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

[Astrid]

Not according to scripture.

According to your chosen reading of scrip

 

[Frank Robert]

Not according to scripture.

Depends on the scriptures that you read.

According to the Bhagavad Gita , the holy book of Hindus, the earth is 155 trillion years old.

 

[Hammster]

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]

Nothing in science is ever claimed to
be perfect certainty. No scientist claims
inerrancy.
Tell us, is there no way you can
be wrong about your " 6000 yrs"
etc?

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.

 

[Hammster]

Wrong by how much? 1%? 5% 10%?
The Deccan traps are dated as 66 million years old. Even if we assume that the geologists are off by 10%, that makes the age of the Deccan Traps 66 million ± 6.6 million years old, hence between 72 and 60 million years. Or do you believe that geologists are so far off the mark that they measure an age of 66 million years old where it ought to be 6000? And when you have dealt with the Deccan Traps, you’ll have to deal with the Yellowstone Plateau, the Mauna Kea shield volcano, the Great Barrier Riff, the Siberian Traps, the Tibetan Plateau, the Alps, the magnetic reversals in the Atlantic floor and the Giant’s Causaway. Are you going to pretend that all geologists researching these very different geological features are all off the mark? And that you know better? Fine, maybe you have had an incredible training in geology and know better than all geologists world wide.

Deccan Traps

The Deccan Traps are one of the largest volcanic provinces in the world. It consists of a composite thickness of more than 6,500 feet (>2,000 m) of flat-lying basalt lava flows and covers an area of nearly 200,000 square miles (500,000 square km) (roughly the size of the states of Washington and...

volcano.oregonstate.edu

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1155371

Enter the astronomers. The Sun has been calculated to be 5 billion years old. The Andromeda Galaxy is 13 billion years old. It is situated 2.5 million light years away, so the image of the Andromeda Galaxy that we see today is already 2.5 million years old, and the light was emitted millions of years ago. And the Andromeda Galaxy is but one of the many galaxies. All other galaxies are equally old, and much further away. So the light needed to travel even longer. Are the astronomers off the mark? And by chance you have an incredible advanced training in astronomy, so that you outknowledge all astronomers on astronomy? On top of knowing more about geology than all geologists?

Andromeda Galaxy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then you need to have a look at the so called Taung Child, a fossil skull of 2.8 million years old. Of course, one of the many. Are you suggesting that palaeontologists don’t know their job as good as you know it? And by how much would that age be wrong? And how would you know? Have you measured it?

Taung Child - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Since you’re looking-g around, have a look at the Greenland Ice Sheet, 18 million years old. According to glaciologists.

Greenland ice sheet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is easy to just say wrong. But you’ll have to tell what is wrong with these measurements. You’ll have to go into the deep technical details of how sampling was done – and what could have go wrong there – or how the used measurement methods are wrong, and show a deep technical knowledge of all these methods. You’ll have to demonstrate that you know more about glaciology than glaciologists, more about palaeontology than palaeontologists, more about astronomy than astronomers and more about geology than geologists. That you know all this stuff at the same time.

No, I don’t. I just need to know that their assumptions are wrong, and that there are scientists that have given evidence to show that.

 

[Frank Robert]

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

Where do you suggest I search for evidence of a 6000 year old earth?

 

[Hammster]

Why should we care about "scripture"? We have hard reliable empirical data.

It’s not “scripture”. It’s scripture. And no, your data isn’t reliable.

 

[Hammster]

According to your chosen reading of scrip

There’s no way to read billions of years into it.

 

[Hammster]

Depends on the scriptures that you read.

According to the Bhagavad Gita , the holy book of Hindus, the earth is 155 trillion years old.

Well, that’s obviously a lie since that book is a lie.

 

[Hammster]

Where do you suggest I search for evidence of a 6000 year old earth?

Do you have access to a site called Google? Or Duck Duck Go?

 

[Astrid]

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.

Surely you don't think I meant EXACTLY
6000 years, what with the clock ticking.
Your response has the feel of evasion as
" exact" was in no way the important part.


Try again. Do you believe it impossible that
you are wrong about the earth being only a
few thousand years old?

 

[Frank Robert]

Well, that’s obviously a lie since that book is a lie.

Hindus believe their holy book in the same manner that you believe yours.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hindus believe their holy book in the same manner that you believe yours.

No, actually, they don't.

Ask a Hindu what varna (caste) he's in, and he may not know what you're asking.

The truth is, the caste system was so oppressive to the Hindu, that they invented Buddhism as a "breakaway religion" from Hinduism.

 

[Frank Robert]

Do you have access to a site called Google? Or Duck Duck Go?

After numerous searches the most convincing book i found for leading a good life is the 84 page Tao Te Ching.

 

[Astrid]

There’s no way to read billions of years into it.

Of course there is. People read into the book
whatever they want to find.
It's not an authoritative source anyway.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Scripture says Pi=3
Match your so called "empirical
evidence" against THAT!

Where does it specifically 'say' that Pi=3 ?

I think it's a bit of an exegetical stretch for us to say from some verse like 1 Kings 7:23 that "the Bible says Pi equals 3."

.... it'd be much better to simply say that there's barely any math expressed in the Bible, and where it is seemingly implied, it's given in ancient narrative and only offers a representational description..........of a large, THICK bowl.

Biblical answer to cooking up pi - Nature

www.nature.com

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Scripture says Pi=3
Match your so called "empirical
evidence" against THAT!

Such a circle is impossible.

 

[Astrid]

Such a circle is impossible.

Man says / Bible says

 

[Hammster]

Surely you don't think I meant EXACTLY
6000 years, what with the clock ticking.
Your response has the feel of evasion as
" exact" was in no way the important part.


Try again. Do you believe it impossible that
you are wrong about the earth being only a
few thousand years old?

I gave you the answer.

 

[Hammster]

Hindus believe their holy book in the same manner that you believe yours.

I get that.