-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
God did not create from nothing
- Thread starter timewerx
- Start date
Hans Blaster
Reconstruction 3 will come
- Mar 11, 2017
- 25,852
- 18,670
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Since you've dismissed all of radioactive dating, but claim to accept nuclear physics...
Setting aside your silly rejection of carbon-14 dating because it is hard for young objects, why do you reject *other* forms of radioactive dating? They are not affected by fossil fuel usage or nuclear testing that alter the reservoir of C-14 in the atmosphere.
Upvote
0
Platte
Well-Known Member
- Jul 14, 2020
- 1,650
- 279
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Any science where the results are based on assumptions (in most cases many assumptions) that cannot be proven is science fiction. I'm not saying those "science fictions" dont have any value or should be rejected (there is defintely value in these science fictions)....what I am saying is that it needs to be understood for what it is and that it is our best guess based upon the best data we have.
NEVER should it be stated that the results are factual and NEVER EVER should science fiction be used as an argument to disprove or even worse, change the context of, the Bible.
I don't think any rational person should disagree with this statement.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Reconstruction 3 will come
- Mar 11, 2017
- 25,852
- 18,670
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
You haven't given any reasons, just a bland rejection of all radioactive dating methods and disparagement as "fiction".
I don't care about your holy book. This is the science section, I discuss science here.
Upvote
0
Platte
Well-Known Member
- Jul 14, 2020
- 1,650
- 279
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old - thats a core premise of your YEC definition.
I believe God created everything functional - using a modelistic approach - a little complicated so I'll spare those details.
I believe Adam was created as a functional human - not a baby - perhaps an 18 year old male. I believe there were full grown trees producing fruit from the beginning. There were rivers and hills from Creation - the earth was fully functionally when it was created.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,055
- 52,817
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,055
- 52,817
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,055
- 52,817
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The difference with him though, is that we hold "his science" up to a Higher Standard, but he's not willing to hold "our holy book" up to the same standard.
It's a one way street with them.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,055
- 52,817
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That doesn't matter, unless one is a YEC.
What does matter is, "How old was the earth created, when it was created?"
That takes the YE, out of YEC.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,055
- 52,817
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 3,117
- 1,255
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,055
- 52,817
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Great, so you're not a YEC, you're a 'Last Thursdayist'. That's so much better.
As I told, it may have been, Aron Ra, when he accused me of that:
The difference between Last Thursday and what I believe is only 314,000 Thursdays.
Meaning there are 314,000 reasons you're wrong.
Upvote
0
How much of an error are you talking about? A decade? A thousand years? A million years? Which dating methods are you talking about?
For instance, this is the error factor that AI has with 3 different dating methods:
Typical accuracy
The accuracy depends on the method, sample quality, and age being measured:| Method | Typical Age Range | Approximate Accuracy |
|---|---|---|
| Radiocarbon (C-14) | Present to ~50,000 years | Often within decades to a few hundred years |
| Potassium-Argon | Thousands to billions of years | Often within 1–2% or better |
| Uranium-Lead | Millions to billions of years | Frequently better than 1% under ideal conditions |
Upvote
0
partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 3,117
- 1,255
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
You do realize that 'Last Thursday' is just a placeholder for some indeterminate point in the past. Which means that you are indeed a 'Last Thursdayist'. You believe that the apparent age of the world isn't indicative of the amount of time since its creation.
If you're going to deny that you're a YEC, at least have the integrity to admit that 'Last Thursdayism' is exactly what you're advocating, it's just that your version adds a few more Thursdays.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,055
- 52,817
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Then make it any point in the past you wish.
I used 4004 BC, which makes you wrong 314,000 times over.
Either that, or your dictionary is severely corrupt.
Remove the word I highlighted, and you just might understand.
You: You believe that the apparent age of the world isn't indicative of the amount of time since its creation.
Me: You believe that the age of the world isn't indicative of the amount of time since its creation.
See the difference?
And for the record, I say the earth has two ages:
- It is 6029 years old existentially.
- It is possibly 4.54 billion years old physically.
I admit that Last Thursdayism is exactly what you're advocating.
And there are 314,000 reasons you're wrong.
Yup.
314,000
Upvote
0
Similar threads
