2 questions for creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2013, 07:27 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(08-12-2013 09:43 PM)TheBear Wrote:  Have you considered working for Exxon/Mobile and maybe head up their Oil Exploration department? I'm sure they go by the 6,000 year old earth model, too.
Maybe they should. They drill a lot of dry holes. I've never understood how such failure rates support evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 08:19 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(08-12-2013 09:06 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 09:51 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  This is my one thing. Everybody has something that just drives them up the wall and this is mine. How can you live in the world today with cellphones and spaceships and a fucking robot on mars and say "Scientists, yeah, what do they know?" and I will call an idiot an idiot. However you might be right about him trolling himself, which is why I gave him the challenge if he is a reg YEC he will jump at the chance to link some disproven study by some creationist think tank, if however he is just a troll he will ignore that post as he did the part of my post earlier that shredded YEC.

It's called NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria). The idea is that you have science and religion, and you can't use one to examine the other. Now, it's a blatantly obvious escape hatch argument that is completely begging the question, but there it is.
Actually my point is that there are non-overlapping areas within science and technology themselves. Some atheists try to elevate origins areas to a greater importance than they really merit. Someone can design a functioning car with no knowledge, or incorrect knowledge, of the age of the universe. I gave one simple proof of this: the accepted age of the universe has been changing, yet technology functioned anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 09:43 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
I have no problem with NOMA. I grew up Catholic, and had NO issues with science. I could reconcile the two fine. The problem I have is with the hypocrisy that YEC have. The ONLY other explanation for the data besides throwing literal biblical creationism out the door is that God is playing an elaborate ruse on us, and that historical records OF WHICH THERE ARE MULTIPLE SOURCES have all been all been falsified. And if this is your position then state it, and admit that it is something taken on faith despite all evidence. But trying to poke holes in established science, or to call science a fraud is dishonest. I would be OK if a creationist said "I know my position doesn't hold any evidence, but it is my faith." I don't hold with those who use their faith to defame science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 09:56 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
Every single piece of evidence ever obtained indicates a history of billions of years of deep time. Deal with it.

The sole possible recourse for the obstinately ignorant is some variant of the omphalic hypothesis (note: this is exactly what "light en-route" is).

It is conceivable that the universe was "created" as-is and in-progress at some point in the recent past. There is no particular reason to think so, but it is logically possible. That is the only way one might account for the crushingly overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary.

And yet that is incredibly insufficient. For then we are left with a universe, which, despite "knowing" otherwise, nonetheless maintains all possible evidence of having begun billions of years ago and developed according to all known natural principles. Why? The universe operates by knowable laws, and our study of them is unimaginably fruitful. Whatever the origin of the universe, if it were created, it was assuredly created in order to support such inquiry.

Said natural principles and laws being invariant, and very much (and very obviously) operating at present, the choices are to conclude they have always been so (as, indeed, every piece of evidence suggests) or indeed that all the evidence was very precisely created in order to appear so. There is coherent alternative.

Creationists are so benightedly ass-backwards that they attempt to deny scientific principles (evolution, gravity, etc) in the present. This is literally impossible; those things are demonstrably provable.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
09-12-2013, 11:20 AM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 09:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Every single piece of evidence ever obtained indicates a history of billions of years of deep time. Deal with it.
Comets don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 11:59 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2013 12:04 PM by viole.)
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 11:20 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 09:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Every single piece of evidence ever obtained indicates a history of billions of years of deep time. Deal with it.
Comets don't.

The Oort cloud, maybe?

Have we already met ?Wink

Ciao

- viole
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 12:01 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 11:20 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 09:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Every single piece of evidence ever obtained indicates a history of billions of years of deep time. Deal with it.
Comets don't.

Oh you mean those things that are made of ice, dust particles, and small rocks that incinerate when they enter an atmosphere or get too close to solar radiation?

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), no comet or comet particle has ever been obtained save one... and that one dated 28 millions years.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
09-12-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 11:59 AM)viole Wrote:  The Oort cloud? Wink

Ciao

- viole
As previously noted, the Oort cloud is a conjectured explanation to reconcile comets with a billions-year-old solar system. There is no direct evidence of it. Comets themselves are not evidence of a billions-year-old universe, and go against the claim, "Every single piece of evidence ever obtained indicates a history of billions of years of deep time."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 12:11 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(09-12-2013 12:01 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Oh you mean those things that are made of ice, dust particles, and small rocks that incinerate when they enter an atmosphere or get too close to solar radiation?
Yep, they get smaller with every pass of the sun and eventually disappear.
Quote:Correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be), no comet or comet particle has ever been obtained save one... and that one dated 28 millions years.
I don't know, and please give a link as I'm curious. Not sure what your point is, as 28 million years conflicts with the claim, "Every single piece of evidence ever obtained indicates a history of billions of years of deep time."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 12:22 PM
RE: 2 questions for creationists
(07-12-2013 12:27 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 09:43 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Oh, I agree, but there's a difference between trolling yourself (so to speak) and trolling others. Christianity has a lot of defense mechanisms built into it. If you fail to penetrate even one of them, you will not break free. I know. It took me years.

which defense mechanism of yours was penetrated to allow you to finally release yourself? I'm asking a genuine question albeit in a juvenile way. *snickers*

Sorry. I totally missed this when the thread ballooned to so many pages. It wasn't any single one. Assuming you were raised a Christian, there is quite a bit in place that makes a person stay a Christian. First you start with indoctrination from an age when the kid would believe in Santa. As they get older, pile on:
  • Tell them that doubt is normal, and what they're feeling is to be expected.
  • If doubts persist, tell them their fears are assuaged by [mysterious ways].
  • If the question the validity of [mysterious ways], tell them that their knowledge/logic is inferior to God's knowledge/logic.
  • If they realized that super-special God logic is likely just an escape-hatch argument, threaten them with eternal torture. Tell them that apostasy is the one unforgivable sin.
  • For good measure, strongly encourage them to hang around like-minded individuals and warn them of the perils of associating with infidels.
And you have to break through all of that. If one of the steps snares you, you have to start over from scratch again. Also, don't ever underestimate how powerful that hell step is, especially when paired with the whole no-takesies-backsies aspect of apostasy being unforgivable.

If my personal experience is anything close to normal, you stop believing well before you become comfortable with the idea that hell probably doesn't exist. A person might actually stop believing and still be too scared to admit it. In my case, it took me six months to go from being an atheist to being able to admit to myself that I no longer believed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: