How many creationists practise what they preach?

[OzSpen]

All the evidence for evolution is far more than anyone could learn in a lifetime. This summary might be useful. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Papias

Why don't you summarise 6 examples briefly for us, providing the evidence?

 

[OzSpen]

Just wondering if your scripture puts the age of the universe at around 5000 years, and if so whats the deal with fossils, carbon dating and light from stars over 5000 years away?

It's easy to obtain a copy of Scripture for you to read yourself so that you can determine if the age of the universe is stated as 5,000 years. The entire Bible is available online in many English translations. Take a read at BibleGateway. using the drop-down menu.

I haven't found anything in Scripture that states that the age of the universe is 5,000 years. But you sure sound as though you have an agenda that wants to force content on the Bible from your own worldview. That's called interpretive eisegesis - your reading into a text.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth,

Your 'mountains of facts' need you to provide the evidence for these facts.

29+ facts for you to peruse:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Could they be associated with your agnosticism towards God and Scripture? I note you label yourself as an agnostic.

The majority of Christians world wide accept evolution. It has nothing to do with religious views.

Why don't you share with us the facts about Jesus' life, death and resurrection? Facts and how you know they are facts?

Facts are objective and verifiable. Scriptures would not fit that description because they are not objective or independently verifiable.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's easy to obtain a copy of Scripture for you to read yourself so that you can determine if the age of the universe is stated as 5,000 years. The entire Bible is available online in many English translations. Take a read at BibleGateway. using the drop-down menu.

I haven't found anything in Scripture that states that the age of the universe is 5,000 years. But you sure sound as though you have an agenda that wants to force content on the Bible from your own worldview. That's called interpretive eisegesis - your reading into a text.

The pope said the same thing about the Sun moving about the Earth.

When you can look through a telescope and see galaxies whose light took millions of years to reach us, how can you claim that the universe is 5,000 years old?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why don't you summarise 6 examples briefly for us, providing the evidence?

You can read (but please don't post in the thread) my summary of the ERV evidence in the formal debate thread:

Formal Debate: Loudmouth v. Paterfamilia, Human Origins

 

[tiglathpileser]

Write it down - for once I agree with AV (aside from which view is correct). The kids should be taught what is correct, when that is known. The examples below show why.

I have no objection to my daughter being taught the theory of atoms at school as long as she isn't taught it as a proven fact. I want her to be exposed to all ideas, so she can make up her own mind, but I show her videos made by phlogiston scientists as well, so she can get the bigger picture.

I have no objection to my daughter being taught the theory of gravity at school as long as she isn't taught it as a proven fact. I want her to be exposed to all ideas, so she can make up her own mind, but I show her videos made by "Intelligent Falling" scientists as well, so she can get the bigger picture.

I have no objection to my daughter being taught the theory of DNA at school as long as she isn't taught it as a proven fact. I want her to be exposed to all ideas, so she can make up her own mind, but I show her videos made by Darwin's gemmulist scientists as well, so she can get the bigger picture.

I have no objection to my daughter being taught the theory of thermodynamics at school as long as she isn't taught it as a proven fact. I want her to be exposed to all ideas, so she can make up her own mind, but I show her videos made by caloric scientists as well, so she can get the bigger picture.

I have no objection to my daughter being taught the theory of AIDS at school as long as she isn't taught it as a proven fact. I want her to be exposed to all ideas, so she can make up her own mind, but I show her videos made by AIDS denying scientists as well, so she can get the bigger picture.

I have no objection to my daughter being taught the about the holocaust at school as long as she isn't taught it as a proven fact. I want her to be exposed to all ideas, so she can make up her own mind, but I show her videos made by holocaust denier scientists as well, so she can get the bigger picture.

I have no objection to my daughter being taught the theory of pathology at school as long as she isn't taught it as a proven fact. I want her to be exposed to all ideas, so she can make up her own mind, but I show her videos made by humoric scientists as well, so she can get the bigger picture.

