far rather trust the best possible current explanation as determined by exhaustive, evidence based research than any of the alternatives. Why do you reject that approach?

I don’t reject it out if hand. Bear with me, as this is just an example. Let’s say that a scientist, using approved methods, said that Washington died in 1778. It would be safe to ignore that data since we know he was president in 1789, and died 10 years later. We would conclude that the historic accounts we have trump the data.

 

[kiwimac]

Well, we know it’s about 6000 years old.

No, it simply isn't.

 

[driewerf]

No one has provided evidence to refute the dates. Creationists attempt to dispute the dates via apologetics but that is not evidence.

That’s not true at all. You just haven’t searched for it because you don’t think it exists.

@Hammster : you are kindly invited to provide us said evidence.
Since you are a meticulous thinker, someone with a critical mind that doesn't take things lightly, I am suite confident that you have thouroughly investigated the question and contemplated the all evidence.

 

[driewerf]

It’s not exact, no. But we can be reasonably sure that it’s between 6000 and 10000 years based on the way writers communicated back then. We can be very certain that millions and billions is off the table, though.

Who were these writers? What way did they "communicate", that we can trust their writings over all the empirical evidence of modern all the modern sciences?
And on what ground did these "writer" come to their conclusions?

 

[dlamberth]

Obviously you are looking at the data incorrectly.

Please explain.

 

[Hammster]

@Hammster : you are kindly invited to provide us said evidence.
Since you are a meticulous thinker, someone with a critical mind that doesn't take things lightly, I am suite confident that you have thouroughly investigated the question and contemplated the all evidence.

Probably not.

 

[Hammster]

Who were these writers? What way did they "communicate", that we can trust their writings over all the empirical evidence of modern all the modern sciences?
And on what ground did these "writer" come to their conclusions?

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
— 2 Timothy 3:16-17

 

[Hammster]

Please explain.

Again? Okay. We know that earth is approximately 6000 years old. So it’s not possible to have something that is millions of years old.

 

[sjastro]

The false dichotomy fallacy in full display in this thread; radiometric dating is wrong making YEC right.
Even if radiometric dating was wrong doesn't make YEC right.

One of the most accurate methods of dating the age of the Earth is paradoxically through meteorites as their pristine interiors are sealed by the fusion crust formed when entering the Earth's atmosphere.

Scientists don't rely on single dating methods, the following meteorites were dated using Hf-W and Pb-Pb.

​

Isn't it remarkable if radiometric dating gives the wrong results, the Hf-W and Pb-Pb methods are wrong by about the same magnitude for all the samples tested which is an extraordinary coincidence.
There is no coincidence and the data shows asteroids which were the source of the meteorites and the Earth formed around the same time approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

 

[Frank Robert]

You mean historical accounts.

Some of the accounts in the bible are historical and have been verified but much has not been verified to date. If you would like to discuss it with biblical experts you can find several on the Peaceful Science forum.

 

[Hammster]

Some of the accounts in the bible are historical and have been verified but much has not been verified to date. If you would like to discuss it with biblical experts you can find several on the Peaceful Science forum.

All historical accounts in scripture are true.

 

[Mountainmike]

There is a consillience of scientific evidence that's saids otherwise See: How Old is Earth, and How Do We Know?

Science you have consistently disregarded scientific evidence I expect you will do so now.

I might agree with your Conclusion on age. I am not YEC, but that is just a belief.


However yours is just a belief Too.

IF the earth was created, there is no slamdunk argument to prevent creation with an apparent long created but illusory history.

Let us take an example where those who think they speak on behalf of science believe in creation of history themselves: . Those who think the shroud is a medieaval fake, which is most atheists, must assume all the history like , for example, forensic correspondence with the sudarium , or geolocating evidence and long degraded linen, were faked to look as though they were aged. All medieaval Shroud advocates must believe that history can be faked, whilst having no clue on how it was done even with modern technology.

What We do know is there is plenty of forensic evidence of creation of SOME life.
I cite Eucharistic miracles, but there is more besides.

Creation is real. Science says so. Get over it.
Science is just a tool for examining repeatable evidence, it is not of itself a philosophy of existence.

So If creation is possible ALL bets are off about when the entire universe was created.

So you just have a belief Too.

 

[Frank Robert]

All historical accounts in scripture are true.

By definition believers of the scriptures believe the scriptures are true. Believers in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, Hinduism and other religions likely believe their respective scriptures.

