What percentage of these, from creation.com, are true? Age of Earth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2013, 07:40 AM
What percentage of these, from creation.com, are true? Age of Earth.
Help me wade through the following webpage to determine what percentage of them are true. Thanks!

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 08:03 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 08:10 AM by Chas.)
RE: What percentage of these, from creation.com, are true? Age of Earth.
(04-10-2013 07:40 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  Help me wade through the following webpage to determine what percentage of them are true. Thanks!

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

My first estimate is 0%. Drinking Beverage

For example, they start off by misstating or misunderstanding how ages are estimated.
Cratering on the moon is not assumed to have happened at a constant rate.

They also don't seem to understand that we know and don't hide the fact that these are estimates, that they are provisional, that there are assumptions.
They mischaracterize scientific knowledge and the scientific method.

They concoct strawmen.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
04-10-2013, 08:27 AM
RE: What percentage of these, from creation.com, are true? Age of Earth.
"Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events."

That's all the further you need to read.
But if you're stupid enough to read the second sentence:

"The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificate and Biblical chronogenealogies (technical). In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded."

The Bible's CLAIM is yer witness. (Actually it never claims that anywhere).

What else would anyone need ?

Have them call 1-800-I need help.

Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-10-2013, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 10:31 AM by DeavonReye.)
RE: What percentage of these, from creation.com, are true? Age of Earth.
Absolutely, guys. I would say those were a given. But there are those who actually say that THOSE are the truth and the secularists are the one with "assumptions" and biased data.

Here's the thing. . . . . . and my honest take on this subject.

I didn't get an advanced degree in any science field [unfortunately]. I do not have access to the knowledge and/or equipement that those WITH advanced degrees use in their experimentations. So, I must rely on others and their work to decide what is fact and what is fiction. When a christian based site makes claims, for the untrained eye, they may SOUND . . . convincing. It's why such sources work well for the apologist who is looking for reasons to believe. They may say, "you don't accept these as facts because you are looking for reasons to NOT believe in an 'accountable to' god".

That's the problem. Without being able to discover things on my own, . . . I'm left with "who's actually giving me the right information". Who IS "making assumptions with a bias"? It's a tough place to be in for those, like me, who are wanting to know the truth, but must bow to those far more educated. For example, . . . the apologist offers up:

Link offered on OP
http://creation.com/mercury-magnetized-crust
http://creation.com/moon-madness
http://creation.com/exploding-evolution
http://creation.com/c14-dinos
http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers
http://creation.com/geology-questions-and-answers
http://creation.com/flat-gaps

Unfortunately, there's probably no "short argument" for each of these web addresses.

I can bring up articles from talkorigins.org, yet they will dismiss them. And it makes me wonder why. If something is compelling/credible, . . . for what reason [other than blind faith] would they disregard it? But more than that, . . . what if they attempt to "scientifically show why the information on talkorigins.org is wrong"? I'm back to square one. Who has the actual answer? Who's more "biased"?

I could rest on my current worldview based solely upon the immoral/unethical claims about the biblical god entity alone. And I do. But sometimes I get caught up in a debate with a creationist/young earth believer. . . and am not qualified to answer his comments, . . . making it appear that he "is right". It is frustrating, . . . and I think I will just bow out of posting any topic where I'm not qualified to respond. I'm sure someone else will come along and fill that role.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 11:05 AM
RE: What percentage of these, from creation.com, are true? Age of Earth.
(04-10-2013 10:16 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  Absolutely, guys. I would say those were a given. But there are those who actually say that THOSE are the truth and the secularists are the one with "assumptions" and biased data.

Here's the thing. . . . . . and my honest take on this subject.

I didn't get an advanced degree in any science field [unfortunately]. I do not have access to the knowledge and/or equipement that those WITH advanced degrees use in their experimentations. So, I must rely on others and their work to decide what is fact and what is fiction. When a christian based site makes claims, for the untrained eye, they may SOUND . . . convincing. It's why such sources work well for the apologist who is looking for reasons to believe. They may say, "you don't accept these as facts because you are looking for reasons to NOT believe in an 'accountable to' god".

That's the problem. Without being able to discover things on my own, . . . I'm left with "who's actually giving me the right information". Who IS "making assumptions with a bias"? It's a tough place to be in for those, like me, who are wanting to know the truth, but must bow to those far more educated. For example, . . . the apologist offers up:

Link offered on OP
http://creation.com/mercury-magnetized-crust
http://creation.com/moon-madness
http://creation.com/exploding-evolution
http://creation.com/c14-dinos
http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers
http://creation.com/geology-questions-and-answers
http://creation.com/flat-gaps

Unfortunately, there's probably no "short argument" for each of these web addresses.

I can bring up articles from talkorigins.org, yet they will dismiss them. And it makes me wonder why. If something is compelling/credible, . . . for what reason [other than blind faith] would they disregard it? But more than that, . . . what if they attempt to "scientifically show why the information on talkorigins.org is wrong"? I'm back to square one. Who has the actual answer? Who's more "biased"?

I could rest on my current worldview based solely upon the immoral/unethical claims about the biblical god entity alone. And I do. But sometimes I get caught up in a debate with a creationist/young earth believer. . . and am not qualified to answer his comments, . . . making it appear that he "is right". It is frustrating, . . . and I think I will just bow out of posting any topic where I'm not qualified to respond. I'm sure someone else will come along and fill that role.

Read books about scientific subjects. Follow up on the ideas with other books or on the internet.

There are many good science books for the intelligent layman. It takes time and effort, but the reward is knowledge and wisdom.

We have listed them many times. Read books.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 11:26 AM
RE: What percentage of these, from creation.com, are true? Age of Earth.
Maybe I can find an audio book on these topics. I have issues reading large amounts of texts. I prefer visual first, then audio, finally text if I have to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: What percentage of these, from creation.com, are true? Age of Earth.
If your not prepared to argue with them, then don't even try.
The question is "Why do you NEED to argue with them, if you think you're not ready", and "What good would it possibly do ?". It very odd you NEED to argue, if you think you're not prepared. How about pick ONE topic, and learn everything about it. Then stick to one thing, or the things you know about.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-10-2013, 11:53 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 12:14 PM by DeavonReye.)
RE: What percentage of these, from creation.com, are true? Age of Earth.
Bucky, . . . mostly, I may make a comment to a subject, and many times they will bring up a topic in an attempt to slip me up. But you're right that I should get caught up in something that I'm not well versed in. And that's what I'll do from this point on.

Where I CAN feel confident in is within the text of the biblical stories, and the lack of morals by the very god they claim "morals come from" [as well as those who did 'his' bidding].

So, for this subject, . . . should I assume that the christian scientists don't understand what they are talking about [like the flat-gaps] or just don't understand what the actual science says about it? I'm just wondering how they could get a different result when the material [whatever it is that's being experiemented on] is equally viewable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 12:34 PM
RE: What percentage of these, from creation.com, are true? Age of Earth.
"Iron Chariots is intended to provide information on apologetics and counter-apologetics. We'll be collecting common arguments and providing responses, information and resources to help counter the glut of misinformation and poor arguments which masquerade as evidence for religious claims."

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 03:34 PM
RE: What percentage of these, from creation.com, are true? Age of Earth.
(04-10-2013 11:26 AM)DeavonReye Wrote:  Maybe I can find an audio book on these topics. I have issues reading large amounts of texts. I prefer visual first, then audio, finally text if I have to.

For complex subjects like geology, biology, history, anthropology, paleontology, chemistry, and physics, you have to.

Otherwise, you skim. If your knowledge is only a skimcoat, you will get trashed.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: