It doesn't matter how much evidence you show to young earth creationists, they will NEVER be convinced that the Earth is more than 6000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs never walked side by side. Their arguments are purely strawman and circular logic based ones such as the "God put the fossils there to test my faith!" argument that people in this thread stated earlier.
huhuhu i put it there
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47834475]And where is it stamped the humans lived with dinosaurs, idiot[/QUOTE]
The bible was written by God so obviously it's got to be true
[QUOTE=Kyle902;47834852]I wonder how he factors in that the fish was old enough to be embedded in fucking rock under his house if it was only 6,000 years old. At that point it doesn't even relate to biology or evolution. Its basic geology[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tone Float;47834860]Young Earth Creationists probably do not believe in any system of geology which accounts for time scales greater than 6,000 years.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MILKE;47835545]What is creationists argument against fosil dating? Why won't belive anything is older than 6000 years?[/QUOTE]
To be a Young Earth Creationist, you have to basically disregard all of science in order to purge your basic argument of critical contradictions and paradoxes.
- Starlight has to have worked differently in the past (for some unexplainable reason).
- Plate tectonics and sedimentation has to have worked differently in the past (for some unexplainable reason).
- Radioactivity has to have worked differently in the past (for some unexplainable reason), and there needs to be some explanation as to how the planet wasn't sterilized from the radiation along the way.
- Genetics and the insights gained by DNA sequencing have to go straight out the window. Including for their own evidence, as below.
[QUOTE=woolio1;47836111]Genealogy.
If you've ever read through the Old Testament, there's a genealogy record in there that supposedly traces the lineage of the kings of Israel from Adam up through David. There are ages, as well, of some of the people on that list.
Two major problems with it: The Hebrews used a lunar calendar, so the ages are overrepresented because nobody's ever bothered to convert them properly (properly converted, it's something like 1000 years before Moses, which would exclude a lot of known archaeological dates in Mesopotamia), and more glaringly obvious, it makes a lot of assumptions about timescales in a creation story that doesn't actually have a proper timescale attributed to it until the end. So they just assume Adam was created at the moment of creation, and then they assume that the genealogy from Adam onward is unbroken all the way through Christ.
Here's something funny about that: Not even modern Jews believe in the record of Kings, or the Genesis story. It's pretty much exclusively Young Earth Creationists these days.[/QUOTE]
And the best part about this is, as we all know, the Bible clearly states Jesus is the Son of God. However, later on, the Bible tries to tie Jesus to King David's bloodline, because Joseph is a direct descendent (if ~500 years of fucking and dying is 'direct') of David. You can't have it both ways, Paul.
The Bible was edited and revised for 1500 years, where people argued what to keep in and what to discard, and what to add. Anyone who holds up a Bible in English and claims it is the word of God is ignorant of the history of their own faith.
God's sending you a message.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47842705]To be a Young Earth Creationist, you have to basically disregard all of science in order to purge your basic argument of critical contradictions and paradoxes.
- Starlight has to have worked differently in the past (for some unexplainable reason).
- Plate tectonics and sedimentation has to have worked differently in the past (for some unexplainable reason).
- Radioactivity has to have worked differently in the past (for some unexplainable reason), and there needs to be some explanation as to how the planet wasn't sterilized from the radiation along the way.
- Genetics and the insights gained by DNA sequencing have to go straight out the window. Including for their own evidence, as below.
And the best part about this is, as we all know, the Bible clearly states Jesus is the Son of God. However, later on, the Bible tries to tie Jesus to King David's bloodline, because Joseph is a direct descendent (if ~500 years of fucking and dying is 'direct') of David. You can't have it both ways, Paul.
The Bible was edited and revised for 1500 years, where people argued what to keep in and what to discard, and what to add. Anyone who holds up a Bible in English and claims it is the word of God is ignorant of the history of their own faith.[/QUOTE]
The "Son of God" thing could be taken literally, though, even though it's tied into David's bloodline. Hebrew bloodlines are tied to the mother, not the father, and the whole "immaculate conception" thing pretty much directly ties the Christ to God.
To be honest I'm not sure why this is a surprise to anyone. If he didn't believe in this stuff before, I doubt he's going to have a sudden change of heart simply because he personally found a fossil.
[Quote]“No, it hasn’t changed my mind. We all have the same evidence, and [b]it’s just a matter of how you interpret it,”[/b] Nernberg told the Calgary Sun. “There’s no dates stamped on these things."[/quote]
That's exactly the problem.
[QUOTE=MILKE;47835545]What is creationists argument against fosil dating? Why won't belive anything is older than 6000 years?[/QUOTE]
a quite clever argument (but still easily refutable) i've heard from a selectively science interested christian friend of mine a few years ago is "there's no way of accurately dating objects as millions of years old when carbon dating works on increments of roughly 6000 years to begin with. one small mistake in the calculation and suddenly something is millions of years old."
obviously this is wrong because radiocarbon dating has been proven to be highly accurate up to at least 60,000 years old, but past that things start becoming rougher and rougher estimates.
[quote]“No, it hasn’t changed my mind. We all have the same evidence, and [B][U]it’s just a matter of how you interpret it,[/U][/B]” Nernberg told the Calgary Sun. “There’s no dates stamped on these things."[/quote]
I wasn't aware you could interpret facts.
This just in, the sun is yellow because its a nice colour and God wants you to be happy so he gave you a happy colour
I think that part of the issue is that many creationists aren't actually aware of how many extinct creatures existed and just assume that dinosaurs and other mesozoic giants of media fame are the only ones that died out.
However, the diversity lost to time is incredibly staggering, with even creatures of the prehistoric Cenozoic (post-Cretaceous) only usually being represented by Tertiary creatures like mammoths instead of some of the truly bizarre such as chalicotheres (knuckle-walking ungulates that looked almost like chimeras of giraffes, horses and gorillas fused and with claws akin to a bear), sebecosuchians (crocodylomorphs that were better built for land movement instead of amphibious tactics) and thylacosmilus (sabre-tooth marsupials with sheaths in their jaw that lived in South America).
Pretty sad that there are so many people hell bent on not only disregarding science and simple facts, but also convincing future generations to do the same.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47842705]The Bible was edited and revised for 1500 years, where people argued what to keep in and what to discard, and what to add. Anyone who holds up a Bible in English and claims it is the word of God is ignorant of the history of their own faith.[/QUOTE]
This really makes me want there was archive or organization that finds every installment of the bible to the earliest tales told and compare them. It would so interesting to see what got removed or edited over the years
It's funny how these creationists can accept science for everything else (or do they?).
The same rigorous scientific principles used to develop aircraft, computers, and combustion engines are the same ones used to study the universe, Earth, biology, and physics.
Essentially they are gambling on the idea that there may not be constants in the universe, and that the rates of radioactive decay can change over time, giving us the illusion of earth being millions of years old.
Imo they all deserve to be shot for holding back humanity.
[QUOTE=Sir Drone;47843971]This really makes me want there was archive or organization that finds every installment of the bible to the earliest tales told and compare them. It would so interesting to see what got removed or edited over the years[/QUOTE]
There is! Sort of. The Rabbinical community has been remarkably good at keeping the Torah perfect, word for word, at least as far back as we're aware. It hasn't had a major revision since well before 0AD. Most modern Biblical translations are only compared to other English versions, but things get interesting when you start comparing them to an original Torah.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