 

[Hammster]

By definition believers of the scriptures believe the scriptures are true. Believers in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, Hinduism and other religions likely believe their respective scriptures.

But Christians are correct. So there’s that.

 

[Frank Robert]

I might agree with your Conclusion on age. I am not YEC, but that is just a belief.


However yours is just a belief Too.

I think you are confusing accepting and/or affirming well evidenced scientific theories is the same as belief in those theories.

IF the earth was created, there is no slamdunk argument to prevent creation with an apparent long created but illusory history.

Let us take an example where those who think they speak on behalf of science believe in creation of history themselves: . Those who think the shroud is a medieaval fake, which is most atheists, must assume all the history like , for example, forensic correspondence with the sudarium , or geolocating evidence and long degraded linen, were faked to look as though they were aged. All medieaval Shroud advocates must believe that history can be faked, whilst having no clue on how it was done even with modern technology.

I am agnostic on the shroud. I have no way of knowing if it was faked or not but even if were not faked we still don't know who the body belonged even though some evidence points to a crucified body.

What We do know is there is plenty of forensic evidence of creation of SOME life.
I cite Eucharistic miracles, but there is more besides.

I don't deny that there have been Eucharistic miracles as I can site many Shamanic miracles from many parts of the world. When I was in grad school one of my supervisors (Marie Colman Nelson) Mrs. Nelson not only studied with and taught Shamans in Africa, she open a mental health clinic in Nairobi using both modern and traditional African treatments.

Creation is real. Science says so. Get over it

You are entitled to your opinion so there is nothing to get over.

Science is just a tool for examining repeatable evidence, it is not of itself a philosophy of existence.

I agree science is not a philosophy.

So If creation is possible ALL bets are off about when the entire universe was created.

Many Christians believe in both a created universe and evolution.

So you just have a belief Too.

I'll end with where I stated. You appear to be confusing belief with accepting that there is overwhelming evidence for the ToE.

 

[Frank Robert]

But Christians are correct. So there’s that.

I am amazed that christians talk and talk about belief yet have a mangled understanding of it.

There is amusing story that Mythologist Joseph Campbell tells on the Bill Moyers show

​

I had a very amusing experience, which might be well worth telling. I was in the New York Athletic Club swimming pool, and you know, you don’t wear your collar this way or that way when you’re in a swimming pool. And I was introduced to a priest, “This is Father So-and-so, this is Joseph Campbell.” I’m a professor, he’s a professor at one of our Catholic universities. So after I’d had my swim, I came and sat down beside, in what we call, you know, the horizontal athlete situation, and the priest is beside me. And he said, “Mr. Campbell, are you a priest?” I said, “No, Father.” He said, “Are you a Catholic?” I said, “I was, Father.” He said, and now he had the sense to ask it this way, “Do you believe in a personal God?” I said, “No, Father.” And he said, “Well, I suppose there is no way to prove by logic the existence of a personal God.” And I said, “If there were, Father, what would be the value of faith?” “Well, Mr. Campbell, it’s nice to have met you.” And he was off. I really felt I had done a jujitsu trick there.​

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I am amazed that christians talk and talk about belief yet have a mangled understanding of it.

There is amusing story that Mythologist Joseph Campbell tells on the Bill Moyers show

​

I had a very amusing experience, which might be well worth telling. I was in the New York Athletic Club swimming pool, and you know, you don’t wear your collar this way or that way when you’re in a swimming pool. And I was introduced to a priest, “This is Father So-and-so, this is Joseph Campbell.” I’m a professor, he’s a professor at one of our Catholic universities. So after I’d had my swim, I came and sat down beside, in what we call, you know, the horizontal athlete situation, and the priest is beside me. And he said, “Mr. Campbell, are you a priest?” I said, “No, Father.” He said, “Are you a Catholic?” I said, “I was, Father.” He said, and now he had the sense to ask it this way, “Do you believe in a personal God?” I said, “No, Father.” And he said, “Well, I suppose there is no way to prove by logic the existence of a personal God.” And I said, “If there were, Father, what would be the value of faith?” “Well, Mr. Campbell, it’s nice to have met you.” And he was off. I really felt I had done a jujitsu trick there.​

Yes very good. We talk as if our beliefs are proven fact. And even provide the scripture verses as if that "proves" anything. I say that because even the Bible is in the context of a belief.

I am almost done with my personal Credo.