I have no objection to my daughter being taught "ball earth" theory at school as long as she isn't taught it as a proven fact. I want her to be exposed to all ideas, so she can make up her own mind, but I show her videos made by bible-based, flat earth scientists as well, so she can get the bigger picture.

There's a reason we teach kids facts, and there is more evidence showing that evolution is a fact than there is showing that the US Civil War actually happened. It would be very harmful to kids to convince them of known falsehoods.

In Christ-Papias

Your examples are not valid from the point of view that I have been told by atheists so many times that science does not prove anything. All it does is reach a consensus. That means science is not the truth, consensus is according to them.

That means the school would be teaching the consensus regarding the matter not the truth. The truth is for us to decide.

 

[dad]

It's easy to obtain a copy of Scripture for you to read yourself so that you can determine if the age of the universe is stated as 5,000 years....

We know about when Abraham lived who was likely a contemporary of Noah's. We know how long the flood was from creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Trouble with these young earth 'calculations' they fly in the face of real-world evidence.

They do not calculate the age of the earth.

All they show is how long the universe has been in existence.

 

[dad]

The Reverend James Ussher calculated the 'age of the world' by (more or less) working his way through the 'begats' (genealogy) and other events as proclaimed in the Bible. His 4,000 year estimate has held considerable sway, as it is within the ball park of other beliefs and 'calculations' which allowed for a 4,000 year pre-Christ and 2,000 year post-Christ period.

Trouble with these young earth 'calculations' they fly in the face of real-world evidence.

6000 plus years work on accuracy.

 

[dad]

They do not calculate the age of the earth.

All they show is how long the universe has been in existence.

Do we not assume that earth and the universe are about the same age?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do we not assume that earth and the universe are about the same age?

YECs do.

I'm not a YEC.

 

[VirOptimus]

They do not calculate the age of the earth.

All they show is how long the universe has been in existence.

Which is one and the same. "Embedded age" is just magical nonsense.

 

[OzSpen]

29+ facts for you to peruse:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The majority of Christians world wide accept evolution. It has nothing to do with religious views.

Facts are objective and verifiable. Scriptures would not fit that description because they are not objective or independently verifiable.

Loudmouth,

Your first link does engage in circular reasoning.

You state that the majority of Christians worldwide accept evolution, but you provide not even a minutiae of evidence to support your claim.

As for Scripture not fitting the description of objective and verifiable, you have failed the historical test. By your standard, the existence of Plato, Herod the Great, Captain James Cook, Captain Arthur Phillip and Thomas Jefferson could not be obtained by objective evidence that is verifiable. Your standard fails with history.

 

[OzSpen]

You can read (but please don't post in the thread) my summary of the ERV evidence in the formal debate thread:

Formal Debate: Loudmouth v. Paterfamilia, Human Origins

I asked you to summarise 6 examples and you can't even do that.

 

[OzSpen]

We know about when Abraham lived who was likely a contemporary of Noah's. We know how long the flood was from creation.

Archbishop Ussher assumed the OT genealogies were complete. It has been shown that they are incomplete, so there is no way to accurately determine the age of the earth from OT genealogies. See the articles, 'Genaeological gaps in the Mosaic literature' (this is a 5-part series).

There's the added problem of the length of days in Genesis 1. Young earth creationists want to make these 24 hour periods. There are a few hurdles to that view. In The City of God, St Augustine was not prepared to commit to 6 literal days. See The City of God (5.11.6).

 

[OzSpen]

I think the religious prefer 'miraculous nonsense' rather than 'magical nonsense'.

Why are you engaging in flaming on this Christian forum?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is one and the same.

Nope.

The earth has two ages: physical & existential.

"Embedded age" is just magical nonsense.

Correct.

It is "magical nonsense;" but miraculous truth.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The earth has two ages: physical & existential.

Why does it need two? You have one age, I have one age...

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does it need two? You have one age, I have one age...

I wasn't created by divine fiat in 4004 BC.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I wasn't created by divine fiat in 4004 BC.

Neither was the Earth.